department hasn't done everything they can. so we will see where this goes. >> the senior congressional reporter for politico. you can read his reporting of politico.com. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. ..

he added later that he was sent and admired some of the news practices of the murdoch press, the wreck made his influence as a businessman. john major served as the british prime minister from 1890 to 1997. >> password mayawati tied it shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your phone or. >> john major. >> you provide us with two statements be the first the 14th of may, each of the

statements are true. the evidence carefully tendering touring choir. >> is one minor correction you wish to make. paragraph 56 had their first segment, which is an 808453 on page 23 will come in due course. you wish to expand on that? >> i do. >> thank you very much indeed for this statement, which is to say britain an enormous amount of work and i'm very grateful. >> thank you very much. first of all, in paragraph 4 of your statement, the relationship with mrs. thatcher, baroness thatcher with the press, can you explain the reasons for it? it is sad to say that only the mirror group were not supported of that?

>> the nature of her relationship. you seem paragraph iv did not inherit or see the close relationship with any part of the media. in relation to that in paragraph 65, as i can move onto that, you see that you saw rupert murdoch's relationship with margaret thatcher. can you expand upon that relationship at least as you would? >> i witnessed only of course those if i may enter the caveat first, i think the syrians died with mrs. thatcher would have a better merger that relationship then i had. but i saw it from a reasonably good vantage point. and margaret was probably the most right of center theatre for quite a long time. and i think that appeal to the

natural instincts of many proprietors and editors at the time. and i think a support was accordingly often. there's also a number of policies that particularly appeal to them. i think there were common names in terms of things like a clear meeting of minds between proprietors and conservative government led by mrs. thatcher. they were common attitudes to business. i think there is a similar attitude towards the european union, not exactly the same because the parity that one often gets in mrs. thatcher's relationship with the european union is far from reality when actually saw at the time. and of course she became pretty iconic act her the falcons. and i think there's enough information to produce the very high level of admiration for mrs. thatcher. in our term back in the early

business better prepared to take risks and suddenly prior to the proprietors of newspapers. it was the gnashing of those particular aspects that produced the strong level of support. and when i say i can inherit it, and i haven't been prime minister. and the trade legislation plainly was different. >> thank you. >> he made it clear in paragraph paragraph 5 that she did not engage closely with the mac's low price with less titles and didn't see the close relationship with any part of the media. he described that. what you mean precisely by that? >> of course there's a natural symmetry between the press and politicians. myself included would like to have a supportive price.

the press have quite different mateship to. they wish to sell their newspapers. they may not be close to the press. they seek influence in the way others have been. editorial support in particular. i didn't do that because i thought it wouldn't do it very well. in fact, i'm sure i would have done it very well, but secondly this rather undignified. i think there is a different role from the press and the government. the role for the government and politicians is the best as they can run the country and determine what legislation is correct for it. the role of the press it seems to me as to what the government into account and they do that fairly or unfairly. i think when he began to knock those rules, then i think neither the politicians nor the press are doing the job properly that they are best fitted for her.

and so i thought, and this may have been quick tropic. i thought of relative distance between the press and the government in particular that myself is a good idea. now, it would be easy to misunderstand that. and to say that indicated hostility between me and the press. i wasn't hostile to the press. indeed when i first became prime minister i tried to get the guardian independent back in the lobby from which i think they excluded themselves if i remember correctly. i did appoint a press secretary who i thought would serve the press while beyond controversial and would be able to speak in a manner that the press would accept as being authoritative. so i was keen to build a good relationship. not me not pretend anything otherwise, but i thought to close a personal relationship was probably not for me. >> one of your colleagues, lord

patten used the word demeaning. is that a word she would associate yourself? >> i prefer an dignified. i don't think it's the current prime minister to court the press and i think it's a little undignified if it is done. but if it is done obviously i think there's clear downsides to that term. >> in paragraph 6 your lack of close relationship may be a fact or two -- a factor to mediate your government to mistake in judgment the media made about you. would you agree it's difficult to find cause-and-effect in those matters? connecticut's theory difficult to entangle cause-and-effect.

as part of my own fault that the press was not very close. i just indicated via thought it ought not to be and clearly that wasn't very amenable to turn sections of the press. if i may like to make clear that i haven't come here to complain how my press coverage 15 to 20 years ago is long since gone. i've long since moved on from that. i don't want to waste my time or yours complaining about that. i think i can explain what it was hostile appeared i didn't inherit the naturally close affinity my predecessor had earned with the press over long periods of time. i have in our day. i didn't have it. it is self-evidently different. and on a human level from the point of view of the price, as the prime minister they don't know this seems to be keeping his distance is perfectly

understandable they are hostile about people you don't know when it is about people you know well. and i think that was one of the reasons why they were in my judgment less well-informed about some of the things we thought and we did at that time and it was in after 92. in the early 19 to 1992. as hostile. they were especially supportive, but neither were hostile. they observed a more even positioned, the assertive position that i think is probably correct at all times. he referred to your disengagement in the first on 10. would it be sad to say it though that you are very sensitive about what was written?

>> i wouldn't deny that at all in retrospect. is certainly true. i was much too sensitive from time to time about but the press through. god knows in retrospect why i was. you can explain that in human terms. a caricature of what she believes which are doing and what you believe you are, then i suppose it's the basic human emotion to get a bit rowdy about it and friends in private to carry in public and more widely known. it is an old chestnut, but it is not something i denied retrospect. if i may put it in context, the press can be at the time a source of wonder. i woke up each morning and night up in the morning papers and i learned what i thought they didn't think, but i said that i hadn't said that i was about to

do that i wasn't about to do. >> i had that same experience. >> is very interesting. it goes on for quite a long time, but it will go on for me for a long time. >> i do hope not. i wish you every success of it not going on for too long. it is a bit wearing tonight confess that i probably overreacted. but my overreaction is principally a human overreaction that but of course it's prime minister you teach me to know what has been written because people believe it and you need to try and counter it. and most crucially of all you're likely to be asked for questions and those days for a shorter period. and what appears in the media and the written press particularly as likely to be stapled for the prime minister's practical need to know what was going on.

but did i read too much? yes, i did. was a hurtful sometimes? yes, wes. i did it was malicious? i think that makes a judgment about. >> i've been asked to raise this with the apd chief on mr. mckenzie after but i made to ascertain the sons of sparks? >> ij. very bad mistake. i telephoned him and i haven't done so before and i certainly never do so again. it was a very successful phone call and he was an air of mythology, which no doubt we wish to pursue. >> not necessarily. do any of you wish to -- >> i had read that the substance of the alleged conversation with the degree of wonder and surprise, if the conversation has preceded as i precede it, then i do not think i would've forgotten it. neither do i think mr. mckenzie

would have been invited to downing street told that later if he was on occasion. so perhaps my memory is very faulty indeed, but i certainly don't recollect the same conversation that is spent circulated from time to time. >> i think that may be quite useful if i can give your recollection for quite different purposes. >> my recollection is quite plain as to what the substance was. it was on the day but wednesday the 10th of gone horribly wrong. there were more myths about black wednesday then the greeks ever created. and i was very conscious towards the end of that day that he was going to be third and it was suggested and i can't recall whether as i press secretary my principal private secretary that i might thought about what our two editors to see how they had viewed it from the outside. and one of the names suggested it was bad as the editor of the

sun because plainly it was a bigger speculation newspaper. and i phoned mr. mckenzie first to explain to him what lay behind what it hath been. and secondly to see what his perspective otherwise. now i see the conversation itself, i frankly can't recall in any detail. i would have recalled the events of mythology. i'm sure would not have forgotten that. but i don't actually recall it. i found a lot of people from her majesty the queen from words to parliamentary colleague from his senior cabinet ministers and on one and only equation, mr. mckenzie. sorry to say it wasn't especially project is called. >> i've been asked to base this review. do you feel you are aren't politically by the way you are. in some sections of the press or do you think the elect trick saw

through that? >> to fit a particular image a after day sticks. i think that is undoubtedly true. but because this fix does not necessarily mean that is the public's only perception. i was always struck when i went away from the circle of whitehall and westminster and how different was the attitude of people away from not. and so, i must confess i never found anything but a considerable degree of friendliness when i went to the country, not invariably, but generally, but i think that caricature did have an effect as it has done but that isn't new. because the character of them at

the time, so there's nothing particularly new about that. it's been a part of the press coverage that politicians have to live with for a very long time. >> in paragraph 8 now, mr. john, the second sentence in particular, some parts of the media pie generalist extenders that fall far short of what should be excepted. on page 359 if your quote, can i ask you to elaborate on that, please? >> it was like a pure take. very good parts of the press and the parts of the press are frankly not very good at all. and i'm referring here to terms of the parts that have fall short of high standards. they don't report the news accurately. they tend to dealing caricatures they tend to take a particular

point and stretch it beyond what is reasonable. you may remember in the first film of mr. chips. mr. chips reverser but always exaggerating what to attend in his examination results. the worst part of journalism does exactly that. they take something that is a tiny kernel of truth than it perhaps and it stretches it beyond where it would naturally honestly go. and i think that is very bad journalism. and i suppose one message that i have had a lot of time to reflect upon over the years is that you cannot see the british press as a single entity. nobody should do that. it is not the case with every part of the british press misbehaves. it is the case, sadly, to some of the misbehaves. i'm what i hope will emerge from this inquiry and thereafter is

the action that will take, that will list the worst of the press to the best of the press. nobody wishes to strain their natural freedom of comment. nobody wishes to determine what they should put in their papers. but i think what they put in their papers is grotesque, then i think there is a balance between the freedom of the press to print what they like and liberty of the individual to be protected from things that are untrue, unfair or malicious and we may come to that later. >> paragraph 9, mr. john, you covered in paragraph 6, that the phrase constructive tension captures in your view the best relationship between the media and senior politicians. and in paragraph 12, uto but the risk inherent in to close a relationship you can ask you

please to develop paragraph 12? >> as i can tell you a word about constructive tension, constructive tension is what i was referring to before, the fact that the press and politicians have a quite different role and if the tumult, it's not going to work properly. the price is great, as i see it is that they have a daily pulpit to hold the government and politicians to account. you cannot do that properly or fairly if there's an excessive degree of chumminess between politicians and the media. that is why i think you need a degree of distance between them. the best of journalists are scrupulously honest. we can expect every journalist to be among the very best, but the best circuit, which is why we get the point must run dry distinction between the good, the bad and ugly of when one comes to talk about a journalism as a whole.

in terms of the military of news and comment, i think it has mounted to a very certain extent. given the nature of modern communications and 24 hour satellite channels and television channels, there is actually a surprisingly small amount of news in the practical sense that it actually come to that newspapers to launch upon an unsuspecting public. by the time people pick up newspapers, the news has been absorbed in the early morning breakfast programs in the 24 hour satellite programs. and this presents, it seems to me, a problem for the media. they either reprint what is still where they find a new angle to it. if something is happening, but why did you happen? he was responsible? what is the impact upon people?

