understood by that i believe is essential to understand why it is that labels have been working so hard to regulate political speech for the last four decades. it involves the greatest function behind all of their campaign finance efforts. that the collusion of private interest with politics is somehow inherently corrupted. that's really at the core of their view. this is the great untested premise behind all these efforts to regulate political speech. and few people stop to think of just how radical that it is. because whether it's the public financing of campaigns or the attempt to impose limits on political speech of any business or group that doesn't happen to own a newspaper or a new studio what all these efforts have in common is a deep deep suspicion suspicion. of the private sphere. all these efforts are for the purpose of limiting the ability of those engaged in private

enterprises or certain disfavored private groups or associations. to influence the direction of our country by participating in the electoral process. the goal is to seal off congress and anyone engaged in the private economy or in certain kinds of advocacy for that matter, outside of the public sector. and the assumption behind all these proposals is the same assumption that appears to underline this president's economic and regulatory policies. that anyone who makes a profit is either cheating their customers or mistreating their employees. or actually they could be doing both. their motives are in pure therefore. those are interact with them are somehow duped and therefore, they're not entitled to the full protections of the first

amendment. for those who hold this view, the largest of holy grail has always been taxpayer funded campaigns. if the advocates of this approach had their way government would control how much is spent on elections, how it directed, courtesy of the taxpayer. but the question is he would have sway over politicians than? would private interest pushed to the sideline the only voices lawmakers could expect could be expected to respond to would be these self-appointed tribunes of the public interest. private interests would end up with minimal influence on the direction of public policy. and the odds of people run towards the public sector solutions would increase dramatically. if you're right the rules of the game, of course, it's a lot easier to win. especially for an incumbent politicians.

and that's what these so-called reform crowd has always had in mind. now, it's important to remember that one of the things that makes effective the harassment and intimidation tactics i described is their various selectivity. there aren't exactly a lot of folks running to the ramparts to defend all company executives, and hedge fund managers. but we all need to understand something. the minute we allow ourselves to be convinced that some people stand outside the protections of the first amendment, we are all in trouble. these rights don't exist to protect what's popular. that exist precisely to protect what isn't. that's what it's a mistake to view the recent hhs mandate as merely a catholic issue. and that's why it's a mistake to view the taxes you know millionaires and billionaires as outside of our concern. because it always starts

somewhere. it always starts somewhere. and the moment we start caring about who is targeting is the moment we are all at risk. if we don't protect unpopular speech, then no speeches safe. if we don't protect unpopular expressions of belief, then no belief is safe. let people support whomever they want, as much as they want to come and let the best man or woman win. then government could finally get out of the business of giving a speech rights that it has no authority to confer. that's what the founders obviously intended. in my view, no one buys our freedoms, who values our freedoms should accept anything

less than that. as the core put it in buckley, -- the court put in buckley, the concept that government restrict the speech of some elements of our society, in order to enhance the relative voice of others, is wholly foreign to the first amendment which was designed to secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources and to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. it's never been stated better. campaign contributions are speech. and in case anybody thinks unlimited contributions are a bad idea or somehow far-fetched, just look across the potomac to virginia.

which imposes no restrictions on contributions whatsoever. right across the river. last i checked elected official in virginia are no more prone to skin the beneficiaries in the state that impose contribution level. and corporations are no more taking over politics than they are anywhere else. for all of this talk after citizens united, the ruling about corporate takeover of politics, not a single fortune, one of the company contributed a penny, a penny. to the eight super pacs that supported the republican primary candidate. not a single fortune 100 company contributed a penny to any of the super pacs supporting republican presidential candidate. and that includes aol wall

street banks health insurers, the three big corporate bogeyman the president always warned us about in the wake of the courts decision. here's my larger point. one of the traditional strengths of the conservative movement has always been it's great diversity. we don't all agree on everything everything, but my message to you today is that there are certain principles that should always unite us. and one of them is the indefatigability of the first amendment. and that's why we have all got to unite against these tactics, where ever we see them. if you see these things, speak up, call out the offenders, and get ready for the criticism and

