it is in either version. it might be tab 52 in your version. famous of meetings. >> i see them on the electronic system. >> the first meeting in october you discussed among other things

-- >> he had a whole agenda here of things that were discussed. and the next meeting in 2010 communications, media regulations. the recall anything? >> the opposition's view, there were going to have -- think about in the first time a new communications act and the labor government talked-about updating the communications act and this would be a normal agenda as mr. hunt describe what his agenda was, seems like the local tv network and copyrights, next generation access, very publicly on the record saying he wanted to look at the system of

regulation and a particular outcome. >> the last item is bbc funding structure and government. did you previous to this drop what was then policy to take flights to licensing? >> i never thought this was a good idea. i have been consistent and transparent. if i were asked the would have told him my views that it is not a very good idea and that it to keep an intervention concentrated and measurable. that was the same position that the bbc had as well. >> after the election, in october of 2010, in the bbc, the

upshot was the licensee was frozen for a number of years. was that something which you discuss with any member of the conservative coalition government? >> i don't remember if i did. if i did, i would have said it should have gone through a proper process to schedule the following year when they could have consulted widely with the industry and stakeholders and didn't do it. >> regardless of the process it was an outcome in which there was an interest. >> not necessarily. the whole industry would have welcomed -- a process of wider consultation and discussion around something as important as that. >> any contact with ministers or officials in relation to the

changes announced in october of 2010, reduced outcomes world by 28%. >> i don't think so. >> with that outcome, that you would have favored. >> i was often consistent about this. the scale of intervention, pride and media regulation is very large and if anything there was -- would not surprise anyone on this point. most outcomes don't go back to us anyway so it wouldn't make a difference. >> it is being said of view that you were close friends of mr. osborn. >> we have been friendly. a close friend of his.

>> what one newspaper asked was you had two the same page and get on well. you are aware that in november of 2009 -- in my version is the same thing. >> yes. i am friendly with mr. osborn. >> have you been to the chancellor of the exchequer described -- >> i have one. >> discussions with him, >> i had one discussion where it might have come up which was during the process that would

just the taking a long time and being referred to. i was very clear and public at the same time. nothing would be inconsistent with public advocacy on the subject. >> is it possible to differentiate what you described as what takes place, the purpose of the former is entirely appropriate. might be said to seek to gain some covert advantage. >> that would not be the way i would do it. i like to be direct, i have a clear set of principles that might guide how we think of the work place and what the

regulation is like. or consulted in those areas i will say the same thing and it is legitimate advocacy if you will, for policymakers that is important and all business leaders would take the same approach or they should. >> the press clearly have an enormous -- they can promote the views they think are correct. the evidence of the september meeting which you have spoken of was very important. do you think you obtained greater access for yourself as a businessman because you have the weight of press interests behind you? >> i don't know what all the

other meetings with the prime minister or these people take in general. it is true to say that politicians around the critical class if you will, very eager to get there points across and they like to talk to the crass and we see all the difference journalists, editors, it is a lot there. from the standpoint of a business person and i haven't experienced that. because i haven't actually spend that much time with politicians personally. most of my interaction with these politicians has been around clear sky broadcasting. the politics don't fit in. the vast majority of my career is making television here. >> do you think it might have been advantage when you were

discussing making television and the contribution was made that actually other interests which have been capable of at least potentially making the difference? >> i don't think there's any evidence of an advantage with respect to the way we operate the business and the way the business has been regulated and the print in the country. i don't think that is there. it is a question perhaps for the politicians and how they thought but certainly for me i just wouldn't links the 2. i think the press and newspapers have to make decisions on behalf of their readers and the context of what you think is right. i have to win the argument for broadcasting at the time and the merits of the business and other things like that. that is all i would ever seek to

do. >> in your discussions with politicians before the general election and obvious to you that they were very interested in whether you would be supporting that? >> i don't think i was ever asked directly about that. >> whether it was obvious to you whether you would be interested in knowing whether your newspapers would support that? >> all politicians would be interested to know that and would seek the support of newspapers and the media. that is part of the way they see their job as communicators. to avail themselves of that for their own policies and purposes.

that is reasonably evident. >> in terms of the ever-changing dowland's of power pc, it must occur to you the balance of power is more with you then with them because they're so interested in knowing whether your newspapers are going to support them. >> i hope that is not the case. i hope they don't think that is the case because we live in an environment of such extraordinary choice. we look at customers, multi sourcing, variety of news from all over the place. the very old-fashioned sort of view, big media proprietors and being able to dominate the landscape. none of it exists anymore. it might feel that people still believe that but i think it is

not the case. >> i am not concerned with reality because one could never -- >> i am not so sure that you mean that. [laughter] >> i certainly am. could never prove that because a newspaper supports political party, that has an effect on the outcome. there is a perception, you just confirm for your last answer that politicians believe that. >> whether they believe it doesn't change the fact -- they seek -- i would suggest i never had a conversation with a politician where he had to convince me of their views. that is true of just about anyone they talk to but

particularly people with any direct or indirect relationship with the press. >> are you agreeing or disagreeing with me that the perception in the times of politicians that support of papers such as the sun may be important? >> if that is the question. but it is a question for them. >> but in terms of your analysis of the timing of the bid, the pros and cons, your testaments. as to the power you can exercise over politicians at a critical time which is a run-up to an election. >> it would not be part of our assessment as we will exercise our power over politicians. that is not the case. >> if it was after the election

the tables are turned somewhat that the power is more with the politicians, particularly if you need their help in relation to commercial products such as acquisition of the remaining shares of id. >> the table was not there to turn as i said earlier. the power is with the law the land and policymakers around it and you have to assess the environment and whether an investment is advisable or not and the regulatory environment and try to play as much as you can. >> that is usually the best way forward. but you said some time this morning that the way these bids are dealt with in the regulations is not just a legal issue but a political issue. >> there's always the risk that

transaction, and concerns around the environment around something, that is the case. >> if you look at the history in news international, in 1987, or 1990 with the additional merger of the two companies there has always been a political debate which is gone on, alongside a the legal debate. hasn't there? >> there has been a political debate and my concern as i have been involved in is to try to keep the debate on the legal side and look-facts and merits and i am pretty square on that to put it with respect to how we legislate, how we regulate industry and create an

environment for better investment and more jobs. >> you would be aware that you wish to keep the debate so we for the legal issues but it would be inevitable that they spent over -- >> can i ask you to clarify? i don't understand. there are many debate. there are debates around whether or not a transaction may or may not act against public interest which we dealt with last year and debates around house for its rights are sold and debates around politics and some politicians can have a view. we definitely -- when we started to invest heavily in domestic there was a political angle. people saying it should be kept

away and all those things and my job at that time as it is now was to say no. from a legal perspective it is highly appropriate for english cricket to be broadcast from the standpoint of fans and so on and so forth. i try to bring it back to what is legally sound and what are the rights arguments for the industry and to try to make the political debate something that isn't based on what is right or illegal or what the right jurisdiction is. >> one other politician. you had lunch with him in january of 2011 and a letter which fall obama twenty-fifth of january of 2011. >> do i have that?