they will take an angle and stretch it because that is all they can do because the news is still abounds. that has already been reported. so i have some sympathy for that. there is also the second point of banality of comment as sober news. ideally, you would keep that apart. and it seems to me the comment in the press follows the several different layers. if i can restrict myself to comment, which i am most familiar with, some of it on both sides of the political fence is excellent. it's very good. you may disagree, but it's well thought out and well written and it's worth reading. some of it, and full of columnists who are as much into self-promotion as anything else than i think it's barely worth the name. there's a lot of good comments in the british media and that melds into news because i think

newspapers have little choice but to let it do so. your pioneer the leadership level seem to have fallen. and i suspect that trend is likely to continue with more people reading newspapers online, for example and with the growing impact of 24 hour media channels. so here i have a good deal of sympathy for the dilemma that proprietors and editors face. >> paragraph 12, by self-interest context of a relationship which comes too close. the trade-offs you identify. >> yes, i do. if you have too close a relationship -- let me first enter a caveat. they're a genuine friendships between some politicians and some journalists. i can make of a number of journalists who i would regard as friends and still do.

but i think there is a danger that the artificial friendships stuck up between interest when the politician went good coverage in the press want inside stories and they think you do see too much of that and you see it manifested media but obviously a leak on denigration of another particular politician more often than not in the same party. and i think that does damage the politics. this is regarded as you split up in government when it fact they are perfectly proper examination of policy between ministers in terms of reaching the position, it is a fallacy to believe in any political party that there is one strand of thought and my own party, the conservative

party is an amalgam of different strains. we have a right wing, left wing, a center. they are all equally conservative, that they are different sorts of conservative and in determining policy, they will pitch in the different ideas. when someone starts leaking those private determination of policy, it is easily presented as a split. it is a skill. there is a disagreement of governments in the home secretary and foreign secretary. while of course you put average cabinet size 20 intelligent people together in the hot different views. no point in having 21 if there are is they all think exactly the same way. and i think that, the close relationship with those private discussions out in public and worse offers the opportunity for those seeking fever of the press and the opportunity to offer inside stories to the detriment of their colleagues or other political parties.

we've seen a lot of that over the period has been in parliament. thank you. the related context. in paragraph 16, were you refer to the development of party and political appointees and prime minister. paragraph 32 and 33. in essence what you see as the problems inherent in not? >> this was in 1997. i think about around to it they saw the government in 1992 to 1997 with the civil servants running the press offices spread across whitehall and they thought there were opportunities to be gained in the presentation of the news if those particular

jobs were held rather than with the independence of the civil service. that is the background. and in 1997 and number 10 and across whitehall, political opponents are made to the information service. i think i was a very rich repeats that. i disagree and i always have. i think for several reasons. once you have a political appointee rather than an independent civil servant, the word of the government is no longer questioned. it is no longer unquestioned. with an independent civil servant, the press sloppiness he should have caught the unvarnished truth within a cluster spin. now we find political spin forever. every politician since the dawn of time will put a cost on some

vague to ensure that is presented in the best possible light. we've all done it. everyone does that. but i think there is a distinction between the cost and a deliberate attempt to deceive and the way in which the news is presented. and my concern was when she moved toward the politicization of the government information, which is what applies, you did move into a skier, where the news could be rather than presented accurately and without spin to the media at large. and they think you also saw some other things call was journalists are better able to talk about and certainly mentioned to me, people being given stories on other people weren't and presenting them with a particular tilt so that when the story hit the public news immediately had a favorable tilt to the government rather than the neutral or perhaps even deservedly unfavorable tilt,

whole range of things which i'm sure this inquiry is heard about, so tediously run through them all. in short, i think this day forward, clear-cut certainty of an honest presentation of policy from the information is there to do was say when you have civil servants presented on behalf of the government was lost when you move to a political information service. >> your proposal emulation that is set out in paragraph 33 on page 08443. subparagraph they do service once again and price lunches and private contracts publish correctly. can we be clear what you mean by private contacts? are you intending to cover all social private meetings? >> no, i was talking -- i have

in my mind when i wrote that the lunch is that tape place them in meetings that take place i wasn't thinking a private week in context because it never occurred to me that they might be allotted the same people at a private way this file i never occurred to me they may be used in unfavorable way. i didn't have that in mind, but i do make the point that changes can make a contribution. i think the return of the civil service around the information service would be a fairly good move. frankly lobbying a publishing price lunches and private contacts is a fun value, but it is only of limited value. see certainly for example couldn't have examples and that is of limited value in a face when i read statement. returning to government information service to the civil service has some downsides and i can see that, but overall does have benefit to the government

and an honest perception of what government is doing. >> subparagraph b. and d. will take close to the end of your evidence when you deal with paragraph 41 through 48, which is your prescription for the future. can they go back to paragraph 17 please, john, a section which deals with general elections? and the rest of the public can trust and sub paragraph amb ask you to elaborate on those, please. >> well, i am really looking for the personification of the ideal, but i think there is a difficulty a very long time, the press has become more politicized and instinctively we say a newspaper at the right to

the fact that philosophy may not be to a particular prime minister, but a particular philosophy if you pick up any of your daily papers, i tend not to read them much so macula to judge. but when i was reading them regularly before the second of may 1997, you could pick up a whole range of papers and be quite different reports of the same subject. and that was the extent to which newspapers have become politicized and in a sense part of the political process themselves. i think when you come to a general election, it's the relationship between a political party or senior politicians in the sections that are particularly close, they're soft and risks to the public interest. if i may define the public interest, it is that the media report accurately fairly and fully what the politicians are saying about the impact would be in the public, that idea is what i would like to see. but we do in fact see is that we

are the factual news like that, which may be relatively unmapped in these terms is pushed aside in favor of more newsworthy dramatic copy or political stand. how did the politicians get to the public? they get to the public through television or radio. on television they make it a one minute slot if they are lucky. on the radio, a bit longer, but usually with an adversarial interview, where he prepares innocent 10 years ago you said something mildly different. so the press are very important in carrying the message to the public. but if the message to the public is, by the particular editorial stance of the newspaper or because hard news is limited in favor of stunts and rather wild species, which are newsworthy, but not really very serious, and

the public are given much less than that to have it cannot bind at the general election. i have no solution to that. i see that political reporting is covered by the natural instincts of the newspapers that proprietors and editors. i see us of the politicians will use the newspapers that favor them to launch things that are particularly favorable to them are particularly damaging more often than not savitch of their opponents. all of this is sad that the game of politics that doubt, that somewhere down the middle, what about the public? the public has lost. he gets all these stories. they does actually get clearcuts of information about a government proposes and what it would actually need two people so they may make up a mind at a general election. i don't think they do anymore and i think that's a loss because a huge and important role in the newspaper should

plan don't play. >> and before we get paragraph 21, we do at the particular conversation >> s.j. 100 tab to the bundle we prepared as a table of hospitality provided to editors when you were prime minister and new provided between different proprietors and senior editors. you can see conrad lack because in all the telegraph until 2004, wary fiend five or six meetings with him over the relevant.

come as i right click >> six meetings of the 17 years, yes. >> rupert murdoch now on the next page 08169. there were three meetings recorded. first on the 14th of may 1992 which are then press secretary. is that correct? >> nineteenth of august 1993 and 2nd of february 1997. that is the last one we'll come to in a moment. mr. murdoch doesn't have much of a recollection of his meeting with you. what can you throw on those meanings if any click >> i don't have much recollection in a meeting with mr. murdoch. they were unmemorable to us both, which is maybe why there are so few of them. i have absolutely no recollection of the 1992 meeting there're two diaries at downing street. there is one diary, which this

the meetings that the prime minister is scheduled to house and there is a second i wish list the meetings that did actually have, things that can't hold agate shoehorned in. i have compiled or have the list compiled with the prime minister actually had. so i am ascending my meeting with mr. murdoch on the 14th of may 1992 did actually go ahead. i have to say i have absolutely no recollection of that whatsoever. almost uniquely there is a briefing note for my press secretary for me to raise the mr. murdoch the nature of the coverage in his newspapers. and so, it is the meeting i thought i would have remembered. i don't have any recollection of it at all college makes me wonder whether in fact he went ahead here the date reset it did a good beginning of august, but

i really don't recall it at all. >> the briefing note on your exhibit, sj and five, which is type six comment page 0188 we can see that it is dated the 18th of august 1993, which today dates the apparent meaning is prepared by mr. o'donnell. and we can see what it says her first paragraph, mr. murdoch was particularly keen to hear your views on the economy given the high level of debt t. seeks the interest of the lowest possible apply to everybody. over a murdoch's views are very much antiunion, pro-free-market on exchange rates. and to learn given the worldwide scared of this business that to

keep up to date it explains why murdoch frequently attains very patsies of what is happening here. it's also clear my back is aware outline terms of his papers. i very much doubt whether he reads them regularly. >> you associate yourself with that opinion? >> not entirely. i'm sure he read his newspapers and i would be very surprised if he was sent away or in more of an outline of the line taken by his newspapers. from all i understand cudahy gave a good view of latitude to the times, quite probably in my view and the sun eight times. so i would be very surprised if he wasn't much more aware of what they're printing than o'donnell suggested in his note. but we did have some important things to discuss.

if i can pick up some of those points you raised. on the day i became prime minister in 1990, interest rates were 14%. they went out. when we went to the exchange rate mechanism commerce in order to bring interest rates down. ms repeated over years pass and interest went up during the period we run the exchange rate mechanism. in fact they came down from 14% of the day became prime minister to 6% when i left and came rattling down during the period we were and the exchange rate mechanism except for black wednesday when it was nothing came down again the next day. so they came down consistently. on the message i wish to get to mr. murdoch was actually the british economy actually started recovering. you can see this very plainly now in retrospect actually started recovering in the first quarter of 1992 when we were still in the exchange rate

mechanism and continued thereafter. and were so superior i don't did we make a point often enough. in 1997 we actually handed over extremely good economy. i can't think of when a better congress handed over. in 1992 until 2001, you had growth every single quarter, which is pretty unprecedented. the message is hoping to get as the meeting took place was that we were on track for his recovery and it would accelerate. we were looking at how to leave the exchange rate mechanism. we never saw the exchange rate mechanism as a first step towards a single currency. and that must've been added to everybody because in 1991 i ensure that we did not enter the single currency. i was not in favor of the single

currency. as an paper of keeping inflation down and i was in favor of it because i remember as a child what it is like when the money runs out before the week runs out and that is what inflation did. so i was prepared to take a great deal of political pain to keep interest rates in place to get inflation down and i knew it was painful politically. more important it was painful for people on the other side of interest rates. related if we had over a decade of low interest rates and solid growth. and that is what it was about because we have seen, for generations governments run away from inflation. and first-rate site, and he, at painful and you'd had this constant curve of inflation coming up, going down, coming up through on it to kill it off. that is at the exchange rate mechanism was about and that was

what i was hoping to explain to mr. murdoch, the restart of that recovery, but there is still a long way to go, whether he did as they say, i cannot remember. >> and on to point to the next page, when he nine, we don't know of course whether this message was communicated. this is quite a bad line absurd, with inviting you to. >> which is why he put it in square brackets because he knew i wouldn't deliver it if i had been the sort of thing a prime minister would say to a proprietary and i wouldn't have said it. >> it might have been interpreted >> weatherwise. >> it is. >> beside sunday, that is exactly what it would have been. >> it would have been appropriate just say that and i wouldn't have said it.

