has to introduce the regulatory reforms as i described in a sensitive and intelligent manner were any statutory role is very much in the background, backstop but equally i think we can go further than that. as i said, maybe clarifying and enshrining public interest as virtuous, and enshrining in a quasi-constitutional manner the freedom of press, and we can give more protections. i think they can go in parallel. >> thank you. do you see, as supporting that, the approach which i think i invited this prosecutions to adopt in relation to advising, providing guidance on how we would operate the crown the crown prosecution test for prosecutions in relation to public interest for journalists and which is subsequently

published? >> do i think that is a hopeful? >> do you think that is sufficient to deal with that aspect, was my -- >> i, i don't know whether sort of a unilateral definition by the cps is in and of itself -- >> oh, no i wasn't suggesting it was an overarching national or it was quite a difficult thing to define. because of the truth is that the public interest will actually take on different characteristics, depending upon the subject matter that you are talking about. and, therefore, there is a danger of defines the public interest in a way that impedes its operation in different areas. that's just a concern i have. my point was rather different.

you mentioned a concern journalist should know what they can and can't do. and in that regard reference has been made to the risk of prosecution if what they do is criminal law. and to that end direct prosecutions published guidance following the discussion at the inquiry of the things that he would take into account when considering whether prosecution was in the public interest. and, of course that would come an example, in relation to bribery so that if criticism is made or complaint made that a journalist is bribed somebody to get information, then if that

information was obviously included in the public interest to obtaining because it was your state and shovel point, then that would be the highest degree but and decide whether it was right for bribery. and, of course, that's one particular gen x protect at the end of the is the judge saying well, there's no defense but this is odyssey the public interest and, therefore, a discharge you absolutely. does that cope with that concern that you identified? >> i think it goes a very long way to addressing the concern. i simply don't know, a matter of law, legal practice, whether we would need to reflect that in say, primary but legislation. >> if you want to create a statutory defense you would but the trouble with the statutory defense line is that

you then have got to cope with what might be thought to be bogus claims in public interest in an investigation. and, therefore, mean that there could never be any criminal oversight, or if it is criminal behavior because we'll always be able to say there is this public interest because i this information from a source who i couldn't possibly name for very good reasons. and, therefore you scuttle the whole process of challenging criminal behavior. >> to be honest i haven't, i haven't explored, i mean i haven't explored the cps guidance on this. i haven't thought through sufficiently the interaction between this and a defense in legislation.

it's clear great help for the press to know what the cps attitude are. >> welcome that was the purpose of doing it. it actually was to provide some of the reassurance that you've mentioned that i invited -- which, of course, is a matter for him, not for me. >> a big step forward. >> mr. clegg the relationship between press and politicians. prime minister has said -- [inaudible] any further ideas you have in that regard? talk about transparency of course. >> i think, i think in some sense, politics is just main mechanism, but it's an issue attitude, and outlook about, you know, i'm lucky enough to lead a

party that has never been in anyone's pocket, you know? we pride ourselves of being skeptical about this at interest. notches in the press but as i said before whether trade unions bankers, sort of a liberal philosophy that says that politics is at its best when it represents the country as a whole but it doesn't seek to represent partial interest. i don't want to over romanticize this because i am being open and candid about the fact that would also perhaps in part -- i'm not sure there are very many vested interests in the press that what is in the pockets in the first place. so it's not just born a virtue. but yet that is important. and i think the fact you combine it with the fact of me is changing and it's faster the way people are accessing their

information is so diverse and diffuse, increasingly newspapers are hugely important but they set the agenda many respects, but many particular younger people get their information through diversity of sources. i just think this, this is a good opportunity for politicians to get off their needs. they don't need they didn't need to constantly pander to every passing prejudice or campaign, put out by the press. it's great the press do that we should celebrate it. which are protected to a run at the end of the day politicians to stand up for themselves and say look, we have a democratic mandate, we have gone out to get elected, would listen to our constituencies at our constituents every thursday, friday. we get out and about in the country. much more by the way.

and i just think coming in, i just think a bit of an assertion of the legitimacy of politicians to make decisions in their own rights unfettered, unintimidated would probably go further than almost anything else in making sure the balance is, is correctly, is correctly set. >> thank you. paragraph 87 now of your statement, mr. clegg. this is the appointment of andy coulson. you had a conversation with the prime minister, a brief conversation a decision to appoint andy coulson the so this was in may 2010, greg? >> yeah speak and ask you about the background of the

information. >> that is my recollection. the background to it is that we the liberal democrats my colleague, have been very outspoken about andy coulson when his appointed to party in opposition. this was an individual whom we had highly critical of and have been critical of his appointment before the election. so you know he would be very odd for us not to seek to you know, straighten out our views now that were suddenly and unexpectedly thrown together in dublin on so many issues. and i genuinely cannot remember the precise wording but as i said, i said to the prime minister i asked him welcome to come is this the right thing to