>> 92. >> let me have a look. >> tab 93 says rupert murdoch. may not have it. >> the letter in january, yes. >> you got those. how many people did they employ in scotland? >> endeavour member of the number of the top of my head but i can come back with the exact number. but 5 or 6,000. >> as many as 18,000. >> that is the total direct employment base.

more are in direct. >> in relation to him, after the 2007 election when scotland did not support his policy, news international, his party became closer. >> in 2007, that was the for i was fair. before i was there. i only met him much more recently than that. >> tab 67, we put together for

you. the event which took place independent -- you recall this. , they say that you went around to the independent offices to an article which said rupert murdoch decided -- is that true or not. >> not correct. would you mind if i just give you my version of the events? >> thomas what happened. >> i had a meeting in the same building as associated newspapers which is in the article. we went downstairs. i was upset and concerned because there was an article about this.

giant billboards around england with the message, were brought murdoch--rupert murdoch won't assign this election. my father and my family the unfounded appropriate. i may direct person and i think what i had the opportunity to tell someone that you have an issue that is much better than whispering or saying upset or something else. i was concerned about it. they didn't really have a desk or a reception area so you are automatically in the middle of the news for which i wasn't intending to do. a didn't storm in anywhere. i was at one of the desks, could we speak to you for a minute and went into his private office and shut the door and told them my concerns and whether i used colorful language i wouldn't dispute but there was no storming out in the open the

bridge will i was particularly upset because he had been availing himself of the hospitality of my family for years and i felt this was beyond the pale to go about his business. >> before we would get the details of this bid, can i ask about specialists', advisers, spared and his name was mr. rupert harrison? >> i don't have any recollection. at just don't know. >> head of corporate communications, some are called mr. mathew. would it be fair to describe him as a lobbyist? >> no. mr. anderson is a communications

and marketing executive who deals with public affairs which would be lobbying public affairs people and interface with government reporting to mr. anderson alongside brand marketing press people as well. >> improving the prospects of the bid did you instruct mr. anderson to contract with any of the advisers or mr. hunt or mr. osborn? >> there was a regular -- generally speaking of the public affairs level, mr michele reported to mr. anderson at that time who dealt with direct contact with special advisers. to my knowledge that was the p o box for the company. >> in terms of how news international operates we're

going to hear from your father tomorrow and he has some meetings with politicians. we know you have some meetings with politicians. you talk about them. but particularly in 2008 to general election in may of 2010 would it be fair to say that it works, the majority of meetings with politicians because of their relationship with politicians? >> i have seen the schedule of the prime minister's meetings but i can't remember exactly. she would have been closer to those issues than i was. >> was it part of the general way of working? might report back to you as the outcome of fascinating discussions with politicians and you would report anything important back to you above? >> she would report to me but to

communicate directly with my father with some frequency. >> when you had discussions internally in september of 2009, you had your statement and those discussions involved the political editors of the book and yourself, and your father was involved as well. did the discussions involve any assessment of who might win the next election? >> the discussion in late 2009 or whenever it was, there was a question with the suns physician would be. there was quite a lot of back-and-forth when the sun was writing extensively about their view on the management of the conflict in afghanistan and

british troops and some general interest at the time and there was a meeting up to the decision around not supporting the labor party after having supported them in two elections previously before i was there. i was involved in some of those discussions and what the paper's position would be. not necessarily the likelihood of who would win but in those meetings we would have -- someone said the polls say this or like this and that and that business. >> that in particular is why these political editors were there. the likely outcome over the next election, and in congress. >> the relevant journalist view on the individuals involved, quality of their policies and how he fought the readership and the readers were feeling have

input. >> the decision is not factual but one factor is he is going to win. >> he is trying to see the mood of the country. >> you cover this in section 3 which begins in 02957. >> this is quite intricate and a lot of it we don't need to delve into the setting out the history here. in terms of the legal position, have i got this right? there with a competition aspect which would be dealt with in

europe and the plurality aspect which would would be dealt with by the secretary of state. >> there is the opportunity of the competition aspect to the requested. but member states to requests jurisdiction of that but it was seen as an unlikely scenario that it would be granted anyway. this approach merrily a merger of television platforms. >> the competition aspect within europe was resolved in december of 2010. twenty-first of december. >> it was resolved without having found it was relevant or credible. >> we were left with the plurality aspect which was separately or might have a separate competition issue.

for the plurality aspect. of into the competition commission after the court of appeal the decision had already been made. and news corp. already own 9.one% of the issue? is that correct? >> it was one of the things that was relevant to that but we didn't simply rely on that precedent which was also, and an assessment of plurality. between 2003 with relevant provisions put into law. and the test is around the

plurality and the number of news providers in the market place. >> and whether or not news corp. might well have been right. a good case, and -- >> that is the advice we received. and potentially explosive political issue and it was generated by the fact that people are out there, and news international -- >> it was more than that. is not a commercial issue. the point that there is competition, irrelevant point here. the press outside the news corp.

newspaper proprietors, a very distinct commercial fear. a size and scale of news corp. interests in the u.k. to be completed. they turned that effectively, and this new competitor were present and therefore plurality, and it has nothing to do with the legal tests but it is important to note that is primarily commercial. >> from the point of view of your competitors, and

politicians are out there. and personal web sites. and the answer will be disposed to news corp. and news international. the purpose, political lobbying to take place is to ensure what remains on site. and communicate things to you, that are not on site. >> in any situation, any business is going to advocate the merits of the case. bill being an investment case and regulatory case and policymakers who may not be in a position to have some input into it. >> in terms of the chronology which i'm going to take quite shortly, and the witness'

statement which will be put online and points of fact which i wish to dispute in terms of what happened publicly. and 20 first december of 2010, the effective stage, quasi judicial role for determining20

way that regular and prevent regulators sins they were set up. is fair to say that this extensive submission to the o f t that we had real issues with their analysis. i included that in my other thing. >> and once mr. hunt acquired the ability for adjudication on the bid, i can describe them as formal meetings with him real hurdle first is on january 6,

two thousand eleven, and -- >> we can identify the personnel present. is it your statement? >> the secretary of state's notice, i think that is what it says. >> other persons in the department. adam smith is there. a feature somewhat in the narrative. in terms of your team, someone called mr. referred deck, shoat

-- >> you as a liaison with policymakers. that is what policies have done. >> had it been hard in may of 2009? >> i can't remember when he started. >> this is not going to matter much but the secretary of state indicated on the basis of counsel, minded to refer to the competition commission, there was ben consideration given internally to offering the undertaking for those who were offered to january of 2011 and the purpose of offering them was to remove or mitigate the plurality. >> yes. essentially the secretary of state had said he received the advice that he should refer the

thing, under this particular part of the enterprise act for him to take that and weigh it up with any undertaking that might or might not deal with the issue. given the length of time the competition commission review would take we decided rather than go through the lengthy process of trying to win the argument with the competition commission we would simply offer an undertaking and fall the issue even though we did concede there was an issue there and the undertaking was a substantial structural undertaking around separating sky news from the transaction entirely, not changing its ownership structure all and ample significant -- in continuing operation over ten year period. it is a major concession secretary of state extracted in the process. >> there was another meeting with the secretary of state and

specialists -- and your advisers on the 20th of january of 2011 which we don't need to look at but the question of undertakings was certainly mentioned. what happened subsequently is there were asked for advice and there was a public consultation. there was some issue about the undertaking and the revised the undertaking. a second consultation was launched on june 30, 2011, ending on the eighth of july, two thousand eleven. and unfortunately, on a number of levels the mini dollar story in 2011. as you frankly state in your

statements, the access was such that the only decision you could take. >> that gives us the framework. we are now going to look at some evidence your father provided in response. that relates to e-mail and material and there is no direct involvement with it that we deal with. >> some of them but not all of them. just for clarity. >> do you have an opportunity to review them?

