do you see that paragraph? >> yes. >> we knew that it was announced mr. blair would leave within the year, and in all probability, mr. brown would be the next prime minister. are you with me? >> i think that was a given, yeah. >> he said to you you remembered the meeting well, and it was promoted. do you see that? >> yes. >> he was telling you it was a decision one that rebecca would be promoted, and two, you would be in line to be next editor of "the sun." >> that's what he was saying yes. >> why did you take that like a pinch of salted as you say? >> i don't believe he would have had that conversation with him. >> why not? he was close to mr. brown,

wasn't he? >> my understanding of how news international works in terms of appointments of editors is he would not have involved any of the conversation, either at that stage, by the way, because it was after that when she was promoted, some time after that, and also, i just didn't believe it. i just -- i came -- i came away believing it was an atestament by mr. brown -- attempt by mr. brown to impress his closeness to me to mr. murdoch, and i didn't believe it. >> it was impressed on you by mr. murdoch, and that was clear, the strong message transmitted to you, but the two predictions were right, with respect they? >> as far as predictions go, it was hopeless. >> certain events had not intruded -- she was promoted.

>> sometime later, yes. >> you refer to mr. osborn, met with him in 2005 -- >> yes. >> did you get along well with him? >> along fine. we didn't spend a lot of time together, but i remember having a cup of coffee with him at that conference. >> there's a story that was in news of the world in october of 2005. >> yes. >> can we understand the context, was the sunday mirror also going to publish the same story? >> yes, i'm not sure which point i was aware they were going to publish the story. >> they did publish the same story though, yes? on the same sunday? >> yes. >> and you could anticipate that

the sunday mirror's position was hostile to mr. osborn, couldn't you? >> i'm not sure that they published it, so i have not given it thought. i think it's a given that the "sunday mirror" is 5 left leaning newspaper they they may have been more critical. >> you knew they had the story, awe owe logically they could only publish it on a sunday, and they published it on the same sunday as news of the world all pointing to the same date, wasn't it? >> i don't know if i knew what point they had the story. >> indeed. was it going to be harmful, wasn't it? >> certainly was not helpful. >> your editor slant on the story was favorable, wasn't it? if you look at what you said?

it's under your tab three, page 02395. on the 18th of october 2005, the story itself splashed over three pages and contains all sorts of details. i didn't think it's necessary to go into now, but, of course, it's there if anybody wants to read it 6789 you were effectively saying that mr. osborn should be given another chance, with respect you? >> i think the leader was saying that here's the information, here's what he says about it, make up your own minds. i think if i were to try to distill the message of leader, the fate is in your hands,

that's how i would distill it, but i would say this. that's the leader column of the news of the world, and as much as i would love to say that the leaders that i wrote were the most read part of the news of the world, i think i can safely say they were not. the front page, and i don't think in any way is described for career enhancing. >> yes -- >> and the idea that we somehow or other is ridiculous when you look at the paper. >> what you do say -- did you personally write this editorial? >> i think i would have contributed to it. i don't know if i actually wrote it. the process is i would have a conversation with another member of staff, and they would write it, and i would edit it or over a view on it. >> whether there's any underlying evidential basis is not the purpose of the question. you say by the 5th line of the

editorial, chancellor was a young man when he found himself caught up in this murky world. do you see that? >> yes. >> you say later on, last week we said the leadership is cam -- cameron's for the taking. of course, mr. osborn was going to be mr. cameron's number two in the event which happened, wasn't it? >> yes. >> this was putting a favorable gloss on quite a murky world, wasn't it? >> it was a view. it was the paper's view. you know, i agree, i'm not sure we should go into the detail of the story, but he was not admitting to anything here. a friend of a friend as i seem to remember so, you know, that was the view formed.

