attempts, public affairs executive often tries to report back what he hears. people call around topical issues and if there's a transaction particularly the regulatory or policy outcome that could be bad, intervention or something like that and the public affairs executive is a point person for those officials to have discussions. >> as we move through this bundle, none of your supplies, the reason being difficult to prepare the bundle which includes them. they will be published on line as soon as possible. none of you have any interest apart from what will come in due

course. the next page, mr michele, deron me just called. looks like mr. hunt speaking directly to mr. michele. >> i don't know -- i wasn't on this -- i am not copied on this e-mail so i don't have any direct -- this is mr. jacobs who was the general counsel and closely involved in the regulatory and beagle process. european level, general counsel, regional and regulatory affairs lawyer for europe as well. >> looks as if you had a chat with mr. hunt on the fifteenth of june of 2010. >> yes. that corresponds to the record that we saw earlier.

>> believe so. it is not critical. would this be discussed during that shaq? >> a don't remember. >> it was in those days around the announcement of the bid. i would be surprised if it weren't and i would have taken the same position we have taken publicly that i took with anyone who would listen. >> next page 01465 removing to the twentieth of july twenty -- 2010. if you are not involved, it was copied into you, mr. murdoch. we can see what mr. cable was apparently saying or reported to say by people close to him. very keen to be seen as a pro competitions secretary of state. too much regulation. on our particular issue,

strongly believe that the market situation would have any impact on plurality. the mr cable changed his mind and he was flatly wrong. >> i think he actually said later on that all of the advice that he received illegal the official led vice -- advice was clear that there were very clear issues in july of 2011. i was submitted in evidence on the freedom of information request the advice from his adviser at the time which drew the same conclusion after consultation with outcome, that was the advice he got an later reviewed -- referred to receiving other advice. i don't know what it was. informed him to act differently. >> next page 01646,

september 15th, 2010. to your advisor, relates to a blog that mr. robert passed and put on line to the effect that it was expected to review news corp. bid is for the sky which would be of concern to you or mr. michele is saying jeremy hunt is not aware and thinks it is not credible at all. he is checking now. mr michele is finding out to mr. hunt or his specialist adviser watch mr. hunt's view about this blogger. are we agreed? >> it seems he is trying to find out where mr. heston's information is credible. it is important to put in

context during this time i was repeatedly seeking an official meeting with mr. cable so that i could make the legal case and give the business rationale and we were not able to have that meeting so we had very limited meetings communicated. >> the way you did communicate was through your cheerleader mr. hunt to find out what is happening around the state. >> that is unfair. mr michele is a diligent public affairs executive communicating with many people across the political spectrum as is evident in this exhibit. >> he picked that mr. paston, and seven minutes later was reporting to they cms -- dcairmass. >> that is what he would say. >> was some concern. mr michele would have called who he could to find out if it was

true. that would be his job. >> i understand your mindset, mr. murdoch. you weren't getting anywhere, that was your perception. let's find out what is happening with public secretaries who might come to your assistance and that is what you instructed him to do. >> it doesn't show that at all. assembly says this is trying to find out if it is true. >> a couple of pages, 0614 h. >> i don't have those numbers. >> internal numbers. >> thank you. >> this one seems to be out of sequence. apologize for that. should have done this earlier. the twenty-third of in, 2010.

it would be better to meet with you and settle down, in order to avoid any questions on the content of the meeting. >> that is making the point mr. murdoch made a moment ago that he was not able to have a meeting with mr. cable. >> i want a proper meeting that you described before. i wanted to formally make my case to the secretary of state. >> mr michele found out about mr. cable, that 01649, the e-mail of the 26 of september of 2010. >> thank you. >> mr michele spoke to mr.

cable, probably his junior minister. lord buckshot. have a got the right individual? >> i read this to say is lord cokeshot but it doesn't say that in here. >> there was one point particularly interesting. if you look at the second point, he is thinking of immediate plurality aspects of the transaction coloring his judgment. the way sky news handle this coverage, and reference to news of the world's ongoing saga that is strong political pressure over the way the murdoch --

treated his own policies of labor over the past 12 months. looks as if a strong political flavor was entering into this process. >> it was alarming because in none of those three points have anything to do with the proper legal tests. the question of sufficiency of plurality. >> it is said to be part of the risk he took. away your press treated labor for the previous 12 months is not exactly favorable. all the more reason to service victory and not have concerns that occurred. >> it was perfectly reasonable and appropriate for me to have an expectation that a government

minister acting in a quasi official will would take into account appropriate evidence and apply the right tasks and not get into this stuff. you can call me naive but i thought these senior ministers were serious people who tried to do their job. >> absolutely key. you have one government minister who said i don't like the way the murdoch press behavior and i will hold that against them. and another government minister, mr and, his thinking is exactly the converse to mr cable and that is part of your calculation. >> i don't think there's anything in mr. hunt's communications that would suggest he did anything other than apply later on in this process when it was negotiating the undertaking that at every turn mr. hunt took the advice of

