4hb,! rgqgqgqgqgcaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaqaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacacacacasacacacacasacacacacacacacasasasasasasacaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacaaacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacac@a@a@c@cac@c@b@bababababababababa@a@a@a@a@a@a@@@@@@@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@@@@@@@@@@@@a@a@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@a@a@@@@@@@@@@pppppppppppppppppp@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@a@a@a@a@a@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@apapapapapapapapapapa@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@apapa@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@a@arrrrrr22bc@cbc@gacqgpg@c

maybe to draw his father away from gordon brown? >> i think they were all imported. i didn't quite understand. it's like "the sun" likened it under the white smoke. i didn't understand how the decision was made that my view was they were all important in terms of making that decision

you know? "the sun" readers, trusted voices like trevor kavanagh, all of them. i felt i had to focus on showing it would be good for the country, good for "the sun" readers, and we had a chance of winning them back and that's what i focus on. >> how important were the frauds in all of this if not as decision makers but as? >> very difficult. i'm not totally sure, i don't know. not totally sure what role he was playing. he was being helpful in times -- in terms of trying to facilitate a meeting or advice. he's a friend but i think politically he supported various different sides at various different times. >> okay. mrs. brooks, you may clear from

the statement was a friend. may not again be possible to identify the date but would you have counted her did you counter amongst your good friends, say by 2008? >> yes, we were -- we got to know each other. because of you know role in india, my role in politics we struck up a friendship. that friendship grew even though she was at that stage still her people still supporting gordon brown and she was quite personal supportive of gordon brown. our relationship got stronger when she married charlie brooks, whom i've known for sometimes and is a neighbor. >> she gave some evidence as, if i can put in this way, the quantity -- text messages. ghana ask you this straightforward question? do you agree in general with the gist of her evidence on that matter?

[inaudible] spent answer phone calls i'm not asking you to count them up but approximate how often did you speak to her by phone and including by mobilephone? >> in opposition, perhaps particularly 2006 seven, not a huge amount. i always felt when i did ring her, i felt from if you like i was telephoning her a lot less than gordon brown, which i thought that was interesting. my sense was i was in contact a lot less than he was. but i can't put numbers on it but certainly in 2006-2007 not necessarily every weekend. >> can we just move afford to 2008-2009? was their contact by phone on a weekly basis? >> i think as we get closer to

the election and the decision of "the sun," and also, you know, the wedding and she's moved into charlie brooks is house which is very near where i live and where we live in constituency, then the level of contact went out. we saw each other socially more. >> about how frequently? >> what date are we talking about? >> well 2008-2009 mr. cameron. just to get an idea first of all contact by telephone and then social contact. >> it's very difficult because i don't have a record and i don't want to give you an answer that isn't right. so sometimes sometimes quite i suspect would -- we would've

been talking to each other quite a, particularly right around perhaps the time of the wedding or when we were both in oxfordshire we would've had more frequent contact. >> okay. so when you're at your constituency and weekends, did you see her every weekend or most weekends over the very 2008-2000? >> not, not every weekend. in 2008-2009, i'd have to check. i might give and go back and check but i don't think every weekend. i don't think most weekends but it would depend. >> i don't think it's necessary to ask you to check this. these questions are designed to be that precise, just to get -- >> definitely we were particularly, once she started going out with charlie brooks, living a couple miles down the road, i was definitely singer more often because my sort of

friendship with charlie as a neighbor, and you know charlie and i played tennis together which answer we will come onto, so that was why i would say more. >> bears one text message -- there's one text message which i would invite you to look at now and get you to say something about. i'm not sure what number it has been given in our system but it is have a 35 as the acting from -- it is tab 35. i will say something about it. have you got -- >> i've got it. >> i should make it clear before i read about use use -- news international recently disclosed

a number of other text messages between mrs. brooks and mr. cameron pursuant to section 21 request. section 21 request is, in fact, an order statue, requiring people to disclose what you. october 2009-may 2011, and june june 2011, and it requires judgment on the other text messages referred to are irrelevant to its terms of reference. this is where we will look at one. and news international through their -- have also explained why text messages and other monthly periods are not available. that will be of course our website. the one we're looking at the seventh of october, 2009 which i think is during the party conference. >> yes. >> certain with an eight or nine days or so. [inaudible] the first one has been redacted.

it's on grounds of relevance. and then she says but seriously, which suggested the first line contained or might contain something of a jocular nature i do understand the issue with the times. let's discuss over country supper soon. on the party, it was because i had asked a number, i was probably news international endorsement, and they were disappointed not to see. but as always, was wonderful. [inaudible] i'm so rooting for you tomorrow, not just as a personal friend but professionally. we're definitely in this together. [inaudible] yes, he can, exclamation mark. the rooting for you to more was you were giving a speech probably at the party conference. >> i think it was my party conference speech. i can't explain this e-mail. the issue at the times at the

party conference i had not been to the times party. the major newspaper groups had a big party at the party conference and they expect party leader, cabinet leaders, shadow ministers ago. that would be the normal thing to do. i hadn't gone and i think that was what this was about, and i was apologizing for the. that was explained to her. if that helps. >> just the phrase but because professionally we are definitely in this together. what was your understanding of that? >> i think that is about "the sun" had made this decision to back conservatives, to part company with the labour. and so "the sun" wanted to make sure it was helping the conservative party put its best foot forward with the policies we are announcing the speech is going to make, and all the rest of it. and i think that's what that

means. >> professionally covering, "the sun" and you were bound together to some extend? >> i think what it means was that she put it, friends but professionally. me as leader of the conservative party and her in newspapers. we were going to be pushing the same political agenda. >> the country suffers, she refers to in a forward-looking way. is that the forward-looking direction you often had with her? >> yes. we were neighbors. >> okay. now, move forward in time to may 2011, mr. cameron, to deal with a point. this relate to the mccants. >> yes. >> were you asked i mrs. brooks

to support or indeed cause to take place a review of the mccann case in the metropolitan police? >> i don't recall exact this whole issue. what our member is that i had meeting with kate and gerry mccann as leader of the opposition, and anyone who is method or read about their story, you can't fail to be included with what happened to them all in all the of for me to try to get matalin back. followed this up as prime minister. but i care member the exact promise of who called who and when and what have you. but i think it was the police clearly had played a role in trying to keep investigation going and government help them with that. >> entrance of any interaction between you and mrs. brooks, was a drawn to your attention that

mrs. brooks went to see to your special advisors, i think on the 11th of may speak as i don't recall. it might well have been. i don't recall the exact conversations. i do recall because i can see you, what might lie behind the question which is are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly. and i do remember actually as private consulting about the step that the police were about to take backed by the government which was to provide some extra funding for investigatn. and it was drawn to my attention that there is a special home office procedure for helping with particularly complex and expensive investigations that's been used in various cases and that was going to be is in this case and you satisfied that it had been dealt with properly. so it's an example if you like of the importance of major these things are done properly. and i believe they were.

>> where, were you aware that any pressure being put on you directly or indirectly by mrs. brooks to cause this review to take place at? >> pressure? know. i wasn't aware of pressure. >> well, if it wasn't pressure, was any influence of that sort being impose? >> clearly, this was a very high profile case. and a case a number of newspapers want to do champion because their readers wanted to champion it. and, obviously, as a government you have to think are we helping with this because there's media pressure, or is it genuine public pressure, is there a genuine case are we treating this fairly? and i did ask those questions of the permanent secretary number 10 so i think we made an appropriate response. but i don't remember any sort of

specific pressure or being put on the. and i think i'm right home secretary gave evidence on this as well. >> might move onto a different topic. it is related to earlier topics but it ties in with the implied deal point. you may or may not have been following mr. gordon brown's evidence, but he made a specific point against you and your party and, therefore, it is right that you the opportunity to deal with it. he put it, to be fair to him higher than in blind bogey said it was an express deal, which he made with either rupert murdoch or james murdoch two, i paraphrase, follow the line of max taggart's ofcom tim -- trim back the bbc and exchange for news international supporting your party. so that's the allegation.