do given the trouble around andy coulson. the prime minister was aware of my party's views on it. prime minister explained that he had given publicly why he felt that he had been satisfied with the response is that he from andy coulson, he felt as he put it that he deserves a second chance. a lot of information allegations we now know were not known to me nor the prime ministers and. i remember that. this conversation would have been quite different, you know now, that we did know them. and also it's important to remember that in a coalition of prime minister it right to make choices about who he appoints to his team, which i can't, would never seek a leader and say i am free to make appointments to my team, which he can't veto. so it was not a conversation

that was based on a premise that somehow, you know, i would say you can't do this. that wasn't the understanding of it. >> anything else about the conversation which you remember which is material to our consideration, or not? >> no. >> ascii generally about the phone hacking -- ask you generally about the phone-hacking scandal. when did you first call for a public inquiry relations to it? was as late as july of last year speak was i'm afraid i generally can't remember. i'm sure i can find out but i cannot remember. i was, i was very clear in my own mind -- i was very clear in my own mind when it was obvious we have had this look into that it needed to be looked into by an inquiry. thankfully that's the way it transpired which was as they

call it the judge lead with real teeth, and with a -- and i spent quite some time discussing with the prime minister about the need to have a broad remix. i was very queen what we shouldn't have is either a toothless inquiry or one that only looks at part of against the all of these things are linked. >> the same way i thanked the terminal been -- thank mr. miliband, i must thank you as well. >> it would certainly view clearly was held across parties that it needs to be broad and strong as an inquiry. >> so is this right mr. clegg? for you, the trigger is the events of the fourth of july last year in particular, relations to milly dowler, and

not for example, "the guardian" article of july 2009 or "the new york times" piece by the first of september 2010? >> no, the million dollar thing transform everything because dashing the milly dowler transform everything. the public i think quite rightly are different to the plight of politicians and celebrities. i think they quite rightly look after themselves as they can but i think it's a whole different manner when they see a family in the moment of unimaginable anguish and distress. being intruded upon in most grotesque fashion. and it made people very angry. i cannot believe that that level of intrusion that level of almost amoral behavior to the most helpless, innocent people i do not believe that would have

a reason, other than in the context of a newsroom practices which were just totally out of control. and where people clearly felt they could operate by one set of rules while everybody else had to abate another set of law. and the culture of impunity, sort of one will for us, another blow for everybody else, is not only arrogant, not only wrong, almost certainly illegal it's also i think an expression of a culture in which perhaps because of the intimacy between the press and politicians and press and the police, they felt they could operate by another set of rules because they kind of had the measure of politicians and the police. in other words, the arms of the state that should be exercising authority, enforcing the law

and acting transparently were doing exactly the reverse. so no one at the time the press felt ungrateful. >> is it fair that you of course are not part of this culture of intimacy because you told us that you're not in anyone's pocket, that you didn't, as it were, speak out, so there may be other reasons to speak out against news international? if they were preventing you from speaking out. you are not part of any culture against this which might have prevented others. is there anything we can learn from that or refer from the? >> maybe i got the wrong -- my party was very outspoken from the issues of accountability and the press hacking so one. and i certainly remember about spokespeople being the lone

voices on this in parliament with it was being crushed under the carpet by both labour and conservative parties spent very -- >> fair enough. thank you very much. >> mr. clegg thank you. >> thank you. 2:00. >> all rise. >> you can see previous testament of the leveson inquiry online at c-span.org. that concludes today's testimony by deputy prime minister nick clegg, and prime ministers questions time, which norman is

shown on wednesday morning was recorded. >> the u.s. senate gavels in at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> until the senate gavels in, we will shirk today's coverage of the leveson inquiry.

>> the first witness today is the right honorable nick clegg. >> thank you. >> i, nicholas william peter clegg, do solemnly and truthfully declared the evidence i should give chubby the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> mr. clegg, you kindly provided us with a witness statement signed and dated the 30th of april of this year together with one exhibit. is this a formal evidence you are at -- you gave to the inquiry? >> yes. >> as i've said to i think all your assessors sitting there, i'm very grateful to you for the obvious work that has been put into compiling material for the inquiry. thank you. >> well, mr. clegg, first of all

you deal with the broader role of the inquiry, and state that the strong the first press is the lifeblood of a democratic society. would you agree that a free press needs to be balanced against the responsibilities intended upon that press? >> yes. it is a balance. i think a free press self-evidently is the lifeblood of a free democratic society and the freedom of the press needs to be protected at all times at all costs. but it needs to be balanced against the risk of abuse of power. and this is not just in the press and media to make but concentrations of power power is wielded unaccountably occurs, you know, you try and find some remedies and safeguards against that. >> you know, you deal with for specific areas first of all

covering the interaction between politics and media. paragraph four of your statement. i will invite you to elaborate on each of those authorities, as you see fit. the first specific rubric is media influence over government policy which is paragraph five. >> yes. i mean, the point, the point here is i was seeking to make is that the media are entirely entitled to individual newspapers or newspapers are entitled to hold strong views and to seek to promote those use and to seek to persuade pressure governments to adopt those. i think that is entirely legitimate. actually -- also of course, provides a very important corrective in the system.