fight back. for me that's meant a very long battle against efforts to constrain political speech. it may not be the most glamorous issue out there, and it did make me any friends on any editorial boards that are run by -- but a great freedom and having been in this fight for a long time i can tell you this. when you've got an administration that is willing to throw core constitutional protections right out the window, for the sake of an election, we are in dangerous territory indeed. this may not be the fight that brought all of you to washington, but it may very well be the one that keeps you from achieving your goals. especially if you're a conservative.

your ability to speed on half of that cost is very much at stake right now. but as i said at the outset, this isn't just a conservative fight. it affects actually all of us. because everyone in this room liberal or conservative, is engaged in what they regard as a very important battle of ideas. and the first amendment makes all of that possible. if we lose the right to speak, we lose the right to speak, we've lost these battles before they start. i know that as november draws near some of those running for office will feel the need to choose their battles. there'll be a very soft temptation, particularly among conservatives to take this particular issue off the table to make concessions. my advice is to resist the temptation. because as i've said everything

we're fighting for is contingent on our ability to actually speak our minds. nothing is more important than that. and so my plea to you is this. unite. send a message to the next generation of leaders whatever their stripe, that the first amendment is something about which there can be no compromise, none whatsoever. we may not win every fight, but we can at least guarantee will always have a place to debate. and in the end i'm confident the best ideas will always win out. after all, that's how free markets work. whether it's a market of goods or a market of ideas the best product will win in the end and no american should ever be afraid of that. as oliver wendell holmes put it nearly a century ago here's the

way he put it and it's just as valid today as it was then the best test of truth is the power of the thought itself. the power of the thought itself. to get accepted in the competition of the market. and the best defense of this truth we have is still found in the sweeping command congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. thank you very much. [applause]

>> i'm going to take a few questions, but i'm going to just indicate in advance, all my questions on would respond to, i know where some people from the press or or questions related to the speech i just made i'm not going to be respond to other question. so if you would like to address the issue, i'd be happy to take your question. yeah. yeah. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] senator, there are organizations that use our liberal traditional system to harass and intimidate americans speaking up. they threaten people to sue them or even take them to court. and even in case of complete vindication, people could be

financially destroyed. this could have a chilling effect on all matters. so would you think that our congress should do to -- >> i think the president should indicate this is unacceptable you are not onto his own campaign but to his own government. quit trying to shut up the people that don't agree with you, get out there and compete in the marketplace of ideas. that's the whole point of my speech today. we don't need the government micromanaging this country who gets to speak and who does. we don't need the government targeting people, we don't need administration -- this is not the first of ministration, some of us are old enough to remember the nixon administration. look, let's compete at the president is not unable to compete. he won the last election and many people think he will win this one. not my view but i think the

answer here is for the government to butt out of the business of picking winners and losers and the political discourse in this country. yeah. [inaudible] >> what i'd like to know is what's wrong with 1 dollar per one voter and 1 dollar for one corporation? >> what do you mean? >> what i mean is that what's wrong with having an equal vote worth 1 dollar? >> the supreme court has said it's desperate for the president to decide how much, for the government to decide how much people get to speak. they have said the government cannot sort of level the playing field to its impermissible under the first amendment. so i think what you're suggesting is that somebody decreed that you have equalized contributions.

it would not survive the first federal district court in the country. you. [inaudible] >> justice scalia has said that the marketplace of ideas, i'm loosely paraphrasing should be open to people who are willing to have specific urge to be identified in what they're seeing -- >> would you put the mic back closer to your voice? to your mouth. >> how is that? >> there you go. >> justice leah talks about people in the -- justice scalia talks about people in the political square having civic courage to be identified with their ideas but would you talk about that in context please? >> it's an important point. he did say that.

