information flow within the jungle, building up more radio stations and sending a message of peace and as well, one thing that we always encourage someone who is formerly objected that they get back and have a second chance in life and the second chance comes with a lot of issues here. ..

one thing that i feel we need your support in is how to integrate these people in the community. as i talk in northern and ugonda its coincided there are many more conducted throughout the home but haven't had the same opportunity as others to integrate fully and have something to do in the community. imagine a girl who came back and very young and these are kids that were not wanted, how do we as a community come up with an

approach will help these people get an opportunity in life. as someone who's taken leadership in the program from the ground we are trying the that is not enough. there are many people out there. there are social services that are not enough. especially in the south african republic and the democratic republic of congo, it has made it very, very hard for even the troops on the ground and the people on the ground to access social services so that they are able to move and get the best they can have in their life. and i feel like, as we discussed this in the trade, i feel your valise as american government to the presidents of the area affected to take full ownership. though war i watched our

presidents but what about in the congo? we feel very fresh where people are still being displaced. is that enough for the president to say we have pushed the lra away and get it is another group that is still being affected so i think that you've put in a lot of force in emphasis on them taking the ownership and collaborating together and bringing the forces to apprehend joseph kony i would suggest maybe you could be strong on a diplomatic because when it's brought to the civil society accommodating their voices are not being had and people are saying the lra isn't a big threat but every day people are

sleeping out in the rain and you can tell the fear of the people have no future and will not be able to go to school and how do we give them a second opportunity because the displacement and center-left recovery public is so huge how do we get humanitarian intervention into central africa those are the questions. >> thank you, okot. senator isaacson has been called to the floor and he would like to give a brief closing comment the he has to be part. i'm going to stay and continue the conversation. >> thank you for meeting me when i was in ugonda in gulu. i appreciated the meeting. jacob, your testimony as compelling. as i listen to both of you, i was reflected on the last tuesday in the rotunda of the capitol we had the holocaust remembrances and i am part swedish we had paul limburger's said tens of thousands of

hungarian jews from auschwitz, and i thought about how in history is littered with individuals who speak out and take risks who worked to right wrongs and both of you or justin at capricious category and i want to thank you for your willingness to make this issue. as the chairman knows, out of sight is out of mind, and africa is a long way away from the american media. it's a long way away from our country and some of the tragedies that have gone on in that country. well, you are helping to bring the visibility to those issues and that will help us bring ultimately shine the light on joseph kony and bring him to justice. so you are both he rose as far as i'm concerned, and i appreciate your willingness to do that. i have a tough question to ask you, jolly, but i want to ask one before i go back. my experience -- i know that saddam is in deep trouble in the south, now in the north, and there's a possibility of further deterioration but i also know ayaan darfur the chad rebels and the janjaweed and some of the

organization's use of rape against women as a military tactic; is that what joseph kony thus? >> yes, that is what joseph kony does, and as i speak right now, joseph kony, according to some of the people including his wife says he has more than 50 lives around him, and the why of this is what he uses as a protection as a shield, so these are young girls that have been raped and these are young girls who have been raped and many of them with children. so he is still continuously himself as a leader having 50 wives, and what about the the other commanders who have many more wives? so, joseph kony is still reading and abducting children. >> the reason i ask the children is that one of the good things usaid is to bring it in ugonda that i personally see but also in darfur is to in power when in

and help recognize the abuse is taking place in many places like africa like what joseph kony is doing back when we were there in kampala the day after i met with jolly we had been speaker of the house or the parliament of ugonda as a woman and women are becoming more and power in that country and rising to power and out of respect and equality for them, which is an important thing in a nation that has been the victim of people like joseph kony. and jacob, i have to leave to make a speech on the floor but you're my hero. thank you for being willing to tell the story and come here. i don't blame you for wanting to sit next to a pretty lady like jolly. i would be there, too. >> as always you are a terrific partner and a grateful for the opportunity to work together on this. if i could, just by way of conclusion, since we need to bring the ceiling to completion, but jacob come if you have any input for us on whether you think joseph kony and the lra

commanders should be brought to justice in ugonda or the hague if you have any advice on what measures are most helpful as we try to help those who have a skate or defected to rebuild their lives, and i last would just be interested to hear how it has turned out for you, your study of law and interest in becoming a human rights lawyer. i think many upon first hearing of your personal story in the video then also are hopeful to hear about the progress that you've made your own life, not just in recovery but in becoming educated and strengthened and skilled to be able to use your experience to fight for justice. >> think you very much again. i think what can be done to encourage this report being someone who was abducted when i was young they did try to brainwash me but by the time the affected me there were some

people returning from captivity, so they were trying to tell me you know, we bring you here and when you go back home, the government will kill you. there's nothing like welcoming you people that home. what it does to the kitties keeping your address to deny access to them. the radio stations, they let them know the truth of that is outside, what is happening naturally when you come back home. so these kids some of them are fighting not because they want to stay with the ally, but because they feel like now the government will look at us as being a rebels and when they try to go back home they will just kill, so the fight for their life and donley in the battle. so she's been able to keep a lot

of kids around him and if there is any way that these kids can be reached and people telling them that i was with you and now i'm still living a positive life, i've changed my life, these people need to know that when you come back home nothing actually happens to you. it would encourage them to come back home. and in the second thing that they want to bring forth is that she has been a will to keep some of the kids because this war has been going on for so long, so there are these kids that are raised in the bush and thereby makes it very hard for them to like they can even come back, because their mothers are there with them and their father is there's all that they know is fighting. so all these kids, if there is a way that they can be reached and to assure them, the second type of life which is coming back

home, sitting down at the table solving things in a good way, that would be a way of encouraging them to come back home. and on my side i'm so proud of invisible children because they made me who i am. when i came back it was hard for my parents to put me back in school because school was expensive and i took the responsibility of my parents and made sure that me and hundreds and thousands of kids go to school and pursue our dream. but it's like i am still advocating for the rest because it's been operating for less than ten years and this war has been going on the last 26 years, so it's affected thousands of kids, and now it is going to affect more, and that is why i feel like we should not leave it to invisible children or to resolve. we should come as a team and

make sure we rebuild and heal the war victims. so that is what i feel like i should do something to pay for word, and i will only stop paying forward when the war ends. i would love to stop paying because then the war will end and i wouldn't have to depend on any other person. so, i am willing to be a human rights lawyer because i feel like we should have the same value like people are always the same no matter what color you are, you are of the same blood and we are all born with the same right. so, the same right people have in the u.s. and china and sudan and ugonda or the congo has to be promoted by those that are in the authorities, and no matter

where you come from, if there is a problem somewhere, you are affected in one way or the other. so i find -- i feel like if i am a human rights lawyer i can reach out to so many people, not only in my community, but only in ugonda, but worldwide. >> if i could, last question, jacob and jolly, what difference do you think you would make to those who've been directly affected, to those in the countries of the region, and then to the world, what difference would it make for joseph kony and his top lieutenants have been indicted by the icc; what difference would it take for them to be captured, removed from the battlefield and tried? how would it affect change? >> i think i will start and then you will go. i think it would make a very big difference because right now, like, i can feel like personally i feel like ugonda is a little safe, and i kind of want to

forget about the part that i went through, but it's very hard it's not only me that i'm speaking on behalf of the victims of ugonda. we are trying to forget what we went through, but it's become so hard when you wake up in the morning and you hear that people are still being abducted it takes my mind back to when i was abducted. and if someone is in congo it takes back to where i saw my brother being slaughtered. this is not only to become it applies to all of those victims. so when this group is brought to justice, i think finally and slowly people will forget because they will not hear it again in any way. so, it will bring a very big difference. and there are those who are still living in very big fear, and those are the people who are still getting there now and they

feel the fear they live and let to go away and they will have a second way of life knowing i can still be someone. personally i had my hope -- no life. i was almost dead instead of living in the the world. now that i have received the second life i can actually help and do something. like right now i know these kids who are the rebels and these people that are living in fear, if given a chance they can still do something better. they can still achieve their dream that it's hard for them because they don't know that, they don't know that they can still have different -- like if they are given a chance at life, this is very positive. they don't know about it and that is what i didn't know until i was introduced to school, and now i know.