so whether it was "the daily mail," "the guardian" on hacking, when the media picks up like that it has a very powerful positive effect. i think the balance struck to make is that politicians are not, not too weak kneed in face of pressure, which they don't agree with, which is unwarranted or unjustified in a mature democracy, pressure is one thing, intimidation is another. and i think it's very important not just the press but the political clout. the more the political class allows themselves to be intimidated or congealed or pressured, of course. >> used refer specifically to paragraph 62 the coverage. in paragraph eight newspapers needing to tread a careful line between legitimate profession of

thoughts and opinion and simply projecting propaganda. how do you achieve that last object of? in other words stay on the right side of that careful line. >> well, this is a 10 million-dollar question. the editors code itself is very clear powerful wording saying that distinction is going fact conjecture opinion. i think it's fair to observe that's not always readily recognizable in the content of what is published in our press. but i personally cannot see any means by which you would seek to regulate legislate. i think it is just i think it is a principle which is stated in the code and the more the

press of bias by its own code the better. but i would be very wary indeed as a liberal believes passion of freedom of the press trying to somehow intrude, somehow trying to distinguish between fact and opinion to the table are constantly. spin but you are not suggesting that it's not a principle which the press ought themselves follow not follow? spent but it is a stated principle in in the code. >> but there are people have said very things about that as you're probably aware. i entirely understand that it's not some piece you want to legislate for, because content

is sacrosanct reasons of free speech and the like. but that's not to say that there shouldn't be internal controls at least it's thought about by the press themselves. >> yes. and in a sense, the public is entitled to believe that it is or should be the case already given the unambiguous intent of the code. i mean i think most people would view a goat as being exactly that, a code which is adhered to, not survey pick and choose menu aspirations. so, i really think it is on the press itself and is out of this process there were to be greater respect for the code that the press itself believes in was

formed, was drafted, i think that would be a good thing. by simple observation is it's a cul-de-sac to believe that that issue, however interesting, fact and conjecture could somehow be fixed from some external route. >> as you make cracked the point, there are no bright lines inevitable because your selection of facts, each one of which may be accurate, made themselves lead to an indirect. were if you select different and the comment is different. >> yesterday i think we will -- the idea that there are such things of facts that speak in sort of an -- for themselves are not anyway tempered by the way they are ordered the waiter tempered. the language around. i don't believe the idea that there is this thing called

pristine fact, which is somehow you know in some of the entirely isolate from the context which is presented. and perfectly accurate facts can be nonetheless presented in a form, a wider subjected point. >> your second the general point, mr. clegg paragraph nine the relationship between the media and your own party and here again you state in paragraph 10 the question of balance one needs to get the balance right, and you set out the problems. may i ask you to elaborate on those points please? >> the point i made here is that to get the balance right, mutual interest between politicians and the media will always exist. but mutual dependency and political, what i call political -- must be avoided. i think that it is right,

inevitable legitimate, and expected that they will seek it out. you can't do a unless you seek to convey to me but as i said earlier it is quite right legitimate to expect the media will want to seek to persuade politicians of various points of view. i think that relationship should be laced with a healthy degree of skepticism about the motives of both sides in that relationship, and a certain sort of distance. and clearly that distance, that skepticism which i think should be treated between dashing any -- the trade unions, the city of london. to me the point of good government is that you do not allow yourself to be unduly persuaded by one estimate interest on the right all the fashionable view which i strongly believe in.

that is clearly threatened or can be undermined when you get as is the relationship of an affect a point where party tax feels, owes it to press group y. and the press have an incredibly valuable asset in their possession, which name is unique among any vested interest, which is their ability to promote politicians in a way that leads to increased number of votes. and that after all is the part about the democratic process is all about. >> what we have called throughout the inquiry the megaphone the press has and can use. >> yes. exactly. i guess my point is that it's us politicians must, must be clear

to put this relationship in perspective. i think sometimes there has been a tendency in the past to say if tabloids acts produces an editorial the day before general election supporting party y then inevitably party y land. thankfully the public are smart enough. they do with newspapers tell them what to do and increasingly derive their information from such a wide array of media different sources. that this kind of automatic support x will lead to a vote y. i don't think it ever quite he sits in the way that it is an anti-westminster political imagination but i think that is less so as time has gone on. >> you return to this point in paragraph 25 where you stressd1d!d!d! the need to make a cleard(d(d)d)d d!d)d) distinction between the bar, thed(d(d(d(d( relationships remain skeptical

at arms length and with cleard(d(d(d d(d( boundaries.d(d(d(d(d(d(d(d( but again, the question is how is that relationship and achievable, and achieved? >> well, transparency is a major component in all this. ..