the independent regulators at every single decision point. >> the point i put to you didn't really answer your calculation at all. you told us your outrage in relation to mr. cable, yet the obvious converse is you expect someone you did support to show you favor rather than disfavor. >> i am sorry. that is absolutely not the case. the question of support of an individual newspaper for politicians one way or another is not something i would ever make to a commercial transaction like this nor would i expect political support one way or another translate into a minister behavior in an inappropriate way ever. i wouldn't do business that way. >> ok, mr murdoch. page 10, page 01651, you won't

send it. just one of the points here two thirds of the way down. it says all of the coming weeks, go through the impact of the transaction is the key sins it was made clear that the media agenda has had a very negative influence on the decisionmaking process. maybe mr. loss was part of that briefing process? >> again, i can't remember the date of the meeting so i don't know. but certainly we were advised.

this was mr. cable's adviser and his advice being given and he was advising saying the way i read this is mr. cable hasn't seen the arguments in details but he is taking a political view. this adviser says i advise you to brief the key attempt to coming weeks. this is coming from vince cable's adviser. that is what mr. michele would have tried to do as a public affairs executive to try to be reactive to the advice he was getting on the secretary of state's people. [talking over each other] >> say 2:00.

>> the answer came add 01659, page 80, which did go to you.

mission accomplished. this is to mr. michel. former sky -- [inaudible] were contacted mr. cable, rather than getting in political games, in times of austerity and very difficult economic environment for those areas. he also emphasized the opportunity to mr. cable to show -- partners working for long-term and will draw from the coalition government. then we can see the second political point. very keen to also put these issues across to cable. recall with you tomorrow, wednesday, the scottish press on the economic importance of news corp. for scotland. i think you did have a conversation with them, did you,

mr. murdoch? >> i think i did, but mr. jay, i think you characterized, page 18, the note that starts mission accomplished on how the answer to to talk to with respect to mr. cable. and i don't think the two are related. for clarity, i think 16 is vincent main adviser suggesting that would lord oakeshott be contacted or other, or, and then this is a separate point on 18, which is mr. michel, who basically started speaking to some scottish politicians where as we discussed earlier, british sky broadcasting is a major employer, to make some of the economic arguments with respect investment. i think we have to recall that this merger was about the creation of a television platform with major operations in the united kingdom. and particularly that meant

potentially quite a lot of operations and an increase in operations in scotland where technical support, i.t., service centers, et cetera were located for british sky broadcasting as an important employer. that's entirely straightforward to reach out, normal for business to reach out to advocate and legitimately the economic benefits of a transaction or business as it were. i don't see that there's anything related to the of the peace in this e-mail. this is just legitimate advocacy. >> teach you through the process of in discussion with alex salmond shortly thereafter? >> i had a discussion with alex salmon at some point in your. making many of the same point as was i'm sure other agenda items. >> speak to we just look at your

page 21, page 801662, you were copied on. vince's adviser just called me. he discussed the state of the process. he promised to make sure -- submissions by thursday afternoon. he will then schedule a face-to-face chat. so i think that's in reference to the adviser was going to read the submissions. indeed, the adviser didn't region, page 22, because the adviser texted mr. michel stating that it was his view you put up a very strong case which would stand you in good stead on this. the next page, 01664, when you

send e-mail on the eighth of november 2010, just four days after mr. cable had issued a european intervention notice. do you recall that? >> yes. and i would note that the previous e-mail i think is on the day or thereabouts when the european intervention notice was put. >> saying that our case with strong with respect to our brief. >> the gist of the e-mail 01664, page 23, this is a call with mr. cable's main adviser, really along the lines, paraphrased, that they didn't want a meeting at that stage between news corp.'s to cable. you can see they also wanted to be able to say it was an independent view, -- we would

like things to be. then we can see that the bottom i also have schedule with others on this. mr. cable was taking an appropriate line, wasn't he, in terms of not wishing to have a meeting? he wanted to have an independent view, would you agree? >> now, i actually think it would been entirely appropriate, and the reason i thought it, driving meeting with mr. cable and his advisers to be able to lay out some of the issues, as we saw them, and to be able to lay out both the rationale for the transaction and also our analysis of the relevant around and competition concerns. it's self evident in what emerged over the next 12 months, namely, i guess it was december when he was removed in an interview he made afterwards,

that he was taking other peoples advice, which is very frustrating because really, you know, all we wanted to do was be able to sit down in a proper way and say, here are the issues, you, the secretary of state should consult on this and you should be listening, we know you will be listening and inform all the noise row, please let us make our case. >> page 24, 01665, mr. michel to you, mr. michel had a meeting with harrison who i think as we established before lunch is a special adviser to mr. george osborne, is that right? >> that is what he said earlier, yes. >> this was a way into finding out what was going on at a high level, and we can see that from the text of the e-mail. firm tensions in the coalition around his cable and his current