>> just recently. >> it runs to 163 pages and requires a word of introduction. there is a witness statement. mentioning mr. frederick michele -- about five minutes to go -- in the witness said on the eighteenth of april 2012. he makes the debt that, proceed on this basis which is correct that in relation to the period, 24 december of 2010 to july of 2010, conversations, exchanges and the face of this material

appears to have taken place, the secretary of state's supervisor mr. adam smith. you saw that name? would that help? we can have a look at this exhibit. the other important health warning is it is difficult to understand this material without knowing what was going on in terms of the currency of the bid, the formal albeit commercially confidential information on behalf of news corp. which is the secretary of state -- i will introduce that. we understand where we are with different materials. the first page is zero 1642 on

the internal numbers. the fifteenth of june, 2010, this appears to be a confidence call involving you and mr. michele and mr. cable. is that right? >> i am not sure i recall fred being on the telephone or not but he was there with me. it was a direct call to mr. cable from the other day we announce the proposal to make an offer. >> the call went well. he did say there would not be -- would not be a policy issue in this case and mr. michele -- we should have reported him -- in a

sense that is ironic on two levels. he didn't see much on top of it. made the announcement. you told him in relation to the size of our group, and i will ask you about it. the cable said it is coming as planned. >> it is the annual -- in june around this time and summer party for every one. it is an advertiser or some politicians, partners, executives and so on. a big party that we throw. >> the next stage, 01643, again to mr michele, to you, mr.

anderson copy it and we discussed who he is. he said mr. mitchell speaking. have a call from hunt's adviser. this is a time when mr. hunt has no relationship to the decision. is that correct? >> he didn't have a role until the end of december. >> there shouldn't be media plurality or the u.k. government would be supported through the process despite the standards suggesting this evening. to jeremy, mr. hunt to hear your feedback on his speech when you meet and there is reference to speech. is clear you were receiving information that the u.k. government as a whole would be supporting news corp..

is that right? >> i think mr. hunt had publicly said around this time that he personally didn't see an issue but the relevant secretary of state would be handling it. i don't know if there's any special information or anything like that. it looks to me like there were other items on the agenda, things like next generation access and normal customary back and forth between public affairs executive and people on our regular basis. >> certainly the decision is with responsible secretaries of state. isn't the message here for mr. hunt's adviser to the extent of progress or inappropriate, u.k. government would be supportive

throughout the process. >> i don't think it is inappropriate at all. this is one part of the government saying we don't see any issues. it will be fine which is consistent with what mr. cable told me on the telephone. attempts, public affairs executive often tries to report back what he hears. people call around topical issues and if there's a transaction particularly the regulatory or policy outcome that could be bad, intervention or something like that and the public affairs executive is a point person for those officials to have discussions. >> as we move through this bundle, none of your supplies, the reason being difficult to

prepare the bundle which includes them. they will be published on line as soon as possible. none of you have any interest apart from what will come in due course. the next page, mr michele, deron me just called. looks like mr. hunt speaking directly to mr. michele. >> i don't know -- i wasn't on this -- i am not copied on this e-mail so i don't have any direct -- this is mr. jacobs who was the general counsel and closely involved in the regulatory and beagle process. european level, general counsel, regional and regulatory affairs lawyer for europe as well.

>> looks as if you had a chat with mr. hunt on the fifteenth of june of 2010. >> yes. that corresponds to the record that we saw earlier. >> believe so. it is not critical. would this be discussed during that shaq? >> a don't remember. >> it was in those days around the announcement of the bid. i would be surprised if it weren't and i would have taken the same position we have taken publicly that i took with anyone who would listen. >> next page 01465 removing to the twentieth of july twenty -- 2010. if you are not involved, it was

copied into you, mr. murdoch. we can see what mr. cable was apparently saying or reported to say by people close to him. very keen to be seen as a pro competitions secretary of state. too much regulation. on our particular issue, strongly believe that the market situation would have any impact on plurality. the mr cable changed his mind and he was flatly wrong. >> i think he actually said later on that all of the advice that he received illegal the official led vice -- advice was clear that there were very clear issues in july of 2011. i was submitted in evidence on the freedom of information request the advice from his adviser at the time which drew the same conclusion after

consultation with outcome, that was the advice he got an later reviewed -- referred to receiving other advice. i don't know what it was. informed him to act differently. >> next page 01646, september 15th, 2010. to your advisor, relates to a blog that mr. robert passed and put on line to the effect that it was expected to review news corp. bid is for the sky which would be of concern to you or mr. michele is saying jeremy hunt is not aware and thinks it is not credible at all. he is checking now. mr michele is finding out to mr.

hunt or his specialist adviser watch mr. hunt's view about this blogger. are we agreed? >> it seems he is trying to find out where mr. heston's information is credible. it is important to put in context during this time i was repeatedly seeking an official meeting with mr. cable so that i could make the legal case and give the business rationale and we were not able to have that meeting so we had very limited meetings communicated. >> the way you did communicate was through your cheerleader mr. hunt to find out what is happening around the state. >> that is unfair. mr michele is a diligent public affairs executive communicating with many people across the political spectrum as is evident in this exhibit. >> he picked that mr. paston, and seven minutes later was

reporting to they cms -- dcairmass. >> that is what he would say. >> was some concern. mr michele would have called who he could to find out if it was true. that would be his job. >> i understand your mindset, mr. murdoch. you weren't getting anywhere, that was your perception. let's find out what is happening with public secretaries who might come to your assistance and that is what you instructed him to do. >> it doesn't show that at all. assembly says this is trying to find out if it is true. >> a couple of pages, 0614 h. >> i don't have those numbers.

>> internal numbers. >> thank you. >> this one seems to be out of sequence. apologize for that. should have done this earlier. the twenty-third of in, 2010. it would be better to meet with you and settle down, in order to avoid any questions on the content of the meeting. >> that is making the point mr. murdoch made a moment ago that he was not able to have a meeting with mr. cable. >> i want a proper meeting that you described before. i wanted to formally make my case to the secretary of state. >> mr michele found out about mr. cable, that 01649, the

e-mail of the 26 of september of 2010. >> thank you. >> mr michele spoke to mr. cable, probably his junior minister. lord buckshot. have a got the right individual? >> i read this to say is lord cokeshot but it doesn't say that in here. >> there was one point particularly interesting. if you look at the second point, he is thinking of immediate plurality aspects of the transaction coloring his judgment. the way sky news handle this

coverage, and reference to news of the world's ongoing saga that is strong political pressure over the way the murdoch -- treated his own policies of labor over the past 12 months. looks as if a strong political flavor was entering into this process. >> it was alarming because in none of those three points have anything to do with the proper legal tests. the question of sufficiency of plurality. >> it is said to be part of the risk he took. away your press treated labor for the previous 12 months is

not exactly favorable. all the more reason to service victory and not have concerns that occurred. >> it was perfectly reasonable and appropriate for me to have an expectation that a government minister acting in a quasi official will would take into account appropriate evidence and apply the right tasks and not get into this stuff. you can call me naive but i thought these senior ministers were serious people who tried to do their job. >> absolutely key. you have one government minister who said i don't like the way the murdoch press behavior and i will hold that against them. and another government minister, mr and, his thinking is exactly the converse to mr cable and

that is part of your calculation. >> i don't think there's anything in mr. hunt's communications that would suggest he did anything other than apply later on in this process when it was negotiating the undertaking that at every turn mr. hunt took the advice of the independent regulators at every single decision point. >> the point i put to you didn't really answer your calculation at all. you told us your outrage in relation to mr. cable, yet the obvious converse is you expect someone you did support to show you favor rather than disfavor. >> i am sorry. that is absolutely not the case. the question of support of an individual newspaper for politicians one way or another is not something i would ever make to a commercial transaction