we will look at the detail i would ask for you to respond to generally? >> frankly it is absolute nonsense from start to finish. i think where it comes from is obvious the gordon brown was very angry and disappointed that "the sun" had deserted him and as a result, in my view he has cooked up an entirely speechless and unjustified conspiracy theory to try i know just why is angry. but i've taken the time to look through the individual parts of policy that he points to, and in all almost every case it is complete nonsense just to take a couple of examples, he makes the point about the listing of sporting events, particularly -- it was the labour government, his government that he listed the ashton. he makes a point about product based on. again it was a labour government that started the process of changing the rules on product

placement, and under his oversight. on the bbc as i've argued before, my position on the bbc is not the same as james murdoch's decision to i support the bbc. i support the licensee. of the conservative party i think will be submitting a piece by piece response to this because it is completely nonsense. but i'm very happy to go to the individual parts but it was as i said before, there was no deal for supporter or no was was covert do. there were no nods and winks. there was a conservative politician, me trying to win over newspapers, trying to win over television, trying to win over proprietors not trading policies for that support. and when you look at the details of this as i say, it is complete nonsense. >> maywood focused on on two matters, sort of the highlight a sensible way of -- sensible way to deal with this.

may be the easiest way to deal with this is to look at paragraph 105 following in your statement because you raise a you've taken time to refer to relevant part of iterations of your party policy. think we can look at paragraph 107, first of all which is a speech then shadow council or minister gave january '09, our page 04167. it said we were banned from the bbc.&9&9&y&9&9 while we support the licensee, we believe the best way in the foreseeable future we believe the level of the licensee is at the top in of what is acceptable to the public. so hinting there that the fee may have to be -- >> and that is what we -- much to the anger of james murdoch

who i think the chancellor george osborne felt they should have been cut. so we had her own policy on bbc license fee. went other organizations have their budgets cut by considerable more. so again this part of the conspiracy theory i think has absolutely no weight at all. >> some might say you would not go as far as much work but you might meet him partway along the way. >> i think it's quite difficult to argue at a time when you know if you get into government you have to be making spending reductions, but you are going to see the bbc license fee go up and up and do. and i think ready consistent and long-term argument, very much flow from my own views, that the bbc need to be strong, it needs the backing of the licensee. i do think the bbc had gone into

areas it shouldn't have done and i would mention that in some evidence. but i think this is a fair settlement. certainly not one of james murdoch supported. >> now, in march 2009 it's clear page -- [inaudible] -- you made an announcement which was to the effect, the licensee would be frozen. did that represent your policy been, between march 2009 and the election? >> well, i made that announcement in march 2009. and we have delivered, we delivered more than that policy in government, yes. just by way i just caught my eye, paragraph 110. if was this great conspiracy to hand over bbc policy to the murdochs, it would seem to be quite strange to -- in paragraph

one of 10, chaired by former bbc director general greg dyke. if he wanted a sort of murdoch conspiracy, you would not have prominent labour supporter to carry out the policy for you. just another, another reason why i think this whole idea is -- >> elizabeth ford was part of the task force wasn't she? >> that's true. i would argue that is a pretty balanced list of people from different parts of broadcasting media and technology. but as i say greg dyke is not a shrinking violet and he would not put him in charge if you had some secret agenda. >> probably no shrinking violets on this task force will look at all the names. is your position that we have a range of views come across on these individuals? >> yes. i think what we can do is

assemble a group of people that included radio, music new media, itv. so pretty good mix of action. but as i say the person leaking it was a former director general of the bbc. can look at ofcom? you gave a speech paragraph 113, page 04132. but you did make some points about ofcom in this paragraph did you? >> i did. i think it's important to stress this was a big speech ongoing go so it was a sense after 13 years of labour government that claimed the state had gotten very big. quango has become very powerful. the people working on were excellent and well paid, and this was a series of speeches that i worked on with people like oliver to try and come up, instead of the normal government

politicians about this, we're trying to find a set of rules to apply to different claim goes to see whether they need to exist or whether parts of them could be back into government and we said pacers of questions which are in paragraph 113. and then we apply that to a number of thank you. as you say a big speech about quangos, the ofcom parties only three paragraphs or so. and one of the reasons i picked off, was because of my own expense and television of remembering what individual -- the idc event the precursor of ofcom. and also remember -- that's a were in the idc prepared with ofcom. ofcom was quite a good example of a time when they got too big, too expensive and the pay levels were pretty access. and i would just make the point there were at this time of ofcom was being actually wrongly

attacked on this basis by itv by the ppc, which always had nothing to come and also by the left of politics, they're all same ofcom seems to have gotten too big. so this was an agenda that was very into my own views, not anywhere proposed or dictated by them. >> the upshot was that ofcom you said would cease to exist as we know to this is at the end of paragraph 113. it will be restricted to his narrow technical important roles and that presume the cover girls under the enterprise act in relation to reality. plurality. >> what artest was with all the strength you policymakers should be done but parliament. we're making argument about quangos. not just counting.

it was about thing if policy is being made that should be ministers accountable to parliament to get decisions that have to be impartial which is what ofcom does where they are concerned they should be carried out by independent non-governmental bodies for all the reasons people would understand but there was a serious attempt to look at quangos more broadly. >> and to take the story forward as it were is this right was that the reason this policy was not enacted the realities of the coalition government, it was a possible? >> that's right. i wasn't involved in the detail negotiation of the coalition agreement but some policies made it through. others didn't. i suspect this is one we didn't get agreement on. but we have tried to restrict them. >> you have denied any implied

deal, and that i tried to look at in this way. do you feel looking back at this, that there is nonetheless a perception that we have the coincidence of two things, at least in terms of time a shift in support and policies which don't precisely match what we see in the mactaggart lecture to but are not a million miles from them. and people think welcome there some sort of link between the two, there's a perception and it flows from the relationship. do you accept at least that much? >> i think anyone reasonably looking at the conservative policies and where they came from and why they existed would see that they were driven by our values and our approach and also by personal history. so no, i don't really accept that. if i can tell you if the are you goes there was no coup maybe there was no overview. but nontheless it all looks

like there was a nod and wink. we do start to get into sort of witchcraft trials. how do you possibly prove you are innocent? so i don't, as i said the best i can do is point to all of these policies, explained by the came from. i think there is good evidence. i think where you're getting with the bbc license fee ofcom, product placement, whether on the ash issue, there's a very good conservative explanations for the positions that we are on on. >> the matters and 50 and the public inquiry, it either happened or didn't happen. the problem is if you don't have a public inquiry, that perception -- >> the inquiry is -- [inaudible] it's very important alongside

the appalling things that happen to entirely innocent people. a huge problem we have in terms of police relations with me it's right we get to the bottom of the political media relationship and how to put on a firmer footing. what i'm saying is not only was there no covert do, there was no overt deal and there were no nod and wink to the policy that i produce came from our beliefs values, my history, my beliefs and they were not dictated by anybody else. >> i think i've probably covered that point. let's move onto another point. [laughter] the third area of evidence is specific narrative examples, and the first one is mr. and do -- mr. andy coulson. you start that in paragraph 219. which is page 04168.

>> right. >> in terms of your wish list in early 2007 mr. cameron, were you looking for someone with tabloid experienced? >> not necessarily, but i was looking for someone who was a big hitter, and i was looking for someone who can really cope with the huge media pressure that you are under. and tabloid editors and leading executives on the tabloid newspapers i think they bring something that others wouldn't. and so there wasn't a particular wish list but it was trying to get the right person with the right skills. spent because without generalizing too much about tabloid editors, we are tending to look at people who are tough and who are not just going to

play under pressure, ought we? >> i think that's right. and there is a reason for that, which is when you're running a political party, immediate pressures, you know, a typical weekend you might have a policy problem over here, you've got an np extensive scandal over here. you've got a marriage breakdown over there. you have some cancer enmeshed in some scandal over. it literally comes in on top of your head. and it's very fast but it's very serious and you need someone seriously good at handling it. and that to me was one of the key qualification. i had this very good guy george, doing a good job. advice going to bring some and above him i wanted someone who would be able to materially order and improved the things we did.dgdedgdg >> tdeo what extent were youpgpgpgpgpgpgpgpg looking at the example ofpgpgpgpgpgpgpgpg

alastairpg campbell being -- thepgpgpgpgpg sortpg of man in terms of qgqgqgqgqgqgqgqg temperament qgand robustness? >> not, not necessarily. i don't think, you know, alastair campbell, he was much more political than andy coulson, and i think in all sorts of ways there were occasions when clearly you have overstepped the role of what he should've been doing. >> now, we have heard mr. osborne, that a number of names were considered. aside from the one broadcaster who is being mentioned can you remember approximately how many names were considered? >> there were two or three others. i don't want to hurt their careers by naming them. there were two or three other people we were looking at, and one or two that i had met with. but as i say we decided on andy

coulson. >> of the two or three others, were it any -- [inaudible] >> yes. >> and mr. coulson, was he the only one from news international or not? >> know. i mean, this is difficult although there was there was someone from the tabloid newspaper i think i talked to earlier in the process but i can't remember exact date. but at the time at which made the andy coulson appointment, i think i'm right that he was the only tabloid editor available. >> now, the initial interviews if that's a correct description were carried out by others as we know, but how many did you see as part of this process? how many individual?