that was the result of the team. taking the time to look at the sunday mirror's leader. they don't call for him to be fired. stops well short of that. it's critical as you would possibly expect, but it certainly doesn't suggest that it's the end of the political career by any measure. >> in the eyes of the world it's a great story, publish it for what it is, but let's gloss it in the editorial and put, perhaps the most favorable interpretation on the sorry. is that fair or not? >> i don't think it is. if you look for an example of news of the world being helpful to the conservative party with the greatest of respects, a poor example because of what matters

here and what the headlines are on pages four and five. as i look at the front page now, i'm reminded that had we not had a dvd promotion that day, this story would have been twice the size. that's, you know, compare that to, you know, the leader column, i just don't think there's holes. >> would you bury the story all together if the mirror were not going to splash it? >> no, certainly not. >> yes, the free dvd was all about little britain. that takes up half the front page. you can see the other half. is standard news of the world splash, isn't it? >> standard necessarily, but it was -- i think i'm right other

newspapers followed it subsequently. still got a reason for not the coverage in the guardian. [laughter] >> were there hints of resignation? >> conversations about my resignation, yes. >> did you have conversations with mr. murdoch before he resigned or not? >> no. >> you concluded your severance agreement, which is under abc1 described # as a compromise agreement starting on page 0 2379, and stated on the 26th of february, 2007. do you see that? >> yes. which i think is exactly a

year -- sorry, a month after you resigned; is that right? >> yes, i resigned two weeks before i actually left. so i resigned -- that conversation i mentioned took place two weeks before i actually left. >> so you went resigning on the basis you'd walk away from any benefits you might attain? residing on the basis you'd leave con sensely; is that fair? >> yes, well, it was my decision. there was no -- there was not sort of a negotiation or a discussion about whether or not i would or wouldn't. i went to see him, and i was very clear i was going to resign, and then i did so. >> now under clause 3, 02380, you received both payment in lieu of the contract period and

compensation for termination of employment, two separate tranches on there. >> yes. >> the last tranche paid in november of 2007. was that standard practice for severance agreement of this sort? >> i never resigned before, so i don't know whether or not this was the format followed permly. i'm told the separating out of payments in this way is a recently standard practice, but i'm not an employment lawyer, so i can't be certain of that. >> there's reference in the agreement, looking at klaus 4.2, 03281, it's a rather complicated clause, but it effectively means the strict stock units which were going to invest in you

august 2007, continued to invest in you notwithstanding your res dation. do you see that? >> yes. >> as of that stage, did you also have stock in news international opposed to news corporation? >> i had shares in news international, which i think i sold before i left the company, before i resigned, and there may have been some shares that i had around this time that i sold immediately on leaving. >> can i be clear? apart from the restricted stock units, going to invest in you in august of 2007, were there any other shares or stocks either in news international or in news corporations? say by may 2007 in your possession? >> i don't believe so, no, no. >> and clause 4.6, there's the provision that the employer will

pay any reasonable professional cost and expenses properly incurred by you. that clause is subject to litigation in the court of appeal, isn't it? >> that's right. >> and under the last clause, under clause 7.1, little b, this is 02382, you agreed in consideration of a small payment, you would not make or cause to be made directly or indirectly any statement or comment to any person including without limitation to the press or any other media which might injury, damage, or impugn the good reputation of the employer, any of its newspapers, or any associated company including any of its directers, officers, employees, or shareholders. has that provision in any way impacted on the evidence you're giving out? >> no. >> do you know what it means? >> i think so.

>> okay. >> when you resigned from news of the world, did you receive any commemorations from mr. brair? >> yes, sometime later. >> mr. brown? >> yes. >> mr. cameron? >> i don't remember doing so. >> you were approached by mr. osborn in may 2007, paragraph 29 of your statement, so march 2007. on page 02412 -- >> sorry, which paragraph? >> paragraph 29. >> thank you. you met for a drink, and he asked you in effect whether you were interested in joining the