so, the challenge is how are we going to let them know. if by stopping this war and bringing them look here, you can still do this. you go to school and you wouldn't have to fight to get money. you have to go out and grab people's money and work hard to get what you want to read and forcing some to give you. but if you work hard for the account what right now in the place i'm working, i can actually spend it the way i want we gave you this money to go out in school where is the reseat cracks but i can we get and say [inaudible] [laughter] but that is what i want. i want people to be dependent. i don't want people to think that they will have to pick up guns to get money or food. i want them to work towards it.

thank you. 64. it's great to be reminded that part of what our president was speaking about yesterday was the importance first of ending the conflict and second, bringing the leadership to account and then third, remembering. even today it's important to remember the holocaust, one of the worst atrocities and human history. but in this particular case and center leverett with the lord's resistance army as we said at the outset there are still the attacks going on today and communities that are not safe today and still children who were of tactic who've grown up in the bush and no one no other life. our first order of business must be to end the conflict and bring them to justice. jolly, you have the last word today. how do you think will make a difference for the world? you, yourself, new joseph kony as a child and grew up in the same village. i'm sure it was hard to imagine that he would turn into this monster that he's become.

and so, on some level, ending his violins and his action would help close a chapter, and then hopefully bring some justice and peace and then serve as an example to the rest of the world of the possibility of restoring justice. how do you see it, what difference would it make if he were actually captured and brought to justice? >> thank you so much. i think bringing jolly to justice -- kony to justice will show the world that in punitive isn't a way for work to let the human souls suffered, and i think bringing him to justice well in the long run stop people around the world who are so brutal and people would think that playing around with of the lives of fellow human being is the way forward to bring authority that threat, but also

we think that flooding the world know justice when people come together can be brought, so i think this would solve many african leaders who have turned their backs towards the local population and they will know the world would be watching them to begin so i feel like bringing kony to justice is one way forward stopping any atrocity in the future there would have been in the world. and to me i feel that this is key because i think as much as joseph kony is out there at last and let them answer for the crime committed but also i think is a responsibility as well to the other leaders to realize that it is very, very important when people are in leadership and also protect the lives of the people that the the lead,

and i think that the coming together of every one around the world and focusing on this one man and bringing him out will also in the future costs appear to of the people who might think that they should stand up and write and terrorize people. so i think that is the most key importance element and also i think bringing kony to justice is a way of promoting democracy in africa because i think that is one area where we have all the war its bringing up because of lack of transparency in the government system as well, bring people to start fighting among themselves. so bringing kony to justice is one way forward that will save some lives. and why she isn't fighting his own country, like to take suffering to the country that has no idea why she's fighting.

>> with that, thank you very much. kony and jacob -- jolly and jacob, for sharing your personal journey of recovery and being abducted by the lra to turn in your personal experiences to positive contributions, not just of ugonda but to the whole world. we are grateful to invisible children come to resolve and the enough for door hard work in partnership with you in advocacy. i'm going to hold the record open until friday april 27 for any member of the committee that is unable to join but wants to submit and without objection i'm going to also enter into the record a written statement from the enough project that they want to be made a part of the record today. thank you so much for the witness, testimony and vision. the hearing is adjourned.

>> she withdrew the siting of a brutal process. [laughter] that wasn't even a psychiatrist. dennis miller was the second

choice but she got hung out by any legal technicality. [laughter] isn't that where the confirmation process is about in washington? weeding out the truly qualified to get to the available. [laughter] >> i must say i thought that when you got into the office he would put an end to the pickup plan. come on. first black president playing basketball. you're game is really nice right now, don't you? you got moves, nobody's going to give the president a hard fall with the secret service standing there.

>> i've seen a place people will listen to me and i've always cared about the country, and the greatest generation in that book gave me a kind of platform that was completely anticipated. yes, i thought i ought not squander that. so i ought to step up not just as a citizen as a journalist but as a father and husband and a grandfather, and if i see these things i ought to write about them and try to start his dialogue which i'm trying to do with this book about where we need to get to next.

the executive and of news international james murdoch testifies before the panel investigating british media practices. mr. murdoch's us about the knowledge of phone hacking by the tabloid newspaper news of the world. james murdock resigned from news international and february. the inquiry is looking at the practices of news organizations and their relationship with public officials. attention is being led by judge breyer and maleficent -- levison. islamic mr. james murdock,

please. >> i swear by almighty god the evidence against a tree, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> [inaudible conversations] >> you're full name please. >> james rupert murdoch >> dated the 16th of april of

this year except for one small change your evidence that you are committing to the ann curry. islamic yes it is my evidence i am submitting to the inquiry. the one change, the one direction i would like to make is the in that paragraph i mention meeting in members of parliament who is described in the chief secretary of the treasury in fact i realize the time of the meeting she's no longer held the post. he resigned on the 29th of may, 2010 just so we are clear. it was in the summer autumn of 2010. >> thank you very much. i've made the correction and i'm grateful for the other trinity to work in a statement you made.

in terms you were born in the united kingdom in 1972 and started at harvard university between 1992 and 1995. in asia 2003 to the ceo and in december of to the some seven this is material for our purposes you at the on appointed non-executive sermon than a score as chairman and ceo in as part of this became the chairman of news international. >> that's correct. is connected to the story of to date in march of the last year, the appointed deputy officer and chairman and ceo of the national

turkey back to new york the beginning of this year. and on the second of april, 2012, and you resigned as a nonexecutive chairman. is the right? >> that's correct. islamic and the resignation related to your return to new york or was it for some other reason? >> as i stated at that time and announced at the time it was for the simple reason that the -- i wanted to avoid becoming a lightning rod. some people were trying to complete issues that happened in the past that news international with the chairman my father was better not providing the destruction for the board and to resigned my role as the non-executive chairman. i remain a director of british sky contract in. >> the other general point is

the deputy chief operating officer at the news corporation, you report to mr. chase, the chief operating officer and to mr. rupert murdoch your father, the chairman and chief executive officer is the right? >> that's correct. islamic that said are there discussions from time to time with your father about the news corporation's business? >> yes, we discussed from time to time and quite often various business issues. >> i will come back to that in due course if i may. i'm going to invite you now to summarize what you say in answer to question six in your statement. this is page 02 - 65 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. murdoch? >> question six, i think, which relates to the general philosophy and practice is, i guess -- to summarize, i will say that with respect to operating a business when i was chief executive of businesses, i tried to 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 really have a management culture that is both transparent internally that also really working together to focus on those issues. there's quite a lot in the witnessing as well as that question with respect to governments, with respect to the role of business. if you want me to go into all those things here?

>> no thank you. i do have a specific question about the 6.6 of the 02966. about two-thirds of the way through that , you say that you sought to foster an open management culture in which top executives would share information. >> yes. >> when you arrived here in december, 2007, did you find an open management culture and news international? >> when i arrived in 2007, the business was -- the business, as i saw it, had a handful of priorities to be tackled. one was a question of the business' general growth, with declining readership and flat revenue, etc., but also i wanted to have a tight management team that met regularly and that shared regular information about the business, and we instituted regular execs meetings, and i think the new part of it the

started -- that i started when i was there was really to include in those meetings some of the editors, so that issues around the newspapers and the titles themselves -- programs, promotions, marketing, etc. -- could be discussed in the open amongst everyone coming and we had monthly -- what we called quote cotidal meetings" in addition to the executive more commercial meetings where we met regularly. >> did you fear in december of 2007 that you are being confronted with an open management culture? or was that something which took time to instill? >> i think it always takes time. each phase a business goes through the different leadership and a different time will adjust to it. i do think that it was very different from the british sky broadcasting that i had been running before and i wanted to be more collaborative. >> the question for example with

mr. am i learn about the business, do you fear that it was generally speaking open with you or something different? >> at that time i had no reason to believe otherwise. >> 6.10 you refer to the changes that have taken place since the summer of last year to register. can i invite you please to look at 8.5. would there not be sufficient control in play given the risk involved in getting it wrong. in your view, mr. murdoch where their deficiencies in the news international systems for identifying and assessing legal