>> how many people did i see? know dick or who -- harry who's been out of, edited have conversations with them. there was someone senior from a newspaper. there was someone else very seen at bbc. there was his tabloid journalist journalist. this is a guessing game going with a friend in me. there were four people. there may have been other suggested. i think the situation was we had a very effective communicator clearly we wanted though to strengthen the operation. people are being suggested and propose all time. of those four i can were personally talking to. >> paragraph 225 mr. cameron, you explain that assurances were

obtained from mr. coulson in a meeting with ed llewelyn, is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> can we be clear was that something that was communicated to you in about march 2007? namely, that they have specifically asked for assurances? >> yes. ed llewelyn is my chief of staff, was my chief of staff. when you are trying to hire someone like this you have to keep matters very tight. you don't want it to lead. it didn't leak eventually. so i would talk to edward about his interview, yes. >> and mr. osborne's evidence was that he asked for and obtained assurances. were you aware of that? >> i don't recall, but if george says that, i've got no reason to doubt. as i put into my evidence i remember the edward llewelyn

issue. i suspect george did the same thing. >> how important it was mr. osborne's advice in relation to this process? were you reliance on in? >> it was important. george and i worked very closely together. he thought this was a good idea. but as the state department and elsewhere, this was my decision. i take full responsibility for it. and no, i don't try and shuffle off in responsibilities to anybody else. >> in paragraph 237 of your statement, mr. chairman, -- mr. cameron, you say you are sure that you would have discussed his appointment. that's mr. coulson's appointed, with rebekah wade. to be clear by this time may 2007, we have accounted, catheter, pardon me, as much of

your friend? >> yes, i think it would. as i say in evidence, i can't recall when i discussed it with there. whether it was before, during or after, but i'm sure i would have at some stage had a conversation with her about it. >> can you remember how many conversations? >> no. spink might it have been more than one or not? >> i don't think so. the process was george, we both met him before. i met andy coulson when he was editor of "news of the world." we both got the impression he was very effective, very effective individual. george mason after he had resigned as editor of the "news of the world." i made the decision to employ him. i asked for these assurances,

just be clear, in my evidence. >> in your discussions with mrs. brooks, were you seeking some sort of reference from her or was it far more informal? >> i wasn't seeking a reference. i mean, when you're employing some, like this within an editor of a newspaper, you can't seek sort of formal references. i'm sure i would have asked, you know, how effective he would be. but it may well have been, this conversation may well have taken place after i made the decision. i can't recall exactly when the conversation took place but in the end it was my decision. i was satisfied this was the right thing to have a former tabloid editor to help us with our media and communications. and it was my decision. >> sometimes discussions of these natures go into people's integrity. do you think you have as a discussion among those lines

with mrs. brooks of mr. coulson? >> i'm afraid i don't i don't recall. i think the most important thing i would've wanted to know is with the the, you know, good at the job. i was convinced he would be because as i said the massive pressures you face you need someone with those sorts of skills. so i'm sure that's what i would have been thinking of.xd xd >> i'm sure effective is goingxfxfxfxfxfxfxd to be a key adjective but character and integrity might also be relevant, might and its? >> of course. you are going to be working with this person incredibly close. you have to have a relationshipxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxf of trust with him.pfpfpfpfpdpfpd >> what, if anything, waspfpfpfpdpfpfpfpfpdpf mrs. brooks reaction to the idea that mr. coulson be engaged? was she very favorable? >> as far as i remember you know, she thought it was a good decision because she thought hexdxdxfxfxdéfxdxf pf was an effective operator. >> your evidence is that there was a meeting we think it was

probably in march 2007. if one ties that out with mr. coulson's evidence he places the meeting as being in your office in the leader of the opposition building, might i be correct? >> my recollection is that the meeting took place in my office. and for me that was a key about deciding whether or not to employ him. i have been back over the diaries and records, and it's difficult to piece together but that's my recollection, that it was that sort of a key meeting.hdhdhdhdhdúdúdúdúd úd >> and his evidence is also,hdhdhd that there was a laterpdhdhddddddddddd discussion, this time byúdúdúd telephoneúd --ed >> yes.údúdadadad >> in latead may 2007.eeadadadadadadadad paragraph 81 of his statement.ededededed it was on that second occasion that you raised the issue of]dmdmdmdmd phone hacking.

does that accord with your recollection? >> my recollection is i raise the issue of phone hacking and saw the assurance in the face-to-face meeting we had in my office. that's my recollection. i vaguely remember the further telephone call. but that's -- i have racked my brains. but my recollection is i knew it was very important i need to asking that question question, and, therefore, as it says some evidence. >> in your witness david mr. cameron, at the bottom of page 04168 you state that in particular in 2007 in the months after he resigned various people, and you separately had conversations with him. that's the conversation if we match up with mr. coulson's

evidence, took place in your offices in the south building. than the further conversation is paragraph 227 which must be in the phone conversation in late may. and it is on that occasion where you state you asked him for assurances. do you see that? >> i do. 227, i had a further conversation which as specific about his involvement in the phone hacking case. that is what i room in face-to-face meeting. >> he has been the other way around. and maybe we should see specifically his account. my recollection is that he was on holiday inn cornwall, and you spoke by phone. bear with me on this.

yes, tab 58 the second bundle. 1o1n1n >> which paragraph is a do you know? >> just. paragraph 29th of page 02412.qn he said after the meeting with mr. osborne, which is taking place inqg march 2007 he says that he believes that you called him later that night and you would like to me. we did so some point soon after his parliamentary office in norman sure south building and witty discussion about the joe. i link that went up with paragraph two to three of your witness statement. and then there was a call because -- paragraph 31 at page 02413, a high process was

completed and a conversation with mr. cameron whilst i was on holiday cornwall. i believe he told me that background security check have been made talk about the clive goodman? no, and that sums up with your paragraph 227. so if that all is correct, it is during the second conversation that the issue of the goodman? is raised. might that be great? >> that's not my recollection. my recollection is the assurances i saw when the face-to-face meeting but maybe there was a for the specific questions i need to ask on a focal. i can't recall. i remember the conversation with ed llewellyn with how important it was to seek the assurance. i remember very clearly seeking that assurance and getting assurance. but as i say, there do seem to be some differences but they may well be compatible on the way i

suggested. but anyway, i am certain i have sought assurances. the key thing is i asked for assurances, i got them, and that was the basis on which i employed him. >> to be fair to him we need to be fair to everyone, but paragraph 227, dates the assurance or makes the assurance to the further conversation, doesn't it, mr. cameron? if that was your recollection when this was prepared, was in its? >> yes. but as i say my recollection is that assurance was at this face-to-face meeting. >> mr. coulson seems to think american further conversations with you. if you go back to paragraph 30 of his statement, he says conversations during the election for toward the end of may, they were after further conversations with mr. cameron. ed llewellyn, others.

i was offered a job. [inaudible] >> there may well have been more conversation. there are lots of different ways of describing a director of king occasions, who are the managing. i think quite a lot of different potential, all similar role but slightly different potential as he could've fulfilled. so i don't see any fundamental inconsistency. we both agree i asked for assurances and got them. but the exact timing i include him in my because i remember the conversation with ed will but i remember the importance of the interview, but that is my recollection. >> when you accepted a assurances, did you have a sense there would be any risk? >> what i possessed was that this was clearly a controversial appointment. and controversial for two reasons. one was that things that happen

at the "news of the world" while he was editor, and he had -- he left his last job after resigned because of things that happen. sounds obvious, obvious, as i said, i was giving him a second chance. the second reason there was controversy is this was a tabloid editor. and you know, there are some people who would say, yeah go and have a tabloid editor to which my answer would be, it's a very tough job getting with the press for a major political party. you need someone who has got the skills, who's got the knowledge. you can really help you through what can be an absolute storm. and so i thought it was the right thing to do. just make one other point which is as i recognize this is a controversial appointment, has come back to haunt both him and

me, and i said what i said about 20/20 hindsight. but in doing the job as director of king occasions for the conservative party and the director of communications in downing street he did the job very effectively. there weren't any complaints about how he conducted himself. he ran a very effective team. he behaved in a very proper way. and, of course, if that wasn't the case, then i think would have been even stronger arguing to say well, you took a risk, look what happened to he did his job very well and i think thaté8é8é8é8é8é8é8é8 is important point to make.d:d:d:t: >> may i ask you about the risks associated with his being al>d>d>t>t>t>t>t>t> tabloid editor?t>t>d>d> could you be more precise about what those things were? tabloid editors might not be the most scrupulous people. >> there wasn't so much of that. i think it was some people just didn't approve of what the "news of the world" have done or what

tabloid, what tabloid do. i think it was more that spentd:d:d:d:d:d:d: which aspects of what tabloid'sd=d