policy positions, this made a political decision. this is the issue of the intervention notice, probably without even reading the legal advice, as confirmed was also by vicki price and david lord yesterday. do you think it's appropriate, mr. murdoch, that here you are getting confidential information as to what's going on at the high level in government? >> i think, i think that, what i was concerned with here was the substance of what was being communicated, not necessarily the channel by which it was being communicated. mr. michel's job was to engage with special advisors at the political level, with westminster to put it broadly, that is what a public affairs executive does. he reports back what he is being told. and at no point in here did he or the company put forward, you know, anything illegitimate or

inappropriate. i was concerned here with the substance of what i was doing. i thought you're about to ask do you think it's appropriate to the decision without reading any of the legal advice. >> that stinks for itself, mr. murdoch. >> that was the thing that stood out to me in all of these communication. it was the substance of what was being communicated more than reflecting on the channel. >> maybe this is your view, and i'm not saying it is right or wrong, but if he is prepared to speak to mr. michel, and speak indiscreetly, that's a matter of mr. harrison, but mr. michel simba doing his job? >> mr. michel is reporting back what he is hearing, in some cases he is calling people on others as you just refer to him in the, he's receiving telephone calls unprompted. and channel of communication exists that is just additional to really the important channels, which were voluminous submissions that we are making to the secretary of state and to his people, and to whom ever

else asked for the. >> from the enough, mr. sam and dashed mr. sam and -- i would like to move forward please do your page 26, two are buried there 1667. >> yes. >> fifteenth of november 2010, jeremy, that's jeremy hunt, tried to call you. it looks as if mr. hunt was trying to call you, mr. murdoch, directly, is that your understanding? >> that seems to be what it says, that mr. hunt tried to call me. >> he has received very strong legal advice not to miss today as the current process is treated as a judicial one, not a policy one. and any meeting could be referred to and jeopardize the entire process. jeremy is very frustrated about it. secretary is now also being involved. what do you understand by that?

>> i understood that there was a meeting scheduled with mr. hunt, and presumably advisors, and i certainly bring along my public affairs executive. and that it was canceled because of advice that as a minister he shouldn't meet with someone who had an issue before the government. >> what was the date on which mr. cable was responsible to responsibly was passed on? >> a month later. december. >> thank you. and again, mr. jay, you know, i was seeking to have entirely transparent, you know, conversations with policymakers and around the place but because by this point we were obviously extremely frustrated by the things we were hearing. i would also add a lot of the communications that were coming back from government, from politicians, i took with a grain of salt year given the fact we've been hearing many, many times, people speaking after the

sides of the mouth it seems to me and all the key medications we had come up to. >> aside from the point that mr. hunt didn't have carriage of the decision at this stage, it was mr. cable, what you're being told here was that government was receiving strong legal advice. that this was a judicial process, meetings were inappropriate. did you understand that to be the case? >> i understood that was the advice he was getting. it said that he was frustrated, and i was frustrated by it as well because there was nothing inappropriate i thought about being able to advocate a reasonable position, which was that the government should be applied appropriately because, particularly when we heard as a saw and enough before that perhaps that wasn't a process that been followed earlier. >> whatever the position before, mr. murdoch, you were being told that as this was a judicial process and not a policy issue, it was inappropriate to have

certainly formal meetings, and by parity of reason, informal meetings, because that was come have a propensity to subvert the judicial process. spent and i didn't have any in formal meetings. this was, i understood to be that mr. hutt would not be taking direct meeting from here on in. >> so you understood that it was inappropriate because this was a judicial process to have formal meetings with the secretary of state, did you? >> that seems to be what this does. i didn't agree with the point, and i was, you know, i'm not sure which are coming to. i was displeased with the decision. >> the e-mail from mr. michel continues. my advice would be not to meet him today. it would be counterproductive for everyone. but you could have a chat with him on his mobile which is completely fine, and i will liaison that his team privately

as well which suggest if you do it surreptitiously, by direct mobile phone contact, well then no one will find out about it. that's what he is telling you, is in its? >> i didn't take it to mean sententiously. i took a commitment to a small telephone call he wanted to speak to you would be fine. but there was no understand in my mind that a telephone call would replace a meeting that was to be substantive where we could make the case that we want to make. and i'm sure, by the way, there were lots of other things on the agenda to meet with him at the time, most notably the ip review, the next-generation access networks, legislation, all of the normal things that actually we were not able to discuss at all because of this idea that we weren't able to government leaders. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hunt on his mobile phone? >> i believe he called me to apologize for canceling the meeting, but i don't have a specific recollection, but i think that is what is in the