we will have a dramatic and lasting an effect which will lead to greater skepticism and wariness which is part of the humphrey british. the idea that politicians and the press should operate in hermetically sealed silence separate from each other is unrealistic. they see each other out. he manner in which they do so and spirit in which they address each other. >> thank you. your sir point commercial interests from the second point the point is that the media and lobbyists in their own interests. and commercial interests. can i ask you about paragraph 14, address media standards. in the terms of this inquiry.

>> lessons need to be learned from that, mr. clegg. >> what i was referring to there is the report did not initially recommend any statutory underpinning on the basis for new recommendations made by calcutt. calcutt later concluded that was a mistake and said to rely on arrangements which are in the gift of the judge and jury of those affairs is based on the floor. you are asking vested interest to shut itself when things go wrong which i can't think of anything else which is different from normal standards of accountability when things go wrong and that gets into

interesting territory of it yourself regulation has not worked, it is populated by very good people who try to do a good job but it is a relatively toothless operation run by the people it is supposed to hold to account. i am sure we will cover this later. i think we are moving into a phase where given enough opportunity that you or judge and jury self regulation method to prove itself and it seems to come across. difficult question how to replace it with general way that doesn't hinder or trample upon the freedom of the press. >> in paragraph 16 you were lobbying for the media but we will take that point out.

your general point is corporate governance and impunity and yesterday used the same term that lighted on it with improving impunity. to develop that point, corporate governance. >> is the belief that we now know that illegal activities appear to be taking place on enormous industrial scale. basic mechanisms of internal accountability, namely corporate governance and individual newspapers just didn't pick that up or maybe did pick it up and

did nothing about it. i don't know. it seems to me to state the obvious which is a philly of corporate governance on a significant scale. in my written evidence i suggest that if a journalist feels the need to do things which are intrusive and unusual in order to pursue a story which is corporate interest we shouldn't be squeamish about that. it is right to invest in journalists. to get to the truth which has been hidden if the truth has been hidden you have to get out to get to it. the means by which they do that should be clearly understood by those who oversee their work and that is corporate governance.

it is the challenge for the press for us -- someone trying to micromanage outside the news from. i would have fought when journalists take those steps they shouldn't just be operating so low. in the shadows. there should be some basic arrangements by which people are aware of what they are doing and the chain of command, understand it is being done for the right reasons. sir >> moving forwarding your statement to page 4, paragraph 128, just let me -- >> i would like to come back to that west point leader because it does raise interesting questionsater because it does raise interesting questions

where the balance should lie between investigative journalism which is in the public interest and the approach of the state went illegal behavior by journalists is revealed a topic we discussed yesterday. we can come back to later. >> we will come to would later. it depends very heavily on what our understanding of the definition -- definition is of the public interest. if you are not clear what the public interest is and we have a rather fungible and clear definition, by different organizations i knew that creates a lot of potential misunderstanding. >> you are absolutely right band is one of the reasons why it is very difficult to create hard

law that defines the situation and it is probably better to retain an element of flexibility and that is where your point about appropriate internal controls in my thinking becomes much more important to protect the journalists who are doing important work in public interests. without allowing a get out of jail free cards to those who aren't in truth working the public interest but are simply prepared to dig around for stories that have no public interest at all. >> exactly. this is corporate governance like that. could be where a new regulator

in mechanism could help to sort of maintain the right standards, non statutory though they might be in the day to day operation of checks and balances within the news room. >> at the same time one has got to see how criminal law interfaces that and at some stage possibly have a chance to get back -- i am sorry, mr. jay. >> paragraph 28, mr. clegg, general elections, take the vignette if that is the right way of describing it the last general election. there was -- one good moment -- after the first tv debate there were three on the twenty-seventh and twenty-nine of april. it has been described as a spike

in your poll ratings, but there was coverage in some instances of the press which were hostile to you. first of all, what was your view as to the objective reality of the spike if i can put it in those terms. it genuinely reflect underlying support? >> my view at the time -- was very sort of pragmatic. i was conscious of the fact that from the public's point of view many people were not really aware of who i was and who the liberal democrats were legal going forward in general