>> earlier that month -- >> as i said i'm sure mr. murdoch would have remembered. >> earlier that month, we see that sgm three and others were invited to a special celebration associated with launching the new skype tv channels. this is under attack for -- under tab four. >> yes. >> mr. o'donnell, on this occasion, and at the end, do i meet to discourage other cabinet members from attending the launch. whose handwriting is that with the double lines in a gas? >> best meets the two o'donnell yes i would wish them to

discourage ministers from attending the launch. >> of the reason is pretty obvious it did. >> connector there now to the conversation, which you recall having him i think the second of february, 1997 and february of your stay may your statement commiserate for was a dinner. i think your wife is there as well. the own words, could you tell us what happened is the first material as our inquiry? >> just before the 1997 election, it was suggested to me that i had to train makes an effort effort to get closer to the murdoch press. and i agree that i would invite mr. murdoch to dinner. we had a dinner in february february 1997. the dinner would have contained the usual amount of cortical

casa to think that these occasions tend to have. but in the dinner became apparent and discussion that mr. murdoch said he really liked the european policies. this is no surprise to me. he didn't like a european policies and he wished me to change our european policies. if we could change our european policies, his watchers would not describe the governor. use the word we went referring to his newspapers. he didn't make the usual not towards editorial and dependent. there is no question as needs change he policies. read a great deal of this from goldsmith who set up a political party because he disagreed and

wish to have a referendum on leaving the european union. said mr. murdoch and i did not pursue that. we did not pursue that matter. my feeling, and he did not say this. my feeling was what he was edging towards was a referendum on leaving the union, but i made clear that was where i thought he was going by what he said. we did not actually get there. i made it pretty clear we were going to change our european policy. it think our policies are right in the interests of the other country and he moved on to other matters. >> of that conversation in your book and page 709 is somewhat more economic. you see back in 1997 you are referring to he made no offer using a fuller version on that

with this you -- >> i haven't talked about his conversation at denny's age in the past 15 years, but i am now on the road in rss the question on ideas that the question. this is a private discussion. nobody else there except my wife and elisabeth murdoch. and so i thought of my autobiography was appropriate to be a little more iconic. if i may say so, despite how frank i was, there are other areas where as iconic as well from time to time. >> clearly it had an impact on you because although you used the word so far as i recall, you just said he didn't make the usual not to independents are referred to newspapers

precisely. since reading between the lines, that he sent in that strike you at the time and has remained in your memory? >> it is not like we to be anything you would forget. >> i understand. it is not often some assist in front of a prime minister and says prime minister, i would like you to change your policy and if you don't change your policy, my organization cannot support you. people now said. the nafta draft, but it's not often the point is directly put to a prime minister in that fashion people not raised this in relation to paragraph 21. you say mr. murdoch's with "the sunday times" continue to support him at times position

supporting anybody up in the anti-europe. >> if you mean did they perhaps write an editorial same in us the least of all of his party by a vote for them, the answer is probably they did. if the news coverage and the outcome antioch, morning after morning, we can after weekend, there is more news coverage. >> mr. murdoch likes to come back. >> i don't think there was any surprise about. i don't need those very surprising to day support favor. after all they had written about

the conservative party between 1992 and 1997 they said despite all the everett over the past ideas we've been telling you the useless ideas. that's a difficult editorial position to take here so i wasn't surprised that they decided they would support labor. neither do i think they were go through the silly sharad vacancies on the next day it was a perfectly credible reason for the newspaper to decide not to support beauty of no lead or particular reason to expect the automatic supporters. they could've said the conservatives have been there for 18 years. it's too long. democratically what somebody else to be in government.

they could also set quite legitimately the labor party had changed. new labour did change. they moved the newspaper for the position from wordpad then much more towards many ways to the right of me. it was perfectly credible event you decide not. i remember jokey ones i'd gone screaming about that close on the riverbank when i came back mr. blair was wearing that. so there was a whole series of good reason why this time could perfectly credible he had said, this tory government are tired, exhausted and change. so i was not surprised when they changed. did they change every year and you policy? i don't think so despite my conversation. how could they help? i kept britain under the hero with the g3 med. i went to legislation that any government before going into the year with a referendum which labour had followed your

deposition with mr. blair and mandelson's in labor of party in 1999 gobstopper disagreements in the labor party because of disagreement and the chance of the exchequer, so they could hardly a switched on european policy if mr. murdoch used international were cool about europe, which i think it's a fair description, it was not a sensible job to move from a prime minister that was supposed to be or to a prime minister that is going to be in favor of the euro. so i don't think the change had a great idea to do with the european policy. it supported us after what they said about us and them may have something to do with the position they've taken a kites, which i think will come to later were the actually make him to later. but i don't think in retrospect it can possibly, not logically

anyway have been a case of our european policies per se. >> we asked you to do with the 1992 election and you have a deep paragraph 3 following. we ask you in your words, that you are clearly of the view and you stress this in your boat. the conservatives were likely to lose that election. >> it always was. >> i mean, i did slide the sort of politicking that was done from television studios and radio studios and through the comments of the newspaper cut you off. you are cut off from the public at large and is for that reason that i went out to start holding

public eating, even on a soap huckster in a particular election. and the response was such that i sent lee could not believe that we were going to lose that particular election. the opinion polls that we were going to lose it. the wife had said we were going to lose it. if all successive victory seems very unlikely and had been done for a very, very long time. all that suggests we're going to lose it, but it didn't feel that way. it didn't feel that way today. i felt that way out on the street because there is a warrant has suggested to me we were going to win that election. i'm the only occasion i wavered and that was one that i was flying back from a think it might've been birmingham, but i can't be come with chris pat for the opinions opposed for seven or 8% behind chris adderley copies and that's the only time a way that.

only prefer them because the next day among the crowds who is a quite different feel. so i think we may have been delusional, but i thought all the way through the we were going to win that election. i was clear about that. i was doing people came and i thought it was going to be difficult in 1997. and as it happens, we got the weaker plurality is a very long time. we got more votes than any particular party in history in 1992 than the distribution of the vote and the distribution of the constituency boundaries that we only had the maturity of 21 despite a huge lead and vote a majority of 21, which the parade us who were subsequently to find

out. >> what is your assessment to the impact of the suns coverage in that election, particularly that treatment if that's the right way of putting it? >> well, it was very anti-mr. can make. it was a pretty crude campaign and it was over the top. how much a dataset the election? labour party mythology has made a huge difference. i don't actually think so. i think the news coverage and 92 and 97 accelerated a trend that existed. i do not think you change the result of either election. we would've won in 92. who would've lost in 1997. but it was a pretty way over the top campaign and their attacks on mr. can make. if i could say something about mr. kennedy, i didn't know him at all until i became leader of the conservative party.

and like everybody else, i had read what people said. i sounded dealing with had a very different and prd has this fire you for a treaty that is sent in people pick up on and attack them for. the neocon at kino as the labor party was very honest, very strict word. if i met him privately to stay private. if we reach an agreement to stay private. if he gave me a sword he kept his word. i found a very straightforward to deal with. and it may judgment and much more considerable layperson than he was portrayed as being in the media i've seen before i came to know him. >> to move forward now because they've covered intervening grounds already and what we say to the future of cover the end

to power up 490-8449, were as far as you can cause the press made no formal could no director for what representations of the less government on matters affecting the formulation of policy and the media itself. and many sewer however regularly exposed to views on all its views in the media policies through their editorials. so as far as your recollection that is, you can remember no express lobbying view on ada issues, right click >> no, no. i honestly don't believe there were any. i mean, i've listed my contacts with the media. ..

in the consultation that we had over and i am sure they did, and it is perfectly proper for them to express. i have no problem and i think that is what they should do. >> you identify one instance in

opposition to the peace process crossed the boundary of fair comment but where exactly is that boundary, if in general the media are entitled to express' the views. >> this is what i mean by told of reporting most would agree in retrospect if we hadn't begun the peace process in northern ireland in their early nineties with reynolds and others and if mr. blair haven't counted on the left there wouldn't have been the presentation that existed throughout the years in northern ireland different than existed in the 1970's and the 1980's when we began the process. there's a lot of opposition to it for different reasons some are opposed to it because there was going to be a set out to the

united ireland. other people were opposed to it because it was a game and we would be sucked into something that would then be let down the government would be made to look a very foolish. there are senior members of government who fought back and thought we ought not go the route of the peace process but did it go down and began to make real progress with downing street declaration with putin and the prime minister and with albert reynolds in the framework agreement with john putin, and the framework document was leaked through the times in a very hostile source of i am pretty sure i know who it is but not absolutely certain. but me say it came from a source that was hostile to the north

and east process, and very late in the day they ran up the downing street office and said we are about to run this story do you have any comment and they contacted me and i said testily, they've got a hold of the draft as the framework document. but the narrative that has gone with it is wrong. it's the wrong impression, eni will feed into a problem that could break up the peace process. it was always like playing with a multifaceted reubin askew to keep all of the different components together. i said it could be damaged if this is printed and he said to the times look this story first is wrong and the third, if you print it as you are apparently proposed to you could do great harm to the peace process. please don't do it and they went

ahead and printed as they had planned because they can to a slate for comment and citizen that correct and it caused that night when the first came in absolute mayhem in the house of commons. i remember a midnight meeting in the house of commons packed with angry conservative members of parliament who were pro union and fought as a result of that that we were selling out the union, and that meeting was saved by several things, assurances we gave to them that evening. that time they say not just by me but the assurances given to them by patrick mayhew that they liked and respected as an ira and klayko ireland secretary and the house of lords known to be a strong unionist who made it clear that the story was wrong and that we were acting in good faith and we were not selling

out the union. we were trying to stop people from killing each other in northern ireland and it helped. then a few days later northern ireland if i remember correctly i think this was the occasion also saw me and went back and said they should trust us and continue the northern ireland process. i think that was irresponsible and that is what i meant in my comment. i think was responsible on an issue like this where people's lives more at stake to print a story when the government said to them, not a government that was thought to be untruthful with the government said to them don't do it, this is wrong. so it was a very herrara occurrence but it actually concerned enough at that time. >> thank you pure yet moving from the particular to the general coming and i want to pursue the particular plants

that you make in the third sentence of paragraph 51 if i may on pages 0481. you draw the distinction between the media role in affecting the public opinion which the understand and the use between either interest or one side of a complex argument. can you elaborate those settlements? >> presenting one side of a complex argument has proposed the most obvious illustration is the reporting by a range of newspapers that the european union over a long period of time in the course of dark stories from the commission demanding we had a square bananas to all sorts of things. many things about the european union that i don't like. i think at the moment it is in a great mess that this is not the occasion to talk it out it. i didn't want this to go in to the euro as i already said that there are many things about the

european union that was of interest to the united kingdom. very few of those actually found their way into proper news reports. the things that were wrong with it found their way into news reports day after day after day and into the editorials day after day. now why am not a year lawfully act. house i say i see a lot of things wrong with it than one might have imagined in the past. but it was unbalanced reporting and it is very complex. the government these days the decisions were taken generations ago. every group of petitions coming into office are now finding it more difficult in their multifaceted world to produce policy and their predecessors. i don't have any envy for the people trying to govern it now or in the next few years because it is so complex and if either side of the complex argument is presented, it takes root in the

public mind. and as i say, there are many reasons to be opposed to the european union. but over the last 20 years or so the negativity that has been served out day after day after day month after month and year after year has presented only one side of a complex argument. for example the one reason the european union was formed was at the end of the second world war the european nations or bankrupt and they looked around the world and they saw the power of the united states, they foresaw the power of china and said to themselves if we don't act together we are going to be pages in a world of economic giants, and so things went wrong because of overspending. they were beginning to show good reach herron on that. another point is i would suppose

for a thousand years the european nations have been at war. they are so closely in national that this generation and the next generation and our grandchildren need never fear the concept of a war starting in europe. you don't find that sort of balancing factor anywhere in the scale when people talk about the european. that is the sort of in balance that's come out after so many years of the negative publicity. >> you cite one specific example influencing bringing us back to basic policy. >> absolutely. >> you feel that the was unfairly reported. >> can i read what i set about that? it was launched in the conservative party conference was i actually said to me and i quote, it is in my evidence, we must go back to basics.