team. it goes without saying that he knew that were natural sympathies were with the conservative party, didn't they? >> i don't know. you'd have to ask mr. osborn what he was thinking, but he approached me with the view that i could -- would be a positive asset rather than a negative one i'm sure. >> i think it's obvious that he did know, otherwise he would have gone on with someone else? >> well, in any event, he was correct. >> did you know if anyone else was in the running for the job? >> no. at a later stage, after i started working for the conservatives, i was told that there had been another journalist, a bbc journalist, who'd been -- had a discussion,

i think, with mr. cameron sometime before i was considered for the job, and for whatever reason, that didn't work out. >> this is the journalist whose name came up in this context, isn't it? >> yes. >> what did mr. osborn say that you could offer the conservative party? >> the conversation was really more around my views of, you know, how the party should organize communications in advance of general election. i had no idea at that stage when the general election might be. i gave my views. >> what did you tell him? >> i told him my view of communications was that you needed to be first and foremost professional. that we needed to have good relationships with as many media

representatives as possible, and i also told him in that conversation and again later in a conversation with mr. cameron that my firm belief was that tfertion -- television would play a crucial part in any election campaign. might have done more so than previously. >> you had no political experience, did you? >> no. >> never been an editor of a political newspaper, had you? >> no. >> didn't mr. osborn at least indicate what he thought or the conservative party thought you might bring to the table? >> i was in newspapers for a long time. i had managed the team. i had sort of motivated the team. i kind of, you know, had a hand in running the business, i suppose, in terms of the commercial as pecks of the

newspaper. as i said, not forensically, that was the managing editor's job. i had oversight of it. i'm sure those were considerations. >> with all the considerations would demonstrate, and i'm sure you were a good editor, and we're talking about you being direct with communications with the conservative party and opposition, but what qualities did he say, if any, you might bring to the table? >> i don't know. i mean -- i -- i don't want to be obstructive, but that's a question for mr. osborn. the conversation was not, andy, here's why we think you're going to be great. i don't recall it that way at all. the conversation was very much, what do you think we have to do to get elected? >> well, he -- it was in part, wasn't it, an interview? at what point did he say, "are you interested in the job?" >> it didn't feel like an interview at all. it was clear from the off that they were interested in hiring

me. >> exactly. >> they said they were going to make changes to the professional set up, and that he would like me to meet mr. cameron. >> he already identified you as the man, conservative party wanted, hadn't he? >> i don't think he would have called me if i was very least on the list. >> it might have been an interview. let's see what he's like, ask him a few questions, go and think about it. >> i don't know what was in his mind. >> let's think about you. you're a newspaper man. you're used to selling ideas, selling stories. did you not see the conversation as selling yourself? that's what people do in interviews, isn't it? >> i was not going in as an interview. i went in it with a degree of reluck at that particular time, and so i, --

reluctance, and so i was not thinking about politics until i got the call. >> uh-huh. once you met him, and he was abun adaptly clear what they -- abundantly clear what they were talking about, how did you put your view across to them that actually it might be a good idea to over you a job or maybe you didn't? in the line i described, i gave an outline with the conversation as to what i felt from my experience in the media, the party needed to do to give itself the best chance to be elected, and that conversation touched on print media because that's my experience, but i remember saying later on to mr. cameron that television is hugely important. also, a stunning observation, but one that i, you know, it was very clear in my mind, and i was already thinking in that stage bowel the possibility of tv.

>> do you think if occurred to you, you say you were more intrigued as the conversation went on, you went away to think about it. did it occur to you why are they asking me to do this job? >> possibly it did, but once the first conversation was underway, he said i want you to talk to and meet with mr. cameron, and the process went on from there. >> you're answering and conveying which is different from 17 or 18 years of career, a career in journalism, you end up with the largest circulation newspaper in the united kingdom, and now you're asked to do something completely different. doesn't it pass through your mind, well, why are they asking me to do this? >> well, something completely different. i mean, i've been the editor of