>> this inquiry has been lookingld>d>d>d> some might say that was the risk you are taking. spent as i say the risks are the ones i've set out. those are what i considered and i made my decision.d

were undertakings that were given to the dcms select committee. these were undertakings that were accepted by the police. they were accepted by press complaints commission. that were given to a court in a perjury trial. they were undertaking that were strong enough for gordon brown -- shortly after he resigned and wish him well with his future. so yes i accepted these undertakings, but so did many other people and organizations who did to try to get to the bottom of this issue. as i said in parliament, if i had been lied to, and so have the police and dcms select committee and all the rest of the spirit and, of course, we're not making a judgment. but you obtained i mean i've got to be careful the way up with a question for obvious reasons, mr. cameron. but there was no independent

verification of the undertaking he gave you was there? >> well, no. but as i say this issue had been investigated like this. so it was not just if i had an undertaking. it was others had had an undertaking. and if we look at the period i'm sure will coming up it was an assurance that was then given akin to the dcms select committee, and they found and the police found and the cps found that there wasn't the evidence that he knew of what was happening spent why did you feel that he deserved a second chance? >> because i think, i thought that he had done as far as i could say, at the time, and honorable thing to something very happened that at the newspaper he was editing. he did not know and he resigned. and so i felt given the assurances he gave me that it was a legitimate to give him a second chance. >> is that your evidence that his news international background was irrelevant to his

marriage as it were? >> obviously has knowledge of the industry his contacts his work as an editor were all important, but the most important thing was, is this person going to be good at doing the job of managing the press and communications for the conservative party? i wasn't just after some, any old person from news international or "the daily mail" or from wherever. i wanted some really good who's going to be able to stand up to the pressure that we were under and would face after the election campaign. that was a key consideration. >> i'm sure that the most important consideration are the ones you identified but i think the question was slightly more straight. is it your evidence that his news international background was irrelevant? >> it wasn't irrelevant, only. as i said his contacts, his knowledge, his work at the newspaper all of the matter.

but what, if it lies behind the question, this is going to make it easier to win over the "news of the world" or whatever, no that wasn't the calculation. the calculation was who is going to be good enough, tough enough to deal with what is a very difficult job. and as i said, something he did extremely well. >> paragraph 231, you talk about 20/20 hindsight. may i ask you this? do you now believe that you made an error of judgment? in particular your judgment may been clouded by the fact that mr. coulson was close to news international and his recruitment was a major -- to you? >> no, i don't know. what i said then was if i knew then all the things that would happen and all the consequences that would change, then that 20/20 hindsight. i will say again today, you don't make decisions with 20/20 hindsight.

i made the decisions i made. i've set out the reasons i've made it. i will be held accountable for the disrespect i don't try to run away from it. i just tried to land why i made it. >> i move forward in time please to july 2009 -- >> just before you do could i ask a question? you made a point about mr. coulson that he had been responsible for a particular headline using words you have never uttered hug-a-hoodie. i just wonder whether you felt that it was a concern that he could, was prepared to misrepresent the policy that you were concerned about? >> i think it goes back -- the speech i made was you know quite a radical thing for a concert lead to say we need to

understand why young people can go off the rails, and we need to recognize that it's not just unique tough punishment but also you need strong families picking me to respect and i said you need love. and to talk about love in the context, some right wing commentators thought, you know that's soft and whatever. i think that's nonsense. i think it's incredible important for young people. so it is frustrating that they came up with this headline to link three words i hadn't actually were. and i put my hand on my heart and seems completely unfair and wrong? that's what newspapers do. they make a point. they have a go. if you're worried about headlines, don't make speeches about love. i suppose that's what i would say. but anyway, one very good headline writer wouldn't be writing any more headlines. >> all right. >> july 2009 now mr. cameron. we're moving forward to "thef:&:f:f:f:f:f:f:

guardian" piece, paragraph 254 of your statement.v:v:v:v:f:f:f: f: i think it's clear that you were, you were unaware "the guardian" asked of the times is that correct to? >> yes. i think the. i think is probably more aware of this culture media and sport that are for in paragraph 257, because that was obviously an event that's going to effect the running of my office and everything that was happening. the two were linked really.ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ: >> so the gist of what "theñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ2ñ:ñ2 guardian" obtained was drawn to your attention one way or the other, was that? >> i'm sure it was yes. i can't i'm sure it was.í:í:í:ñ:í:í:ñ:ñ: >> and what was your reaction atñ8ñ8ñ:ñ:ñ:ñ8ñ8ñ8ñ8ñ8 the time to that which was contained in "the guardian" article? >> throughout this process this

sort of test i said was, is there new information that shows that the undertakings i was given were wrong? and i didn't see evidence that the undertakings i was given were wrong. and at this time andy coulson went in front of the culture, media and sport select committee and gave assurance all over again that i never condone the use of phone hacking or don't have any recollection of anything am where phone hacking took place.l>l>l>l>l>l>l>l> >> you also said in paragraphl> 257 that nevertheless in thel:l:l:l:l:l:l: light of the stories i askedl>l:l:l:l>l>l>l> andy coulson to give assurances. so you must have been concerned? >> yes. my memory of this he was going to make that appearance, and i had a conversation with him about well when you make this appearance presumably to give

the undertakings they can educate me. that was the nature of the conversation, as i recall it.,=,=.=.=.=,=.=.= >> was there an inkling of doubt in your mind, or not? >> well, given the assurances that i was given and that they were repeated to the select committee, and that the select committee found that there wasn't evidence that he knew i thought it was right that he carried on working.b?b?b? >> i'm not seeking to -- you were relying on his word and nothing much else were, were used to i don't really accept it because i was relied on his were. i was also rely on the fact that the pcc had accepted his were. the select committee had accepted his were. the police had accepted his were. the crime prosecution had selected his were. so this was not just me accepting and assurance and blocking out anything that

happened out subsequently. it was a whole series of institutions of taking that view. and as i said the test because you got to try to get on with it the job at hand. look, if so give me evidence that he knew about phone hacking, i wouldn't have employed him and i would have fired him. but i didn't get that information site didn't take that step. >> well, to be fair to mr. coulson, i should say that paragraph 257 of your statement was not directly -- to mr. coulson. inferences should be drawn from that part of his evidence. sowed by july 2009 he had been for two years and you felt it then and effective operator, is that current? >> absolutely. and not just that, but it done the job not just in an effective way, but he as far as i could

see, he had done in had done in a way when he was trusted by the people that worked for him and he done the job in a proper way. >> and to be clear, the repetition of insurance, was it in a face-to-face meeting, to the best of your recollection by phone call or some other we? >> to the best of my recollection, it's very difficult to do the specifics on this the best of my recollection it's the impending select committee hearing. and i think the obvious embarrassment there was that he was being taken to a selected committee hearing what he was working for me but i think was in the context that we had the conversation. >> call him into your office? spent i don't recall. when you're director of the medications you see him every day. i don't remember specter there's likely to be a face-to-face. >> likely. >> let's move on time, about

nine months now so maybe we can break spent nine months seems a sufficient break to allow us to have a break now. very good. 2:00. thank you much. >> all rise. >> prime minister david cameron members of the levinson and cori taking a break now after about three hours of testimony this month. this would be about a one hour break. the prime minister is the only one on the witness stand today. the protocol for over a year ago to look into the relationship between the press and politicians. so for over 250 people have answered questions in this inquiry that was sparked by allegations of phone hacking by the press. all of our coverage of the leveson inquiry hearings is available in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org.