risk particularly in the context of potential harm to the company? >> i think with respect to news gathering, the subject of interest here i think it's self-evident that in hindsight knowing what we know now, what ever controls were in place failed to create the sufficient transparency of of those issues and the risks around it. however, there were a senior level managers to, you know, had a lot of experience who were working closely with the editor and with the news rooms. at the time i didn't have a view that those were insufficient or not. >> apart from the advice given from time to time doesn't see the manager and that was mr. crone is right to say, isn't it that there were not any other systems in place such as the ones you begin to introduce in the summer of last year. estimates with respect to the summer of last year some of the

things we introduced, the dedicated compliance officer but now it into a global compliance framework which i think is an important and good step, with respect to having a board that is more for example the statutory compliance requirements but actually connected to a corporate center if he will, the global corporate center to the management accountability on an ongoing basis with particular legal representation those things are new added things to strengthen what we can do. >> the question was really only the good work of mr. crone. there wasn't much else in place was there? >> i think that we had an effective management board where the senior executives would meet sort of regularly and including the operating officer of the chief financial officer

including the editors who from time to time there was ample opportunity to be able to discuss these issues and surface them. there were regular systems in place, and i think i would have had a reasonable expectation having the senior legal managers closely associated with the protection but ultimately proved not to provide. in addition i also met regularly with the internal audit department who audited the business on a regular basis and with respect to certain compliance issues on a encourage them to be transferred and take the resources that they require. >> your position of the strategic oversight, did you make the obvious connection between the legal risks and potential reputation will damage to the company? >> i think the corporate reputation as something that is important to a business and

important respect to the company's licensed customers that it operates and and obviously the legal risk plays into that. >> did you make the of the connection between the legal risk and ethical risk? in other words or their systems in place to ensure that the journalism took place their risks might flow from that, not just legal? >> that is the right connection to make. however, i was assured that from the standpoint of the journalists like the editors code that extensive training has gone on and was continually going on and i was given strong assurances that those would happen, particularly in light of the voice mail interception incident in 2006 those assurances were given to me early on in my tenure.

>> can i ask you did you read the news of the world on a weekly basis? >> i wouldn't say, but i read it from time to time. >> i'm not saying from everyday with -- >> dutrow to familiarize myself with what's in it. >> with relation to news of the world did you see any risk associated with it in the particular brand, and it included some might say a predilection for kiss and tell stories tilting into the lives of celebrities and others. >> i think the news of the world brand has an investigative newspaper with expos as a and the like was only concerned with celebrities and also uncovering the wrongdoing, scandals, campaigning and so forth. >> it's part of the picture and in focusing on this part of the

moment. the question was did he 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 discussing those risks, but i do recall again receiving assurances around a journalistic ethics around the code of practice on a number of occasions. >> reading of the news of the world as you did, i'm not asking you to give us a moral reaction to because that wouldn't be the right question but did it cross your on the that this sort of journalism carried with it difficult risks that could turn into a regional? >> i think that the risks something there was very much in the hands of the editor on things like public interest and

the light where the editor in consultation with legal advice was there. i wasn't in the business of deciding what to put in the newspapers, so it was there that i was given assurances by them and proves to be wrong but i'm sure we will go into with respect to the risk that they were taking. >> do you know what the legal bill was on the consequent upon the news of the world in particular style of journalism? >> do you know what the legal bill was? >> in the budgeting process there was the provisions for certain legalized. >> what was your reaction to the case in particular what were the aspect to resolve, and secondly the large bill? >> the result of the case is obviously disappointing. the editor had asserted that of the story was both true and the

public interest was later found by the court to be neither and that is something that is a matter of great regret to be run speed the size of the legal bill? >> i don't remember the fees involved in the case. >> i think mr. moseley told us that the bill was 420,000 pounds. your cost would have been more than half a million i would venture to guess and the damages that is the last. >> it was a cause for concern. >> did you ask anybody to consider the possibilities in the case? >> i don't recall. >> did anybody draw to your attention the relationship about to the chief reporter of the news of the world and his black

male catholics? >> it wasn't drawn to my attention. >> okay. >> can i ask you this i was just going to help you to situate myself at the time. news international is one of the companies in the operating companies reporting to me of the time with respect to use international what i was focused on in this period were as i said before, the overall commercial strategy of the business we were in the process of taking come at the start of taking the cost of of the business and restructuring and member of the apartments in the corporate structure within it as well as developing the longer term strategy for the company with respect to its digital products and the like, and not having --

hispanic to be helpful in such a reading myself there, the day-to-day management in the legal care and the court cases and things like that is something that the management, the direct management of the company was dealing with. >> could i just asked on that you clearly appreciated the great loss and that whether it had a reputation on the applications received considered but did you consider instituting making the request to see what's going on with this, what decisions did we make that we shouldn't have made, what went wrong with this litigation which cost us so much money. >> would you consider that a job for you? >> i did ask the question, and on the recall being told that the problem -- the editor was

clearly defined on this point in the the problem had been that one of the witnesses on the news international side hadn't testified in the end and there was all garbled up, but one wasn't told for example about what he was asking in the ruling in the flight. >> but you didn't feel that it was necessary to get into any more detail when your senior management team had according to the judge got it spectacularly wrong. >> the question again of where the public decision is is one that is very difficult, and the editors of any newspaper generally have that within a day-to-day basis is for them to decide what goes in the paper and certainly getting it wrong spectacularly as that was is something the was made clear to

mr. miler and the indication that it shouldn't happen again. >> news of the world was an extremely profitable business, wasn't it, reasonably? was their elements justifying the means that the paper you believe to their readers wanted and touched on the profit? >> i'm sorry, what was the question? >> was there an element of the end justifying the means? >> nope. i've written extensively 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 i believe very passionately in, but the way that we do business is part and parcel of bucks connection that we have with our customer. it's important to note that at

the end of the profitability of the news of the world didn't say that. >> did you analyze why the news of the world was a profitable paper? >> from the commercial perspective and product perspective, yes, it had a connection with its readers and was popular with them and ha believed to advertisers to reach them. >> there was something about that that their readers wanted when they bought the news of the world but yet there must have been something more about it which you identified in seeing the appeal. >> i think there are many things about any newspaper or a television program or what have you that appeal. you could be talking about a new magazine like fabulous the was introduced during that period

which was an expensive investment and a glossy sunday magazine that along with the paper to read it could be the sports coverage there was extensive sports coverage and a heavy investment was made as well and also it could be the experts say that you mentioned earlier every reader has his or her own reasons. >> statement 02969 you point out the only editorial staff member appointed during your time was dominica who became editor of the sun in june of 2009. why did you support the appointment? >> i knew him around the business. he had been the deputy and was well respected to take the post

and in consultation with my father and i supported that appointment. >> did you know what his political views were? >> to be honest with you, i don't. >> do you suspect who they are? >> i think this election is not simply a pound political views only are the other is the ability of the editor to perhaps lead in the newsroom and the of devotee of the editor to make judgments about what to put in the paper every day primarily. it's the ability of the editor to be thoughtful about his or her readers and how they react to what goes on in the paper. it's not a political exercise. >> is there any part of the decision making relation that you felt as he understood what you and you're father wanted in

particular in relation to the political winds to take out the election time? >> it wasn't of my concern he would be reporting to mrs. brooks who had taken over as the chief executive and he was her strong recommendation and well respected and i thought it was a good idea. estimate you know what the position was didn't she? >> yes. islamic you could trust her to recommend someone who might be missing place couldn't you? >> the specificity and of the policies that wasn't something that i engaged in great substance on. >> now mr. murdoch to the issue of the phone hacking which is in one sense the ground you given evidence now one factors darfur

if it's right for the select committee your position was you neither salles hoard knew about is that correct? >> that's correct. >> before the select committees? >> when i said before i meant when you gave to the select committee. >> the evidence was given on the 19th of july of last year and i think on the tenth of november of last year. islamic are you asking me when i had knowledge of that e-mail? >> my question maybe have handed but referring back to the meeting that took place on the tenth of june, 2008 come in your possession before the select committees on the 19th of july and the tenth of november of last year we were not shown the

e-mails and that meeting. >> that is correct, yes and that remains my position and i stand by that testimony. >> you tell that by way of background that you would receive assurances that this is a 11.4 of the statement. >> this is when you arrived in december of 2007. you said the assurances were excelling the introduction of the new editor extensive training and were put into place etc.. from whom to those assurances come? >> i recall being given assurances by mr. miller and mr. cloak who is the corrective human-resources in particular about the trend and the procedures.