a national newspaper for a number of years that involved politics as we discussed, that went beyond the sort of stories that you talked about. i was dealing with issues. i ran campaigns. i hope, at least aim to be in tune with the readership of a newspaper that's vast or was vast. i'm sure those things were attractive. if i can add, you know, the root from journalism to politics, i was hardly the pioneer, you know, there were several people in through the history of politics who went from newspapers into politics. >> yes. well, mr. campbell was editor of the daily mirror and than communications. that may or may not have been a natural pathway, but you didn't enjoy that previous sort of career, did you? >> no, but one might argue that an editor of a newspaper going

to politics is that appropriate. >> what about your connections to news international? was that mentioned? >> i don't remember that being a specific conversation at that point, no. >> thinking about it -- >> it may have been a conversation about, you know, the fact that i worked on the news of the world, and maybe we discussed some individuals in that regard. i didn't really remember, but i'm sure the conversation would have touched on, you know, my previous employers in some way. >> the elephant in the room, wasn't it? >> not really, no. >> you're close to mrs. brooks? with respect -- weren't you? >> friends, yeah. >> you had a warm relationship with mr. murdoch? >> as an editor and employer, yes. it didn't go beyond that. >> mr. osborn of the conservative party knew all 6 that, didn't that? >> sure, yes. >> you also, if i can put it

sort of everyone -- em pathetically, you knew the version that was particularly interesting to the conservative party. >> that may have been a consideration, yes. >> all of the considerations were ones which certainly passed through your mind, didn't they? >> they may well have. they may well have done for mr. osborn. they did, didn't they? >> i can't tell you what he was thinking. in terms of my thinking, and went into the meeting, and i didn't see it as an interview, it was a meeting with pluses, and my reaction was slightly reluctant, but i was intrigued, and i had further conversations, and then i decided this is what i wanted to do.

>> your statement makes clear, but i wanted to ask you this simple question. did either francis or ed raise the case with you? >> i don't remember, but it's possible. >> you say under paragraph 30, towards the end of may 2007, they, that's the conversations where we started, and clearing the conversation of mr. cameron and others, you were offered the job of direct communications and planning, can i just understand the timing and the context of the last question i asked you? were you offered the job after the conversation which might have taken place? can you remember that? >> i think the conversation for

mr. cameron in may was, i considered in my mind, to be the con confirmation that i was taking the job. it may well be in those conversations leading to that that the process of my joining, you know, either perhaps even an offer letter, i can't remember, or the terms were discussed in advance, but in my mind, the conversation when i was on holiday in cornwall, was the sort of con confirmation. >> you say in paragraph 3 # 1-- 31 of your statement, a conversation you just were referring to. he, that is mr. cameron, asked about the goodwin case. do you remember the gist of your answer? >> i was able to repeat what i said publicly, that i knew nothing about the goodwin case in terms of what they did. >> did the former job offer as

it were follow the conversation in cornwall and mr. cameron wherever he was? >> in terms of the term letter and terms of contract signs, i can't remember the exact time. i think it was -- i think it was afterwards. >> can i ask you about the timing of your conversations with rebecca wade as she was, paragraph 32 of your statement -- >> yes. >> you said at some point i told her and other close friends, in discussion with the conservatives, may have been in may or earlier do you think? >> i can't remember the time, but i know i told, you know, my close group of friends. small number of friends., and i'm sure rebecca was among them that i was going to take the job. >> what was her reaction? >> i think she would have congratulated me. >> was she pleased over not do you think? >> i think so, yeah. i certainly don't remember

saying otherwise. >> do you know whether she had any influence or otherwise over you getting the job? >> not that i can recall, no. >> were there any conversations any day which you had with her that might have indicated she had an influence over you getting the job? >> no, not that i can remember. >> could i just go back, you said you met mr. cameron, and there's not a trap or trick in the question i'm asking, just keen to i understand it. you didn't appreciate when you started to chat to mr. murdoch that it was an interview, but by the time you were meeting mr. cameron, you knee exactly what was happening? >> yes. >> back to the question i asked before. did you formulate in your mind, and did you have to explain what it was that you were bringing