we want our children to be taught the desk and public-service to get the best and the british industry to be the best. and the conservative party will lead the country back to the basics right across the board. sound money, free trade, traditional teaching, respect for the family in the bill walton and above all the new campaign to compete the service crown. that is what back to basics was about. it wasn't a puritanical crusade at any time and for the first two or three months it was treated as i had put it and had a huge amount of support from the large parts of the media. and then it became treated as though it were a moral crusade with a degree of her to many people the publicity for whose misdemeanors were accelerated because it was tied to the hypocrisy of the government trying to get back to basics, and was a totally false position

from the start and anybody that had gone back to the source of what i had said would have known and that it was false. >> mr. tim collins, who agreed it was a return to old-fashioned morality. >> that is where i learned months ago the spokesman person not a minister or the prime minister or the governor itself had actually indicated in a private meeting that that might be the case. i would have thought if that was the case and of the media thought that was the case they might have put that point to me at some stage. they didn't. >> me i move to 56 which is

0543 submitted to the point entering into the broadcasting after 1996 which is quite a complex provision but we can ask you to x plan on that now. >> to embark on a complex issue let's take that now. thank you. >> the broadcasting act of 1996 that deals as you said a cross media ownership. can you tell us about that? >> in my evidence i said in paragraph 56 a didn't recall any

discussions that caused me to relish it. i should add i wrote most of my evidence traveling in singapore, japan, as india and elsewhere and i had completely forgot the broadcasting act 1996, and the broadcasting act of 1996 which largely in the digital age we could foresee what was coming and broadcasting legislation needed to be updated. but it incorporated in that were some proposals on the cross media ownership and was a limitation if i remember correctly written into the bill the papers that had over 20% of the circulation should be restricted to 20% of television by which we met at the time channel five, and that was actually incorporated in the legislation and i should have included it in my evidence and i did not. >> did anybody will be against that to your recollection? i mean for the media. >> i don't recall.

i mean in terms of expressing the views in the paper, yes, bayh lavina amine directly to me, no. did they make their views known? i'm sure they did come and there was certainly a good deal written about. there's no objection to that. it was going to affect some people and it's proper to make their views known but there was no backstage lobbying of which i am aware. >> and paragraph 57 you said your current view of these matters. >> i think it's desirable to the plurality of the media is so influential in so many ways

particularly in pacts public opinion and the democratic system their needs to be a proper plurality of it and the parliament should set a limit on the percentage of the press, the written press and the percentage of the electronic of either one individual or one company, and i think collectively they also need to give you, the card to leave the parliament needs to take a view on the cross media ownership of the media ownership of all the different media and outlets. there should be a limit beyond which in the interest of plurality no individual or a single company should be committed to go right now, very difficult to set that because what one does not want to do is set the interest so low that you actually inhibit the capitol necessary to make sure the media continues to develop. so my instinct has always been

the cross media limit should be in the 15 or 20% bracket, but i contest that that is an instinct when parliament would need to look at closer than that and i think the parliament should reach of view and it may be different from the one might set out here and i would be perfectly happy with that but i think we do need to have some clear indication of what the limit is to ensure that there are a collective number of voices representing media opinions. >> in paragraph 57. 20% collectively, the whole of the media is a much bigger element so 20% of the larger element of that down as a

sample. i don't put that down as refinery conclusion after their examinations since i was in government and confess i may be well out of date with some of the things that are happening within the media produce a wide put that down has an instinct as an illustration, but i think it is really for the parliament to look at and make a judgment in the life of modern circumstances >> thank you. now paragraph six of your statements on. 54. where you deal with some examples of personal intrusion over the years. can i ask you please to tell us about those and probably ten leggitt they are not the only

one we heard yesterday. the other examples on the page i would ask you to tell about. >> on one occasion my office received a telephone call that reported to be from the accident in the emergency department of the hospital and the call x blamed that my son's girlfriend had been involved in an accident and an emergency surgery was necessary. but before this could be carried out, it was necessary to know whether or not she was pregnant. we made a pretty routine check pretty quickly and the girl concerned was working happily in her office in a meeting and for the record she was not pregnant, so that was an illustration of what was tried to be on another occasion my son was followed, then a very young man told repeatedly by an individual on a motor bike with a large piece of

equipment attached to his motorbike. this is when the concern was higher than it is now coming and he liked the children of many politicians had been given instructions on what to do. seeing that he was followed reputedly, he veered off his route and stopped off to have a coffee and every time it happened he got back in his car and he was followed. eventually when he realized this wasn't a casual accident after the first couple of times and there was happening regularly, he telephoned the response unit who flagged the motorbike and it turned out that the motorcycle driver was a photographer from the news of the world. the equipment that he thought was a gun was a large telephonic lines and the motorcyclist had been instructed to follow my son day and night until he got his story.

that is a further illustration. a more mundane one. my son was 20. >> thank you. >> he may have been 21. following the general election of 97i went on a private holiday with my wife to relax and i was sitting on a rocket the end of the beach drinking and i say in my evidence a model but it was actually a can. that is another correction to be made. i was standing at cannes and i tossed the can and put it in a bag to take away the rubbish. my wife and the bag looking at the photograph i was left sitting on a rock throwing a can and it was presented in a large double page spread as the former prime minister came back to

private life and irritating, but not the sort of thing and i should add for the record in the list of things that happened over the years. >> in terms of what might be done about that sort of thing, this version of the photographs that's very simple. i think where that happens the newspaper ought to be instructed to print a photograph as it originally was and explain to the readers will get done that they would stop doing it. it doesn't involved hefty fines or infringe the freedom of the press. it actually stops deceiving their readers and is as good as an apology to the person that has been affronted, so i think it is perfectly simple the should be instructed by whatever body replaces them to print the photograph as it was on the same

page and in the same position alongside the photograph that the printed with an explanation of why they did. >> the past over point be of the conversation your wife had. we arrived for a family holiday in portugal, and when we arrived there, we learned from the needed who didn't speak english by the broken conversation with an interpreter that the sun newspaper had arrived before we did and talked or bribed their way into the holiday home and rearrange the furniture, took photographs and published the story they subsequently printed the story with a photograph and details that i can no longer remember. my wife that is fairly tolerant

of these was not at all tolerant when it comes to dealing with our children and our family life, and she telephoned the editor to ask for an explanation and during the course of the conversation was told she and donley have, "and go right to any privacy after further exchanges i believe he hung up on her. >> we were referring in our request to the conversations witnessed mr. mahlon and his diaries recording provoked by the continual attacks by the murdoch press and the telegraph

in the recollection of that conversation but more importantly, in your view of mr. murdoch generally to address that. >> i don't remember the conversation that he is a pretty honest guy and what he writes that i said sounds very much to me as though i might have said it to him. although he sat on the other side of the political fence it is something of a distant friend i did talk to him and it's likely that i said what he reports the saying. >> i was not and special let admirer of mr. murdoch's activities as a proprietor.

i did recognize his enormous skill as a businessman that he built up the sky and rescued the sunday times when they possibly face a very big future that sky channel offered a very diverse variety of high-quality programs and sports programs and their wildlife programs are very high quality in the political coverage. sallai recognize that. i wasn't an admirer of many of the things mr. murdoch did but i think my criticisms should be set against my acknowledgment in that respect he's saving the newspapers but it was an extension contribution to life. >> to the aspect of his activities as a proprietor achieved we can see that at least one of them and paragraph 64 where you refer to having an

excessive influence over editorial lines and we understand that but are there any other aspect that you would throw into the mix? >> i think the principal concern that i would have is i do think parts of the press charges against all elements of his press i think parts of his media empire have lowered the general quality of the british media i think that is a loss and evidence about which newspaper i am referring to i think they have lowered the term i think the interactions that have been with politicians have done no good either to the press or to the politicians. i think the sheer scale of the influence he is believed to have whether he exercises it or not

is an unattractive asset in a british national life. and it does seem to be an oddity that in the nation that prides itself on one man and one vote, we should have one man who can't vote with a large collection of newspapers and a large share of the electronic media outlet. i don't think that you could or should in a sort of diverse world but we live actually do anything about that. but it does strike me as slightly odd that that actually is the position. speaking to the matters that you cover in paragraph '71 that we have already touched on there are paragraph 71 which this may be relevant to the future

mr. mahlon's reference in the diary to your suggestion is a two-party alliance with british politics and certainly something i believe to be true. you hope securing such concerns with mr. blair did not pursue this option, but putting aside the past now, is it something which you think is still necessary looking forward? >> i think it's probably necessary and certainly desirable. i have no idea what this inquiry will recommend, but if it makes recommendations that require action, then i think it is likely that the action will be carried into legislation if it has the support of the major parties. if it does not, if one party breaks off and decide it is going to seek future favor with

powerful proprietors and by opposing it, then i will be very difficult for it to be carried into the law, and that is something that is very important and there is a special responsibility for the leaders of the three major parties. 20 odd years ago, 23 years ago i think a senior minister said the press drinking in the saloon i think on this occasion it's the politicians that are in the last chance saloon it is at the end of this inquiry with the recommendations that me be me to come and i don't seek to forecast what they may be but it's the recommendation made are not enacted it is difficult to see how this matter could be returned in any reasonable period of time and those parts of the press that have behaved

badly will continue to be a bad knee and put at a disadvantage those parts of the press that do not believe that lee and i would reiterate i think the underlying purpose is to eliminate the bad behavior and bring it up to the level of the good, and that is just a cancer in the journalistic body. it isn't a journalistic body as a whole, and i think in the interest of the best form of journalism, it is important that whatever is recommended is taken seriously by the parliament and it is infinitely more likely to be enacted if neither of the parties decide to play the parties and short-term party politics with it by seeking to court the favor of an important media baron who may not like what is proposed. so i think what i said many years ago at the two party consensus was necessary remains in my view the case.

>> we will come to the future towards the end of the evidence. there is the chapter about those terms and that is the report which you take up in paragraph 72 of your statement. can we set the background in this way the first is dated june, 1990 which is four or five months before you became prime minister and as you said, recommended the press council be replaced by the pcc to demonstrate the regulation could be made to work effectively. would set up on the first of shinnery come in 1991 and reported in january, 1993. can i do than to paragraph 96 in

the overall assessment that it was not an effective regulator of the press that didn't hold the balance fairly between the press and individuals and the damage assessments with which you agreed. to what extent was this an issue that you left with your secretary of state who was then the secretary of state national heritage and to what extent you would require direct ownership? >> certainly not. i mean, it was one of 2430, 30 to 40 issues a day that would cross the prime minister's desk. the fact of the matter is he or she can almost never have direct ownership of an issue. it has to be contracted to the appropriate secretary of state and the appropriate kevin at, and that is what happens with the report. my view is that the report was

necessary and well known and understood and was the subject of correspondence, but the day-to-day details examination with what is a very complex matter. they were reported back to me and i became sucked in in terms of expressing opinions and inviting people to go back recognizing that it wouldn't work. >> the response of government and you refer to this in paragraph 78 was the recommendations in relation to the new criminal offenses, and also the further consideration to be given to the introduction of the new infringements of privacy.