>> was the context of mr. miler volunteered or was it something that you asked him? >> i think was probably in the context where over the first few months as i was coming to grips with the set of responsibilities are now in europe and asia and the u.k. i would meet regularly with the executives and they would update me on some of the things they were doing and he updated me on that and mr. am i lawyer gave me assurances that things were as a new editor coming in that that is what he was doing. >> coming the year before. >> did he express any doubt as to the possible extent of the phone hacking activity in 2005 and 2006.

>> of the assurances i were given were the same that were given to the select committee leader for example. no new evidence was found that the police closed their case and made public announcements to that effect, so it was consistent with that. estimate was it your general understanding that he was an independent contractor as it were certainly in relation to most of the case which is before the criminal court. >> miners understanding of the time, i didn't have much of an understanding of the time of the previous 2006 issues that haven't been in the company said it was more of a general awareness that a reporter hat illegally intercepted a voice mail and had gone to jail along with the private investigator involved and was a general

understanding. >> the third step in the chronology is the phone call. >> before you get to that if i could just ask one question about that. i can understand that you might take the view that you've been given some assurances. but here you were coming to a company you in the company that was associated with your family very, very closely and as something that the position is very important to you. did you ever ask this question all right i accept that you put trading into place and everybody is up to speed now, but how did this happen, how did a very

senior reporter who obviously you relied upon and fought hialeah of get himself into this position and why didn't we take it up, why didn't our internal government pickup that something was going on? i am not talking about an investigation on the specific facts, asking whether you probe your own -- the adequacy of the internal governments that you had in place in the company for which you are now assuming responsibility. >> i don't know the -- i couldn't see the specific language of the question and the conversations ever had but it's clear to me and the question became in the newsroom in the past it hadn't been tight enough and that's why a new editor was

appointed and the new editor who i thought had no skin in the game in the past was there and spent time to improve the systems of governments in the newsroom of the newsroom governments again was an issue for the editor and the legal manager to be responsible and those assurances were clear that they could strengthen the government to be attached these things in the future. it was my understanding that the implication of that is the previously in 2006 they hadn't been because their position was that they didn't know about. >> you understand the reason for my question it's not merely what you put into place after, it's like all of this had gotten into that position because the last

editor was appointed and somebody didn't pick up that actually things along under him. >> that's before i was there and i asked a new editor who was there as well to say what have you done to make sure this can happen again and strengthening the education, strengthening the training, strengthening to make sure the journalists understood the code and what was acceptable and what wasn't as well as our own code of business conduct pushing that through more aggressively. >> that you didn't pick up what went wrong in the systems earlier. >> what i tried to say is a was the absence of those things being done effectively was my understanding. >> now we have the transcripts

of the 27th of many, 2008. if you have got, mr. murdoch, the documents submitted to the committee, it can be put up on the screen, one at 00062420. mr. mylar had a conversation with you on the 27th of may; is that correct? >> that's correct. according to these notes, but as you know in testimony to the select committee neither mr. mylar or i had a direct recollection of this, but i don't have any reason to disbelieve that it occurred.

..

>> it was also information watch which mr. murdoch to be debut on the 27th of may. emacs know, i don't think so, actually. i don't think that there is -- first of all, there is no record of any meetings in my diary could this would have been a snatched conversation when it occurred. and i don't recall any conversation. i think after the first line and the second line, i think that this is the conversation that he is having with pike. >> your position is that you don't remember any part of this conversation, do you? >> i think it would've gone into

any of these things i would've remembered it? >> then it would have been a meeting. >> was the discussion between mr. pike and mr. miler, it is a question of when you draw the line between your conversation between you and myler. i am suggesting that you draw the line under the second bullet point. one without the difference, cg spreading round allegations -- do you see the point? >> i do see the point, but i draw the line about that. >> we appreciate the significance of bullet point, do you? >> the dismissal preceding, yes,

i understand. >> the point is that he was alleging that liberty international was involved. >> i was not aware of that at the time. when you ask me where to draw the line, that is where i draw it in i think the typed transcript of this makes it look like a lapointe and indentations and their there are handwritten notes. indentations and bullet points are much less precise. i am not sure about that. if you go through jcp five, as you look at it, you want to examine this. it does appear to be transcribed, at least, i would suggest you, mr. murdoch.

>> my view is that mr. j., the conversation that i don't remember on the 27th of may would have been with respect to the amount of damages and the likelihood of losing or winning the case. the rest of this is a conversation on all of the other issues around it. it indicates that james would say -- i would say if he knew all of these things, and i didn't. i'm trying to be helpful. >> the very last line, james would say that it would have been cut out. you haven't said that to us yet, but from the perspective of mr. myler, presumably he was with you. those allegations are

unsubstantiated. isn't that the position? >> i don't know what his view was about it. >> it would suggest that clive goodman's allegation as subsidence. >> if i didn't know him, that is exactly what i would've said. mr. myler, his evidence to us, there were problems on the newsroom floor. you recall that evidence? >> i recall him giving that evidence to you, yes. >> the surprise was that he never saw the one that was valid. >> there are assurances to me, consistently where i have said. the newspaper was investigated thoroughly, outside, people have come in to investigate it. no evidence was found, and the police have a sort of their evidence and that the evidence

that they had -- there was no additional evidence. that was entirely consistent all the way through with mr. krohn and mr. myler. one indication of this is that mr. myler was committing to you the fact that mr. goodman was at the very least making allegations in relation to the involvement of news international. he was concerned to transmit that idea to you. you understand that? >> i understand what you're saying, but that is not -- that is not what i recall or what occurred. he recalled an none of this? >> i don't recall any of us. no. the next day to the e-mail chain, the chain of the fifth and seventh of june of 2008.

let me just answer 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? what is your relationship with them -- is it such that they may think we need not bother with that or we better keep it because he asked us to go and cut up this? i'm trying to understand what is going on here. >> i think, sir, that is my understanding of it. this is something that i have struggled with as well. why wouldn't they just come and tell me. i was a new person. this was an opportunity to get through this. and they didn't. it must be -- and when i look at that exhibit, those black lines,

i don't want to conjecture and i've said enough, but i think that that must be it. but i would say cut out the cancer, and there was some desire to not do that. >> i follow that, mr. murdoch. but the point i would like to make about the e-mails is that if you look at the e-mails, the points that mr. pike was making about mr. taylor alleging the organization -- the points that mr. miler was very concerned that you pick up. which would be consistent with mr. myler been confirmed or having been confirmed to make that point on the 27th of may. do you at least see that? >> i think that mr. myler sent me this note, unilaterally forwarded me this correspondence. i didn't read it at the time. i responded to it in minutes,

and it was a saturday night i had just come back from a flight to hong kong. i was with my young children at the time. i invited him to give me a call that evening after i went to bed. i don't have a record or recollection of any phone call that occurred. but in the five minutes that he wanted with mr. crone and myself on tuesday, which was then the meeting of the tent. it was set up, and i didn't go through this whole thing. as i said, even looking at it, it to me looks like -- >> the question is quite a straightforward one. if you look at the e-mails from mr. pike and mr. crone, fifth of june at 7:18 p.m., on page 57139, there are three bullet points. there are many points about the third.

he wants to demonstrate that what happened is in regards to the organization. he wants to correct the parliamentary inquiries that with this was not having one it was. are you with me? >> i'm sorry, i'm not on that page. >> the other point i was being made is that mr. taylor is in effect coming close to blackmailing. now, if it is true that mr. crone's e-mail doesn't addressed the right issue, but mr. myler's e-mail to you, timed at 1431 and 31 seconds on saturday the seventh of june, it does call your attention specifically to julian pike e-mail, doesn't it? >> regarding taylor's vindictiveness, yes it does.