to -- if you like -- the party. what skills you actually could bring to the party? did you sell yourself to him? >> i'm sure i tried to talk in the most favorable light for myself without sitting there being an appalling big head. i'm sure i tried to, in the conversation, i would have tried to impress on them that i could do a good job, yes. >> and what i'm keen to understand is what it was that you were able to point to in your history makeup, and i understand the, you know, boasting, big headed, i understand that, but to demonstrate that actually, this could be acepsble move -- sensible move for them. what was it? >> well, i think it was my bold experience and my experience went across from 1998, you know, when i stopped working as a show

business reporter, i was involved across the paper, in all manner -- both the sun and the news of the world, and, indeed, i worked for nine months on the internet, launching a whole series of websites. i may well have mentioned that. i think, you know, through the conversation they may well have been. i was not necessarily aware of it, but they may be trying to tease out if i was the right man for the job, and that may have gone to my background, and, you know, where i grew up and those things. that's more than possible. >> paragraph 42 now, please, mr. coulson.

you say, news international background may have been considered useful for the conservatives when considering me for the post. it was not specifically discussed as being an advantage. that's your best recollection of it? >>s -- >> it is my best recollection, and i think as i put in my statement, i do remember explaning that my news international background -- this was not suggested by either mr. osborn or mr. cameron. this was introduced into the conversation by me. my news international binged should not, therefore, be seen as some sort of guarantee of the support of either of those papers. >> certainly couldn't be a guarantee, but might be a fact? >> well, my experience might have helped in terms of connecting with news of the world rairds and connect --

readers and connecting with sun readers. >> also your personal connections would help, wouldn't they? >> they wouldn't hurt. i don't take the view, and i don't ever express the view that, so to say, guarantee any kind of support. >> i'm not talking about you expressing a view, but talking about the guarantee. i'm saying your personal connections would have helped, wouldn't they? >> they would, and my perm connections were well beyond news international. >> your assessment, about this time, ms. brooks is becoming a very influential figure? >> she was pretty influential before that. >> okay. even more influential figure? >> quite possibly. i mean, i don't know where she was in terms of her career precisely at that moment. >> still editor of the sun. >> editor of the sun, yes.

>> her star was in the asen dent, went it? >> i was not there, but i think that's fair to say, yes. >> and politicians were very keen to get close to her, with respect they? >> i think it's fair to say they wanted their message across to the sun, politicians from all parties, two main parties. >> in other words, in order to get your message across to the sup, the best lightning rod was ms. brooks? >> i think if you're a politician, you have an opportunity to talk to an editor, you'll take it, and attempt to sell yourself and your party in the best possible light.

>> is that your assessment? >> a strong personality. >> a very powerful personality? >> i'd say strong personality. >> vis-a-vis news of the world, and mr. cameron, you wouldn't get an easy ride from that paper because the editor was sympathetic to the labour party. was that the gist of it? >> i never worked with him, so i couldn't say with any degree of certainty, but any certainty i knew of him, and i knew him sort of briefly. he worked for another murdoch paper in new york, and we'd see each other occasionally at corvetions, but his -- conferences, but my understanding through conversations with him was he was more likely to be left leaning. i don't want to suggest at that moment, impact the decisions he was making, but that was my sense. >> so early discussions with mr. camerons did you discuss

likely support of different newspapers for the conservative party. the message you were getting across to him was that the news of the world certainly was not in the back, is that fair? >> well, i'm not sure i used those words, but i think that was the sort of essence, yes. >> the premise of the conversation was that mr. cameron was interested to know how the news of the world might go at the next election in terms of the support; is that right? >> with regards to this conversation, as i said earlier, this is a conversation that i negotiated. i'm not sure cameron said to me, do you have the news of the world in the bag, andy? this is a conversation that i think i introduced. >> the reason why you introduced it is you field mr. cameron might benefit from your insights; correct? >> no, the conversation went further discussing other papers as well. >> certainly, not just the news of the world, but the sun. as you say also in paragraph 42, i told david cameron in one of our first discussions that he