like this nor would i expect political support one way or another translate into a minister behavior in an inappropriate way ever. i wouldn't do business that way. >> ok, mr murdoch. page 10, page 01651, you won't send it. just one of the points here two thirds of the way down. it says all of the coming weeks, go through the impact of the transaction is the key sins it was made clear that the media agenda has had a very negative influence on the decisionmaking

process. maybe mr. loss was part of that briefing process? >> again, i can't remember the date of the meeting so i don't know. but certainly we were advised. this was mr. cable's adviser and his advice being given and he was advising saying the way i read this is mr. cable hasn't seen the arguments in details but he is taking a political view. this adviser says i advise you to brief the key attempt to coming weeks. this is coming from vince cable's adviser. that is what mr. michele would have tried to do as a public affairs executive to try to be reactive to the advice he was getting on the secretary of

state's people. [talking over each other] >> say 2:00. [silence] >> a break in our live coverage of the judicial inquiry into british phone hacking of celebrities and people in the news. testimony from james murdoch, former chairman of news international. investigators there seeking information about practices that allow the porters' to intercept voicemail and hacking to funds of public figures including a teenage murder victim. coverage continues in an hour on c-span2 and on c-span radio. we have more of the british phone hacking inquiry tomorrow when rupert murdoch testifies. coverage begins at 5:00 eastern on c-span2 and again on c-span radio. u.s. senate gavels in at 10:00

eastern. they will resume debate on continuing stopping violence against women act. at 10:30 they will turn to new labor relations board rules on union elections. .. >> known as immigration law if supreme court upholds it. that'll happen during a senate judiciary committee hearing. you can see that live in this morning at 10 eastern on c-span3. again, the inquiry into british newspapers and phone hacking is taking an hourlong break.

we will have live coverage when they resume. in the meantime, testimony from earlier today with the former chief executive of news international, james murdoch. >> good morning. our witness today is mr. james murdoch. [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] >> i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> sit down, please, mr. murdoch, and if you can bring your -- [inaudible] [background sounds]

full name, please, mr. murdoch. >> james rupert jacob murdoch. >> i'm going to invite you to turn to your witness statement which is dated the 13th of april this year in the exhibits as a statement of truth. subject to one small change i know you wish to make, is it your formal evidence which you are submits to the inquiry? >> yes, it is my evidence i'm submitting to the inquiry. the one change is to paragraph 3.21. >> yes. >> in that paragraph i mention a meeting with david laws, a member of parliament, who is described in the paragraph as the chief secretary to the treasury. in fact, i now realize that at the time of the meeting mr. laws no longer held that post. >> yes. he resigned on the 29th of may, 2010, just so that we're clear,

mr. murdoch. do youdo you recall when the meg was in. >> i don't recall. it was in the summer or autumn of 2010. >> no need for an apology. thank you very much. aye made that -- i've made that correction, and i'm grateful for the obvious work that's been put into the statement that you've made. >> in terms of your personal career history, mr. murdoch, i can deal with it quite briefly. you were born in the united kingdom in 1972, you studied at harvard between 1992 and 1995, your early career was in asia. 2003 you were appointed ceo of -- [inaudible] december 2007, and this is particularly for our purposes, you resigned as ceo of bskyb, appointed nonexecutive chairman, but you rejoyed news corps as chairman and ceo of europe and asia and as part of this you became executive chairman of news international, isn't that

correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> and to take this story up-to-date, in march of last year you were appointed deputy chief operating officer and chairman and ceo international of news corps which took you back to new york the beginning of this year, and on the 2nd of april, 2012, you resigned as nonexecutive chairman of bskyb, is that right? >> yes, that's correct. >> and was your resignation of nonexecutive chairman of bskyb related to your return to new york, or was it for some other reason? >> as i stated at the time and announced at the time, it was, um, for the simple reason that the -- i want today avoid really becoming a lightning rod. some people were trying to conflate issues that had happened in the past at news international with relevance to my role as chairman of bskyb, and i thought it was better to

not provide a distraction for the board of bskyb and to resign my role as nonexecutive chairman. i remain a director of british sky broadcasting. >> thank you. the other general point, a deputy chief operating officer of news corp., you report to mr. chase carey and not mr. rupert murdoch, your father, who is the chairman and chief executive officer, is that right? >> that's correct. >> that said, were there discussions or are there discussions from time to time with your father about news corporation's business? >> yes. we discuss from time to time. quite often various business issues. >> i'll come back to that in due course if i may. again, to invite you now to summarize what you say in answer to question six in your

statement. this is page 02965, about your aims, objectives, philosophy and practice and the way in which you've undertaken your business role, particularly in the united kingdom. could you summarize that for us, please, mr. murdochsome. >> question six, i think, which relates to general philosophy and practice, um, is, i guess, to summarize i would say that with respect to operating a business when i was chief executive of businesses, i tried o foster two things really. one was a real focus on the customer of the business, a real focus on viewers. most of my career has been in television, and the majority of it remains so. and customers in a broad sense who really have a management culture that is both transparent internally, but also really, um, working together to focus on

those right issues. there's quite a lot in the -- [inaudible] as well many that question with respect to governance, with respect to the role of business. do you want me to go into all of those things here? >> no, thank you. >> okay. >> i do have a specific question about paragraph 6.6, 02966. about two-thirds of the way through that paragraph, you say that you sought to foster an open management culture in which top executives would share information, yes? >> yes. >> when you arrived here in december 2007, did you find an open management culture in news international? >> um, when i arrived in 2007, um, the business was, the business as i saw it had a handful of priorities to be

tackled. one was a question around the business' general growth with declining readership and a flat revenue, etc. but also i wanted to have, you know, a tight management team that met regularly and that shared regular information about the business. and we instituted regular executive meetings. and i think the new part of it that i started when i was there was to include in those meetings some of the editors so that issues around the newspapers and the titles themselves, programs, marketing, etc., could be discussed in the open p amongst everyone. and we had monthly what we called title meetings in addition to the executive, commercial meetings where we met regularly. >> did you feel in december 2007 that you were being confronted with an open management culture, or was that something which took time to instill? >> i think it always takes time. each phase that a business goes think with different leadership

in a business at a different time will adjust to it. i did think that, you know, it was very different from british sky broadcasting which i had been running before, and i wanted it to be more collaborative. >> in your discussions, for example, with mr. miler about the business, do you feel that he was, generally speaking, open with you or something different? >> at the time i had no reason to believe otherwise. >> okay. um, 6.10, this is page 02967, you refer to the changes which have taken place since the summer of last year, and you include amongst those the creation of a risk register. >> uh-huh. >> can i invite you, please, to look as well at your paragraph 8.5 which is our page 02970 where you state that there must be sufficient controls in place

given the legal, financial and reputational risk involved in getting it wrong. and your view, mr. murdoch, were there deficiencies in news international's systems for identifying and assessing legal risk particularly in the context of potential reputational harm for the company. >> i think with respect to, with respect to news gathering practices, for example, the subject of it, one of the subjects of interest here, i think it's self-evident that in hindsight, in knowing what we know now, whatever controls were in place failed to create sufficient transparency around those issues and the risks around it. however, there were senior legal managers who, you know, had a lot of experience, who were working closely with the editors ask with the newsrooms. and be at the time i didn't have a view that those were insufficient or not. >> apart from advice given from

time to time by the senior legal manager, and that was mr. crohn, it is right to say, isn't it, that there weren't any systems in place such as the ones you began to introduce in the her of last year. >> with respect to the summer of last year, for example, a dedicated chief compliance officer that will now fit into a global compliance for the business which i think is a good step, with respect to having a board that there's more than, for example, the statutory requirements but actually connect the global corporate center to management accountability on an ongoing basis with particular legal representation on that. those things are new, added things to strengthen what was -- to strengthen what we can do. but i think -- >> the discussion budget was it strengthening. the question was this system is really only the good work of mr. crohn. there wasn't really much else in place, was there?