>> with regard to reading it, he's asking you to read it, isn't he? >> i think he is asking me to read the e-mail chain presumably. in his words, to understand the vindictiveness of mr. taylor with respect to -- [talking over each other] >> he wants you to understand the whole picture, and part of the picture was mr. taylor saying thing i want to get these guys and prove that this behavior was or is life of the organization. mr. myler was drawing your attention to that very fact. the very least you could do is ingest it and take it on board. do you accept that? >> but there were allegations there? i think that my experience of dealing with mr. myler and mr. crone was that there wasn't a proactive desire to bring me up to speed on those things. if there had been, meeting would've occurred in april when

they first sought the evidence coming through in the taylor case. >> they might've been a bit slow putting this to you, but when they did, it is clear from this e-mail that mr. myler was not speaking a half story. he was concerned that you look at mr. pike e-mails and understand what was being said in the e-mails. >> again, 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 a settlement with mr. taylor. >> on the meeting on the 10th of june, was there an agenda? >> know, 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 order agreed agenda

other than a general heading. >> had the meeting -- do you think that mr. myler drew your attention to the e-mail that had been sent on saturday? >> i don't. 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 have described at length. >> did mr. krohn arrived with a file? >> i don't remember if he had one or not. >> did mr. myler order crone pervert you potential damage to the company?

>> there was a discussion -- i shouldn't say discussion. it was referred to that it would be in the best interest of the business not to have this matter from the past a few years ago be dug up again and dragged through the courts. it was more, in the spirit of its in the past, it's finished, and i don't want to go through this again. >> this was only a question of repeating what had been yesterdays news, the goodman story. there was no additional damage to the company order riskiness. the position was that the investigation would create the possibility, indeed, the probability, of fresh reputational damage to the company that involved others of

news international. do you follow that? >> i followed your question, but that is not what i was told at the time. when i was told and not meeting was very clear. it was that there was a group of evidence that links be interception of mr. taylor to the news of the world, and this was a new fact. this was the case that was going to be lost absolutely without question. i was given strongly and advised that this should be settled. additionally, there is a leading camp of opinion that was establishing the amount at risk. it was established that in that meeting that because the case would be lost, in order to not litigate a case that would be lost, and a drag of all of these things -- a painful episode in the past and whatnot -- but the strategy should be to settle it. i got strong advice on that subject, and i followed that advice. >> did they make it clear to you that the settlement could be confidential? >> i can't recall -- i can't

recall the specifics of the discussion, but it was my assumption that there would be a confidential settlement as many are. >> did you not make the obvious connection of the confidential settlement of whatever sum, would remove the risk of repudiation of damage to the company? >> we -- my understanding was that both sides were about the confidentiality. >> wanted to tell her that the new evidence related to others at news of the world? >> pardon me, sorry? >> the evidential strength as it related to others at news of the world, that there were others working for news of the world?

>> know, the e-mail is important for two reasons, as i said in the past. one reason it was a direct link between the news of the world and mr. mo -- >> and there was another link is still more going on there. for that and that part of it, that part of the importance was not imparted to me. >> was the e-mail produced on the day? >> know. >> you don't have any recollection of mr. crone showing you the first page of e-mail, which was the evidence he gave out? >> no, i don't have any recollection of that. i don't need to go into his testimony. period sorry. >> mr. myler, more likely, mr. crone, would be mentioning

the counsel's opinion? >> just. >> did they mention it in the context of the reputational damage to the company if the case bald? in particular, because the new evidence demonstrated that the case went beyond mr. goodman? >> know, they didn't read you have now seen paragraph six of his opinion, which makes that point? >> yes, i have seen that, but it did not see that the time nor was it produced to me. >> were they anxious during this short meeting? >> well, i would say that, as a subjective judgment, more on the anxious side. they were eager to leave the room with the notion that they

could settle this case at a higher number. >> the truth is that they were very keen that you settle, and they were very keen to transmit the message to you. there would be a serious reputational cut to the company. i think the primary purpose -- i wouldn't put it in that order, no. i would suggest that the reputational damage was an exclusively linked with the fact that this wasn't a rehash of old news. but with something new. >> that is not what they communicated to me. >> were you surprised that they offered 350,000 pounds and it had already been made without your knowing? >> i don't know when i discovered of that offer. they had told me. they said they made attempts to settle the case already. indeed, they made repeated attempts to settle it before that meeting.

>> at the meeting where the parties were, it inasmuch as an offer had been made, yet mr. taylor had rejected it, you knew that? >> just. >> and you must have known in what amount? >> i presume, sir. i don't know exactly the number that they told me. >> we know from mr. crone and the evidence, but it was 360,000 pounds. he didn't think that was an extraordinary amount of money for these allegations, even if proved? >> i really didn't have any way to situate that amount of money with respect to the allegation. i wasn't a lawyer. i haven't been involved in these sorts of cases. indeed, it was the council's opinion, that put the potential liability including costs that are very large sums as well. >> his figure was any level from 25,000 to 250,000 or possibly

the more, although this is extremely unlikely. my best guess is that it would be either 100,000 or about 250,000 number depending on the reaction of the judge. that must've been communicated to you, mr. murdoch. >> the opinion was not shown to me. >> that must've been communicated. >> yes, i recall the description of the opinion, being that the number could be upwards of -- i think i recall 425,000, half a million to a million pounds. >> the figure -- his figures for costs -- >> the 350,000 was the estimated cost. 350,000 plus.

any level from 250 to 250,000 or possibly even more, although i think it is unlikely. my question to you was is that not communicated? >> not the gist of the likelihood of that. >> wasn't that the whole point of waiting for the council's view? >> i was told the meeting council's view was that it was -- i think they gave it to me with costs. i remember that it would be in that range. >> it would've been ridiculous to give you a global figure. they would've said 250 k. plus costs. did they not tell you that, mr. murdoch? >> that is not what i recall. >> did you not ask them why is it the sum of 350,000 being

offered without my authority? >> the management of this litigation of this legal affairs is something that -- it was reasonable for me to leave it to the editor and the senior legal manager who had a lot of experience to do that. >> what's the point of having limited authority. >> became to me because it was getting to a number where they thought they had to talk to me about it. it wasn't at my -- there wasn't at the top of my mind exactly where their authorities were. there was a budget of 1 million and change or more. i can't remember. for legal or legal settlements. i was briefed on that, and left it for them to negotiate. >> were you concerned that the 350,000 pounds being offered --

that was probably a slightly lower figure. without the council's opinion, it's fair to say that they offered 350,000 on the sixth of june. i think the evidence was that the 350 was the postdated council's opinion. but earlier sums have been offered without the council's opinion. did that happen? >> i don't remember what i knew exactly about the previous numbers of settlement attempts. but i do know that it seems to be when it came to my attention, i thought that they should wait for the council's opinion. >> did anybody tell you that the meeting to this effect, this guy is trying to blackmail us? >> i don't recall those words. >> or anything like them? mr. murdoch? >> i don't remember those words or words like that. it was a short meeting.