should not -- sorry, that was news of the world. brooks and i were friends, but, again, i made clerk and was understood that that does not mean that the sun would endorse us so, again, the premise was conversation was, or the interest mr. cameron, that's to you, was how would the sun go in the next election? >> yes, but as i said, i started that conversation. >> the sun in particular was of interest to mr. cameron, wasn't it? >> yes. >> why do you think that was? >> it's circulation. >> not just circulation. it contains a significant number of so-called floating voters, didn't it? >> within the circulation, yes, sir. >> so in terms of thee most important newspaper, if you had to identify one you support political party mind which to

attain, the sun would always be top of the tree, wouldn't it? >> if you wanted to look at it in terms of circulation, yes, because it has the biggest circulation. i took a view that there were a number of other newspapers that we needed to work hard to gape the support of, and circulation was not -- i didn't, you know, look october my working day and analyze it based on circulation. i put a lot of effort into trying to secure the support of the sun. i did exactly the same to the daily mail. i put a lot of time and work into the daily telegraph and other newspapers too. >> i'm not sure i was suggesting that you would lavish all your efforts on the sun to the extent that you would ignore all the others. what i was suggesting the sun was the most important. are we in agreement or not?

>> in terms of circulation. >> on terms of influence on the floating voter? >> i don't know. i'm not sure i necessarily buy, you know, the theory that a newspaper's endorsement will influence readers directly in that way. >> do you think politicians buy into that theory? >> i think that is a theory that's becoming less and less popular amongst politicians. >> the times we're talking about, the runup to the 2010 election. do you think the politicians are still buying into it? >> i think that -- we wanted the support of the sun. we wanted the support of as many newspapers as we possibly could, and we didn't know when the election was going to be, and so work had to be put into that. can i just make a point that i touched on earlier? newspapers were not the only

focus by any measure of our communications. television was fundamentally important, and we were clear that television was fundamentally important to us from the off. >> that's a matter of mechanism for communication? >> yes. >> but television was going to be bound to have to be impartial. >> yes. >> whereas newspapers don't have that -- >> yes. >> that limitation. >> sure, the conversations you have with a newspaper are different than the conversations you have with the bbc, for example, but in terms of planning a strategy, you know, where are the people that you wanted to try to have good relationships with, the people that you would spend your time talking to, where you would try to explain and give the best possible light to your policies, the television was crucial for that. as crucial, i would say, as newspapers and, in fact, as we cut closer to the general election, i'd say more so.

>> can i just ask you, planning your strategy in relation to the print media, other media on the sell, two key elements to this. first of all, you had to do your best to secure this support of the sun in due course. are we agreed? >> that was certainly a name. >> and in order to secure the support of the sun, the best way in, as it were, the best way was rebecca brooks. are we also agree? >> while editor of the sun? >> yes. >> i wouldn't describe it in that way. i was keen, actually, that we had good relationships throughout as much as we could throughout much of the paper. same goes for, if i can keep adding to this, the same goes for other newspapers. it is not -- newspapers don't work that way. you know, you can't -- you can't rely on a call to an editor to guarantee anything, nor should you. what you are attempting to do is

build a serious of relationships -- series of relationships where when you had something positive to say, you give yourself the best possible coverage, and it's a range 6 -- of relationships throughout all the newspapers. >> certainly. you would not wish to ignore any particular newspaper even those you felt were, as it were, less causes. you mentioned the guardian in your evidence. >> that's right. i think the party had good relationships with the guardian. i think i probably wouldn't include the daily mirror in truth or the sunday mirror. awful lot of effort into either paper, but we met and we talked. yes, i -- more importantly, david cameron took the view that we had to talk to as many people as possible. they had -- you know the party had a mountain to climb. it was of his historic proportis

so we wanted to touch as many readerships as we could and get the message across as far and wide as we could. >> do you advise mr. cameron that it was essential that he became as close as he could to mrs. brooks? >> no. >> did he rule that out anyway? >> there was a family connection. she was a constituent. charlie brooks is a constituent of his so they got close to the constituency, and so there is, i think, a fairly long established family connection. i think that was the genesis of it. >> let me ask you about two perceptions, i think they had one of them, the outcome of