>> well, i think, you know, we had really, in effect, a management board where senior executives would meet sort of regularly and including the chief operating officer of news international, including the chief financial officer, including, um, the editors from time to time. and, you know, there was ample opportunity to be able to discuss these issues and surface them. so there were regular systems in place. and i think i had a, i think i would have had a reasonable expectation that having these senior legal managers closely associate with the the newsrooms was, you know, was a protection that it ultimately proved not to provide. in addition, i also met regularly with internal audit department who audited the business on a regular basis, and with respect to certain compliance issues, um, and i encouraged them to be transparent and take the resources that they required. >> in your position really of strategic oversight, did you make the obvious connection

between legal risk and potential reputational damage to the company? >> i think, you know, corporate reputation is something that, you know, is something that is important to a business and is important with respect to a company's really license with its customers, with the communities that it operates in, and obviously, legal risk, you know, plays into that. >> yes. did you make the other connection between legal risk and ethical risk? in other words, um, if there weren't systems in place to insure or that, um, journalism took place ethically, risks might flow from that, not just legal risks? >> well, i was -- i think that's the right connection to make. however, i was assured that the from a standpoint of journalistic ethics and things like the editor's code and the pcc code, that extensive training had gone on and was continually going on. and i was given, i was given,

you know, strong assurances that those had happened, particularly in light of the voicemail interception incident in 2006. those assurances were given to me, um, you know, early on in my tenure -- >> we're going to come to that, mr. murdoch. but can i ask you this, did you read to the news of the world on a weekly basis? >> um, i wouldn't say i read all of it, but i, but i read it from time to time. >> did you read "the sun"? i'm not saying every day, but perhaps most days? >> i try today familiarize myself with what was in it. >> did you see particular with "the news of the world" any risks associated with its particular brand, and its brand included, some might say, a predirection to salacious gossip, kiss and tell stories, delving into the private lives of celebrities and others? >> i think "the news of the world" brand as an investigative newspaper with exposes and the

like, um, wasn't only concerned with celebrities and salacious gossip, but also uncovering real wrongdoing, scandals, campaigning, so on and so forth. >> i accept that, mr. murdoch. i said it's part of the picture, but i'm focusing on this part for the moment. and the question was did you see any risk associated with those aspects of "the news of the world" brand? >> at the time i don't know -- i can't recall or discussing those risks, but i do recall, again, receiving assurances around journalistic ethics, around the code of practice, you know, on a number of occasions. >> reading "the news of the world" as you did, i'm not asking you to give the same moral reaction to it, because that would not be the right question, but didn't it pass your mind that this sort of journalism carried with it ethical risks which could turn into legal and

representationational -- reputational risks? >> i think the ethical risk was something, and the legal risk around that was something that was very much in the hands of the editor and the decisions on thingses like public interest and the like, or things that, you know, the editor in consultation with legal advice was there. i wasn't in the business of deciding, you know, what to put in the newspapers. so it was really there that i was begin, you know, assurances by them that sometimes proved to be wrong that i'm sure we'll go into with respect to the risks that they were taking. >> didn't you, for example, know what the legal bill was year on year for fighting litigation consequencely from "the news of the world's" particularly style of journalism? >> i'm sorry, mr.-- >> did you know what the legal bill was? >> yes. in the budgeting process, there was provisions for certain legal liabilities. >> what was your reaction to the max mosley case, in particular

the two aspects to it. one, the result and, secondly, the large legal bill? >> well, i think the result of the case was, obviously, very disappointing. i mean, the editor had aearthed that the story -- asserted that the story was both true and in the public interest, and it was later found by the court to be neither, and that was something that's a matter of great regret and something, you know, the story shouldn't have been run. >> and the size of the legal bill? >> i don't remember the legal fees involved with the mosley case. >> i think mr. mosley told us that his assessed bill was 420,000 pounds. your cost would have been slightly more than half a million, i would venture to suggest. a million pounds' cost, 60,000 pounds damages. a large bill -- >> oh, it was substantial. it was a cause for concern. >> were you asked, um, to do, did you ask anybody to consider the possibility of an appeal in

mr. mosley's case? >> i don't recall. >> did anybody draw to your attention the observations of the trial judge, mr. justice edie, about the chief report of "the news of the world" and his, frankly, blackmail tactics with the women involved? >> no. it wasn't drawn to my attention. >> okay. and mr.-- well -- >> can i ask you this? >> do you want to add something? >> well, i was just going to seek to help you a little bit, i hope, which is to situate myself at that time. news international was one of six companies within the region, operating companies reporting to me at the time, um, and with respect to news international, you know, what i was really focused on through this period were, as i said before, the overall commercial strategy of the business. we were in the process of taking just the start of taking quite a lot of cost out of the business and restructuring a number of

the departments and the corporate structures within it as well as developing, you know, the longer-term strategy for the company with respect to its digital products and the like. and, you know, not having -- so i just, hopefully, can be helpful in just situating myself there, you know, the day-to-day management of the legal affairs, the court cases and things like that was something that, you know, the management, the direct management of the company was dealing with. >> could i just ask on that in this question? you clearly appreciated that "the news of the world" had suffered a very great loss, and that whether it had reputational implications was for you to consider. but did you consider instituting a, making a request to say, well, what's gone on with this? what decision did we make that we shouldn't have made, what went wrong with this piece of litigation? which has cost us so much money?

would you consider that a job or for you? >> sir, i did ask the question, and the -- i recall being told that the problem, because the editor was clearly defiant on this point that the problem had been that one of the witnesses on news international's side hadn't testified in the end and the like, and it was all a bit gash bled up. -- garbled up. but i wasn't told, for example, that mr. jay was asking for the judge's specific ruling and the like. >> but you didn't feel it was necessary to get into any more detail when your senior management team, clearly -- at least according to a judge -- got it spectacularly wrong? >> well, the question of the, the question, again, of where the sort of locus of the public interest decision is one that is very difficult. and can really the editors of any newspaper generally, you know, generally have that within

their piece on a day-to-day basis. it's for them to decide what goes in the paper. certainly, getting it wrong spectacularly as that was is something that was, you know, made clear to mr. myler with the strong indication that it shouldn't happen again. >> it was at this stage that "the news of the world" was an extremely profitable business, wasn't it? >> reasonably, yeah. >> was there an element, mr. murdoch, of the ends justifying the means to this extent? the paper produced work you believed its readers wanted, the sole arbiters of the mark -- market, and the sole touchstone was profit. >> i'm sorry, what was the question? >> was there an element here of the ends justifying the means? >> no. i've written and communicated extensively throughout my career on not just the importance of enterprise, but in the way that

enterprise is pursued. and it's something that i believe very passionately in, that actually the way we do business is part and parcel of the connection that we have with our customers and the communities that we're in. and i think it's important to note that in the end the profitability of "the news of the world" did not save it. >> did you analyze, though, why "the news of the world" was a profitable paper? >> from a commercial perspective and a product perspective, yes. it was, had a connection with its readers, was popular with them and was popular with advertisers as well to reach them. >> well, self-evidently there was something about it readers wanted because we know three or four million people bought "the news of the world," but there must have been something more about it which you identified as it's appeal -- >> i think there are many things about any newspaper or any

television program or what have you that appeal. the way, the way you tell stories. i mean, in the case of "the news of the world" you could be talking about a new magazine like fabulous which was introduced in that period which was an expensive new experiment and a glossy sunday magazine, it could be the sports coverage, a hey investment was made in that as well, and also it could be the exposes that you mentioned earlier. but every reader has his or her own reasons. >> can i move on to a different topic, the editors, paragraph 8.2 of your statement on page 03969. -- 02969. and the, you point out the only editorial staff member appointed during your time was dominic marin. he became editor of "the sun" in june 2009.