during yesterday's session of prime minister's question time the house of commons prime minister cameron was asked repeatedly about the investigation into phone hacking and what part he may have played. he spent much of a half hour defending his relationship with rupert murdoch's news corporation. you can see prime minister's question time sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span. .. >> a video record of his travels. then live at 7:30 david

maraniss takes your calls and questions. also this weekend conservative commentator jonah goldberg blames liberals for an ongoing war on ideas. >> american politics have been distorted for the last century or so by this idea that the further you move from the left, the closer you get to bad things. so in some ways the best working definition of a fascist is a conservative who's winning an argument. >> that's on sunday night at 9 on booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> british prime minister david cameron now in the leveson inquiry looking into the relationship between the press and politicians explaining his views of media coverage and what, if any, changes should be made in media regulations. finish -- >> it's unfair to ask you on one

particular occasion which was six years ago but do you think that was a one-on-one as it were or were there other people there? >> i don't remember because it was a long time ago, but the meetings i've had with paul, i'd say most of them were probably a one-on-one drink occasionally a lunch. he has done some where there was a mixture, but i think some one-on-ones, yes. >> to look at one other the 18th of december '06. which is page 04205, the dinner actually. it's about the time that the information commissioner's second report came out. again, i understand it's difficult to search one's recollection, but do you recall whether that report might have been discussed then or not? >> i don't, don't recall, i'm

afraid. i can't remember where the dinner was. i think also i've had dinner in my home. that one i can't remember where it was, let awhat we talked about. >> and then page 04220, can i just understand whose idea was that? >> i think it was matthew freud's idea. i think he phoned we about it. i think it was his idea, yes. >> did he have a discussion with rebecca wade about it to your knowledge? >> i don't know, no. >> do you know why that visit came about? what its purpose was? >> well, from my point of view it was just an opportunity to try and get to know rupert murdoch better. obviously, i was trying to win over his newspapers and put across my opinions so for me it was just an opportunity to try and build that relationship. it was quite a long way to go

and all of that, but it seemed a good opportunity. >> so presumably there was an earlier conversation or there had been earlier conversations with mr. freud as to the possibility of having this sort of meeting, is that correct? >> well, my memory is it came together quite quickly. i seem to remember i was on some tour day around the country. i got a call or a text from matthew. i was just about to go off to georgia to visit georgia at the time of the russian invasion. and it just seemed like a possible opportunity to link up. but i seem to remember it all came together very quickly at the last minute, but i might have got it wrong. >> we know that rebecca wade was there, but did you have a conversation with her about this before you flew out or not? >> i don't recall that, i'm afraid. >> okay. and on 2009, mr. cameron, the 3rd of may, you had lunch with

james murdoch. this is page 04225. would you think it's possible on that occasion that you discussed regulatory issues including ofcom and bbc? >> um, well, i don't recall what was discussed directly at the lunch. i'm sure over the years i've discussed some of those issues with james murdoch. he's got very strong views on them i've got very strong views on them, they're not really the same views -- [laughter] and i'm sure we would have had discussions about it. perhaps in particular the -- well, i think probably on both, i don't recall the specifics, so i'm sure we must have discussed our views. >> this is a few months before his mactaggert lecture which i think was delivered in august of 2009. did you have any discussions with him about the subject matter of that lecture either

before he gave it or afterwards? >> not to my memory, no. i think these would have been, as i say, most of these meetings were really about me trying to promote conservative policies, the con conservative approach and the rest of it. i'm sure we would have discussed them. >> one can see the intensity of his feeling, if i can put it in those terms, in the text of the lecture himself. >> yes. >> he expresses himself quite strongly. >> yes. and lots of things i don't particularly agree. i think ofcom does have an important role. i think ofcom got overbloated and overbig and needed to be reduced in scale but both have an important role. >> okay. now, in september 2009 which is page 04228 you have lunch with

mr. dominic marin of "the ton" ton" -- "the sun" in 2009. again, it's possibly unfair, but do you think on that occasion the issue of support of "the sun" for you and your party was discussed or not? is. >> i wouldn't -- i don't remember. by this stage i was making arguments that some readers were coming over to the conservatives and, you know, our approach was what the country needed and all the rest of it, but i don't remember the specifics of that conversation, no. >> we pass to you so we see the overall picture there. there are a lot of references to nick robinson on this page and elsewhere. he's someone you keep in contact with for obvious reasons. >> yes. >> can i go to the 10th of september, 2009, it's described as drinks with james murdoch. that was at the george, wasn't

it? >> yes. this was the page are we still on 229? >> it's 04228 actually. >> yes. >> the evidence has been that it was on that occasion that he told you that "the sun" would support the conservative party. do you remember that? >> yes, i do remember that. i do remember him saying that i remember some of the conversation we had, yes. >> how long was the conversation approximately? >> not particularly long, it might have been half an hour, 40 minutes. it was a drink and a catch-up. it was -- he wanted to tell me that "the sun" was going to support the conservatives, and he told me, i think from the my memory, it was going to happen around the time of the labour conference. and i remember, obviously being pleased that the conservative party was going to get "thethe sun's" support, and i think we had a conversation about other policy issues at the time. that's my memory of it. >> he gave you some inkling of

the timing? >> i think so. that's my memory of it, yes. perhaps not the precise timing but i think they were probably still debating it, but i seem to remember there was sort of the hint that it was going to be sometime in labour's conference. >> did he identify which aspects of your policy constituted the reasons for his newspaper's or in particular "the sun" wanting to support the party? >> i think at the time a lot of the focus was on the economy because, obviously, we were in the midst of all the economic difficulties, and, you know, we were setting out very clearly that it was important for britain to get on top of the debt and its deficit and all the rest of it. so i do remember discussing economic issues, yes. i think that's right. >> on that occasion do you recall any mention being made by james murdoch of your policies

in relation to the bbc and ofcom? >> i don't recall, i don't recall that. and i think it unlikely. i think that this was -- he was very keen, i think to tell me directly that "the sun" was going to support the conservatives, that he felt on the big economic judgment on what britain needed we had the right argument, the government had the wrong argument, and my memory is that's what the conversation was about. >> yes. you said you had a conversation about other policy issues. >> yes. he's got lots of enthusiasms that aren't about the media particularly about defense. he takes the view we should have at least six aircraft carriers i think at last count rather than two, so he had lots of enthusiasms, but my memory is -- and it's difficult to recall all of these events -- i definitely remember him saying "the sun" was going to support the conservative party, i wouldn't forget that. i think he gave me a hint of the

timing, and my memory is it was mostly about the big economic picture because that was the key issue of the day. >> this was within about two weeks of his mactaggert lecture, had you read his lecture before the 10th of december, 2009? >> no. >> had the gist of it been drawn to your attention? >> i read after it was delivered, i would have seen the press reports, but i don't remember reading the whole thing at the time. i've read it subsequently in preparation for all of this. but, um, as i say, he had very strong views. um, some of these views i didn't agree with and on things like the bbc, you know we had a very clear position which dates right back to my time at carlton. the bbc is the cornerstone of british broadcasting, you need to have the license fee. and as i say ofcom, while bloated, it had an important role. >> some might say ofcom and the bbc were bete noires.

it's more than plausible that he might have unburdened himself about those matters to you on this one occasion. do you think that might have happened? >> i don't think so. because be as i say i think the main -- you know, this was sort of, you know, for "the sun" it was a big change, and i remember it being about economic policy. that's my memory of it. >> on the -- [inaudible] of september we can see dipper you, james murdoch and rebekah brooks. must be a social occasion now but can you remember anything about whether political views perhaps regulatory issues were discussed on that occasion? >> i don't particularly recall what was discussed, what was discussed then no. >> the support the upcoming sport of "the sun" is likely to have been be mentioned isn't it? >> yes, i think -- i'm trying to remember the exact date of the

labour conference. >> i think we're on to about the 7th of 28th -- 27th or 28th of september. >> i expect that would have been discussed in terms of what "the sun" was going to do, but i remember the drink, i remember what he said about "the sun" supporting conservatives. i don't particularly remember the dinner. >> well rightly or wrongly, "the sun" had timed it to maximum p political damage to mr. brown's government, it goes without saying. >> yeah. >> seems at least plausibleca again that that sort of topic was discussed on this occasion would you agree? >> as i say, i recall the drink, i don't recall the dinner. >> the announcement, i think was the evening of the 28th of september. it's not going to matter for our purposes today because if you look at 04229 there, then aaa series of interactions with "the

sun," interview with watson 1st of october, dinner the 5th of october, interview with "the sun" 5th of october, breakfast news of the world the 7th of october, dinner the times, the 21st of october and then breakfast 2nd of november, james murdoch and rebekah brooks.aa so there's quite a lot of opportunity -- >> sir, i would just for, not on page 4229 point out there was also dinner with "the telegraph," interviews with the radio, manchester the bbc it f. this was the party conference. this was an incredibly busy media week where i was meeting all sorts of, people from all sorts of media organizations. just wanted to make that point. including lord roth mere, the whole team at "the mail" on sunday etc., etc.aaaa >> that's a very fair point,

mr. cameron. i didn't mean to occlude that@a@a one.@a@a can i move forward to the 15th of december 2009, which ispp 04321?pp that seems to be the first@@ meeting you had with rupert@@ murdoch after "the sun"'s support had changed.pa can you remember anything about@a@a that conversation, particularly about the change of support? >> not particularly. i mean, in most of my lunches or breakfasts with rupert murdoch the conversation has always been predominantly about economic issues security, geopolitical issues. he was very interested in what was happening in afghanistan very interested in global markets. i think it's -- of course, um all businesses have their interests and the rest of it, but in my dealings with rupert murdoch, most of the conversation has been about, you know big international political issues.