elections, and there's evidence without the second perception that there's an implied tradeoff of support. might not be the furnishing of direct commercial favors, but might well be the -- is there a level of perception? >> i don't really. i mean, i think there's in the course of of the election campaign, there were issues that a whole range of newspapers would consider to be important to them, and where our policies overlapped with those newspapers, campaigns, or aim, i would seek to maximize that. in the course of the campaigns,

giving certain promises, you do the best to keep them. we ended up with the coalition government, but that made that a more complex process. >> the prime minister said in july in 2011 said we all got too close to news international. do you recall that, don't you? >> yes. >> he expressed to you before july 2011, particular before you left, which i think was in january of 2011 -- >> no, i don't remember him doing so. >> your statements were in effect, had to persuade him to meet with journalists because it was so important, but do you think he would have preferred to be doing other work or enjoying a night at home with his family? this is paragraph 78. was he disgruntled to you that

he had to spend so much time with journalists and editors and the job as it were? >> frequently. >> was there ever a need, not merely as detracting from quality time from my family, but there's a deeper problem here, the perception of getting too close to the newspaper group or perhaps the newspaper group, the discussions in that sort of frank way. >> not that i recall, no. >> follows then that you must have been surprised when he said publicly in july of 20 # 11 that we all got too close to news international; is that right? >> i don't know if i'm surprisedded. it came after a chain of events. i don't know what his thinking was behind it. i was not there. >> ignoring what his thinking was, just asking what your thinking is or was, do you -- do

you feel the politicians got too close to news international or not? >> well, i look at it from the perspective of whether or not there was improper conversations or a build up in which i think is part of this, sort of grand conspiracy that sits over this idea, and i never, as i said clearly in my statement, i never saw a conversation as party to a conversation that, to my mind, was inappropriate in that way. >> can i suggest, mr. coulson, try not to look at this too literally, and when mr. murdoch gave evidence, he denied many, many times there were no express deals. we're not talking about inappropriate conversations necessarily or express tradeoffs. we're talking about something a little more subtle. don't you agree that there is at least the valid basis for the

perception that this closeness is unhealthy? >> the wort -- word "unhealthy" implies impropriety, and i don't know that i agree with that. i've been out of politics for quite some time. things are going to change. i think things have already changed. i think, actually, that process may even have gup while i was -- begun while i was there. you know, we were the first government ever to be transparent with the meetings we had with the media. maybe that process had already started to kind of enter into people's minds. >> another part of the evidence, he says that it started with the story about the -- if i was making decisions about news of the world staff and their futures on the basis of the failure to stand up or a story being off to another newspaper, three quarters of the staff

would have been under subsidiaries. that's the nature -- part of the contrast of sunday newspapers. in any event, it was a story about whether or not he would be wearing purple shirts. it was not exclusive about who was the next manager of england, for example. >> later in 2006, this is paragraph, 130, do you see that? that's -- >> yes. >> reported to mr. coulson's, and stated by e-mail, mr. wallace stated wants this out as quickly and shapely as possible. do you remember that e-mail? >> in so much as i've been remined of it, both through the

tribunal and again. i asked for all e-mails. i don't know the exact context of it, what came before or followed afterwards. >> i think all the tribiewpal's saying -- tribunal's saying there's a path. if you go up, in the 2006 e-mail, it's consistent. you want this man out. unreasonably, you're bullying him. suspect that the truth? >> no, it's not the truth. the first point to make is in between times, it was clear that i supported him, and tried to get mr. driscoll's news of the world relationship back on track. several months before i sent this e-mail, he instigated several negotiations with the paper. my recollection is that this e-mail wants him out as quickly and cheaply as possible