why did you support mr. marin's appointment? >> um, i knew from moen a bit, he was well respected, he was her strong recommendation to take the post, and in consultation with my father and mrs. brooks, i supported that appointment. >> did you know what his political views were? >> equipment, actually, and -- i didn't, actually, and to be honest with you, i don't. >> do you suspect what they are? >> i think the selection of an editor, mr. jay, is not simply around political views of an editor one way or another, it's the ability of the editor, perhaps, to lead the newsroom, it's the ability of the editor to make judgments about what to put in the paper every day primarily, the ability of the editor to be thoughtful about his or her readers and how they react to what goes in the paper.

it is not simply a political exercise. >> was there any size of the decision-making relation to mr. mohan's appointment based on this; that you felt he understood what you and your father wanted in particular in relation to political lines to take at election time? >> it was not really on my concerns. he would be reporting to mrs. brooks who had taken over as chief executive, and he was her strong recommendation. and well respected, and i thought it was a good idea. >> you knew what mrs. brooks' position was on matters in europe, didn't you? >> yes. >> and presumably, you could trust her to recommend someone who might be in the same place, couldn't you? >> i didn't -- the specifity around different policies and things like that, that didn't, that wasn't something that i engaged in great substance on.

>> okay. i move on now, mr. murdoch, to the phone hacking which is, obviously, in one sense well-trodden ground because you've given evidence now twice to select committees. can i just establish one fact to start off with. it is right that before the select committees your position was that you, you neither saw, nor knew about the neville e-mail, is that correct? >> that's correct. pardon me, mr. jay, did you ask before the select committees? >> sorry. when i said before, i mean in the sense when you gave your evidence to the select committees. and the evidence was given on the 19th of july of last year and, i think, on the 10th of november -- >> i'm sorry, are you ask asking me when i had knowledge of that e-mail? >> sorry. my question may be candid. referring back to the meeting which took place on the 10th of

june, 2008, your position before the select committees on the 19th of july and the 10th of november of last year was that you were not shown the neville e-mail and that meeting -- >> that is correct, yes. and that's, and that remains my position. i stand by that. >> okay. you tell us by way of background that youce statement statement -- this is when you arrived in december 2007, the assurances were following the introduction of a new editor, extensive training had been put in place, etc.

from whom do those assurances come? >> i recall being given assurances by mr. myler and mr. cloak who was the director of human resources at the time in particular about the training and procedures. >> and was the context that mr. myler volunteered this fact, or was it something that you can asked him? >> i think it was probably in the context where over the first few months as i was coming to grips with a set of responsibilities around europe and asia in the u.k., i would meet regularly with some of the senior executives, and they would update me on some of the things they were doing. and mr. cloak updated me on that, i recall, and mr. myler gave me ea shiewrnses that -- assurances that things were, you know, as a new editor coming in, that was, you know, what he was doing. he had come in the year before. >> did he express to you any

doubt as to the possible extent of phone hacking activity in 2005 and 2006? be. >> no, to the contrary. the assurances i was begin were the same -- given were the same assurances given to the select committee later, for example, that the paper had been investigated thoroughly, that no new evidence was found, that the police had closed their case and had made public announcements the to that effect -- to that effect. so it was consistent with that. >> and was it your general understanding that mr. mall care was an independent contractor as it were who, certainly in relation to most of the case which was before the criminal court was working for mr. goodman? >> yeah, my understanding at the time -- i didn't have much of an understanding at the time of the

previous 2006 issues that hadn't been in the company -- so it was more a general awareness that a reporter had illegally intercepted voice pales, had gone to jail along with the private investigator involved, and it was a general understanding of what had happened in the past. >> now, the first the step in the chronology is a phone call -- >> before you get to that, mr. jay, could i just ask one question about that? i can understand that you might take the view that you'd been given some assurances, but here you were coming into a company new, it was a company which was associated with your family very, very closely, um, and it was something that the reputational, um, position of it was very important to you.

did you ever ask this question, um, all right, i accept that you put training into place and everybody's up to speed now, but how did this happen? how did a very senior reporter who obviously you relied upon and thought highly of, um, get himself into this position, and why didn't we pick it up? why didn't our internal governance pick up that something was going wrong? i'm not now talking about an investigation of the specific facts, i'm really asking whether you probed your own, the adequacy of the internal governance that you had in place in a company for which you were now assuming responsibility? >> i don't, sir, i don't know the -- i couldn't say the specific language of the question and the conversations that were had, but it was clear

to me and the question became that in the newsroom in the past et had not been -- it had not been tight enough, and they, that's why a new editor was appointed. and the new editor who i thought really had no skin in the game in the past was there and had spent time to improve those systems of governance in the newsroom. but the newsroom governance, again, was really an issue for the editor and the legal manager to be responsible for. and those assurances were clear that they had strengthened the governance to be able to catch these things in the future. it was my understanding that the implication of that is that previously in 2006, clearly, they hadn't because their position was that they didn't know about it. >> well, you understand the reason for my question.

it's not merely what you put into place afterwards, it's why all this had got to that position because it's all very well to say the of the last editor, but the last editor was appointed, and somebody didn't pick up that, actually, things had gone wrong under him. >> yes, and that was all before i was there -- >> of course, i appreciate -- >> and i asked the new editor, sir, who was there the say what have you made sure to insure this can't happen again, and strengthen the education, strengthening the training, strengthening really to make sure the journalist understood what was accepted and what budget, as well as our code of conduct which was put through more aggressively, was his answer. >> but you didn't pick up what went wrong in our systems earlier? >> well, what i tried to say was that the -- it was a the absence

of those things being done effectively was my understanding. >> yep, thank you. >> may we look now, please, at the transcript of mr. pike's notes recalling mr. myler the 27th of may, 2008, and if you've got, mr. murdoch, the documents mr. pike submitted to the select committee, page gb7, and if they can be put up on the screen. it's mad100062420. so mr. be myler -- mr. myler, if mr. pike's notes are correct, had a conversation with you on the 27th of may, is that correct? >> that's correct.

according to these notes -- >> according to these notes. >> as you know n testimony to the select committee, neither mr. myler or i had a direct connection to this, but i don't have any reason to believe it didn't occur. >> spoke to james murdoch, and then you can see the little dash, not any options, wait for phelps' view. so are we to deduce from that that you made the obvious and sensible point, look, we're paying for legal come's opinion, he's going to give us advice, let's wait and see what he says? >> yes. and i think they had already instructed leading counsel at that time to provide an opinion. >> so there was no other option, was there? >> well, i thought it was -- i presume from this, again, i don't have a direct recollection of the conversation, that there was a brief conversation, and myler left the conversation with me thinking there was no option other than to wait for his view.