>> although the case is mirth worth much less, he knows that we know that the reputational harm to the company would be so great that the vast overview of the claim has to be made by a settlement to go with it. was that communicated? >> that is not the gist of what was communicated to me. >> did that emerge from the next file no? jcp 13, 10th of june, jcp 13, 62426. mr. crone reporting back to mr. pike. mr. pike is running the litigation. mr. crone is reporting back on the meeting you had. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> yes. >> it says meeting with j. m.

and c. m. it says that he wanted to think through the options. that suggests that you haven't come to any subtle decision to conceive the litigation when the meeting ended. is that correct? >> i looked at this and was trying to think what that could mean. and i do think that there was something that had to wait before it could wait. something about going back to mr. mulcaire's attorney to discuss because he was eight cole defendant -- codefendant. it may have just been let's just think about it for a day. or see if he could come back and it could be done at that level. i'm conjecturing. >> the natural meaning of this is that he wanted to ponder what you've been told. would you not agree? >> yes, sit on it for a bit and

think about it. there was a reason for the gap there, which was their -- they had to go have a discussion with mr. mulcaire's attorneys. look at the next line. >> look at the next line. they're not going to read it all. i'm not going to censor it. moving toward mr. taylor and telling him to back off. paying them off, on the first line, that's pretty clear that mr. myler is angry because he knows that mr. taylor is blackmailing your company. that's fair, isn't it? >> it's hard for me to testify, mr. jay, to what mr. myler thought in a conversation with tom crone and julian pike.

>> this is crane reporting back to pike. and crone is reporting back. mr. myler's view at the meeting, isn't he? >> i don't know. >> what else could it be, mr. murdoch? >> if it says here that miler was moving and not wanting to settle, that wasn't always communicated in the meeting. stronger vices settle the case is suggested. >> but this is a strong indication that mr. myler was getting extremely hacked off by all of this because he felt that he and the company got the wrong end of the litigation, which was amounting to blackmail, frankly. you were having to pay far too much money to get rid of it. and that message was communicated to you, wasn't it? >> as i said to you, mr. jay, part of that message around paying over the odds and so forth was not communicated to

me. >> the reason why you ended up paying five or 10 or 20 over this case is because if you didn't get rid of it and you bought it, the revocation of the company was lost because there would be allegations that these activities mr. goodman and mr. mulcaire went beyond? >> i'm telling you that his novel was communicated to me in the meeting. >> it looks as though the people there calculation that mr. myler is doing in his mind and discussed at the meeting. also there was a risk here that even if he did pay off taylor, the silence, which is inquired, might not have happened in other words, there might be further litigation, and therefore your strategy was going to end up in shreds in any event.

that must've been discussed at the meeting. >> all of those things discussed, mr. jay, if the purpose was to greet me and bring me up to speed on all of these allegations on the whole story in 2006 from years before i was there, then it would've been a much longer meeting and it would've had an outcome. that was different. >> maybe not, mr. murdoch, this is correct. you wanted to think through the options. there is no need for a longer meeting. you needed time to ponder what to do next. >> i think, frankly, the purpose of the meeting and the agenda was to go through all of those things. the goodman allegations. the history of the litigation. the prosecutions from 2006 and 2007. it would've led to end would've been a longer meeting. they wouldn't have been trying to settle ahead of it. they would've told me as soon as they had the evidence.

>> now, do you accept at least the possibilities here -- either you were told about the evidence which linked news of the world to mr. mulcaire, and this was in effect, a cover-up, or you you were not told order you didn't read your e-mails properly. and that was a failure of governance within the company. do you accept that those were the only two possibilities? >> i don't think that. it was very, very -- i think, i think i've been very clear on this point. what i was told at the time, the eagerness that these people had

to settle this case, as you've mentioned, and i was told sufficient information to authorize them to go and negotiate at a higher level are, and i was not told specific information to go and turn over a whole bunch of stones that i was told had already been turned over. i was given repeated assurances that these practices -- but the newsroom had been investigated. but there was no evidence. i was given the same assurances as they gave outside. i have been very consistent about it. and i don't think that short of knowing that they weren't giving me the full picture, i would've been able to know that at the time. >> moving onto july 2009 -- >> just before you do that, let me ask this question. this is -- this goes to the

issue of culture, which i think about. have you been told that there was a lot of mud going to be thrown and it's going to be very unpleasant and therefore there are reputation risks, which we think you ought to be aware of. on the other hand, the amount of money being sorted unchecked -- ludicrous. i'm interested to learn what your attitude is, not necessarily what it would've been, but is, to buying authentication risks with more money than would otherwise be

justified. >> my attitude would've been to find out the facts around what the mudslinging was. my attitude would've been to say let's understand those allegations. let's see -- show me that those are wrong. and so on. if you go to 2009, the company and as i said, the company did see some of those allegations come. asserted that investigation had been done, and so on. it would've been to the point that mr. jay was asking, governance failure or not, i think i would've.the same answers. it's all been done, the police have said there is nothing there. by the time i arrived, the whole issue of 2006 and 2007 was packed away, if you will. the company's defense, that it

was a rogue reporter that had been investigated and the police closed the case. it was already and had been firmly in place for a while. >> i was asking for your reaction is responsible for running the overall company -- the overall running of the company to overpaying litigation to protect the company from reputational risk. >> i don't think you would want to do that. i would think you would want to pay to settle and make others court settlements. make out-of-court settlements. with respect to confidentiality and for a variety of reasons to be interested in confidentiality -- out-of-court settlements are not unusual. i wouldn't do that. what i would be concerned with is respect to reputational risk,

what its nature really was, and to try to understand the real facts of what was going on around the place. >> that is what i would be concerned with today. >> the eighth of july in and the ninth of july, i think that was drawn to your attention at the time? wasn't it mr. murdoch? >> i was weighing the united states at the time, but i did get a telephone call about it. >> didn't you make the connection between the allegation and your involvement in the events of the 10th of june 2008? >> yes, i did. >> and what did you think? i asked the question. is this true? what is going on? and the answer came back. and the answer was that it wasn't true, that there was no

evidence. this has been investigated to death and a smear. and i think you saw the statement made by the company at the time as well as by the police at that time. at that time i have just -- the new chief executive had just been appointed for news international. the handling was in london and i was not there. >> didn't mr. [inaudible] reiterates you in july 2009 what the reasons were for the settlement on the 10th of june june 2008? namely that we have to pay this man so much money because he is a risk to the company? >> no, they came back and said these allegations are true. >> what was your reaction to the select committee report in february 2010? which stated the fact that it

was inconceivable that mr. goodman acted alone? >> again, at the time, managing the select committee and the communications and all the things around news international was not my direct responsibility at that time. there was a full-time chief executive in place. my -- my reaction was what the company communicated. it seemed to be over the top. this was politically motivated, and something that i was clear about. my regret about. we should've taken that report more seriously. >> were you aware of the settlements in march 2010? >> i was aware in small detail. >> it was a large amount. it was a million pounds. >> there was, to my understanding, i was told there was a litigation pending with mr. clifford, but that it was decided that there was really

key and chief executive wanted to establish some relationship in the past, and that it seemed better to focus that instead of on the litigation, and that is my limited understanding. >> in january 2011, as a result of the disclosure process in the litigation, he became aware of the report of defense. >> yes, there was a disclosure in the litigation. >> was there anything about this with news international in particular with mr. myler? >> there had been discussion leading up to that litigation happening. and the question of risk. the company had many months before so that if any evidence emerges in the civil litigation, the company will ask the --

asked decisively. i was not present with discussions with mr. myler at that time, but i can check that. >> we have a select committee who you say ought to be -- you made a very serious point. in july 2009, your immediate reaction was to rubbish that. in your mind. here, evidence was coming out, which showed all these select committees might be right after all. do not cause you any concern? >> it is common concern. it did cost concerned. everything coming out in the settlement was concerning. i insisted that the company open

up an investigation to act against the employees that were implicated. and to immediately suspend them which was done before the new year. and to also bring in new council to get to the bottom of what was going on. is and as soon as we have that evidence, that is what we did. >> do you feel that less time -- that it is a cultural problem,. >> i think that -- i wouldn't say that in international newspapers, that is not to excuse it. i did sense in the time when i

was involved in these newspapers that the culture between these papers was very tribal. and the competition is seen as gains. and that might lead to a culture where being too aggressive, knocking back allegations are not being estoppel and forensic about allegations -- that's why, if i think about one of the big lessons learned here, is that no matter where something comes from, even if it is a commercial rival or someone who has a political bribe or whatever it is, that this passion and forensic -- those circumstances don't make an allegation untrue. it is very important to. >> do you feel in hindsight that this is characterized by a slush bucket attitude to risk? >> i don't think i would say

that. i do think that knowing what we know now, about the culture and in 2006, for example, and also the widespread nature of these poor practices, that must've been cavalier of the rest. it is something we have to have systems in place to try to make sure that it doesn't happen in the future. >> moving on now to a topic, which is dealing with politicians. the best way to do that is to. [inaudible] the meeting. >> we just have 10 minutes of a break. >> mr. murdoch, meetings with

politicians, jrm, within the folder, you have a copy, mr. murdoch? >> did you have a conference call with mr. blair in 2005? >> that is my regulation. >> you say possibly there were rumors going around that the forecasting rights in regards to the league would be split?