absolutely in relation to that process. >> okay. so you disagree then with the tribunal's clear findings? >> yes, i do. >> i think that's as far as i can really take that. >> that's all the questions i had for you. anything you particularly wanted to say that we might have left out? >> can i make one point in relation to the theory that there was some kind of deal between news corp. or news international and the conservative party over the issue of this, and can i -- i

just make one very straightforward point. if there was a deal, and if there was a conspiracy as people seem to be suggesting. why was vince cable given the job? it is in the prime minister's gift to decide who, of course, there was the complex nature of the coalition, but it was the prime minister's gift to decide who held which brief in his cabinet. if there was this theory, if there was this conspiracy running that david cameron was going to somehow or the other return the favor to news international, why on earth, did he give it to, and i'll choose my words carefully, a combative member of the liberal democrat side? >> the business secretary in may 2010, was he not? that was in his province a--

announced in june of 2010. >> it was done sometime before. >> all right, well it's an add vo advocacy point rather than a factual point. can i ask a very different question? you probably, if not as much more than anyone else, have no doubt reflected on the issue which is at the core of this particular part of the inquiry which was, of course, set up by the prime minister in july of last year, and the issue is whether the relationship between

the press and the politicians have become either close or no longer entirely conducive to good government, whichever way you want to put it. now whether this happened many years ago, whether it's a consequence of the involvement of those who have been very heavily concerned with newspapers into the heart of communications of government, one could debate, but i would like your view on whether that relationship has become too close so that it gets in the way

, and how that should be addressed if you got a deal on it? >> well, the prime minister himself says he accepts he got too cozy, and i'm not minded to disagree with him. i think it's perfectly clear now, as a result of this process, that the relationships with the media got in the way of the message. let's put it that way. that's abun adaptly clear. what you do with it is much more difficult because i hate to think, # and i'm not suggesting this is on your mind, sir, but i'd hate to think any barriers would be erectedded, more barriers erected between politics or politicians, but politics more importantly, and the press. i think you only have a little bit of a turnout at last week's vocal elections which was low to say the least.

people are disengaging with politics, and if you create more barriers, more difficult for media to report on politics, more difficult for journalists to understand what you're trying to do, that will get an awful lot worse. some say the turnout is because of people os general reaction of what's reported over the last month. i'm not sure i buy that theory. i come from the perspective of someone who worked on both sides of the fence, and i just sincerely hope with respect that the results of this path of the up -- inquiry does not, as i say, erect more barriers between what is already a pretty difficult process. >> well, if you heard what i said earlier today, you would know that i'm very keen on ensuring that politicians have a

mechanism to identify what their policies are and to seek to engaming the public in them and that journalists have the responsibility to hold politicians and others in which i've always included the judiciary toking the for what they -- to account for what they do. the question is how to ensure that happens in an open, transparent, and appropriate way. now, it may be you haven't got an answer, but if from your experience working both sides of the fence you do have a view, it's not going to bind me, so you don't need to worry about it. i'd be interested to hear it. if not, then not. >> well, it is incredibly

difficult. i mean -- one point that troubles me in evidence, if i can say this, come out throughout this inquiry, is the idea that a friendship is always based on some al tier your motive. friends should be able to talk to each other, and that's certainly true in the overlap of politics and the press. >> i'm not so sure that's fair because equally i have said not once, but many times, that politicians are entitled to be friends with people. journalists are entitled to be friends. with people. the question is to differentiate and to be clear about the difference between social relationships and in the form of business. >> yes, i have to say that i

think what's happened over the course of the last couple of years, perhaps over the course of the last year or so, i think, is going to solve that problem for you. i think that the possibility now of politicians not being transparent about their dealings with the media, i think, the events that have come to pass will go a long way in dealing with that. >> well, if i could be assured that the very fact of the last seven months that achieved the purpose of its -- i could go back to productive judicial work, i might be quite pleased with that. that's the bit of a big -- >> i wouldn't be so bold as to suggest that, sir. >> well, all right. all right. >> you've been watching highlights of the british inquiry into the relationship between the press and