i disagree with them. i don't think that regular citizens should have to experience any political courage at all to participate in a national debate. but candidates and parties whose donors are fully disclosed are used to the battles, used to the criticism. some place it's not much fun. but i don't think it out to be part of regular citizens as a precondition or their involvement in civic discourse to be terribly courageous. so i disagree with him and that's what i cited justice thomas who concurred in the decision. but nevertheless dissented on that very point that you raised. as to whether or not one must basically opened up his membership list like the state of alabama was trying to do in 1958 with the naacp as a condition for being involved in the public discussion. so i generally applaud justice scalia's views but i don't agree with him on that one.

>> peter, you want to figure out who we take? >> hi. kurt, committee for justice. senator mcconnell you focus on -- [inaudible] given limited time i guess those are the biggest threat. i'm also concerned about sort of threats that come through partnerships between government and outside groups particularly on the left. you know, whether we're talking about executive agencies or the courts, for example. there have been abusive lawsuits against conservative bloggers. one recently resulting in a restraining order against a conservative blogger in a maryland court. what i called abuse of foia requests with folks in the government agency hand over documents very readily because they also don't like the people

that the documents are about. various things such as that. maybe acc challenges to what we would consider free speech saying that the fall in the campaign finance laws. i wonder if you could briefly address that sort of abuse that comes from that outside group government partnership? >> i sort of did. at the risk of repeating myself, i mentioned for agencies that engage in those kind of activities. i think the government ought to butt out of trying to punish people with whom it disagrees, and it's going on in not only inside the administration, but any independent agencies, independent of the obama campaign but i think it's only happening because the president is setting a bad example here, you know? the presidency is indeed a bully pulpit. if the president said we're not doing stuff like this, i'm pretty sure there would be a

broad-based response to the. it might not prevent every single activity that might go on out there, but setting a better example on an important issue like this is something i would expect of the president. and if we don't get it out of this one i hope we get out of the next of. >> to more questions. >> senator, grover norquist. you said that those who -- notches on the issue, we're focused on but the broader issue of defending the first amendment rights of everyone. what went wrong with the bush administration when they decided to sign mccain-feingold rather than veto it? you had enough votes in the senate to sustain a veto. but that didn't happen. what caused that? >> it was a great disappointment because i was a strong supporter of president bush, as you know, and i think he made a mistake and i went to the courthouse the very next morning. the ink was hardly dry on his

signature, and filed a case that ultimately became mcconnell versus fec. regretfully we lost the. i think the court has gotten more sensitive and better. on political speech issues since that time. i think there's been a movement in the court, into a better place in this whole array of issues. and it was it was kind of a low point for me because we had tried to defeat the bill in the senate. we were unsuccessful, and it ended up being signed by the president of my own party. it was not a happy day, but i think we're making progress. the court is allowing us to begin to move in the direction of taking a number of these shackles off. citizens united was extrema important to let me say again all that did, cities nine was about corporate speech only.

and basically what it said was i'm paraphrasing, is corporations that own newspapers and television stations no longer have a carveout. they no longer have first amendment rights, but no other corporation does. they just level the playing field. and that led to the president to make always i visit passionate predictions about how corporate america was going to own the government. of course, none of that has happened. but a corporation issues like individuals. all corporation, not just those that own the "washington post" or "the new york times," should be free to express themselves. who's afraid here? let's all have a big conversation about the future of the country. you make your best argument, i'll make my best arguments. but out government. the governments will ultimately -- the voters will ultimately decide who they favor. no, it was not exactly my favorite day. the day after, but we still,

still in a fight. and i think we want a lot of battles in the last 10 years. >> i was going to ask in this room probably the most informed voters, the best looking people i senior and how do you convince the average voter knows nothing about economics, or public policy that corporations are people too and their voice should be silenced? >> i would be the first event that this is not an issue that's on the minds of most voters. but it ought to be on the minds of folks like you all who are really interested in the details of the. i've always felt it was held in america that not everybody was watching cable television every night. you know, for most americans, politics is a marginal thing in their lives.