rrrrrr22 >> we see you on the 28th of january, 2010 page 04232, dinner the daily telegraph james harding obviously of the times, robert heston obviously, the bbc, is that the only case that you met with mr. be michel? >> this is bottom of 4232? >> that's right. >> this was in davos i think and this was a sort of dinner i've held pretty much every year i've been going, and i think this is what it goes to. i definitely met fred michel there, and i think i met some of the news international parties but i think that's probably about it.

>> and, of course, you're aware of his role? >> i've read a lot of texts. well, i have now. [laughter] >> in relation to your schedule when you're prime minister, this is now dc1 it starts at 04182. what we see by way of summary is a letter degree of contact is about 50%. >> yeah. >> and the same sort of of picture in terms of the individuals you meet. coming up. >> yes. >> so i don't think it's necessary to look at this with any care unless is there any particular point you want to draw attention to? >> no. i'd just make the point i suppose that, again, if you look at arriving at downing street there are meetings with a lot of

different newspapers and newspaper group. but as you say a less intense period. i had other important things to do. >> can i ask you moving away from this and toward someone else mr. aidan barkley -- >> yes. >> we've had some evidence from him, and i hope you've had a chance to look at the transcript of his evidence under tab 27 of this bundle. he referred to the fact that he had quite frequent text messages with you you'd exchanged phone numbers, and we've seen evidence of some of those messages. it's the transcript today 62 in particular in the afternoon, pages 83-87. >> yeah.

>> we know from one text message, and some of these are of a personal message, therefore, it's not necessary to look at them mr. cameron. but there's one message at the start of tab 25 which is page prop and then 0be -- 03106. >> right. >> and there's a reference to him, trying to be sure who the pronoun "him" is a reference to. i think it's -- >> are we on the texts themselves or on the -- oh there we are. they're on the screen. >> this is a text sent by -- [inaudible] >> yes. >> 23rd of march, 2010. the campaign hasn't yet been launched, but it's about to be. spoken to tony that's tony gal a hoe, isn't it? >> yes that's right. >> asked him to be in touch to arrange daily call during

campaign as discussed. i think the evidence was that the daily call was going to be between you and mr. barkley, but if that's wrong i'll be corrected. >> i don't think so. i think the daily call was between the conservative party and tony gallagher. i don't think it was necessarily going to be me but i think this was me wanting to make sure "the telegraph" knew our policies, plans and all the rest of it. t i think that's what it was about. >> i understand. now, as i said, some of the texts are about social arrangements, but there are some texts about liquidity but this is much later on in may 2011. just to have a look at them, social security 03112 -- it's 03112, mr. cam rob. >> yeah, okay. >> i suggest, therefore, bank of england announce extensions in liquidity scheme allow banks five years to implement baas

sell iii and -- basel iii. countries won't go along with it anyway, and i think you do reply to that, or maybe you don't. there's another one about credit markets. is the overall impression here that he has access to you in a particular way? >> well, i think we, you know, we'd met various times, we had each other's phone numbers and i think he, you know, he felt particularly strongly about some of these economic issues and wanted to give me his view. i don't think there's anything particularly improper about that. >> but did you, put another way did you accord any particular weight to his view, or was it just part of the whole range of viewpoints you receive probably on a mount tuesday now basis? >> i think this was the view of him not really as chairman of a newspaper group, but as chairman

of a big business heavily invested into the u.k., lots of property and other businesses, and this was his strong views about the financial situation, and i think it's perfectly legitimate. i get a lot of exposure to businesses' views on these sorts of points, some by text many more by the meetings i have, and that seems to me not a bad thing. as long as you can order them properly in your mind. >> in order to get a fair picture, are we to you understand that you are almost bombarded with this sort of of material not necessarily from media sources, but generally people trying to get you to look at things to at least consider them as part of the formulation? >> i wouldn't say bomb be barded, but, you know, you have a lot of contacts a lot of different people in different ways. so i've actually sort of moved away from e-mail in some ways because i do my official papers

and thoughts and everything very formally. but i do get texts from business contacts, friends and what have you. >> may i go back to the issue now of "the sun" newspaper? we, i think agree that it can't be seen as of massive importance, but it is of some importance. >> yeah. >> where it goes as, i pose, a floating voter, is that a republican characterization? >> i think that's right. it certainly doesn't mean you're going to win the election, but we're trying to win support build momentum. >> did you develop a strategy as to how "the sun" might be won over? >> um, i wouldn't put it like that, no. i think we developed a strategy of how to explain the values and the policies and the approaches we believed in and then b tried

to spread that as far as we could. obviously, when you're talking to "the sun" you want to talk to those parts of your policy that are particularly going to appeal to "sun" readers. so the freeze in the cancer tax was important because people were having a difficult time, that is something that people really can feel strongly about it because they know the pressure their family finances are under. obviously, you know, when you're talking to the financial times, you're going to be talking about basel, 3, when you're talking to "the sun" you're talking about the policies that appeal to their readers. >> by this day you, of course, had mr. coulson onboard, didn't you? i'll come to this in more detail later, you had developed a friendship with mrs. brooks. >> yes. >> and you were aware that mr. rupert murdoch had a good personal relationship with mr. brown, were you? >> yes. >> and was it explained to you or did you work it out anyway

that that was likely to be an impediment, if i can put it in those terms to "the sup" shifting -- "the sun" shifting sides? >> i think both that. rupert murdoch had a strong relationship with gordon brown, rebecca wade had a strong relationship with gordon brown i knew we had our work cut out to win over "the sun," but readers were leaving the government and coming towards us. our task was to try to get what i see as a center-right, pro-enterprise be, pro-family, small c conservative paper back into the fold. >> and was it your understanding that the final decision would be made by rupert murdoch or at the very least it couldn't be made without his assent? >> i didn't want really know how these decisions -- i assumed, obviously, he would have a big say in it, but i sensed that if

we could show that "sun" readers were moving in a conservative direction, we would have a good, a good effort, a good chance of winning that support. but as i say, this was one of many things we were trying to do. >> now did mr. coulson give you advice as to how best to proceed in relation to "the sun"? >> well, of course. he was my director of communications, so he was in charge of working out the best way of promoting my leadership our policies, our values, what we could do for the country to all of these media outlets. >> and you knew, of course that he was very friendly with mrs. brooks, didn't you? >> yes. >> you said mrs. brooks was close to gordon brown. wouldn't it be perhaps fairer to say that she was close to his wife, but, in fact, she was very friendly with tony blair and less well disposed to gordon brown? >> i think she was pretty friendly with all of them.