election so the widely watched television debates -- new for the public, the fact that i was saying stuff that was the fruits of what david cameron -- had an effect when the public waswhen the public was weary of the outgoing government -- there was an appetite for something different and to that extent it was not that surprising that an influence of something else was put forward and people responded to that. i never got swept away with it. even in my time in politics the fortunes go up and down quite rapidly as part of our business and you should never pin your

hope on one spike or one opinion poll. if it tends not to work as indeed it didn't in the event. final results in election day fell far short of expectations which were up around the time of the first television debate. >> there was one comment in the guardian on the eighteenth of april which was three days after the first debate. he was editor of "the sun" in the late 90s in 2002 or 2003 and he made the point that -- to leak out of u.k. politics. it indicates what his assessment

of your lack of proximity -- is that fair? >> a perfectly fair point. statement of fact that for a large part, in the general election, when i say the liberal democrats are subject of indifference at best and derision at worst and he describes his inexperience as an instruction to deride or ignore the liberal democrats. if that is what you are used to in the press it come as a bit of a shock in the general election. the reaction of some parts of the press are pretty ferocious after that because things from their point of view were not going to plan. if you place your bets in favor of other parties and this

upstart party in truth on the planned you can take a bit and start lashing out which is what happened. identify and it's surprising. i thought it would be surprising. that is the nature of politics. the nature of the alignment between particular parties and particular press groups. you have all line yourself with one team and a yellow team comes in you might get off of the field of play and do that by not going after the ideas. going after the man, not the. is as old as the hills. >> it might be described as a backlash against you following the first debate, be collected some of the media pieces between

tabs 26-29 the telegraph in the sun -- "the sun," the most vitriolic, tab 29. but i suppose you say that if we are not going to legislate for the fusion of facts andcomment it is inevitable. >> that is why "the sun" makes no apology on the obvious warning on one of the worst physical predictions in modern parlance but just because they made spectacularly inaccurate -- should seek to somehow prevent them from making those predictions are issuing those warnings to their leaders. that is what editorials are

about, express impartial opinion. defend the right of any inspector -- partisan views to my dying breath. they seem to be barking up the wrong tree but that is their prerogative. >> thank you. let me move to paragraph 62 of your witness statement. page 13810. out of general elections to the issue of media campaigns. can i ask you to follow the points you are making about these newspapers being valuable

campaign tools but whether they act in the public interest reflecting their constituency. >> first point do they act as campaigners in their own right? yes they do. often with great effect and fairly often i think to the benefit of the country at large. some of the campaigns i mention here, the daily mail's outstanding campaign on bringing the murderers to justice was a brave campaign and entirely justified. the guardian -- "the guardian"'s campaign to not take no for an answer and plugged away at the issue of phone hacking. if they hadn't stuck to their guns we wouldn't be sitting here

today. i would be involved with a number of media outlets on the campaign to give retired soldiers the respect and support they deserve. my only point is as a politician you quite rightly need to be dispassionate about which campaigns you act upon and which you don't. if we get to the point where the intensity of the campaign is successful, that would not be right. with a campaign is right in conflict and use -- and again one of the great virtues in our press compared to some in separate press cultures that got these campaigning, something we

should celebrate. >> are there any risks that you perceive? >> simply the government in particular politicians and government have to be clear that they are deciding things in the public interest for the benefit of the country as a whole and not just in response to the loudest voices in the strongest campaigns in the press. i am stating the obvious but i don't think one should underestimate how powerful those guys orchestrated, sustained press campaign is. the overwhelming temptation to want to respond positively because that will communicate to

the public. as long as politicians remain objective as much as they can and skeptical and continue ideas it can be a healthy thing. >> we move on to and excessive topic under questions 7, 36 of your statement, this is the issue of your own personal approach to engaging with media society etc. and in paragraph 36 you point out that the meetings or engagements or interactions falling to three main categories. the formal meetings and interactions are social events and informal discussions. you differentiate between those in your exhibit. and exhibit 1 which starts at

3187. we're looking at meetings before you and the government in 2008. as with others who understand the next four pages, you see a whole range of the forecasts. impossible to pick out any patterns. would you agree with that? >> looking back on it, the interesting thing is i actually feel that the regularity of my contacts and proprietors and journalists and so on was much more intense in opposition than

in government. because of the physical location where i was working. you work and physically share the same space as journalists and wander through that and you always have passing conversations with any number of journalists and the interesting thing is in government you are slightly more point -- considerably more cut off. the nature of my interaction with proprietor's and editors and so on is much more formal and i would say much more sparing now than it was when i was in opposition. not that the intensity of that context in opposition

necessarily shifted the underlying difference as it did earlier. >> one thing to add to this list a point which doesn't apply to you but everyone else. under the column of what was discussed, the party conference may be said to be counterproductive with topics discussed on particular occasion. do you think more information might be routinely supplied? >> you would be hard pressed to provide aggravated accounts. of these meetings -- a whole lot less intriguing and surprising then you might initially see.