records. >> your reply, which is the one reply which may be relevant, at the time of 1202 time in early afternoon, you must be halfway joking, fine, i will text him and find time. so you were angry speakers as i said earlier i was displeased. >> did you get advice as to what a judicial process such as this amend? and also what would be or would not be appropriate or news corp. to be doing in relation to officials and ministers who were responsible for the judicial process? >> with respect to judicial process, my understand was that the secretary of state had a responsibility to take into account the advice that he was

receiving from his advisers and that they would receive submissions from various parties in putting that forward to him. our only concern in this, and i think a lot of these communications will keep going, we're really around that, around the process itself, because remember, under the enterprise action this was uncharted territory. we hadn't really done this before with the secretary of state doing this. and to the timetables, how many submissions, what other bodies would be consoled and what wouldn't be consulted at different phases, and it was something that, you know, a matter of dialogue with the relevant authorities as we went through it. and that is why i can, what a public affairs executive does is try to have an understanding of those things and keep the process moving along. >> the next few pages, starting at 01668, show mr. michel was also trying to work on the

specialist -- special, partner, advisor, mr. cable, and mr. wilkes who was mr. cable's advisor was saying that that would be inappropriate. >> are on you on pages 27 and 28? >> he refers to example to his being sure that we're both equally interested in staying within the bounds of proper conduct your warning of mr. michel lay off, isn't he? >> but i think mr. -- i can't speculate or i was on any of these e-mails, but actually what we've seen given the process that the department for business innovation and skills have gone through, they didn't want any dialogue and they didn't want, they did what of anyone talking to him about the process because they hadn't had one. >> okay. page 31, 016 -- spent proper

reading of his e-mail requires to go to the bottom. mr. michel is saying to mr. wilk, well, so that means nobody else has spoken. you have not met anyone else, and asking someone, pointedly, and he is responding well it happens the only thing i have, and, of course, we've got to stay in proper conduct, and the top was as i understand, i was only being cheeky in a friendly way. >> and he doesn't back off. -- he doesn't back off. >> the next e-mail that was sent to you was an early evening of the 15th november, page 01672, your page 31, when mr. michel tells you can he just had a conversation with his main advisor regarding meeting they might've had with the transaction given rumors we here.

so he might have a meeting. >> where are you in this? >> i apologize. >> i have the page, just not -- >> i think at one stage, i'm not sure exactly when, there was a meeting between mr. cable and the complainant to the transaction, wasn't there? >> we understand that to be the case, but it is being, they are saying it didn't happen here. this group of people, i don't think the ft, although the resort outside it, and very publicly come together. i think they call themselves and the lines. they capitalized it. and they had a pr firm and illegal firm, that was doing a lot of lobbying on the other side. >> on the 17th of november, not within these e-mails, you gave a speech at barcelona, do your number that? >> it was a presentation at an

investor conference. >> you appreciate that presentation, it was by some a threat to the government over a reference to the competition commission, wasn't it? >> i think it was miscast as that in the uk press. at the time, the initial wire stories and things like that, and i've gone back and looked and played pretty straight, it was simply an argument about the economic benefits and an argument about potential disincentive to invest around lengthy and uncertain regulatory processes. >> it wasn't a gentle message to government to get on with it? >> it was a clear message to say that uncertain and lengthy regular processes were a disincentive to invest, and they made harder for businesses who have a lot of choices to invest around the world. particularly news corporation, to make decisions to invest in those areas where the uncertainty existed but i think any business person would agree

with it. and anyone would take it entirely reasonable to advocate that position. >> page 32, e-mail, mr. michel to you, 19th of november, lord oakshott is told today by cable advisors to approach any meeting with lord oakshott, and intro discussion. is the rubicon the internal company name for the -- >> it was just a project codenamed among internal documents. >> and possible way forward. next e-mail, i had a discussion with hves advisors next wednesday to update on ofcom, the next steps. why was there continual interaction with mr. hutt at this stage when he didn't have a responsibility for deciding that

it? >> i think the view was that we wanted any interested party in policymaking to be able to see the relevant arguments and the relevant submissions given that we were concerned about the process and we want to make sure that the relevant process, the right process and the relevant legal tests were applied. so we were happy to provide documents, argument, official copies of submissions, et cetera, is ministers advisers wanted them. >> the e-mail continues, jeremy has also asked me to send them relevant documents privately. do you know which documents those were? >> i would imagine it was things like submissions, things that were the official documents just that he could have been. but i am speculating. >> do you know whether that happen? >> i don't. i think so because i think, in reading all these the other day, that there are some that say they have written them but i don't know if that's advisors.