they are not spending as much time thinking about this but i think it's our obligation as those who were involved in the political process to write about the political process, to lobby the government, it's our obligation to the rest of americans to make sure that the conditions continue to exist so that they can hear all points of view. they can hear all points of view. and so for those of us who are and spent a lot of time on this issue, it's our obligation to fight this fight. now, a regular citizen out in the country right now i'm sure this is the last thing they're thinking about, and i think that the gnome reaction to a situation which your 40 straight months of unemployment of 8%, when you had you know when you see that the government has a debt now the size of its economy. boy, and those are big issues and they're on the minds of every american. but i think it's our obligation, people who are in this room who

work on this kind of stuff all the time, to make sure that even the most casual voter hears all the arguments. and i assure you, having you know, taught the subject as a first time, i was a real college professor but i thought a couple of glasses in american political parties election a long time ago, having taught, study written about, talked about, and then an active political partisans are so for four years, i'm telling you the government needs to get out of this area and quit trying to pick winners and losers. and let the american people be exposed to all points of view and i'm confident, i mean i don't know for sure. we won't win all the stuff that i would at least like to make all the arguments unfettered by government intervention in every election.

and you know mostly the outside groups i've had experience with it's been a real bad experience. you know? when i ran for reelection in 2008 we had antiwar demonstrators in my front yard. nokia, but in legal. antiwar demonstrators but i was never attempted wants to advocate something to shut them up. they had a right to come after me. it was particularly suite when i kicked their you know what. but we thought not to be afraid of competition. so that's my view. and the longer i'm in and around this issue, the more i'm convinced that minimal government oversight of political speech, i mean, i'm okay with parties and candidates, you know having contribution limits. although i just cited virginia as an example and insert has a great in a cesspool of corruption over there.

i'm comfortable with that. and full disclosure for candidates and parties, but i don't think anybody else in the country off to have to pay that price as a condition for speaking out and being involved in causes that they feel strongly about. and i think we have made some real headway the last few years. it's been a long fight since watergate. watergate is what produced this initial reaction. and it's taken out about 40 years to work our way through to try to minimize the government micromanagement of the national discussion. i will take one more and then i've got to run to the airport. i'm going to take brad here. >> brad smith, center for comparative politics. first, senator i just want to thank you for the effort and time that you devoted for this fight over many, many years.

[applause] >> i think all of us would add to what senator graham said a decade as a decade ago. very simple question for senator mccain lee said it was going to be another scandal, and i thought there will be because there's always another scandal after the federal election campaign act was passed after the mccain-feingold law there was william jefferson and i'm sure there will be another scam. i guess my question is simple. have you seen in the two years since citizens united speech, any market shift in the way in which members of the upper chamber act as pertains to interest groups and whether or not, in fact, money is corrupting operations in the senate as is often alleged? >> as you know full well brad the law with regard to what can be given to parties or candidates haven't changed at all. there's no difference whatsoever.

a corporation cannot contribute to a candidate for federal office, or to a party, there are limits and there are disclosure. what our friends on the other side are trying to do is to regulate all the outside speech. so it hadn't changed the senate at all. coming sure we raise money because we want to go to run our campaigns and we try to help our political parties. everybody knows who is contributing and how much and all of that. what has changed, i think as a practical matter from say, '08 until now, is you have a very concerned and alarmed group of some of them quite well many of them not, people write us and who don't like what this administration has done. and they're getting organized and are involved. and i think there's more balance

out their. and my prediction is at the end of this year if you added up the total amount of money spent on both sides president obama's campaign, the democratic national committee and democratic outside groups governor romney's campaign, the republican national committee and outside groups, i bet it's going to be roughly equal, boy it sure wasn't equal into the debate. and i don't recall anybody on the left crying the influence of outside groups in l.a. did i miss something? was there a big communal, maybe i just wasn't paying attention. but i don't recall there being any sense of outrage about all the millionaires and billionaires on the left who were fueling enormous outside efforts on behalf of the president. i just don't recall the expressions of alarm. so i think the only thing that's changed is not so much the law but the condition of the country and a lot of people right of