a lot are early humdrum but what could just be in telegraphic form and mention issues that were prevalent in a discussion. frankly i simply do not remember the precise contents of a huge number of these interactions stretching back in number of years. >> you were not asked previously to record them and there hasn't been a formal system of course there can't be a note because that would ultimately destroy the informality of the context at significant times do you have an observation on the idea of noting in two or three words general topics so that actually you are able to refer back and say we never talked about x or why. >> i have a problem with that at

all. if i now meet an editor or proprietor of my own, i was the routine nature of course if anything was raised which touches on official government business and relay that to officials in my private office. there is not a great leap between that and jotting down on a piece of paper these were things that were raised. these conversations are distinguished by informality, tumor and gossip, but those it -- other issues are predominant. >> those three categories are very important. i understand that. don't want to do anything to minimize the links which are part of you putting out your

message and them challenging you or holding you into account, language you want to use. >> proprietors have a unique ability to access politicians on their own in a way that other domains of public and corporate and economic life do not. and sometimes beyond politics they make points which come back to the early conversations we had about the press being lobbyists on their own behalf and commercial interests they want to communicate that, they are -- to do that as a context of intimacy that is not extended to anybody else. >> that is part of the trouble. >> that can be, yes.

i had a number of conversations with editors and proprietors of news organizations who were very hostile -- quite a understandably they took the opportunity to say to me we don't like you for whatever reason. and act on their views and made it clear this was the process being dealt with in its own sort of block by as it turned out we to secretaries of state over a period of time but i can't think of another area where a commercial interests -- haven't come to a senior politician to privately say i don't think your government should do it because it harms commercial interests. the best antidote to that is

politicians -- keep their distance and refer the issue where it is impinges on formal business to the formal government system. >> two particular lunchs, page 1317, james murdoch, them james murdock july 16th, 2009. on those occasions it may be difficult to remember but mr. james murdoch discussed the bbc license fee for example? ? >> i cannot pretend that i remember. all of those meetings legal i became a leader in february of 2008. many people didn't know me from

adam. the first year or two i was keen to take an example to explain why was and what my ambitions were for my party. i simply don't remember. >> two occasions when you met with rupert murdoch, december 16th, 2009 dinner, rebekah brooks -- >> there were a fairly large number of people there and sometimes at the end of the table. didn't have -- teaching interaction with rupert murdoch before dinner and say goodbye. and as an observer as much as

anything else. >> the thirteenth of january 2010, dinner with a group of people from the telegraph stable. was that close on that occasion? >> that was very much a sort of series of meetings and lungees and dinners close to the general election and manifesto ideas, purely political, me trying to persuade the paper which i never had any illusions would never come close to endorsing democrats but nonetheless give us a fair hearing. >> thank you. before the election on the

sixteenth of march, 2010 you made a sworn addition to the original version of your exhibit that after the lunch with mr. murdoch there was a meeting with mr. murdoch and rebekah brooks. is that right? >> meeting is an ambitious known for what happened. my recollection of it was as i was leaving -- rupert murdoch was in the building and i exchanged a few sentences with him, perfectly civilized, amicable greeting in the building where the bunch was being held. >> sins entering governmentlunch was being held. >> sins entering government which is the second phase--the first is the smaller and more

formal meeting, the phone calls. how many of these were 1:1 without even an advisor there? >> reporter: ended by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneousended by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneousnded by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneousended by the would sometimes sit in and sometimes not and it was fairly spontaneous and depending on my judgment of what the person would prefer. there was not really any rule. i don't recollect. a fair number of these would be meetings where i met with particular individuals.

>> july of 2010, was that 1:1 do you thing? >> reporter: that was the only time i met mr. baker since i have been in government in my office and i remember distinctly i made an interest in the case for election reform and he explained to me his concerns about the idea that was announced the month before. i think we made as little impression on each other on both points. >> ships that pass in the night. >> i said to him i hear what you say and the telegraph raised elections about the bid and to be fair he didn't speak. i know you can't comment on this

and this is a quasi judicial decision for business at the time. >> others may have been bending your ear. on the seventeenth of august, 2010, was a lunch with rebekah brooks and james murdoch. did you get the other side on this occasion to the best of your recollection? >> no. i don't. i remember distinctly -- it must have been very much in the air at the time when we as the government would hold a referendum on a changed system and charged issue. we devoted quite a bit of time to that. it was something close to my

heart where i have every opportunity -- where rebekah brooks or james hardy to put my case in change. in any event i don't think it made much of an impression. that was a subject of comfort. coming up in that lunch -- >> you confirm -- since being in government there have been fewer meetings and compulsively sins the summer of last year even fewer. and head them all up. >> there was a phase that is reflected in the chronology said