>> i move forward to your page 36, our pages or 1677, mr. michel reporting back to you on the second december, 2010. michel has spoken to the advisors about the deputy prime minister and the prime minister. do you see that? >> yes. >> particularly the emboldened bullet point, message coming from the deputy prime minister's adviser on the discussion on the importance to get labour on board, cover with the transaction. that begin is damaging the importance of the political damage, isn't? >> which they were telling us to focus on. >> will you look, please, at

page 38, 01679, 14th of december, in order to understand it is, the 10th of december, 2010 -- [inaudible] identifying the key issues which would need to be addressed in relation to the merger. we know that from another exhibit but we're not going to look at it. now, the right order, from reading these e-mails, can you look at the e-mail first, the second e-mail on page 38, 01679, because that comes first at the time. >> yes. >> that's michel to you.

very good be brief without on the issues but he's pretty amazed i findings methodology and clear process. he very much shares our views on it. we're going to try to find a way for you to meet with him, one to one, before christmas. because we don't know whether that reference to mr. hunt is mr. hunt in person or special adviser, to hear -- do we? >> now. spent this general question, mr. murder, when you're getting these e-mails through, did you -- with all the references to mr. hunt asked of him personally, or did you interpret them more widely as being a reference to his advisor or to his office because i think it is and he was communicating through his office. i would have assumed that in that the minister is busy, doing

all the other things a minister has to do so i didn't assume it was all direct. >> and the next -- >> but i think you can appreciate just, again, the channel wasn't my primary concern your come was the content of these notes which were confirming our concerns, our lease providing other people seem to agree with our concerns about the process. >> well, this time the issues letter emanates, it is anything to do with governance that i think it's an issues letter issued to our response to the second state had made a little while before. the issues letter identified issues, and then it comes out, and then people opine, event out, publishers, and more formal report on and i didn't come until the end of december. this is part of the same process

and gives, gives interested parties an idea of what sort of things they're going to be weighing up and thinking about in terms of how they determine what to do. >> i think we understand it's process. but the e-mail chain going upward, mr. michel, pardon me, it's rebekah brooks. i think mr. michel tasha yes, it is mr. michel forwarding or adding an e-mail to e-mail, isn't it? >> i think it might be a separate one. it's rebekah brooks 13 minutes later sending an e-mail to you and to mr. michel clear that rebekah brooks has spoken to either george osborne or his office the message is -- total bafflement and response.

so you're also getting insight into what mr. osborne thinks about the issues letter, or to speak it may not have been the issues letter. remember there was a general bafflement at ofcom's view, because most people would assume it controlled sky already. >> mr. osborne's list of meetings prior to this, this conversation with mrs. brooks is described as a general discussion, but maybe you can consider that. higher up the page, mr. michel is e-mailing you and mrs. brooks, referring to the back from a spokesman close to mr. gable. i think the feedback we learn on page 39, 01680, at mr. michel

has just spoken to his main adviser, neither date put forward to meeting with vince early january is likely to work since he's out of the country. so there's a possibility the meeting it to january, do you see that? >> i took a lot of the communicate should from the politicians with a big grain of salt because they have been, this is now six months into this process. hadn't been able to get a meeting with a relevant adviser. we heard conflicting accounts of whether or not he was willing to look at al events or not went to look at evidence. we had evidence from ofcom that was hard to understand where they were going. so the whole thing at this point was very frustrating. >> next page, page 40, 01681, mr. michel to you. you just had a chat with the

chief of staff regarding the ordinary process. he was very surprised him and appointed unto him the cable will be attended to take a decision with a lot of political influence. it's a matter for the secretary of state with the statute obligations. it happens that is 100% correct. that he was unclear, therefore, wide news corp. is seeking at the views of people who have no decision in the decision-making process and thinking their view in their case with the political. why were you doing that? >> because vince's main adviser many months before had advised us to do so. >> i can paraphrase, mr. cable was keen to make up his own mind and not being influenced by

anyone, although you were -- >> were separate trying to make the case that a clear process should be put in place around us, and any relevant legal test that is clearly understood should be applied. i don't think that's influencing. that is a let us make the site of the i got one way or the other so he can see, so he can have the right inputs to make a decision. >> okay. page 41, 01682, now the early evening of the 21st of december, 2010, and mr. cables remarks to two persons posing as his members of his constituency but, in fact, journalists, it's clear that mr. michel had spoken to either mr. clegg's chief of staff for his special adviser,

just spoke to me is absolutely furious that mr. clayton was absolutely furious, or his advisor is, doesn't matter which, said cable's comments unacceptable. iran through the cable about to be blackmailed. do you know what that was about? >> blackmail? i didn't -- oh, i think it is because when the comets came out, they had been well, i guess is on tv but also mr. pashtuns, from the bbc's blog, came out and apparently the telegraph who have done the recording of a number of liberal democrats at that time had gotten this recording and then had published it as the fall transcript of without the relevant piece about news corporation. i think mr. cables that

something like, they're under attack from everywhere, and i declared war on mr. murdoch, and he will stop the bskyb transaction. important uses that's the reason why it's good to be in coalition government because they can do things like this as opposed to just protesting opposition. i'm paraphrasing there. that whole piece was left out of the telegraph, and given their prominent role in the so-called alliance against us, you know, that was cause for some, you know, concern of ours and we thought it was pretty inappropriate. >> and then the demand by oakshott. with lord oakeshott, any off copies or what ever it is, there were suggestions made of investing the times and other things like that. that i just wouldn't engage in because i thought that only the relevant legal test should be the matter at hand.