>> that's correct. >> can i ask about and paragraph 79 although the government agreed that the dcc had shown itself and ineffective regulated press it stated in the outset that it was reluctant on the grounds of principal to go down the statutory tribunal route without further reflection. what were the grounds of principle which were bearing on this issue? >> the ground principle that we had in mind freedom of the press to comment and that is why we regarded the idea of a statutory tribunal as very much a last resort. there is a difficult balance to be kept that i think has become crystallized between the early 1990's and there's an extremely

important principal of the freedom of the press. the government cannot and should not dictate to the press what it should print. that is off the scale not possible, and certainly not desirable. i don't know of any politician who would contemplate to that. but what we are seeing is that there are counterbalancing requirements. one is the freedom of the press. the other naturally is the liberty of the individual who may have been denied by press. you invited me to sit out the relatively trivial things as it happened to my family over the years. there are many evers that have given evidence to this inquiry or have not but could cite far worse illustrations them that and it isn't practical to say they could always go against the long pockets of the proprietors. it isn't practical. and in fact without a privacy law many of the elements and the problems that it may face are simply not credible.

so when we talk of the freedom of the press, which i agreed, we do have to balance it with a right of the individual when we come to what i propose, that is where i have made an attempt to do so. but i think there is an early stage that balance needs to be recognized and freedom of the press by all means to do not forget the liberty of the individual. freedom of the press must not mean a license for the press to do whatever it wishes. >> i think the thinking was that a statutory tribunal ruled on the grounds of principle might in pendulum the freedom of the press in an unacceptable way. is that the gist of the sentence? >> that was the concern, yes. >> do you feel that i was a valid concern then regardless of the fact that it may be different? >> it's interesting when you

talk to people about freedom of the press they have more than one thing in mind. when some people talk about freedom of the press, the given line they would regulate the content of what the press would publish wholly unacceptable and to a lesser view. the press should be free to comment in any way that it wishes on whatever it wishes at any time that it wishes, but i do think it was then must be in place a credible mechanism to hold them responsible for what they have printed to ensure that your responsibility and an fairness does not then creep into the reporting the belief that they are immune from response of the for what they say and do. >> taking it forward in 1993, in paragraph 80 you remind us that the select committee on

intrusion report on the 21st of march, 1993 rejected the recommendation for the satori tribunal but recommended the press on what might be set up but also recommended legislation reducing that sort of infringement pervvijze criminal offense which would wind. at that stage a come until october of 2000 so there wasn't a common law of privacy and such. when we take the story '81 and '82. the difficulties you saw at the time in relation to the definition of the new top of privacy can you tell us about those? islamic there are difficulties

with privacy come and one of the difficulties was that it was very easy to portray the privacy as being a piece of legislation that favored people that were relatively well-off and relatively well organized. but without complete access to legal aid for every one would not be available to be used by the vast majority of people. so, it was in the works one of my private secretaries put to me could be portrayed as being a piece of legislation from you and your power but not for the public as a whole, and that was a real concern that we were very wary of. the the point about the privacy became apparent in the deliberations of the cabinet subcommittee. there was a very substantial philosophical difference within the conservative party as to the

desirability. some thought it would be very difficult to frame, and might only be unfairly framed and that would be unfair on the media treat others thought that would provoke such hostility that it would dwarf everything else the government was doing and to that extent, some of them were weary. others were simply philosophically on sure that was the right time and the right place to actually go down that route. so people fell into quite different groups. there were several different reasons why people were opposed to eight. some of a lawyer's were much more attractive to the privacy than the criminal offenses. our information was that the press or of relaxed but not very concerned about the risks of the

criminal offense for things like interest in the the rhetoric concerned presumably, because it could bring a huge raft of selection against them on a regular basis. and i would ask the then secretary of state why he felt the press wasn't very concerned about the criminal clause and he said that is what they had told him in the discussions. i don't suggest the word enthusiastic. i would suggest that wasn't the best determination by the media to afford against that. >> the hostility that you refer to in that answer is likely to include if not be dominated by hostility in the press itself, is that right? you have given us some examples of press reporting at the time.

but follow the consultation on the select committee report and we see a range of previous from the independent, the financial times, the daily mail on page four and page five than the other papers that i mentioned, and i prefer to build law based on why is. so you've already had a range of -- >> the university nullity of opinion across the press in particular would be very damaging to investigative journalism that was their view

and they expressed it forcibly and then newspapers. it was also a number of colleagues they should not have known that and they probably did not know that. they have a number of people that took the same view in the subcommittee dealing with the recommendations. >> it wasn't a factor. it was a factor with some of our colleagues. it's difficult to know what is in someone's mind and know what comes out of their mouth but with the motivating forces that causes it to come out of their mouth is and clear. it may be an instinctive philosophical view of their own or they may be influenced by what they've read. i can't judge that could i simply observe a number of colleagues that ask the the

same. >> says something does it not about the relationship between politicians and the press that to include in the concerns that you identified on the risks that taking on the policy such as this would dwarf everything else that you wanted to do as a government because that somewhat echoes something that mr. blair said a week or so ago that taking on the press would take over as a time when all sorts of other policies wish to promote. >> here we were talking about something that is directly affected the press and it was for that reason that it was potentially likely to be so serious. i think for many occasions when you follow them alike they talking about the policies he and i would be an agreement on

that. certainly there was a university of the of our position in particular and was the university of the opposition is that we thought would spell out beyond opposition to that into the opposition on why the areas of the policies as well. some colleagues felt that and would be a general opposition to what the government was doing, not just an opposition focus on that particular piece of legislation and that particular provision. the was the concern that some of the colleagues had. >> there is the balance. >> it does push the balance out of kilter. the balance them is out of kilter. it is exactly why i regarded it as important that there's the two party consensus. some think may be right but it may not be possible to enact. one of the reasons, the principal reason at the end of the day not the only reason the

principal reason that the end of the day while we were unable is we couldn't have gotten it through the house of commons. that is the difference between the government of a large majority to force something through. the government with a small majority in the 1990's we had a small majority to start with the french to the majority of one makes it jerry dependent with a handful of members of parliament in the party quite apart from the opposition we expect from parties other than you're own in the world of politics and the political position and whether you could carry something isn't something you could let the brush aside if you advance in doing it and you are defeated and the government just looks weak and capable of carrying its

legislation and the truth of the matter is in the literal sense because it doesn't have the vote. that is always the problem with no majority. and at that time we had no workable majority. >> in paragraph 85, you said the government drew the two conclusions from the first consultations and this i think would have been in the summer of 1993. first, it didn't believe there was a sufficient public consensus on which to base the intervention. second, strongly prefer the principal of self regulation. but it was the principal that it hadn't worked, wasn't it? >> self regulation was tried again and again and again. what i am referring to is not having a statutory press compound. i'm not referring to the fact it wouldn't have been desirable to enact the privacy if we could with a criminal offenses if we

had been able to do so. we were not able to do so. >> the hope was on paragraph 86, we address the consideration of the cabinet subcommittee consider the possibility of the enactment of the criminal offenses and with the possibility of a new statutory privacy as well as the pressure to strengthen self regulation the pcc could be encouraged to reach the position of effective regulation without the statutory tribunal. that was aspirational. >> very aspirational. >> in the event we know that the new privacy in the criminal offenses were not introduced, with a? >> they were not. they were not introduced.

they were not introduced because of the philosophical differences or at the end of the day because there was concern among the government gets to the drafting of those particular clauses and they were not introduced ultimately with the ultimated, reason that nothing was done tat we simply couldn't get itgt through the house of commons. commons. there was sufficient opposition within the cabinet to be certain there would be a large degree of opposition within theion parliamentary party. and since there was no credibler way that i could have relied on the opposition parties to pass legislation like that i simplyih didn't have the majority to do it. so it couldn'tldn' be done. >> on the first of gentry, 1995, paragraph 91 of your statement -- >> yes.k that >> do you think there was an tef

positive step in what he wasdo e able to do over the time he was the chair of the pcc? >> i think if he wanted someone who could guide to a better codf of behaviorlt at the time to find anyone better than john, or more capable of being able to do. and certainly he made some efforts to do it, i think at the end john -- perhaps those more to be done that is able to do. it was perfectly credible he would achieve more than almost anyone in doing it. >> you tell us, the byproducts of that, that his appointment made even less likely the concerted members of parliament would support statutory -- >> i mean, those who are queasy about, they get a look on here is one of her own. former cabinet member who is

actually chairing the pcc. therefore, why do we wait to see how well he gets on. why rush ahead with legislation? so his appointment did have a material effect upon in the parliamentary department. >> in terms of the development that was given to it, just look out for documents, sir john, quite briefly. the first is on tab 22, which is a minute that was written to you by the secretary of state on the second of march, 1995. our page 03949. do you have that? >> i'm struggling to find a. i will find in a second, i am sure.

i have it. >> the package he was proposing, the second bullet point, the white paper should announce that the government has no plans to introduce a tour of invasion of privacy. we shall not convince. we shall simply appear indecisive. by saying we shall not convince, who was he referring to would not be convinced? >> parliament, the media, the court of public opinion. i don't think it would have convinced ourselves. >> he elaborates on that to be fair on the next page, 03950, the second bullet point. he refers to fierce resistance to the introduction of a new

tour. that would include resistant -- and the absence of legal aid you touched on this point. it would be seen as a measure which protected the rich and powerful. >> it was a point we were unaware of all the time that we were concerned about all the time. it wouldn't have applied if it into capacity to offer legal aid to everybody. it wouldn't have applied in that fashion though it would have thrown out different problems about whether you get all sorts of frivolous claims. >> and why also should you have legal aid for this if you didn't illegal it for other things, all sorts of issues? >> exactly. it throws all sorts of problems. and the lord chancellor, although he was amenable to some form of legal aid in limited circumstances, threw up all those problems and realized it wasn't practical to make it widespread. >> and the secretary of state also makes it clear he'd been engaged in detailed discussions with lord wakeham on this issue. is just after i think lord

wakeham had been appointed chair of pcc. we can see a middle of the page the paragraph of john is very conscious of the need to persuade the public of self-regulation and has teeth. possibly forlorn aspiration as well, wasn't it? >> in retrospect, yes. in retrospect just. i mean there were some things done. it has to be said on behalf of of the pcc that it did make some changes. they were relatively trivial changes, but they were changes. and they also if our member greg wood, appointed a privacy commission from professor pinker at the time. so there were things that they have done. and the hope that stephen was expressing there is that john wakeham would be able to persuade the media, the press, to go a good deal further than they already have done. it was as you say aspirational.