center are discouraged in 2008 are no longer. they are active, involved, fired up trying to make a difference trying to influence the course of the public discussion to so that's the only thing that's changed a i think people reacted to four years of this administration and they are alarmed about the future of the country. they are getting involved tried to make a difference, and the other thing when you don't micromanaged beach, i would also mention to you if some people are trying to help you don't do a very good job of it. you know, candidates don't get to control campaigns really. we can't control what the newspapers say about us. we can't even say well control our friends may try to do to help us. i couldn't one will mean a group in 2008 a game and try to help me and advertise on this subject, no one knew what they were talking about. i could tell from reading that they're trying to be helpful. they were nice people. i could tell they're trying to be helpful.

it made absolute no difference but i don't know how much money they spent trying to be helpful but it made no difference at all. and then sometimes your friends would come in and actually do you hold. i can remember one campaign in the 2006 cycle where some well-meaning outside group came in and on to cost us a senate seat. free speech is uncontrollable. ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the associated press reports this the obama administration

will stop deporting younger imgrants to came to the u.s. as children and since lived law-abiding laws. he's that ceo spueing at 1:15 eastern to grant young imgrants work permits. you can see it again on c-span at 1 p.m. eastern. mitt romney is on the 6-day campaign bus tour today starting at at new hampshire farm announcing his presidential bid about a year ago. in the african-american, he'll be in milford new hampshire for an ice cream social. ruth bader ginsburg will be at the american constitution society, and that's live today at 6 p.m. >> follow david on his journey walking in a president's footsteps for president obama,

the story. starting at 6 p.m. eastern a video record of the travel and live at 7:30 david takes your calls and question, and also this weekend, conservative comem at a -- keep at a -- come at a times for cliches 37 >> the idea of the further you move from the left the closer you get to bad things like fascist, racist, sexest, and in some ways the best working definition of a fascist in political life is a conservative winning an argument. that's on c-span2. >> we have the british investigation into the relationship between the press and politicians concluded for the week. a number of former prime ministers answered questions boy the levevson inquiry sweals

david cameron. we have highlights throughout the afternoon at 3 eastern former prime minister, gordon brown, and at 5 former prime minister john major asked about their connection. we begin with david cameron talking about the personal relationship rebekah brooks and talked about hiring an editor as his communications director. this first portion it about an hour and 15 minutes. >> today's witness is the right honorable david cameron. >> i swear the evidence i shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but thet=t=

truth. p? >> youp? provided us with a witness statement that extendsp?p? to 84 pages and is subject top>p> one, and is this the former evidence you have to the inquiry? >> it is. >> can i ask questions about your career before 2001. you were expected to be in the treasury in 1990, and 1994; is

that right? >> in your dealings with third parties, what extent did you express an opinion which was not the opinion of sometimes to be a bit of a sponge in terms of soaking up a lot of people that wanted to see the minister and people would have been envy about something, but i can't think of a difference. >> do you think you would have made it clear to the third parties that you were expressing your own opinion and not your minister's opinion?

from your inexperience, to what extent was your approach orthodox or unorthodox? >> i suppose fairly orthodox. when i became a special adviser i was working at the policy party, doing the party political side of the minister's job rather than being an expert special adviser in the treasury, for instance, we had some experts special advisers who would dax specialists or economy itions whereas i was more the general, political adviser. >> thank you. your house of communications, as we know from 1994 and 2001 was claiming in the realm of communications and not print media specifically. tell us how those experiences influenced your thinking between

paragraphs 1 and 66 of your statement, and am i right in deducing it was your media background was at least in part what brought you in contract with journalists, and it's that contact that led to the development of friendships? >> well, there was various parts to the job. one part was to deal with the regulatory environment that television and television companies faced, which was quite a controlled, quite a strict regulatory environment. that was part of the job. another part of the job was dealing with investors and shareholders and the investor relations meaning dealing with them and another part was handling press relations so i formed some relationships with journalists 234 that period, but political journalists i got to know, i would have said that was more related to the time as a special adviser dealing with political journalists then and some are still around today. >> thank you.