>> there was number of -- at that time, there were a number of, i wouldn't say rumors, there were a number of interesting parties who wanted to see the european commission intervention and football selling, which is intervention against the league itself to be changed again. >> but that would have direct and obvious conference untrimmed consequences, would that? >> yes, i recall the conversation -- a little bit, not exactly. i think it was a normal appropriate, legitimate business advocacy. there were a number of party untrimmed purposes among others who thought that a further intervention into the otherwise vibrant sportswriters were unnecessary.

>> business advocacy could also be described as lobbying? >> yes, it could. >> it could also be described as a private conversation with the prime minister, speaking about the concerns about your company. >> i think that that is not so much the commercial concerns, but yes, i think it would have been entirely consistent with the public statements that i or the company would've made. nothing in communicating additional would've been inconsistent with the company's view of further intervention into the market. >> was the purpose of the call anyway to bring mr. blair on the side, in the sense that if the european commission did intervene, then the british government should avail?

>> no, i think it was just -- i would've said it was just to make the prime minister aware of these issues. it is a major british franchise, but while playing. and it would have been unfair whether or not he was aware of some of the -- what some of the proposals that were flying around were like. that is all. >> you wouldn't like specifications to make a direct request of the prime minister, he would probably ignore it. but you are subtly communicating, are you not? your concerns on behalf of the company. in making it as sure as you can be. would you agree? >> hopefully, for senior policymakers, it was to make him

understand that some of these policies might have adverse consequences for british football. english football in this case. >> certainly,. [inaudible] >> it is important to notice that the european commission's work was really around the way that the league fell. the structure of the auction itself that was the concern. >> when we look at jrm nine again, is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. the middle one, the 15th of december, i don't remember that he would have -- you know, that he was telling me about the economy. and the like.

>> when was it in 2009 that you begin to hatch the idea to acquire the remaining shares? >> it was probably pretty late. actually, i remember there was a meeting in the summertime about it in los angeles. that is where it was coming and starting to come together. thinking would it be possible to do that. >> i will come back to that. mr. cameron, it's probably best to deal with this chronologically. that would be meetings with the opposition. we can see a number of meetings. this is page 02863.

in 2001, 2006, 2007, and 2008. who is mr. appling 10? >> i don't remember. this was assembling business leaders to listen to their editorial attitude. >> did you have any doubt about mr. cameron to be prime minister >> i don't think i would've thought about it in that way, really. i met him on occasion. most of these were at social events or dinners that are had. seasonal events. he would have, as the leader of the opposition, in and speaking to anyone around the media, would've been advocating the

rightness of his ideas, i should imagine. >> the purpose of these meetings, it is difficult to understand where mr. cameron was coming from in terms of macroeconomic policy. in other words, was that part of the first meeting? >> in general, i think, politicians generally like to communicate their vision of policies and what they think is the right thing to do both economically for business and society, and they generally try to convince anyone who will listen that they are right and not wrong. >> before supporting this, it would need to be ensured that he was on the right page in relation to macroeconomics he? >> i would think that any newspaper would be considering what pulitzers worm been put forward in making their own judgments.

>> with this directly affect your company and companies? >> not really. i would not have raised specific things, other than consistent -- my position on industry policy and things like that have been pretty consistent. >> [inaudible question] >> i think generally, it is more generally an approach to enterprise end not so much macroeconomics, but an approach to business and how businesses work and how they create jobs and the like. >> why wouldn't you want to know about those matters? >> the purpose of these meetings weren't necessarily to find out. they were discussions on a broad range of subjects from foreign

policy to other subjects. >> i'm sure you wish that it would be to the commercial advantage of your company, and some would say your duty, to find out where mr. cameron led the opposition on these matters, wouldn't? >> i think the policies that these political leaders espouse, they generally do publicly. >> well,. [talking over each other] >> of course, it is in the public domain. mr. cameron is in the public forum. wouldn't you also, when you find out privately what he might say, moreover, he might tell you more. >> mr. jay, what you're getting at is some sort of a judgment about political leader with respect to specific legislation or policies, around our business, that is not the way i do business. i would've been interested in flattered to be invited to

dinner that the leader of the opposition was asked, and it would've been curious as a person to listen to what he had to say about a variety of topics. >> when the bid was hatched in the minds of the new score, in 2009, didn't you have intellectual curiosity that it would be interesting to know where mr. cameron stood on matters of regulation? that might have an impact on the bit of that in court? >> we get assessments of the regulatory risk, but that is a legal assessment on what a protest might look like. would there be regulatory or competition issues. it was not a political calculation around that. the legal risk would've been established, and we would've made a judgment on that basis. >> with a company as sophisticated,. [inaudible] couldn't you do to calculations,

one on the basis of a tory government and one on the basis of a labour government. >> not on the specific to any regulation or anything like that. >> certainly you would look at the general political direction a country was going in, as we would with any place. if it is turkey or india or wherever. to see if this is the place where our enterprise can be pursued. >> [inaudible question] in relation to two united kingdom, particularly as an election is coming up, how is this going to play out, despair, and on one hand you have cameron and on the other you have brown. >> with respect to the proposal of the bid, the idea to bid for the shares, that wasn't part of it. it was a few later on when it was thought that it was likely that we might attempt to do

that. to not try to avoid becoming a political issue in the middle of an election. but not with respect to what the likely or possible outcomes of the election were. >> mr. murdoch, a bid of this sort, it is on two levels -- there is the legal analysis were you may be advised that your case is strong. and then there is the political damnation, which is however good the legal cases, we still have to get this through because of the opposition we might face. on the political stage. that sort of discussion must've taken place, must it? >> it takes place with respect to what sort of regulatory scrutiny and transaction will come under. you make assessments around that. on the regulatory side on competition competition issues and we were confident of the case.

we were aware that politics would influence arguments. but we rested on the soundness of the legal case. >> your evidence to this inquiry, you thought that a neighbor government reelected in 2010 would be more favorable and well disposed to the bed then a new conservative government? >> i don't think governments approach to the bid was something that was necessarily high on our mind. there would've been between new york and london -- we had legal and public affairs executives working tightly on this. they made an assessment that from a regulatory perspective, there was, you know, it was a sound transaction and that we would be able to get it through. it was a question about how long it might take.

what sort of references were made, would go to the competition commission or not. that would impact the link of a face to transaction, for example, but it was more duration instead of likelihood of completion that we were concerned about. >> in september 2009, you had drinks with mr. cameron at a place called [inaudible name]. the topic of discussion was some proposed endorsement of the conservative party. do you see that? >> yes. >> wasn't made clear to mr. cameron that he would be endorsing the conservative party? >> it was made clear to mr. cameron that -- that autumn, moving away from its traditional or recent support of labour, as it has been through the summer.

>> that must've been quite the news to mr. cameron. >> it seemed that way. >> you discussed the timing. >> we discussed the end of the conference season, and as it happened, the editors wanted to see what things came out of the conferences, particularly the labor conference. what they would say. >> in the discussion that they would endorse you, at that possible moment, the worst possible moment to mr. brown, at the labour party conference. >> i don't remember this passivity of that. but it was the day after. it was the article more focused on labour record that it was endorsing the conservatives.