>> he takes the matter further forward chronologically. on the 20th of march 1995 you'll see on tab 23-a for the confidential policy minute to you, our page 03964. there's reference there to the lawyers in your cabinet, including lord chancellor. mr. howard i think was secretary of state for the home department. >> he was secretary and -- >> pardon me. >> james mckay was lord chancellor. >> and we see just below the hole punch, secretary of state says the talk would be the wrong thing at the wrong time. most importantly, it would mean a major riot with the press. there's reference to "the daily mail" beast which we have at 03968.

you can imagine what he might say. it's good indication of the strength of feeling. so concerns about press reaction were a part of the mixer, weren't they? >> yes, they were. and more so than they normally would have been because it actually related to the press. it wasn't a question of the press making a policy that was distant from their natural self-interest. this was a policy that was very germane to their natural self-interest. and i think that is why stephen has written as he had. it would have meant a major rabble. we know from the outset. we knew that when we started to go ahead. so that was a factor. but i do not believe in most peoples minds it it was the factor which determine is not to be able to proceed. >> the next page, we can see his thinking.

we must not exhaust all of her armor at once. if in given john wakeham's approach. self-regulation come to with one precipitated by "the mirror" paper can't be ruled out. with that enacted which were left with only the nuclear threat regulation for improving but as you know i'm not attracted to the rhetoric of the last chancellor but my proposal -- [inaudible] so i suppose he's saying they would be the immediate step before the final nuclear option. we can introduce, perhaps it breaks down the ticket in stages, is that what he is saying? >> that is what he has written. spent statutory regulations in this context means full-blown statutory regulation. >> i don't think that is what he had in mind. i think it's just a phrase. i think he is thinking of a statutory body but i don't think he was thinking of a statutory

code of conduct, if i can draw that distinction. >> and finally, if i can move forward to tab 25, again to you, 24 april 1995, our page 03974, where you're thinking now, he's thinking of how does one present the so-called do-nothing option. on the next page under the heading press reaction, this page 03975, and the issue of criminal offenses doesn't seem to be troubling the press so much. they sit on the contrary, the press are increasingly fearful that some of the tabloids are dragging him towards something far worse statutory regulatory of some sort. and then on the final paragraph

of this section. on press reactions, there should be no confusion, proposal would give rise to a major stall and in my view would fairly parliament. so you don't with both of those to the opposition would oppose it, arguing that any action on this front must be matched with our freedom of information act. business managers are nervous about -- criminal offenses in this parliament, the argument applies trying to legislate. and any and -- and in the end, the do-nothing option seems to be the least now choice. we see that, of course, at the bottom ..or rather it wasn't quite the do-nothing option to be there. it's little r3, the whole bunch on 03976. and i think those, your tix or mark --

>> they are, yes. yes, they are. >> clearly, the core of it was the business managers were clear we couldn't carry anything through parliament. and at the time, i think we majority of i think our majority had fallen to single figures by them. so we are talking of majority of nine and argue be the most contentious piece of legislation that anyone would've seen for quite a long time. so the business managers were robust that we couldn't carry the legislation. and that actual at the end of the day in politics is the end of the argument. it may not win the moral argument. it doesn't but it's a very practical argument if you can't do it if you don't have the votes. you can't do it. >> i think that takes the story forward as far as it can be

taken. degraff 95. -- paragraph 95. you say quite frankly you feel this represents a missed opportunity come is that right? >> well, i do. i do feel that. i mean, many of the things that happened subsequent has led to this inquiry, may not happen if we been able to enact. and i think in the interest of the good majority of the press, the press would have fallen into the disrepute in which the criminal activities had laid. if these changes have been made, i don't think many of the things that subsequently happened would have happened. so in that sense it was a missed opportunity. it was a mess, but it was a missed opportunity that was unavoidable. it wasn't a missed opportunity just because we should be. it was a missed opportunity because we couldn't do. we did not have the votes to do it. and in addition to that, of

course, was a general philosophical differences and problems attracting, but the underlying, cut away all the extraneous stuff, we couldn't have carried it through parliament. so it was a missed opportunity, but it wasn't one in the event that could have been taken. >> could i ask a slightly different question? enemy be very difficult for you now to remember, and i've tried to think about it myself, this wasn't along with just particularly interested. what what was the public mood to this issue? at the moment i can reach some conclusions about the public reaction to what's happened over the last eight months. by simply have no recollection of the position in the '90s. >> it shifted. the public mood at the time,

self-regulation hadn't worked and we need to change it. the public mood at the time, so far as i recall, was very supportive. indeed, i remember even a couple years later getting memos from i think press secretary saying we were robust, there was a big public after that would support fix i think public opinion was supporting us. by the time we went out to consultation, public opinion was beginning to shift. and the responses to the consultation document put out by the lord chancellor and the secretary of state, of scotland i believe, produce a response that was very mixed. and yet you would have thought it was a thing of most interest to the public at large. and yet they spread almost in three ways in terms of being in favor of it or not in favor of it. now, whether that was simply the press and practice was at the forefront of the mine at the time, whether it was because by then they were reading in the

press the perils and evils of what the government propose to do, or whether they would sit back and reflect and thought well, i don't think this is the route down which we should go, i cannot know. but i do know that the public mood had changed between 1992-3, and 1995-6, to a much more equitable position than had been the case it had been published. >> so weeting between those lines, maintaining a dynamic of what the inquiry has been hearing is itself an apartment objective, right? >> indeed. indeed. >> sir john, do you regret not having gotten more involved yourself with this? >> i invite whoever asked to ask

the question to sat beside me between 1992 and 1995. i think unless you can invent a 30 hour day it wouldn't have been possible. >> talk to you about the philosophical objections within your party when you are leaving it. do you see similar objections arising now, and do you ascribe any validity to such objection? >> i think one has to be very careful about how one defines it. will there be people who say the freedom of the press is sacrosanct and you must not harm it? yes. there will certainly be people who say that. if they were then asked a second question, is it terrible that people should have their homes broken into, that they should have their privacy broken into by long lenses, that they should have their bank accounts broken into, they would say no that was not acceptable. so there is a divergence.

as often in politics the public would want to apparently contrasting, they would want the freedom of the press and they would also want protection against those sort of activities. and that if i may say so is a difficult balance that needs to be kept in terms of how one goes ahead and deals with this particular problem. and i think you air on the side of the minimum amount of direction and control your i don't think it is credible any longer for the phrase the freedom of the press to be interpreted as though it were a license to do anything. i think it is a need to offer some protection in the liberty of the individual. and extremely difficult balancing trick will be to find out exactly what can be done and finding a way in which you can friend that that generally -- genuinely does not harm

legitimate investigative reporting. there is an argument to be had there and i don't pretend one second that is click that are easy to find a way through that. >> before we come to the future though, paragraph 41 following a for statement, i just ask you please to do with your second statement in which with under tab 12. it's page -- [inaudible] and when you draw our attention to a letter you wrote on the 30th of june 2008, is that correct? >> yes. i think that was the date. spent it starts at 14269. >> yes, that's correct. that's correct. >> in your own words please, why did you write this letter? >> there have been a number of occasions, two of which i

mentioned in this letter, when i think there had been a briefing from people close either to the then chancellor or to the prime minister, that were totally dishonest and untrue, and potentially damaging. the first of them was in 2005, when i got off a plane from overseas to find and her headline saying that norman and i were blocking the publication of papers relating to black wednesday. it was utterly and totally untrue. nobody had asked us to release papers on black wednesday, and had we been asked, since the papers it showed a much better situation than many people have reported them we would've been quite in favor of it. people said for years that we lost 16 billion on black wednesday. actually the answer was or wasn't even a fraction but it was a tiny fraction of the. and so we've no reason to object to the publication of those papers. but for reasons of their own, but then chancellor's, then

chancellor's advisers had briefed the press but that's what we were doing. both lamont and i were angry. we put out a statement immediately complained at the time to the cabinet secretary. then immediately prior to the letter, there were stories put about that the reason mr. mcgarvey had not had his knighthood withdrawn was because of representations from me saying mr. mcgarvey's nitrd should not be withdrawn. and not only that but i ended into some fierce row with david cameron about it. utterly and totally untrue. and on this occasion, we were given i might office was given by a reporter the name of the person who had run ground and spread that particular story. and it was one of the advisers working for the then prime minister. and it was on that occasion that i wrote to the prime minister, making it absolutely clear to

him that if anything of this sort happened again in the future, i would go public immediately and i would mean the adviser concerned and i would take the matter further. and that is the letter that you have from me to gus o'donnell dated the 30th of june. i regarded the behavior that norman lamont and die as being absolutely dishonest and dishonorable. and i suppose were big enough to take it, but it seems to me from what i heard it was happening to lots of other people as well in terms of this direct briefing. against people, and i thought it was time that there should be no doubt that the prime minister knew about it. so i asked the cabinet said it appeared i wrote to the cabinet secretary and suggested to him that he showed my letter to the prime minister so that he could take the necessary action to ensure it did not happen again. >> were you rewarded with a

reply? >> i didn't get a written reply. >> is there anything relevant which arrived after that? >> he said he was taken up with with the prime minister. >> and that's what was left a? >> that is where it was left. >> actually i am rereading my letter and i to my office, not me, my office learned from two entirely independent sources the identity of the spokesman concerned who had spread, spread the rumor. which causes some confusion in mr. cameron's office because it was untrue. a considerable amount of confusion and annoyance in my office because it was utterly unplayed untrue. it was a fiction, bound for whatever reason. i can only make a judgment as to what the reason might be.

>> thank you. never go back now, sir john, two paragraph 31 of your statement where you do address the future. our page 08446. >> yes. >> your starting point is the pcc is no longer a credible regulated body. it does not and would not command confidence. was it ever really a regulator, in your view? >> i don't think so in any real sense. i think the second report summed up what it was very eloquently and dismissively. i don't think was ever a credible regulated. nor would be a free constituted. >> paragraph 43 you've already made the point, you've addressed in paragraph 42, you recommend

five options. can you take us through those, please? >> certainly. i think in terms of, the purpose of this is not to be punitive to the press, but stop malpractice. that is the purpose i think that we are engaged in your i think if people produce an article that is blatantly wrong, and an independent body determines it is blatantly wrong, i think rather than going in for large damages or preparation, an apology in a position of equal prominence to the original article would be appropriate. i think anybody establish a be in a position to insist on that with the press. second, there might be occasions for nominal cash payment to the aggrieved party, but i do not favor large sums of compensation, provided a credible apology is offered in a credible position in the newspapers. thirdly, i think if there are repeated abuses in a particular

newspaper, i think the regulatory body should have the power to impose sanctions, by which i mean either finds on the newspaper or insist examples perhaps a loss of their vat eccentric record which would be financially quite punitive, although there are legal problems with doing that. >> there may be -- five xp i entirely concede that. that's why i indicated it is in a session of the sort of thing one could look at. i think where people have been seriously maltreated, i think cascash compensation for funds might be appropriate. and i the other thin or perhaps on an industry fund. the purpose of an industry funded rather than see the offending newspaper is that would put their pressure on the offending newspaper from the rest of the newspapers who had behaved properly. i think that these are all below

options. i think should be considered. the other option i think is worth considering is making proprietors and editors personally liable for the content of what appears in their titles. and that may appear severe, but i would like to make a general point about that. we only have this inquiry, because proprietors and editors have not instructed their reporters to behave in a way which 99% of our public would require as proper. if mr. murdoch, mr. black and the others had said at some stage, you will not hacked phones, you will not use long lens cameras, you will not pursue children on motorbikes, you will not do all the things that this inquiry has heard has been wrong. if it's set up in their reporters that they shall not do that, we would have had no need whatsoever for this inquiry, and no need for any discussion about