out here there was a phase where i was proactively on the run up to the referendum in may and i was very keen to interest people in the press in the case for changing the electoral system. that may be reflected in the rhythm of some of these entries and ask them in the may and summer of last year and subsided a bit. >> in paragraph 39 of your statement you deal generally on page 1305 with the content of the discussions about any particular event and you make it clear that in opposition the discussions tended to be quite general and policy issues which

concern for readers rather than media politics. the most interested of a particular news organization on occasion media policy did arius. >> yes. >> moving forward to paragraph 41 mr shall -- shell. you met him in opposition chell. you met him in opposition formally. can i ask you to tell us about that? >> i have known him -- we met each other many years ago. i can't put a date on it. before i was in british politics. when i recollect a decade or more he was working at the time for a center-left think-tank

which i have forgotten. i came across him and art have crossed from time to time and latterly our children went to the same school in southwest london. so i knew him before he was employed in this capacity and i knew him socially as well. >> you haven't seen him since september of 2010 keys >> as it happens sins the general election in may of 2010 my social contact with him -- as it says here, very, very infrequent indeed. and invited, we both know in

september of 2010. >> paragraph forty-seven -- this is the last sentence of paragraph 47. your relation to newspapers that share your party's liberal values. did i do that right? >> before the last general election, i never once entertained for a second daily e-mail or the telegraph would come out in support but that didn't mean i felt it was a

waste of time to try to explain what my plans were for the party so that there was an editorial staff for coverage to give us a hearing and i would still do that today. other newspapers, notably independent guardian -- there was much stronger convergence which i hoped would lead to more explicit form of endorsement which happily did occur but as i said in my written evidence i don't think one should get as hung up but i don't think one should be vote undue focus on the editorial written by a newspaper the week of the general election because that shifts votes one way or the other. my own view is there much bigger

depending on the public's view of politicians as people and proxies' if they sustain prism through which they are described over a sustained period of time and that is immeasurably more important. >> and relation to the three papers you named, bret baier direct explicit discussions along the lines with you asking the editor with if they would be affording the liberal democrats -- >> yes. that is reflected in one of the exhibits. for example if i look back on the editorial -- the democrats and the general election they

were breaking with existing precedents supporting the labor party at that time because of their support for electoral reform which they fought was most likely to happen if the liberal democrats did well in the general election. sort of issue specific endorsement if you like which was the course of discussion. i observed not to make a wider point that as it happens that support didn't last very long because the guardian -- didn't agree with that -- were disillusioned with the liberal democrat entry into it. and a referendum on the electoral for was tampered with the issue on which they supported us, "the guardian" was ambivalent towards it. it shows these things can change very quickly. >> the example you give there

can be no question of any implied deal because you're policy being the same for decades since the merger of the liberals in 1987 or wherever it was, is there a danger here of this sort of discussion you are describing becoming transactional? i am talking more generally. >> semantic about any discussion. and views and opinions and of course there is. conversation between two entities and both want something -- party for transaction. guard against that being a means by which government is warped

and the public interest is undermined. >> paragraph 51, mr clegg bloggers the confirmed from public policy. >> before you change subjects, on the same topic could i ask this? it has been suggested and also been denied but it has been suggested that there is a difference between the approach to journalists, adopted by the labor party. from 1992 and to 1997 general election which they took into government -- i appreciate your

position looks at the problem -- perspective. i am interested in your view as to whether there should be a different relationship between the way that you try to tell your story when you are in opposition, the way you do when you are in government and whether there are risks. to some extent you comment by saying there is less contact and more policy specific but there's a more general issue which i will be interested in your view on. >> there's a general issue because you function clearly in government utterly different. you are no longer singleminded be seeking to promote your views and the advantage of your political party. and the duty to the public.

there are certain issues where you have a very big dubee to inform the public of changing the way which benefits -- or public health issues were government has an objective role to get its message across on issues of overwhelming public interest that serve the nation and it is fair to say the skills -- are not the same skills as that of public information that you adopt in government why the division of labor between government officials on behalf of government and political party and political media appointees is a very important one to get right.