>> well, the reference to mr. clegg's office being furious, mr. cables, is being unacceptable, that must though be a reference to mr. cables remarks that he wanted, he wanted to declare war on murdoch? >> or that he had. i think it was, it was an exposure of acute bias, i mentioned earlier. >> page 42, 01683, we are now christmas eve. mr. michel, you and others, mr. michel just spoke to jh, must have spoken to mr. hunter directly. this is the last of the communications which is mr. hunter directly, according to mr. michel's witness

statement, that he was very happy to meet to be point of contact with them. add-on is special adviser to mr. hunter on behalf of jr am going forward. very important to avoid giving the anti-any opportunity -- to affect the process and find that political level, while also legal teams are in touch. so to be clear, by the series mr. hunt is now being seized with response before making a decision, hadn't he? >> yeah, that's right. and my understanding is this is, we have sought to understand what the right way to liaise with, now that the response that had passed to them and it appeared this was their answer. >> so the answer seems to be well, they can't be direct contact, mr. hunt and mr. moore.com but there can be in direct contact through mr.

michel and mr. himes special adviser, that's right, is in its because i think it is direct contact between mr. smith and mr. michel. i read it to be nothing inappropriate about outages as a people's advisors and their staff would coordinate and communicate throughout the process. >> i'm not quite sure that's what this is thing. what mr. michel is income is very important to avoid giving the anti-in your opportunity to attack the fairness of the process. so he's saying that if there were direct contact, mr. murdoch and mr. hunt, that would give them an opportunity to object to the fairness of the process and i would try to ask them directly if we do on the political pfizer and mr. michel, well then, that risk is reduced. >> but mr. hutt come in january, did meet with me and with all of

his advisor, and those are the meetings you referred to earlier and was a forming process where we can make our case in which is what we always saw. i understand he also took meetings with other constituents in this whole piece from people against the deal and so on and so forth. but that coordination sort of, coordination by staff was normal part of making sure that process moved along. >> mr. himes undertaken to you on advice, formal meeting. we've seen the meetings of those meetings, where okay, that would not intend them, the process. there was informal contact. that would be inappropriate and the way to avoid the appearance of that is that the informal contact take place secretly between mr. michel and the special adviser.

do you see the point? >> mr. jay, i've respect we disagree with a pointer i think is in in from contact with me or mr. hutt or others, would raise eyebrows. they would say what was discussed at center, but you are contact at the political level at you will, at the staff level, process, ran document submissions, around, just to give color around these things that that was something that was acceptable and that was part of the process he was setting up. >> it may depend on what the contact was about, would you agree? >> i suppose we'll. i assume we'll keep going through this. >> we'll see this contact that took place as the months and see. we might, we might begin to see whether they fell into the appropriate locks or the inappropriate box. let's look at the next one. new year's eve, page 43, 01684, you are not party to this one.

jeremy hunt and his chief have not received it yet. that it -- just bear with me. was the ofcom report on the bed, which was published that day. we will let you know if they do today. we already know privately jeremy will not look at this before next wednesday, not to be repeated. so, what did you do choose from that? >> i didn't really. i just defused from this whole piece that ofcom come were keeping us informed and mr. himes office was in a dialogue and we are waiting for this report to be released so that we could digest it and understand what the issues may be. and i think earlier on its head mr. hunt was away or something like that so it probably was just he is a way and he will not read it right away.

>> move forward to page 46, 01687. mr. michel spoke to hunt, well, according to mr. michel statement, we must read that in hunt's office, or heinz adviser, more likely and not mr. hunt directly. but you're getting an insight here into mr. himes thinking. he is relaxed regarding ftp to more. amazed by what is citing the confidential e-mail to guardian there i think related to phone hacking issues, and reuters. and hope they will launch inquiry into. he said were about stand with the still doing the session with cms committee thursday and we

shall not tell anyone. a little bit later on he understands, hunt understands -- >> sorry, we should tell everyone. spent what did i say? >> the opposite. >> pardon me. he understands the cc referral and the potential damage for the day. so this is, this is hunt, mr. hunt part me. inside current state of affairs which you are receiving directly from his special adviser, aren't you? >> as i understand, that this is the feedback that we heard. and i think important thing here is to look at, sand lake is working for the parties against the associated newspapers, british telecom, who else is in there? bbc was the first and they cannot come "the guardian" was

in there. that group of complainants. and what they're doing talking to the cms committee about i don't know, but they were the pr firm advising a plurality on the proposal that we're making. and i think it's important as what that there was lots of selective leaking going on around this time and is burning also slaughters an mating that had been commissioned around the issue of four out of. dealing with incomplete information and we didn't have, we did know what information of the people it seemed that we are told they were seen quite a lot. >> you are also being given confidential information here as hunt discussions, the bottom of the e-mail. we see that. he, that is mr. hutt, challenged on the rationale. had was adamant the threshold was very low. so the only option, he also challenged him on sufficiency a plurality. ed repeated the same concerns which were in the report.