sanctions of any sort. let alone statutory bodies. and the only reason we have this discussion and we have this inquiry is because proprietors, and to lesser extent, it has failed in their duty to hand that responsibility down to their reporters. the reporters operate within a culture. it seems to me. they have to provide stories or they are in difficult script the way in which they have obtained their stories, i found it very difficult to accept as a lay onlooker. that editors and proprietors do not know how they're reporters obtaining stories. i find it very difficult to accept that wendi just -- when they get cash expenses of a significant size because they pay for something they don't ask from what is that from, what is that for, it defies credibility that they actually don't know what is happening. and i think i had no idea what was going on below me argument

come is one that i find extremely difficult to accept. and since they could set a climate simply by sending an and destruction out to their reporters, i think to encourage them to do that, i think the prospect of making them liable for the content of the press reporting in their titles is something that might encourage better behavior. a defense to that, i think a perfect defense for that would be clear written instructions from the proprietor or the editor, and to the things that are unsavory that their reporters should not do. if there are reporters are in receipt of written instructions to that effect, and i would argue that in any legislation that should be a classic defense on behalf of the proprietor or the editor. but i've returned to the central point, this whole inquiry has only come about because of those who could have ensured proper

behavior have not done so. and they could do so, and they still to do so. >> not sure that written instructions would be sufficient, because i think you'll find that all the press is supposed to follow the code, and a large number of cases, contracts of journalists they do follow a good which would prohibit a lot of this material if followed to the letter, but the problem may go back to the word you used before, which was the culture behind the need to obtain ever salable stories. >> i'm trying to find a way not to be unfair or unduly punitive to proprietors and editors. i do think they have the power to stop malpractice, and i was looking for a way in which they

would have a defense in -- is one of the reporters went wrote and disobeyed what they had instructed him to do. now, it may be that my option is wrong. by think we need to look at that sort of option -- >> i'm not saying it's wrong. i merely sort of trying to put one of the propositions, had indeed been advanced inquiry, where i've been given comprehensive employment records which make it abundantly clear that journalists must behave in this way or that way, and they must into the other. >> plain fact of the matter is, if one or two journalists misbehaved and lost their jobs, others wouldn't misbehave. it is in the hands of the employer to make sure things are done properly, in the media, as it is in every other business,

or every other part of life. it can be done. people at the top cannot just wash their hands in pontius pilot fashion of what has been done in the name. there is a culture of getting stories. if that culture leads to wrong doing, then the culture needs to be looked at, and the culture needs to be change. and it can be changed by the people at the top. whether my prescriptions are right or wrong, i'm entirely prepared to believe that they may be wholly misguided and wrong, but i don't think the fundamental point is wrong. that it lies in the hands of those who own and control and run the newspapers to ensure they do not infringe the individual legitimate liberties of the citizens. i've been one has to find a balance between legitimate investigative journalism and the sort of malpractice that this inquiry has heard on so often. not easy, but i think necessary. >> paragraph 44, sir john --

>> yes. >> when you say the state cannot regulate the content of the media or press. but i do not see why -- backup a credible system told the media to account. so are you saying that the existence of the statutory architecture underpinning would not impinge on the first principle, which is the -- >> what i'm suggesting is the ought to be a statutory enforcement mechanism rather than a voluntary enforcement mechanism. but that the code of statute that would call the statutory body ought to be voluntary agreed with the press, i think would be impossible to a great proper behavior with the press. i would like the body that has the responsibly for enforcement to agree with the press what is proper and what is not. it may not achieve all we would like, but it is better to do on

a voluntary basis and not to do in a statutory fashion, which i'd be disinclined to do. i think we should try and do it on a voluntary basis, but once that has happened, the statutory body should have the powerful enforcement of the voluntarily agreed to code. a voluntary agreed code should not be in the hands of editors and proprietors and other members of the press. it should be entirely independent. they can have press members on it but it should be, the dominance of the should be independent and they should have the power to impose the sort of sanctions i talked of earlier. so i am looking for a voluntary code with a statutory capacity to enforce sanctions if that code is infringed. >> thank you. that's clear. and then the final point, if i may, paragraph 48 where you deal with the issue of concentration

of power. address under paragraph 57. power without hindrance is bound to be poorly exercise but it's doubly important to protect against abuse of power when it concerns the rights of others or information provision, and when it is directly -- forming about our democratic process. one man one vote is a principled we have long accepted. one man many newspapers plus satellite television ownership is a very different principle. such great power is not abuse. is there anything you wish to add to that? >> i think i talked around on a number of occasions but there's not a great deal of to add to it. i we emphasize the responsibility for press misbehavior must lie ultimately at the top. and i think allies in hands of editors as was proposed but it is often said that editors have editorial input does tactics often i'm sure that is true.

but the plain fact is editors know that proprietors minds. of course, they know the proprietors minds. they sit down with them. they're proprietor may not say do this, do that, but the editor knows but on a number of occasions i can recall editors very bravely went against what would infuse other provider, and i totally admire them for it. that isn't this the. the old the point is the proprietor an editor can set the climate, and i think should accept the responsibility for the climate that they themselves set. >> are there any points we have failed to cover in the course of the last two and half hours that you would like to address because i should probably remember them at about 330 thymic if you are. i can't immediately think what they are at the moment. i think i made a point earlier that i would like to make. i did make it earlier, i repeat myself, i apologize. but accusing at the end of this inquiry, it is very important

that we finally put this subject to bed, and we put it to bed but having a system that is acceptable if nothing happens at this end of inquiry, if parliament is unable to reach a conclusion and nothing happens, then i'm not entirely sure of the signal that sends out. i don't know how fair that is to the honest and honorable majority of the press who lose out because they don't often have salacious stories because they don't go out and get them in the way the less respectable do. so i think we need to curb the worst to protect the best. and i think that is what i hope will be the outcome of this inquiry in due course. >> sir john, could i just pick up one of the points you made, and then make an offer to you. one of the examples you gave concerns the way in which the framework agreements are being

leaked and, therefore, we ported in the times. and understandably critical of the way in which it had been presented in the times, given the concerns that you, for your offices, had expressed him and the risks that thereby would be run through the piece process but i understand that entirely, but i'm not quite sure how one would fit some mechanism for redress into that, while entirely respecting the ultimate freedom of the press, which is sometimes may indeed include a freedom of behavior responsibly. >> you can't that i was very disappointed that it don't take again but at the end of the day, much of what is printed, whether it in french is directly

liberties of individuals, you could have criminal actions or whatever, but on something like that i don't think you can pick you rely on the personal standards of the editor and the newspaper concerned to sometimes they would take a different judgment from to imprint, as they did on this occasion. i think it was wholly wrong. they probably think was wholly right because they thought policy was misguided. i was worried because i have seen in a very direct fashion what happened as result of there being no successful piece process in terms of the people who are being killed on the radio basis so i felt very strongly about that particular issue. i don't think there's a legislative way you can cope with it and i would suggest it is. alternately upon the judgment and standards of the individual newspapers. >> i didn't think so but i thought of want to give the opportunity to just elaborate into thinking that. and the second is, if you do think of something else you want to stay complacent hesitate to put it in writing. >> take it very much indeed.

>> sir john, thank you very much indeed for your time. all right, labor 2010. nothing but the truth. >> you provided a statement. let me be short -- are >> are you happy to be included

in the formal evidence of the inquiry? >> yes, i am. >> the climate change that occurred between october 2010 -- september 2010 garnered the opposition. in regards to your overarching thoughts with your opening statement, -- >> sir, thank you very much indeed for the effort and thought that is being put into the evidence they provided.et ar thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. jay. i'd pre -- t evidence to the inquiry. we will briefly develop those points. i think the first point to make is that we have elements of outstanding press in this country. we certainly have fantastic tradition of the press.. the phone hacking only happened because of the rigor andi r

dedication of parts of the of th press. i think it is very important that the recommendation come ouf of this inquiry, upholding the freedom of the press and the great traditions. i think that secondly, reading the compelling evidence that ha. been put to this inquiry, i evic think particularly it is something that has gone veryy wrong in past, the way that the press deals with individuals, he individuals who don't seek celebrity. and i hope that can be put right by some of the recommendations of this inquiry. thirdly, the right to is right acknowledge that the failure to thesto grips with this earlier is ae collective failure of the establishment. of the the press -- the police can investigate properly and deposei officials who were uniquelyci aware of what was going on and did not speak out. fourth, i think it is right toae say right at the outset, that ae

organization like news international had huge power, ind i think that politicians were speakingte out about some f the practices, and i include o myself, but there that there came a moment when i felt it waa impossible not to speak out. i knew that that moment, i was d toossing a rubric. the final thing i want to say tn you, sir, is that no politicians were, for you and give you a check, and i expect you know that from reading the evidence.g i think there is a huge responsibility on politicians t make sure, and i doubt this was echoed by john major this momentum to make sure that youke are recommendations do no st en up on a dusty shelf somewhere.ds u yoursethat you yourself have remarked. >> mr. paxson -- i r >> i remember that.

>> i want to say something youu said at the beginning of thishi week could that tony blair saids in his testimony, but any prime minister, this is work to be very difficult. i want to say that i will do everything i can to seek to wort on a basis thato you can know y futu.ecommendations will be insured and provide a framework for the future. >> i am very grateful for thatfo assurance. i have spoken of the second t shelf but actually, there is a serious point that this is not a an area oft the law with whichi have been particularly familiar in my practice. i have been very disturbed to read, since the water that there have been repeated attempts to seek to address this issue, all of which, in the end, have just

floundered. i will be very disappointed if the amount of effort, not just public money, but public moneyc as well, but intellectual effort from all of the people in the process, from all those who havh given evidence, and it is why i have think everybody. i am not entirely reassured by,h the repeated comment that the inquiry has already made a difference. it may next year, but i think the effort requires a rather great repentance than that. >> i concur with those remarks, sir. >> we can now move on to question two. the second page of your statement, 06817. o you the third paragraph, first of

all, where we get into the themn of presst, freedom with this possibility.ith which, the evidence we heard as well. in the last paragraph you say that the public interest is best served to thllose on both sides who have respectable dealings with each other. it is about how do you promote that state affairs. how do you do so? >> that is an important question, and it is one that i have wrestled with in thinking about my evidence. evinc i said at the outset that my primary interest in the work of the inquiry was to protect the innocent victims, the people whn are innocent.ef i talk about thisor relationship because i think it is very important and complex. having said that, i think that we should be seeking a democracy, a relationship of mutual respect. let me just talk about what i lee tey that.