i remember some strong arguments when i would be berating the government, and she would be standing up pretty vigorously for gordon grown. brown. >> when did you sense that mrs. brooks would be disposed to supporting you and your party, approximately when? >> i can't really put a date on it. i think the as i say, there was a growing picture of disenchantment with the government. the conservative party was i think, getting its act together looking more like a credible government, and it was a process. we had some strong allies as it were. i don't want to ruin his career, but kavanaugh on "the sun," i felt he was someone, you know, who thought that labour government was getting it wrong, lots of things he didn't agree with about what i was going, but i always felt he was a potential ally for pointing out that "sun"

readers were moving in our direction. >> i'm sure it's a process, not an event. in any event, if it is an event, you're not going to remember the exact date, but approximately when do you think mrs. brooks was on side? about six months before the shift of support? a year before? >> i can't -- i would have to go through my diary and remember the, but i can't give you a date. >> not even a sense of when it might have been in terms of -- i'm not asking you to give us a date, but within months was it weeks, was it years? >> um i don't want to get it wrong, so -- i mean, it certainly wasn't weeks, it was i think, more than that. but i can't really give you anymore than that. >> were you given any advice as to the importance of james murdoch in this decision and that he would have influence

over husband father put bluntly, maybe draw his father away from gordon brown?to d >> el, i think they were all -- well, i think they were all important. i didn't quite understand. it was like "the sun" likened it the white smoke coming out after a papal election. i didn't understand how the decision would be made but my view was they were all important in terms of making thatant decision. you know, "the sun" readers re trusted voices like trevor kavanaugh, rupert murdoch james murdoch, rebekah brooks, and we had a chance of, as i say winning them back to the conservative fold, and that's what i focused on. >> how important were the freuds in the all of this if not asow imp decision makers, but facilitators. >> very difficult. matthew's politics i'm not quite sure about, so i'm not totally, i'm not totally sure, um, i don't want to -- not totallyt

sure what role he was playing but he was being helpful in terms of trying to help facilitate a meeting here or t some advice or some of that. he's a friend.ng i think politically he's supported various different sides at various different times. [laughter]arious >> okay. mrs. brooks you make clear from your statement was a friend and may not, again, be possible to identify a date, but would you have counted her or did youu count her as amongst your good friends, say by 2008?st >> yes. we were, you know, we got to know each other because of, you know, her role in the media, my role this politics. know role in india, my role in politics we struck up a friendship. that friendship grew even though she was at that stage still her people still supporting gordon brown and she was quite personal

supportive of gordon brown. our relationship got stronger when she married charlie brooks, whom i've known for sometimes and is a neighbor. >> she gave some evidence as, if i can put in this way, the quantity -- text messages. ghana ask you this straightforward question? do you agree in general with the gist of her evidence on that matter? [inaudible] spent answer phone calls i'm not asking you to count them up but approximate how often did you speak to her by phone and including by mobilephone? >> in opposition, perhaps particularly 2006 seven, not a huge amount. i always felt when i did ring her, i felt from if you like i was telephoning her a lot less than gordon brown, which i

thought that was interesting. my sense was i was in contact a lot less than he was. but i can't put numbers on it but certainly in 2006-2007 not necessarily every weekend. >> can we just move afford to 2008-2009? was their contact by phone on a weekly basis? >> i think as we get closer to the election and the decision of "the sun," and also, you know, the wedding and she's moved into charlie brooks is house which is very near where i live and where we live in constituency, then the level of contact went out. we saw each other socially more. >> about how frequently? >> what date are we talking about? >> well 2008-2009 mr. cameron.

just to get an idea first of all contact by telephone and then social contact. >> it's very difficult because i don't have a record and i don't want to give you an answer that isn't right. so sometimes sometimes quite i suspect would -- we would've been talking to each other quite a, particularly right around perhaps the time of the wedding or when we were both in oxfordshire we would've had more frequent contact. >> okay. so when you're at your constituency and weekends, did you see her every weekend or most weekends over the very 2008-2000? >> not, not every weekend. in 2008-2009, i'd have to check.

i might give and go back and check but i don't think every weekend. i don't think most weekends but it would depend. >> i don't think it's necessary to ask you to check this. these questions are designed to be that precise, just to get -- >> definitely we were particularly, once she started going out with charlie brooks, living a couple miles down the road, i was definitely singer more often because my sort of friendship with charlie as a neighbor, and you know charlie and i played tennis together which answer we will come onto, so that was why i would say more. >> bears one text message -- there's one text message which i would invite you to look at now and get you to say something about. i'm not sure what number it has

been given in our system but it is have a 35 as the acting from -- it is tab 35. i will say something about it. have you got -- >> i've got it. >> i should make it clear before i read about use use -- news international recently disclosed a number of other text messages between mrs. brooks and mr. cameron pursuant to section 21 request. section 21 request is, in fact, an order statue, requiring people to disclose what you. october 2009-may 2011, and june june 2011, and it requires judgment on the other text messages referred to are irrelevant to its terms of reference. this is where we will look at one. and news international through their -- have also explained why

text messages and other monthly periods are not available. that will be of course our website. the one we're looking at the seventh of october, 2009 which i think is during the party conference. >> yes. >> certain with an eight or nine days or so. [inaudible] the first one has been redacted. it's on grounds of relevance. and then she says but seriously, which suggested the first line contained or might contain something of a jocular nature i do understand the issue with the times. let's discuss over country supper soon. on the party, it was because i had asked a number, i was probably news international endorsement, and they were disappointed not to see. but as always, was wonderful.

[inaudible] i'm so rooting for you tomorrow, not just as a personal friend but professionally. we're definitely in this together. [inaudible] yes, he can, exclamation mark. the rooting for you to more was you were giving a speech probably at the party conference. >> i think it was my party conference speech. i can't explain this e-mail. the issue at the times at the party conference i had not been to the times party. the major newspaper groups had a big party at the party conference and they expect party leader, cabinet leaders, shadow ministers ago. that would be the normal thing to do. i hadn't gone and i think that was what this was about, and i was apologizing for the. that was explained to her. if that helps. >> just the phrase but because

professionally we are definitely in this together. what was your understanding of that? >> i think that is about "the sun" had made this decision to back conservatives, to part company with the labour. and so "the sun" wanted to make sure it was helping the conservative party put its best foot forward with the policies we are announcing the speech is going to make, and all the rest of it. and i think that's what that means. >> professionally covering, "the sun" and you were bound together to some extend? >> i think what it means was that she put it, friends but professionally. me as leader of the conservative party and her in newspapers. we were going to be pushing the same political agenda. >> the country suffers, she refers to in a forward-looking way. is that the forward-looking

direction you often had with her? >> yes. we were neighbors. >> okay. now, move forward in time to may 2011, mr. cameron, to deal with a point. this relate to the mccants. >> yes. >> were you asked i mrs. brooks to support or indeed cause to take place a review of the mccann case in the metropolitan police? >> i don't recall exact this whole issue. what our member is that i had meeting with kate and gerry mccann as leader of the opposition, and anyone who is method or read about their story, you can't fail to be included with what happened to them all in all the of for me to try to get matalin back. followed this up as prime

minister. but i care member the exact promise of who called who and when and what have you. but i think it was the police clearly had played a role in trying to keep investigation going and government help them with that. >> entrance of any interaction between you and mrs. brooks, was a drawn to your attention that mrs. brooks went to see to your special advisors, i think on the 11th of may speak as i don't recall. it might well have been. i don't recall the exact conversations. i do recall because i can see you, what might lie behind the question which is are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly. and i do remember actually as private consulting about the step that the police were about to take backed by the government which was to provide

some extra funding for investigation. and it was drawn to my attention that there is a special home office procedure for helping with particularly complex and expensive investigations that's been used in various cases and that was going to be is in this case and you satisfied that it had been dealt with properly. so it's an example if you like of the importance of major these things are done properly. and i believe they were. >> where, were you aware that any pressure being put on you directly or indirectly by mrs. brooks to cause this review to take place at? >> pressure? know. i wasn't aware of pressure. >> well, if it wasn't pressure, was any influence of that sort being impose? >> clearly, this was a very high profile case. and a case a number of newspapers want to do champion

because their readers wanted to champion it. and, obviously, as a government you have to think are we helping with this because there's media pressure, or is it genuine public pressure, is there a genuine case are we treating this fairly? and i did ask those questions of the permanent secretary number 10 so i think we made an appropriate response. but i don't remember any sort of specific pressure or being put on the. and i think i'm right home secretary gave evidence on this as well. >> might move onto a different topic. it is related to earlier topics but it ties in with the implied deal point. you may or may not have been following mr. gordon brown's evidence, but he made a specific point against you and your party and, therefore, it is right that you the opportunity to deal with it. he put it, to be fair to him higher than in blind bogey said

it was an express deal, which he made with either rupert murdoch or james murdoch two, i paraphrase, follow the line of max taggart's ofcom tim -- trim back the bbc and exchange for news international supporting your party. so that's the allegation. we will look at the detail i would ask for you to respond to generally? >> frankly it is absolute nonsense from start to finish. i think where it comes from is obvious the gordon brown was very angry and disappointed that "the sun" had deserted him and as a result, in my view he has cooked up an entirely speechless and unjustified conspiracy theory to try i know just why is angry. but i've taken the time to look through the individual parts of

policy that he points to, and in all almost every case it is complete nonsense just to take a couple of examples, he makes the point about the listing of sporting events, particularly -- it was the labour government, his government that he listed the ashton. he makes a point about product based on. again it was a labour government that started the process of changing the rules on product placement, and under his oversight. on the bbc as i've argued before, my position on the bbc is not the same as james murdoch's decision to i support the bbc. i support the licensee. of the conservative party i think will be submitting a piece by piece response to this because it is completely nonsense. but i'm very happy to go to the individual parts but it was as i said before, there was no deal for supporter or no was was covert do. there were no nods and winks. there was a conservative

politician, me trying to win over newspapers, trying to win over television, trying to win over proprietors not trading policies for that support. and when you look at the details of this as i say, it is complete nonsense. >> maywood focused on on two matters, sort of the highlight a sensible way of -- sensible way to deal with this. may be the easiest way to deal with this is to look at paragraph 105 following in your statement because you raise a you've taken time to refer to relevant part of iterations of your party policy. i think we can look at paragraph 107, first of all which is a speech then shadow council or minister gave january '09, our page 04167.