did you think it was appropriate that you receiving inside into private conversations between ofcom and the sector estates because i'm not sure how accurate they were anyways but i told you before, mr. jay, all this was taken with a grain of salt, given what we're going to pick him in the in the event, mr. hutt took everything word of ofcom's advice all the way up until we withdrew the transaction. so it doesn't really, this may have just been coming from his advisor, coloring tried to make nice, while behind the scenes they were just going to follow everything that ofcom and the os he said which in the event is exactly what happened. stick i think you're making the point, one can't necessarily -- the agassi of what appears to be but you did say at that time, did you? >> now, but what i said i've taken all the with a grain of salt. we were given with politicians and we have seen in the earlier e-mails that they were one way and then the next, trying to

have a conversation. mr. michel, who is a public affairs executive, his job is to have that conversation and listen and then come back. >> you look at pages 48 and 49, our pages 01689, and 01690, you see a -- mr. smith said to mr. michel, there's much more formal e-mail, isn't? >> i'm just reading it. >> it could effectively be, be sent and received while the informal, perhaps inappropriate e-mails were looking at previously. do you notice the difference and don't? >> i think this is a formal letter about the process.

which is something we would have, i mean, again, most of these e-mails in here, and as we continue to go through them all really about the process and our concern that the appropriate things were being considered, that they're being considered in the a program way, and that our legal arguments were heard, you know, around the place. this is, this is a large-scale transaction that was in the hands with respect to the decision-making process of the department of culture, media and sport, we're going to get into in a minute, the undertakings in luke that were extracted, the concession, the remedy, if you will, and it was entirely reasonable to try to communicate with the relevant policymakers about the merits of what we were proposing. >> we can see on page 51, 01692,

an example of a rather different e-mail where mr. michel is reporting back on discussions he had with mr. hunt special visor as to what was going to happen next. you are given detail here, confidential bases of timetabl timetables. andy dick, mr. hunt's view of the merits of your case. look in the middle of the page, it says his view, that is mr. hunt's you, but once he announced it publicly he is a stronger i have. that is the undertaking. it's almost came over for the opposition. >> well, it was already came over once we offered it because they had one. we basically said to them,

irrespective of the merits of the plurality conclusion, we will just take the rally off the table by removing sky news, the main issue, the only change in the plurality that was, that could possibly or conceivably be, come from this transaction. the undertaking in luke had removed it because it reboots kindness on the transaction and town. it was a separate entity and would have no change to its ownership structure. so mr. hunt was trying to say now, who's been helpful but by this point he'd already extracted a structural solution that was very, very robust it and on the face of it dealt with a problem. >> yes, mr. hunt is still acting in a quasi judicial role, still hadn't granted you the bid, as it worker and he said you know, what is you is, it's almost came over for the opposition. you understand that, don't you?

>> yes, because the undertaking was stronger and i would've thought that the opposition actually we would've won the arguments with the opposition because they have gotten what they professed to want. spent i'm not sure you understand the difference, mr. murdoch. he said you had a 99% rocksolid case. the difference between you having that view and then the judge who is going to decide the case telling you behind the scenes, the judges of you as well that you're going to win. >> i guess the primary, the primary case that i was concerned with here was whether or not an undertaking would be required at all, given the strength of the undertaking we required. i saw that as large as the end of the process and now this is really just about negotiate in some of the details around the undertaking going forward. >> use -- >> again have been over because he undertaking have been extracted and it was so strong spent i'm not sure that begins to answer my question, that your

answer systematically on the basis is news corp.'s case was a brilliant case. i say let's accept that as a given come but there's a difference between you thinking you had a brilliant case and the judge telling you that you had a brilliant case. and that is what you are telling in his e-mail, aren't you? >> i think there are two cases here, mr. yates spent can you answer yes or no, mr. murdoch? >> mr. jay, i apologize but may i? i think there are two cases you. there was a case that was really about whether or not there was insufficiency of plurality with respect to this transaction completed. and i think that we had a strong case, and they still believe it was a strong case. that case was lost essentially when ofcom wrote its report, which i thought, you know, had lots applause and we submitted lots of work on that and went through it. and ultimately we conceded that we would not be able to win that argument and the case was lost. at this point we enter a new case, right? and the only case really is how