>> well, there'd be no point in proceeding further without the silk's view, would there? >> well, that seems to be, yeah. >> you see the next dash, one was albert goodman, cg is clive goodman, straight around allegations, horrid process, and then three individuals are named. we won't go into that in any detail. wasn't it the case, many murdoch, that -- mr. murdoch, that the second bullet point we see here introduced by the dash was also information which mr. myler gave you on the 27th of may? >> no. i don't think so, actually, um, because i don't think there is -- first of all, no record of any meeting in my diaries or anything like that, so this would have been a snatched conversation, i think, when it occurred. and i don't recall any conversation, so i think after the first line and the second line i think then the bit below is really the conversation that myler is having with pike, and

this is recording that conversation, is my reading of this. >> mr. murdoch, your position is that you don't remember any part of this conversation, do you? >> but i think if it would have gone into all these things, i would have remembered it, and it would have been a longer -- it would have been a meeting. >> well, it's certainly the evidence that we received that a lot of this was the discussion between mr. pike and mr. myler, it's just a question of when you draw the line between your conversation with mr. myler and then mr. myler's conversation with mr. pike. and the point i'm gently suggesting to you is that you draw the line under the second bullet point. one was arthur goodman, cg allegations, horrid process. do you see the point? >> i do see the point. but as i said, mr. jay, i draw the line above that.

>> you appreciate the significance of the second bullet point, do you? >> referring, i assume, to the clive goodman dismissal proceeding -- as i understand. >> the point, put very bluntly, is that mr. goodman was alleging that others at news international were involved. you can see that. >> yes. and i was not, i was not aware of that at the time. >> [inaudible] mr. murdoch. >> yes. so when you asked me where to draw the line, that's where i draw it. and i think the typed transcript of this makes it look like with bullet points and indentations, but actually the handwritten note, the indentations and bullet points are much more -- are much less precise, in fairness. >> i'm not sure about that. be you go to jcp5 -- >> i was just looking at it -- >> -- which is 62418, you want

to examine this textually as long as one likes, but it does appear that t been faithfully -- it's been faithfully transcribed, at least i'd suggest to you, mr. murdoch. >> my view, mr. jay s that the conversation that i don't recall on the 27th of may would have been to wait for the silk's view with respect to the amount of damages and the likelihood of losing or winning the case. the rest of this is a conversation around all of the other issues around it as the last line, again, i think, you know, indicates. it says "james would say" would sayhe knew all of these things, and we can examine it, as you said, as long as you like. i'm trying to be helpful. >> okay. well, the very last line, "james would say get rid of them, cut out cancer," you have interpreted that for us.

but from the perspective of mr. myler, presumably-of the view -- presumably, he was of the view that clive goodman's allegations were unsubstantiated. isn't that the position? >> i don't remember what his view was at that time. >> if a cancer to be cut out, it would suggest clive goodman's allegations had substance. >> and if i had known about them, that's exactly what i would have said. >> mr. myler's evidence to us, um, i can paraphrase it, was he thought there were problems under the newsroom floor. do you recall that evidence? >> i recall him giving that evidence to you, yes. >> mr. pike's evidence was that he never thought one road to preparing defense was rallied. >> their assurances to me consistently were, as i've said,

which was that the newspaper had been investigated thoroughly, that outside people had come in to investigate it, that no evidence was found ask that the police -- and that the police had, in the evidence they had had, there was no additional evidence. and that was entirely consistent from mr. crone and mr. myler all the way through. >> mr. myler was communicating to you the fact that mr. goodman was, at the very least, making allegations to the possible involvement of others at news international, and be he was concerned -- and he was concerned to transmit that idea to you. do you understand that? >> i understand what you're saying, but i -- that isn't what, that isn't what occurred or what i recall. >> you recall none of this, do you? >> i don't recall this conversation with mr. myler. >> the next stage is the e-mail chain. i don't believe you've been

asked about yet by the select committee. the chain of the 6th and the 7th of june, 2008. mod10005378. >> let me just interpose a question here. can you think of a reason why mr. myler or mr. crone should keep this information from you or this concern from you? was your relationship with them such that they may think, well, we needn't bother him with that, or we'd better keep it from him because he'll ask us to go to cut out the cancer? i mean, i'm trying to understand what's going on here. >> i think, i think, sir, that that is my understanding of it because this is something that i've struggled with as well which is why wouldn't they just come and tell me? i was a new person coming in, this was an opportunity to

actually get through this. and they didn't. um, and it must be -- and when i look at that exhibit, you know, those last lines, i think that -- i don't want to conjecture, and i'm close enough, but i think that must be it, that i would say cut out the cancer, and there was some desire to not do that. >> well, i follow that, mr. murdoch, but i think the point i'd like to make about the e-mail is that, in fact, if you look at the e-mails, the point that mr. cloke was making about it being rife throughout the organization was a point that mr. myler was very concerned that you pick up. which would be consistent with mr. myler being concerned or having been concerned to make that same point to you on the 27th of may. did you at least see that?

>> well, i think mr. myler sent me this note unilaterally forwarded me this correspondence, and i don't believe that i read it. i didn't read it at the time. i responded to it in minutes, and it was a saturday. i had just come back from a flight to hong kong, and i was with my young children at the time. and i invited him to give me a call that evening after they went to bed, i assume, and i don't have any record or recollection of any phone call that occurred, but that the five minutes he wanted with mr. crone and myself on tuesday which was then the meeting of the 10th, um, was set up. and i didn't, and i didn't go through this whole e-mail chain. as i said, even looking at it, to me, it looks like -- >> well, you're now beginning to comment on it which i'd ask you not to do but keep the question. the point is quite a straightforward one. if you look at the e-mail from

mr. pike to mr. crone, 6th of june, time 17:18 in the afternoon, page 53179, there are three bullet points, and i'm only concerned about the third. he wallets to demonstrate -- he wants to demonstrate what happened to him is/was rife throughout the organization. he wants to correct the paper-telling parliamentary inquiries that this was not happening when it was -- >> are you with me, mr.-- >> yes, i'm following along on the page. >> the other point that was being made is mr. taylor is, in effect, coming close to blackmailing us, i paraphrase, but that's a separate issue. now, it is true that the cone e-mail of the 7th of june doesn't address the rife issue, but mr. myler's e-mail to you timed at 14:31 and 41 seconds on

saturday, the 7th of june, does draw your attention specifically to julian pike's e-mail, dun it? >> regarding taylor's vin vindictiveness as he describes it? >> yes. >> yes. >> but he's asking you to read it, isn't he? >> i think he's asking me to read the e-mail chain, presumably, in a view to understanding the vin kickiveness -- vindictiveness, his words, of mr. taylor with respect to -- >> you're just carving out this one issue. he wants you to understand the whole picture, and part of the picture rightly or wrongly was mr. taylor saying i want to get these guys, i want to prove that this behavior was or is rife throughout the organization. mr. myler was drawing your attention to that very fact. so at the very least you could ingest it, take it onboard. do you accept that? >> that there were allegations there and there?