it said we were banned from the bbc.&9&9&y&9&9 while we support the licensee, we believe the best way in the foreseeable future we believe the level of the licensee is at the top in of what is acceptable to the public. so hinting there that the fee may have to be -- >> and that is what we -- much to the anger of james murdoch who i think the chancellor george osborne felt they should have been cut. so we had her own policy on bbc license fee. went other organizations have their budgets cut by considerable more. so again this part of the conspiracy theory i think has absolutely no weight at all. >> some might say you would not go as far as much work but you

might meet him partway along the way. >> i think it's quite difficult to argue at a time when you know if you get into government you have to be making spending reductions, but you are going to see the bbc license fee go up and up and do. and i think ready consistent and long-term argument, very much flow from my own views, that the bbc need to be strong, it needs the backing of the licensee. i do think the bbc had gone into areas it shouldn't have done and i would mention that in some evidence. but i think this is a fair settlement. certainly not one of james murdoch supported. >> now, in march 2009 it's clear page -- [inaudible] -- you made an announcement which was to the effect, the licensee would be frozen. did that represent your policy been, between march 2009 and the election?

>> well, i made that announcement in march 2009. and we have delivered, we delivered more than that policy in government, yes. just by way i just caught my eye, paragraph 110. if was this great conspiracy to hand over bbc policy to the murdochs, it would seem to be quite strange to -- in paragraph one of 10, chaired by former bbc director general greg dyke. if he wanted a sort of murdoch conspiracy, you would not have prominent labour supporter to carry out the policy for you. just another, another reason why i think this whole idea is -- >> elizabeth ford was part of the task force wasn't she? >> that's true. i would argue that is a pretty balanced list of people from

different parts of broadcasting media and technology. but as i say greg dyke is not a shrinking violet and he would not put him in charge if you had some secret agenda. >> probably no shrinking violets on this task force will look at all the names. is your position that we have a range of views come across on these individuals? >> yes. i think what we can do is assemble a group of people that included radio, music new media, itv. so pretty good mix of action. but as i say the person leaking it was a former director general of the bbc. can look at ofcom? you gave a speech paragraph 113, page 04132. but you did make some points

about ofcom in this paragraph did you? >> i did. i think it's important to stress this was a big speech ongoing go so it was a sense after 13 years of labour government that claimed the state had gotten very big. quango has become very powerful. the people working on were excellent and well paid, and this was a series of speeches that i worked on with people like oliver to try and come up, instead of the normal government politicians about this, we're trying to find a set of rules to apply to different claim goes to see whether they need to exist or whether parts of them could be back into government and we said pacers of questions which are in paragraph 113. and then we apply that to a number of thank you. as you say a big speech about quangos, the ofcom parties only three paragraphs or so. and one of the reasons i picked off, was because of my own expense and television of remembering what individual --

the idc event the precursor of ofcom. and also remember -- that's a were in the idc prepared with ofcom. ofcom was quite a good example of a time when they got too big, too expensive and the pay levels were pretty access. and i would just make the point there were at this time of ofcom was being actually wrongly attacked on this basis by itv by the ppc, which always had nothing to come and also by the left of politics, they're all same ofcom seems to have gotten too big. so this was an agenda that was very into my own views, not anywhere proposed or dictated by them. >> the upshot was that ofcom you said would cease to exist as we know to this is at the end of

paragraph 113. it will be restricted to his narrow technical important roles and that presume the cover girls under the enterprise act in relation to reality. plurality. >> what artest was with all the strength you policymakers should be done but parliament. we're making argument about quangos. not just counting. it was about thing if policy is being made that should be ministers accountable to parliament to get decisions that have to be impartial which is what ofcom does where they are concerned they should be carried out by independent non-governmental bodies for all the reasons people would understand but there was a serious attempt to look at quangos more broadly. >> and to take the story forward as it were is this right was that the reason this policy was not enacted the realities of

the coalition government, it was a possible? >> that's right. i wasn't involved in the detail negotiation of the coalition agreement but some policies made it through. others didn't. i suspect this is one we didn't get agreement on. but we have tried to restrict them. >> you have denied any implied deal, and that i tried to look at in this way. do you feel looking back at this, that there is nonetheless a perception that we have the coincidence of two things, at least in terms of time a shift in support and policies which don't precisely match what we see in the mactaggart lecture to but are not a million miles from them. and people think welcome there some sort of link between the two, there's a perception and it

flows from the relationship. do you accept at least that much? >> i think anyone reasonably looking at the conservative policies and where they came from and why they existed would see that they were driven by our values and our approach and also by personal history. so no, i don't really accept that. if i can tell you if the are you goes there was no coup maybe there was no overview. but nontheless it all looks like there was a nod and wink. we do start to get into sort of witchcraft trials. how do you possibly prove you are innocent? so i don't, as i said the best i can do is point to all of these policies, explained by the came from. i think there is good evidence. i think where you're getting with the bbc license fee ofcom, product placement, whether on the ash issue, there's a very

good conservative explanations for the positions that we are on on. >> the matters and 50 and the public inquiry, it either happened or didn't happen. the problem is if you don't have a public inquiry, that perception -- >> the inquiry is -- [inaudible] it's very important alongside the appalling things that happen to entirely innocent people. a huge problem we have in terms of police relations with me it's right we get to the bottom of the political media relationship and how to put on a firmer footing. what i'm saying is not only was there no covert do, there was no overt deal and there were no nod and wink to the policy that i produce came from our beliefs values, my history, my beliefs and they were not dictated by anybody else. >> i think i've probably covered

that point. let's move onto another point. [laughter] the third area of evidence is specific narrative examples, and the first one is mr. and do -- mr. andy coulson. you start that in paragraph 219. which is page 04168. >> right. >> in terms of your wish list in early 2007 mr. cameron, were you looking for someone with tabloid experienced? >> not necessarily, but i was looking for someone who was a big hitter, and i was looking for someone who can really cope with the huge media pressure that you are under. and tabloid editors and leading

executives on the tabloid newspapers i think they bring something that others wouldn't. and so there wasn't a particular wish list but it was trying to get the right person with the right skills. spent because without generalizing too much about tabloid editors, we are tending to look at people who are tough and who are not just going to play under pressure, ought we? >> i think that's right. and there is a reason for that, which is when you're running a political party, immediate pressures, you know, a typical weekend you might have a policy problem over here, you've got an np extensive scandal over here. you've got a marriage breakdown over there. you have some cancer enmeshed in some scandal over. it literally comes in on top of your head. and it's very fast but it's very serious and you need someone

seriously good at handling it. and that to me was one of the key qualification. i had this very good guy george, doing a good job. advice going to bring some and above him i wanted someone who would be able to materially order and improved the things we did.dgdedgdg >> tdeo what extent were youpgpgpgpgpgpgpgpg looking at the example ofpgpgpgpgpgpgpgpg alastairpg campbell being -- thepgpgpgpgpg sortpg of man in terms of qgqgqgqgqgqgqgqg temperament qgand robustness? >> not, not necessarily. i don't think, you know, alastair campbell, he was much more political than andy coulson, and i think in all sorts of ways there were occasions when clearly you have overstepped the role of what he should've been doing. >> now, we have heard

mr. osborne, that a number of names were considered. aside from the one broadcaster who is being mentioned can you remember approximately how many names were considered? >> there were two or three others. i don't want to hurt their careers by naming them. there were two or three other people we were looking at, and one or two that i had met with. but as i say we decided on andy coulson. >> of the two or three others, were it any -- [inaudible] >> yes. >> and mr. coulson, was he the only one from news international or not? >> know. i mean, this is difficult although there was there was someone from the tabloid newspaper i think i talked to earlier in the process b