respect from politicians for a free, and fair culture. it is very, very important. pre and with respect to the press is deference, and being able to get one's views across. that would be the ideal that we would be seeking. , a we are quite a long way from the ideal at the moment. at its worst, there is a sort of mutual culture of content, i would say, from in the press -- we say the politicians aren't straight with them. and they behave badly. and from politicians, you think that's the reason this is important, is because it is perhaps part of the cortex to what i described as in my statement. others have described as well, closeness of bskyb. why did they seek the closenessf

i think we have a insights about by some of the participants. we are a long ways away from itg just one other point. i don't think -- it is the biggest injustice, it needs to be put right by the inquiry, is in relation to many people -- t but i think it would behe a gre- thing if in the work that thef n inquiry does, if it can help tos improve that relationship. because we have a frayed democracy, frankly. >> thank you. now, moving on to what you sayy under question 11, which is page 06823. you are dealings with the issues of media impact on politicalhe y debate. o number of witnesses have spoken

about thea conflation of news o comment, mr. ed miliband. personal, do you think that that is a significant problem. if so, what would you do about it? >> yes, this is perhaps one ofbt the trickier -- the code of thi first arose in questioning. the least, i hadn't realized ite was about the code until the question. but the code is very a radical e of this -- on this point. in saying there should be a separation of fact and comment. my honest feeling is that -- this is not something that is necessarily going to wind itself to a regulator he solution. or a redressed solution in quite the same way as other thingsroun

that appear with courtesy or harassment or inaccuracy from a slight distinct from the effect andt comments. fm isis very difficult to see how you can regulate the facts. i am not in favor of statutory adulation for balance. in content, as he balancedalancl relations to the ballot casters. i hope that one outcome mightonu be, though, that if we havet, a new body charged with looking as these issues and dealing with upholding the code, but they can at least seek to raise standards, it was suggested, for example, an annual report on these issues. i think that inaccuracy is a problem.i it is in the code, and i think that inaccuracy, there should b a remedy for inaccuracy.

the newspapers would likely accept that. >> the next paragraph under question 11 on this page, you make it clear that you -- you expect to have no greater in france and the quality of their argument. are you able to differentiate the men the message and the messenger, given what oness was described as the undertow ofuld power, which some have been abl to understand the.here >> i think that there is noparaf question that the press has great influence on the country. i think that it would be. incredibly naïve or, indeed, dishonest not to acknowledge that.

and the way they report things,r they both reflect the views of their readers, and i think we r should be clear that some of the things -- labor politicians, conservative politicians -- some of it shakes peoples views. it is inevitable. and we have a center press in this country, more centered right than centerleft. anyone who says that they don't have an influence on overall debate would be wrong.woul i think that in your discussions, you have looked foe and expressly implied deals. i think it is much less about that. at least in my experience withut the government. i think it much less about that and the terms of public debate. t might come onto the questiont of whether politicians spoke out about some of the abuses of the press, working that there was an

effective way of politicians not speaking out, that is the way that i see these issues. >> thank you.>>hank now, we will go back to the earlier point in your statement. her guthrie. page 0618. >> that is where we discussed the differences betweent and politicians and opposition. what is particularly interestinn is opposition with politicians at the moment. opposi and whether there are comingthet back, in fact, differences were the same standards should apply whether different considerations might impinge. >> i have experience with this and three ways,. i think i may be observing,

which is of no question of having had the experience of government, it makes you more cautious, in my view, informal about the way you do things. with respect to energy, i was making multibillion pound decisions in relation to nuclear power, for example.powe the ministerial code, you arehee given help and support to do that by your private secretary or office.ary i hope that i have carried some of the habits of government into opposition. the experience of government is, useful. in terms of them coming intocom this. i think that probably in the written answer, similar standards should apply, but always leave some things likeshp the judicial rule thalyt applies in opposition, that we should

seek the better standard.>> we t >> actually, we had the other way round for mr. blair. oth mr. campbell, he said that opposition for 18 years and having to get the message across to my in a very much more proactive way, the labor party. and the government attitudes and approaches, developing opposition, which was a mistake. i think that is how he put it. >> you just put it the other way around. it may be the same thing.thg. >> i think there was probably a greater degree of informality. g i am not sure what the witnesses were referring to. and overnment, what is more wary about what might be right orin wrong. there is certainly an approachi

that i tried to take as leaderoe of the labour a party. >> on question five, lessons to >> be learned from the recent history of relations between the media and politicians. you talk about all points, and there is a fifth point which you pick up again under question eight. you say first of all, politicians are too slow in condemning or scrutinizing the combat to the media in particular. the phone hacking abuses, and a number of reasons for this. the first one, politicians were where in some ways and seemed to be curtailing freedom of the press. rigly, twoay? >> there are two factors at work here. i think that there is the factor that politicians, were in my

view, wary of taking up the issue of the system of complaints come in the way all of that works. for a variety of reasons before coming back, in my view, to the single one, which is that we were concerned about impact that tould have on particular localh parties. i think mr. black, it would have distracted attention from the pt health. it wo >> i think all of it amounts to a similar idea. you can take a hundred pound grella, and you do that advisedly or un- advisedly. the second part of it, though, which is if you like the correct motive in this, you can see that it is equally important to be te reminded, that the opening o remarks, if i may, is that wepe are held to account by the

press. it is the press' job to hold up to account, and that is very --d it is very, very important in a very important job that the press has. the other part of it is in the mind of politicians, are we seeking to curtail regulating them off the mocked by regulating them. i think that you have these view, if you like, different motives. t which in tandem, were both atwo tives play. i think briefly, there is a third mode of may before a laboa politicians, which a number of you have talked about, so i don't need to dwell upon it, which is a labor vendetta for ne 92ed, 19 -- 1992 and all of that.that >> so what do give way to the we chilling effect argument, and ad coupled with the unintended

consequences with regulation, which we have heard from one or two witnesses. >> i'm sorry, could you explain >> wouion? >> the chilling effect. if you're not careful with chi yohave -on,. >> i think that is always it's always something, whenever we are scrutinizing>> proposals, wn must look very carefully at. and i know it bears heavily on the remarks that were made abou the dilemmas they face as an inquiry. but i don't think the fear of a chilling effect should be athe e reason for inaction. and i think it needn't be an excuse for inaction. >> we have to make sure that wee preserve what is good, and thiss is indicative of an example. there is no reason why we should not shell unjustifiable invasions of privacy in the public interest.

>> precisely. >> on page 86819. the regulator -- regulatory framework [inaudible]vidi there was also insufficienttive enforcement by the cases of criminal law.law. why is this an efficient andive effective remedy for all ofimine these matters?ive remedy >> this is the burden withoutn personalizing it, which you had with mr. no name on the stand. crims a crime committed, it should be dealt with. >> i must say, i take a slightlt different view on this.

whic when i looked through them a chance evidence, but i wasn't aware of the grievances being t done to them, and then i look at the code, i think, number one, accuracy was breached, number three, privacy, number four ofec harassment, or five [inaudible , and devices and some tribute. none of these are legal andare indeed, we did not want to please cleese in a number of these issues. if no way -- it does not make up for the grievances they felt in the disappearance of their daughter. i don't think this can just be put down to let's get the police to do their job.ome

not in the way that some of thi is suggested. >> i will ask you about my speeding analogy, which sometimes finds favor and sometimes it doesn't. can we really allow people topl say that it is not the fault oft the person driving the car at limits to beed speeding, the driver of the police that prevents it. the police were inevitably prioritizing crime. mr. clarke put it to me forcibly. it is undeniably odious, but itd does not killen people. >> sir, if i may, that is an >> additional point to the point i was making. i think it is very important that even with the police having all the resources in the world,i

it is an impressive legality which we would not want, it mccann mccann and m the mccann's and watsons, and a whole bunch ofme people that i did not know peope about, the lady who did this endowment, you know the list better than i do, it was not necessarily based in munich gallery. >> i agree with your point. >> it relates to the concentration of media ownership in a small number of hands. e king across different forms of media. it increased the conflict between the politicians and the public interest. powerful media proprietors. do think that the concentration of media ownership lies at thehf

heart of the problem that you p have iderontified your? or are there other elements to it? >> i think it is part of the problem. think and i think it is part of the solution. because i think that part of news international's sends of power without responsibility, wiich is what i believe it was, came from the fact that they controlled 37% of the newspaper market before the closure of news of the world. and i don't think we can divorcn these questions of ownership. quasi- monopoly, etc. from, or at least the fm concentration of power in theio. monopoly. i don't think we can divorce those questions from the the behavior from some parts of the press. adding and, by the way, the platform,tform, which became an issue with bskyb. that was a big concentration ofa

media power, and i think part ok the airguns, and i use the worde advisedly, what i might use camd from that. >> you are first points close onto the later point. the revelation of relationships further undermining trust between the media and politicians. that explains in part the state of affairs where we find ourselves. >> that is correct. >> yes, i think that is right. i think that is right. it is complicated. it is confiscated at the beginning. the nature of why politicians imy be seek overly close relationships. i think it is good, but i think -- it makes the point more

easily, what is good about thets transparency, is it does -- ityu is a sort of test, -- you engag in a relationship, and that's probably or certainly in my view, a good thing. we met thank you. to as you say, thae recommendations that he began to advance within this page, i tend to go on now to your answer to question seven. which is 0861. and two annex a, which is a list of your meetings of inner o actions --n interactions inays september 2010, which was two or three days after you were elected to be leader of the opposition, is that correct? i >> that is correct. it is apparent from a quicks ith

scrutiny, you see a range of n editors and proprietors, not be just newspapers who might be expected to support you. is difficult to pattns. labor py clearly, we can see, for example, that the laboura party conference, whichu immediately [inaudible] your election, mr. wallace,r. m first of all, and eymr. meyer ad mr. harding and mr. [inaudible name]. thers onext page, page 581, there is one phone call with rebekah brooks on the 21st of ercember 2010. 201, th on the third of march 2011, there was the same c all with james murdoch. can you remember what that was >> he?out? >> sure, he rang me. me it

i think it was on the day that the undertakings were beingrp.,k published by the news corps. i think he briefed me -- he rang me to brief me on what thesesed undertakings meant. >> wereis you surprised to recee his call? >> not overly surprised.hadn' i hadn't had any meetings -- i didn't have any formal meetings with james murdoch. but i thought it was a courtesy call to brief me. >> the opposition was well established on the referral to the competition commission thatr we believe needs to take place and i believed that was our osition. 2011, >> in july 2011, this is page w with4, you have a phone call with paul dacre, editor of the daily mail.

were there any previousn, interactions with him, it doesn't seem to be any previous actions with him, but as we can see from the day, but the phoner hacking scandal, as it w tere, h corrupted. do you recall the subject matter of that call? >> i was phoning him because i was giving a speech the next day, which said that the press complaints commission was needing to be put out of itstho misery. i thought mr. paul dacre had an interesting view. i rang him and the independent to give them advanced sense of what i was saying. about these issues. wha >> do you remember what your him?d to be puat you told >> i think that they were agreed >>th me at that point that there was a toothless poodle that needed to be put out of f its

misery. >> there are further discussions with mr. paul dacre in 2011. a and also on the first of december on 2011. 06586, the first is the phone call, the second one would've heen a meeting. t >> could you say those twoas again? dece >> the 21st of november and the >>rd of december last year. >> oh, yes.e ab in regards to what might've been discussed on a particularink occasion. >> i can. on the first of november, i wase pitching an article to the daily mail, about the conference speech i gave about responsible capitalism. and how we change the way our economy is run, the article i believ appearing, and the [inaudible] -- and where labor stands.ce.

that i believe was at his office.e >> have you had discussions with editors about the issues which n concern thisq inquiry? >> yes, those discussions may be private and confidential. it is a general message that you emerges from what they say, in which you could help us with? .. on i had would have been at the time of last summer, really, with the editors. i think i had -- i had lunch with mr. dacre you maybe emitted we discussed the toothless poodle question when