>> yes. >> i think my experience of dealing with mr. myler on this issue and mr. crone was actually that i -- there wasn't a proactive to bring me up to speed on those things. if there had been, the meeting would have occurred in april or may, whenever it was they first saw the evidence coming through in the taylor case. >> well, they might have been a bit slow putting this to you, but when they did, it's clear from this e-mail that mr. myler was not seeking, as it were, to edit out the story. he was concerned that you look at mr. pike's e-mail and understand what was being said in the e-mail. that's right, isn't it? >> again, i didn't -- i don't know what mr. myler's mind was at this time. i do know that when i did speak to him about it, it was solely with respect to increasing their authority to negotiate the settlement with mr. taylor. >> has the meeting on the 10th of june, was there an agenda? >> no, other than to update me

on this litigation proceeding. >> is it normal, mr. murdoch, not to have an agenda for any meeting, even one of this sort? >> many meetings don't have a written or agreed agenda, had other than a general heading. >> at the meeting, do you think that mr. myler drew your attention to the e-mail that had been sent on saturday? >> i don't, and i don't recall a discussion around that. >> is it possible that the e-mail, particularly mr. pike's e-mail, was being regarded as the agenda for the meeting? >> if it was, it wasn't what was followed. the conversation is one that -- on the 10th was a brief conversation that i've described at length. >> did mr. crone arrive with a file? >> i don't remember if he had a file or not. >> did mr. myler and/or

mr. crone refer to potential reputational damage to the company? >> there was, um, there was a discussion -- i shouldn't say a discussion, it was referred to that it would be in the best of the business not to have this matter from the past from a few years ago be dug up again and be dragged through the court, but it was more as far as -- it was more in the spirit of here was an issue that happened a few years ago, it's all in the past now, it's all finished, and we don't want to have to go through that again. >> you see, the bit i don't follow allow, mr. murdoch. if it was only a question of repeating what had been yesterday's news, then there is no additional reputational damage to the company or risk of it. the point was this was new.

the gordon taylor investigation would create the possibility, indeed, the probability of fresh reputational damage to the company, but that it involved others at news international. do you follow that? >> i follow, i follow your question, but that's not what i was told at the time. what i was told in that meeting was very clear, was that there was a truth of evidence that linked the voicemail interception of mr. taylor to "the news of the world," and this was a new fact, that this was a case that was going to be lost absolutely without question. i was given strong legal advice that it should be settled, and in addition i was told that there was a leading counsel's opinion that had established the amount o that was at risk, and it was established in that meeting that because the case would be lost and in order to, you know, not have to litigate a case that would be lost, um, and drag up all these things, the painful episode in the past and

what not that, you know, that the strategy should be to settle, and i got strong advice on that summit, and i followed that advice. >> based on reputational damage to the company. >> yes, well, my understanding at the time was that both sides sought confidentiality. >> and as for the evidential strength of the, the new evidence, um, weren't you told that the new evidence related to others at news of the world --

>> pardon me, sorry? >> weren't you told that the evidential strength of the new evidence of the for neville e-mail, namely that mulcaire was working for -- >> no what's now known as the for neville e-mail was important for two reasons, as i've said in the past. one reason was it was a direct link between "the news of the world" and mr. muscle care's -- mulcaire's activities with respect to gordon taylor. there was another reason that perhaps could have been the thread to say this was more going on there, and for that -- and that part of it, that part of its importance was not imparted to me that day. >> was the e-mail produced on the day? >> no. >> so you don't, you don't have any recollection of mr. crone showing you the first page of the e-mail which was the gist of the evidence he gave us, is that right? >> no, i don't have any

recollection of that. and i think -- well, i don't need to go into his testimony, so sorry. >> did either mr. myler or more likely mr. crone mention leading counsel's opinion? >> they did, yes. >> did they mention leading counsel's opinion in the context of the reputational damage to your company if case -- [inaudible] in particular because the new evidence demonstrated that the case went beyond mr. goodman? >> no, they didn't. >> well, you've now seen paragraph 6 of mr. silver leave counsel's opinion which makes that very point, haven't you? >> yes, i have now seen it. but i did not see it at the time, nor was it produce today me. >> were mr. myler or mr. crone far more anxious during this short meeting? >> um, i would say it's a

subjective judgment. i would say more on the anxious side. they were eager to be able to leave the room with the notion that they could settle this case at a higher number. >> the truth is, mr. murdoch, they were very keen that you settle, and they were very keen to transmit the message to you that if you didn't, there were serious reputational risks to the company. are we agreed with that thus far in. >> i hi the primary purpose, as you -- i wouldn't put it in that order, no. >> i would suggest that the reputational damage was inextricably linked with the fact this wasn't a rehash of old news, but was something new. >> that is not what they communicated to me. >> were you surprised that an offer, 350,000 pounds plus cost, had already been made without your authority?

>> i don't know when i discovered that author, but they had told me -- but they did say they had made attempts to settle this case already, and, indeed, we know they made repeated attempts to settle that case before that meeting. >> you must have known at that meeting where the parties were inasmuch as an offer had been made, yet mr. taylor had rejected it. you knew that, didn't -- >> yes, yes. >> and you must have known the amount -- >> i presume so, but i don't know exactly what the number was they told me. >> well, we know from mr. crone and mr. myler's evidence that the figure was 350,000 pounds. didn't you think that that was an extraordinary amount of money for this sort of allegation? even if proved? >> well, i really didn't have any way to situate that amount of moneymentwith respect to the allegation. i hadn't, i wasn't a lawyer, i hadn't been involved in these sorts of cases, and, indeed, the queen's counsel opinion had put

the potential liability including costs at, you know, a very large sum as well. >> yes. his figure, paragraph 17, was -- [inaudible] any level from 25,000 to 250,000 or possibly even more, although i think this extremely unlikely. my best guess is that the award will be either 100,000 or about 250,000 depending on the personal reaction of the judge. now, that must have been communicated to you, mr. murdoch. >> the opinion was not shown to me, it was -- i remember -- >> i didn't say it was shown to you, i said that must have been communicated. >> yes. as i said, i recall the description of the silk's opinion being that the number could be upwards of, i think i recall the number 425,000, so they said half a million to a million pounds with costs in it. >> no, no. the figure -- his figures --

>> they described to me with cost. >> don't worry about the cost because the 350,000 which had already been offered was -- [inaudible] it's 350,000 plus mr. taylor's legal costs. but mr. silverleaf was saying any level from 250 to 250,000 or possibly even more, although i think it's extremely unlikely. now, my question to you was that that must have been communicate today you. >> not the gist of the likelihood of that. >> well, wasn't that the whole point of the waiting for legal counsel's view, to know what value he placed on the claim? >> yes. and i was told that leading counsel's view was that it was -- i think they gave it to me with cost, and i remember that it would be in that range. >> this just confuses it. i don't -- it would have been, frankly, ridiculous to have said, given you a global figure. they would have said, look, he's saying really worst case, 250k

plus costs. they must have told you that, mr. murdoch. >> not, that's not what i recall. >> did you, did you not ask them why has the sum of 350,000 been offered without my -- that's your -- authority? >> they, the management of this, of this litigation, of this legal affair was something that i think, you know, it was reasonable for me to leave it to the editor and the senior legal manager who had a lot of experience -- >> well, what's the point of having limited authority if people can go over it by a factor of ten? >> and they came to me to get, because it was getting to a number where they thought they had to talk to me about it. it wasn't at my, it wasn't at the top of my mind exactly where their legal authorities were. there was a budget of a million and change or more, i can't remember, um, for legal settlements at "the news of the world," and it was within that, and i was briefed on it as i've

described and left it to them to negotiate. >> weren't you concerned that the sum of 350,000 pounds being offered -- well, i'll back up. it was probably a slightly lower figure without there being counsel's opinion, i think it's fair to say that the offer 350,000 was made on the 6th of june. i think the evidence was that the 350 postdated counsel's opinion, but earlier sums had been offered without counsel's opinion. did that not concern you? >> i don't remember when i, what i knew exactly about the previous numbers of settlement attempts, but i do know that, you know, it seems to be in this, when it came to my attention, i thought that they should wait for counsel's opinion. >> did anybody tell you at the meeting words to this effect, um, the -- this guy is