>> yes. and do you think it has been demonstrated to be a risk that the mechanism for selling message has been taken sometimes from opposition into government in a way that is undermined the integrity -- the balance at which the message -- >> the comments from people like alastair campbell where he says we kind of kept up this friendly tempo to dominate the headlines every single day that we successfully deployed opposition

and we carry it through in government. i sound it correctly, a feeling of hindsight they should have been less concerned about the press earlier. >> absolutely right. his evidence that was reflected and when i was asked a question i wondered whether you had seen the temptation of that as you step from opposition into government and whether it is simply a mindset that all new ministers have to get into so that they understand what that there road is different. a big learning exercise. any set of individuals who entered government for the first time through a different sort of environment to work in but to be honest i am in such a different position to that of the labour party in 1997, it didn't have

any big media groups. we were constantly -- it was a completely different dynamic. we just came at it from a totally different trajectory. i also think governments -- one of the many differences. if you're a single party going into government with the team in opposition transferred directly to governments so everything remained intact, the coalition is a mix and match. the prime minister and i had to use two teams together from a totally different political perspectives in pursuit of a new hole, coalition government and that means you can't carry on doing what you did because you are working in that completely distinct political setting. >> your experience doesn't allow you to comment one way or the other about the underlying point because it is so different.

[talking over each other] >> there was in my experience because of the circumstances of my party and so on simply no prospect, we would carbon copy what we doing, in to government. it was just inevitable that we were going to do things quite differently than we were doing in opposition. >> paragraph 51 to 56, the safeguards in your party in relation to the evolution of policy to of 08 pressure from outside organizations -- please to summarize that. >> quite simply something i am immensely proud of, we have a

deliberative democratic process of policymaking. sometimes frustratingly painstaking. it is based on a series of policy -- it is a wonderful sort of inoculation if you like against undue influence over party policy because it is done in such a systematic and open way and it is not -- sometimes i wish it were to rewrites--something that we do in open deliberative fashion. i will defend that. is a good way of making policy and making sure all views are properly reflected. >> something you are immensely

proud of. there is a notch in your statement in what you said, i don't in your statement in what you said, i don't know. i am very happy to- [talking over each other] >> it is unusual to put that in politics and something i'll always protect. >> in paragraph 57 you explain you had little direct experience on media policy areas. you say we have huge enthusiasm to this inquiry, has been notable. can you share with us the discussions as not being entirely confidential. the gist of what you have been told on these occasions. >> i don't think i am beyond

fair on proprietors for sympathy, the inquiry was first decided on to say this was something which weighs very heavily on their minds. it affects the future structure of organization -- there is a lot at stake for them and all i observe is a bunch of other things going on. most importantly the fate of the economy and the global economy, the inquiry and its contents nonetheless appears to be very great participation. >> but that is as far -- >> i have been struck from my position because the government seems to deal as we are with a

range of things where our main preoccupation evidently is the economy, employment, the unbelievably difficult job of rescuing the british economy. i am struck you could have conversations with people where that is overarching national concern is swept aside by forensic interest in the conduct of this inquiry. i don't in any way want to suggest the inquiry is not important. it is more important for those who directly affects than people worried about the price of petrol when they fill the tank of their car and got to make ends meet. i observed the importance --

[talking over each other] >> don't be apologetic. i hold no believes that this inquiry has ever been like the significance that should be attached to the other issues that you mentioned. the field in any sense -- >> many things can be important all at once. >> the issue of lobbying now, we have touched on this. paragraph 71 of your statement, page 13811, possible to see the lobbying issue as a general point rather than further heightened issues are rising in media lobbying. lobbying in general is within your quality area as deputy prime minister aldo you certainly recused yourself in

relation to this particular consultation, is that right? >> that is right. the issue was dealt with by half of the constitutional committee of political affairs. >> can you outline the policy underpinning the register without that? >> the purpose behind our proposal which was included in the agreement, establishment of the government, statutory register is principally not exclusively, principally to address the issue of the status of lobbyists who aren't white fred michel of news international but several entities of commercial lobbyists.

why that specific issue is a specific issue is because it is not always obvious who the individual is speaking on behalf of. >> make it known to the person i am speaking to but we felt as a matter of principle it is good to have complete transparency about the status of those who act on an array of interests and that is publicly known and included in the statutory register of lobbyists and none by policymakers and decisionmakers. that is what we are trying to deal with. we have consulted on how you do that because the devil in the details how you define lobbyists and what information to include and so on. that consultation went on until april of this year and mark harper will come forward with

his observations on the evidence and responses which were provided in that consultation. and the register of lobbyists. >> your work is going specifically to impact upon any aspect of concern there might be about the subset called media lobbying? >> i genuinely don't want to short circuit the decision taken by another member of the government, mark harper, on this. we have an open mind about whether this distinction between in-house lobbyists and commercial lobbyists, one interest at a time whether it is right in the consultation paper but to my knowledge just focusing on one sector as opposed to others is not the

purpose of the exercise. it is not a sector early based -- >> one of my concerns when dealing with the relationship between politicians, lobbyists, feature in there as we know, i am conscious of the subset of a bigger problem and i am somewhat apprehensive about stepping in to a minefield where there are different considerations. that is my point. >> by happy coincidence i think mark harper is planning to publish his thoughts on the response to the consultation exercise while the inquiry is ongoing. that might be of some assistance to you.