to negotiate the undertakings in blue, and those pieces. that was you started and the undertakings here, they were very strong undertakings. they structurally separate the company. >> i understand that. this is the third time you told us that. i understood it the first time and understand the time but all you're doing is telling is how good your case was. but my point was you were learning the judge also thought it was a good case spent but i was i took all that with a grain of salt because i thought it may have been his office single, it will be fine, but actually all the way through this unit, it was never any inch of, he only just took the advice of -- >> what we see a bit later on, which may resonate with at least part of the truth if not all of it, he understood, understands fully our concerns here regarding the publication of the report and the complication of our firm in the process. but he wants out to take the

heat within the next two weeks. the political heat he wants to be sure. he said very specifically that he was keen to get to the same up, and wanted jail ran to understand he needs to build some political cover at the process. >> which i took to mean basically he did want to take any heat alone. i never met a politician who d did. and he was about to go and do something we would like and he wanted us to be quiet about it while he went out and consulted on the undertaking. >> yes. he said he would get there, and he shared our objective. >> again, all of these things from the politicians you take with a grain of salt. >> if it weren't for the public relations disaster of "the guardian" piece on the fifth of july, 2011, you would have gotten in the remaining shares,

wouldn't you? >> i can't speculate. he never come he never ended up making that decision. >> well, mr. murdoch am you have read these e-mails. i'm sure as close as i have. to win -- the wind by that point was blowing very firmly in your direction, was in its? >> i think, i think the legal test had been examined and the undertaking in lieu was strong enough. i had high hopes would be able to proceed with the transaction. >> mr. hunt's office, page 52, 01693, mr. michel to you subject, confidential, i had a very constructive conversation with jh tonight. please read all bill. confirm would have a meeting with him on the business plan later in the week.

i read on. he confirmed yesterday, go ahead tuesday with the publication of the ofcom report after submission, announced he is looking. he did not say -- [inaudible] he will not say he might accept the statement. but the statement is the public statement, is in its? >> i assume so. >> legal letter on process early tomorrow morning. i have run through it, and he recognizes the strength of our arduous than a special on consulting ofcom and ofcom report publication. so your letter on process before he receives it is transmitted to him or the gist of it is transmitted to mr. hunt's advisor in advance, isn't? >> i think is in terms of updated, this is where we are, this is the letter we're putting together come is the helpful or not? i think it's a staff

conversation, as i understand it, you know, about process. and again, because the undertaking was again, we were sort of a new territory in terms of timetables, in terms of whom mr. hunt had to consult with them how to run the, et cetera come process was at the top of vermont. >> he thinks the ofcom report, a departure from the process, stop by sometime, provide some content to the public debate. a bit later on, he is keen for me to work with his team on the statement through the course of tomorrow and offer some possible linkage to naturally his view. so the public statement mr. hunt is going to put out is one which is going to be a collaborative effort between his, mr. hunt's team, and your team, isn't it? >> i think it's not necessary a statement by mr. hunt but it seems to me a statement by news

corporation that they were tried to influence us in the statement. that's my reading of that. he is keen for me to work with his team on the statement during the course of tomorrow, and offer some possible language. >> i do think it is speed perhaps i'm wrong. that's why i read it when i went through these e-mails. >> didn't you feel by this point that, in effect, although this was going to take some time, this was in the bag? >> i didn't actually pick i was very worried about this transaction because while we have done as much as we could do, it just seemed to be interminable. and the more consultations went on and the longer the process lasted, the more i was concerned. we were, the whole point of the undertaking was to avoid the 32 weeks, or if not more, of the competition commission process. so as it took longer and longer,

the value of the diminished and it was becoming difficult for us. >> it does look, if you look towards the bottom of the e-mail, do you see the paragraph beginning -- >> now, i've just seen that. >> that is mr. hunt statement. >> i just don't know. again, it was a while ago. >> look at the e-mail on page 54, 01695, in the middle of the page, 21st junior, mr. michel to you. confidential, jh statement, managed to get some info on the plans for tomorrow. brackets, although absolutely illegal. what do you make of it? >> i thought it was a joke. greater than an exclamation point there, a wink, it is a

joke. >> it was absently illegal. it was unethical, wasn't it? >> i'm not so sure. look, mr. jay, i'm really not, i have to say i'm not familiar with the sort of ins and outs of westminster protocol, and i know that, you know, the rules around lobbying and all of those bits and pieces are some, you know, some debate. and it's really not my profession but it seems to me, and again as i was going through these, my fundamental concern was that a process is sound and that the appropriate things were being considered and that it was becoming politicized. i think in the context of everything we have seen today in this evidence, that was a very legitimate concern that the company had. and our representatives sought to gain as much information. they could have a dialogue in the right way. they tried to find out things were going. >> let me preview the secretary of state, press statements and

statements of parliament. you were given the gist of it here. we can read for ourselves in this e-mail, can't we? >> a dialogue in the first few pages ago, yes, this was a question of the process going forward, and the outline to us, this is the timetable on tuesday, we'll be there thursday and that's how this process will work. so that both sides could prepare. i understand, i've looked, or then told any, more recently in a judgment, for example, sometimes it's customary for the two sides