>> it was really about the labor's record. .. ..

page 0284 petraeus pnac i think actually more politics just leading up to an election is more the topic. i don't believe we've discussed any specific regulation and certainly if anything came out it would have been entirely consistent with the public advocacy i had undertaken at that point. >> the house we have record in may of 2010 we had two meetings in pages 0295 relaunching at checkers with your family in november of 20101 who may accept the general social conversation. you don't recall any discussion of these do you? >> no, not at all. estimates on the 23rd of december, 2010, there was some

discussion according to the statement on the 3.19. can we just be clear about this occasion at the home of mr. and mrs. brooks. >> was the 23rd of december at their home. how many people were there? >> i can't remember the exact number but was in the teens. maybe 15 people. >> it was two days after the revelation that he might not be approaching with an entirely open mind what in that way. >> it was two days after he had been removed with respect after showing an acute biased. >> fair enough, mr. murdoch. so, the issue was very much in

your mind on the 23rd of december, 2010, wasn't it? >> it was a big question on what would happen, and forward the there was no discussion with mr. cameron other than as id tilden my statement which is simply to he reiterated what he said publicly which is that the unacceptable and i imagine i expressed hope things would be dealt with in a way that was appropriate and judicial. our only concern during this period is the correct and appropriate legal test would apply to this transaction and i would have said it to anyone that would listen. but it was a tiny side conversation ahead of the dinner were all these people were there so it wasn't really a discussion if you will. >> just a few moments is that right? >> that's my recollection and included here for completeness.

he resigned the chief secretary of the treasury the 29th of may, 2010. presumably after it was announced, is the right? >> yes, yes. >> the purpose of the discussion to see if the liberal when democrats coalition could be on the side. >> not so much brought on the side. i had been attempting and requesting to meet with the minister mr. ki will in charge of the portfolio, its of the enterprise at in this area that the politician himself from the secretary of state holds the responsibility to make the decision and it's not a question of the regulator, independent body or anything like that it's the secretary himself who can do that. i have been requesting a meeting with mr. cable. i was told wasn't able to have a

meeting with his of losers in the team as well to talk about the transaction. so, i -- our people i think reached out to his advisers to suggest that we talked to various liberal democrats. >> can i ask a general question about the timing of the bid. we know what is in the public domain the new score approach regarding its interest in acquiring the publicly owned shares in june, 2010 is that correct? which is one month after the election and began the previous year. was it part of the news strategy to at least wait until the outcome of the election? >> i think it was to wait until the completion such that a transaction of this size didn't become a political football, and the dow was the goal. the primary driver for the

timing was the affordability of it being able to do it. we had taken some time to husband our resources carefully. it was contemplated it would be a cash offer and it took awhile to save up if you will over a number of years. also there was a gap because in 2,009 recall the financial crisis, the uncertainty in the environment, large-scale merger is in the activity was a hard thing to get your head a round. furthermore, in 2009, and forgive me, but it's important because every summer the independent directors meet together to talk through long-term strategy and the like, and we want to do it ahead of the time the board was scheduled to have a few days together so it could be done completely and properly with the board.

>> you said you needed to save up over a number of years, is that right? >> the company did. >> it was at least an embryo in the number of years wasn't it? >> and 09, late 09 where we started to have proper discussions about it was where we were but it was in 2007, the company acquired dow jones and to contemplate a transaction of this size in the immediate aftermath and given what happened in 2008 with respect to the global financial crisis would have been difficult, so and 09 and in ten we realized this is something that we can actually do. >> there's a difference between aspiration and reality but an aspiration, they had been on the radar for a number of years. as the mcginn was more than on the radar. some 20 odd years ago.

>> what i mean by that is the acquisition of the publicly owned shares and that had been on the radar for a number of years. stomach it had been in operation since the merger. >> when i refer to the outcome of that election, part of your calculation, wasn't it was a preference at least for the victory. >> i don't think it's controversial to say that generally speaking with respect to an approach to enterprise, the free market and so on that the conservatives try to make the case that they were the better option for that. >> have you committed the sun to the conservative party on 30 of of september, 2009 not the desirable outcome had there been a victory at least with regards.

>> if that's what you're saying i've never made that sort of calculation about what the newspapers did. it just wouldn't occur to me. islamic you describe that as a calculation but do it noted the sophisticated calculation of preference for the particular general election with regards to what might work best wouldn't you? >> it might be best for the kurdish economy that would lead you to the view that you were happy or less happy to invest and i will tell if my personal politics matter but i would have been my view, yes. >> we know from the witness' statement there are 3.21 if you had telephone calls to or with mr. jeremy, secretary of state in the culture media olympics

and support on the tenth of november, the 15th of november, 2010. 0.262. you also say you don't recall whether the conversations really did. is that correct? >> there would have been a number of agenda items for the minister for the culture media and sports and that the company, the minister would have sought much of it from the industry the general and that is where it was. he didn't have any authority with respect to the transaction not that time, but if i did say anything it'll only would have been to seek assurances that the appropriate legal test was applied and it didn't become a political issue.

>> this was a dead shortly after the european intervention notice, wasn't it? >> i can't remember the exact date of the notice but i do -- the european intervention notice was the fourth of november, it wasn't long after him, was it?

mr. hunt was of course the huge ally of news international. >> i wouldn't describe it that way, i don't think so. >> on the personal web site you've seen that, haven't you? >> yes, i saw it. >> like all good conservatives, for the contribution to the house at which -- >> i don't think you have to be an ally to conclude that. in fact -- >> there's a bit of the opinion wrapped up in that. the contribution has been significant. i think the point i am making it very gently is mr. hunt was on the side it's true that he did not have the jurisdiction over

the bid in that way with the secretary of state, but the purpose i would suggest to you is to see if he could hire the wheels of it isn't that right? >> i don't think so. i don't remember those particular calls, but i think there might have been the desire among the process and what we were hearing. it might have been to say to talk about everything from the next generation access to others that don't have the record in front of me. one call was about a meeting of that he canceled the last minute, and i think that he apologized for having to cancel a meeting because the lawyers told them but i don't know if it fits one of those. >> if you can look at 53 in the bundle that we prepared for you on page 09162, the record of

earlier meetings with mr. hundt before the recollection. >> 53 did you say? ti in my version of the bundle. it might be 52 in your version. i will give you time to find buo it's in the list of the meetings -- >> in the electronic system. tht >> the first meeting october 09 you discuss things, didn't you?r >> i think he -- there is a>> h whole agenda of things that were discussed. >> and was one of them isn't it? been a gets on the list, yes. estimate the next meeting february, 2010, the new communications act, media regulations, do you recall

anything about that?e recall >> if it was the opposition government, the opposition view th tat they were going to think heout in the first term and thet communications act and even the labor government talked about updating the communications actb as well.d-about this would be the normal agenda describing what his agenda was on things like the local tv network, piracy, copyright, l next-generation access, etc. and i think that he was on the record saying that he wanted to look at the system of regulation as well. outcomte of the last item of the agenda is the structure of government. that also was discussed. do you, previously to this come persuade mr. hunt to drop the policy to the bbc license fee?

>> i never thought it was a good idea. i have been very consistent about that and very transparent. if i were asked, and i might b have been at that meeting, i would have told them my views which is that it's not a veryewt good idea and it's better to keep in intervention and t concentrated and measurable wha was the same position the bbc had else well. >> later on after the election and, in october, 2010, there was a licensed the settlement where i think the upshot was the licensee was proven for a number of years. was that something which you discussed with any member of the anservative and a coalition government?he >> i don't remember if i -- i don't remember if i did. but if i did, i would have said that they should have gone have through a proper process comeshh

the schedule of removing it was the following year when theyceso could have consulted with the wn industry and stakeholders andou they didn't do it. widely with i was upset when they announced that settlement. >> regardless of the process, was there an outcome 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 determining receive them to be such him slightly hostile to the interest of the international news and would you agree? >> i think it's important not to conflict news international and news corporation. so, my primary engagement was around british sky broadcasting and the relevant regulators since they were set up to it and

it's fair to say we have made. extensive submissions to this point that we had issues with their analysis, and i have included that in my evidence. >> once mr. hunt acquired the responsibility ed adjudicating on the bid can you describe thes formal meetings with him, the first is on the sixth of h january, 2011, which is jr m fivejanuary 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