to what extent is your background in these friendships provided you with knowledge and insights into how newspaper news desks function? >> well, some knowledge but not, you know, i've never worked in a news room so some knowledge and understanding, but not as much as somebody who worked there. i would say my time probably taught me more about television industry about how it was regulated, and maybe we'll come on to this. a lot of the views i formed about media policy media regulations, the bbc, charles was a formative period working for a big part of the british broadcasting industry, itv, effectively, and i had a lot of views and opinions then which i still hold today. >> then your evidence if i way, define general headings, and first is general perspectives on

media issues. looking now, please at paragraph 1 and -- 13 and 14 of your statement page 04099. >> yeah. >> explain media is the instrument of communication and integral to the democratic process. we all greed the contact between politicians in the media is inevitable, necessary, and not inherently unhealthy; is that right 1234 >> absolutely. it's not the only way we communicate with people, because, obviously, you have direct forms of communication particularly at election time and the like but it is a big part of how we communicate, and 109 relations are important. >> paragraph 14, your background discussions. is that intended to include off the record discussions 1234 >> yes, off the record discussions but also discussions for

journalists to understand more about you because you want to have people understand your motivations, to understand your character, your judgment, your views and why you hold them. these conversations are important, and that's why the relationship is important. >> in paragraph 15, you make it clear that a lot depends on building the trust of individual journalists. how easy or difficult has that been for you? >> bears completely with the person concerned. sometimes you strike up a good and strong relationship. sometimes you struggle. >> paragraph 15, you said the media plays a vital part in explaning government policies and events to the public. in your view and in broadcasters to one side has the press discharged those obligations accurately and fairly over the last 11 years

throughout your political career? >> well, i think it's changedded a lot. i mean, asking politicians whether they are happy with the way the media reports the news, as we see it, is a bit like asking farmers about the weather. we're always going to complain. i think the evidence has been put forward in the sessions you have where people talked about the growth of the 24-hour news culture, the fact that things move so fast means that i think newspapers are in a difficult position because the news has been may and reported -- made and reported long before they reach their deadlines and publish the papers the next day. i think newspapers have moved more towards trying to find impact trying to find an angle on a story rather than would have been the case and rather than reporting the day beforement i think there's been a change, but i think that's quite a lot to do with technology and the development

of media rather than anything else. >> a change for the better, for the worst or -- >> i think from the politicians' point of view, and particularly perhaps from the government's point of view is it's sometimes a change for the worse because if there's a big announcement something we think is very important, that gets announced on the television. it gets picked up by the 24-hour news, and it's understandable that the newspapers, by the time they come out the next day, they have to find something differentment i understand completely why they want to do that, but from the perspective of trying to explain to the country why you are making difficult decisions, why you are reforming the health service in this way cutting the deficit in that way sometimes you love it if you would just get across more what it is you actually decided to do rather than endless analysis of what the motives were or what the splits were. politicians will always complain

about this sort of thing. i wouldn't put too much weight on it. >> do you think the -- >> sorry then there's -- >> what they're leaning towards is spending quite a lot of focus, in the evidence, quite a lot of focus on broadcasting, and this goes back to my life when i formed a view, that you know, if you really want to get through to people, television is incredibly powerful medium, and as the medium markets are broken down and newspapers are selling fewer copies and more people are looking at the interpret yes, the audience in the big news programs has for them, but their power, in many ways, is greater because the one thing lots of people do do all at the same time is watch the main news, what is in the evening, and so if you want to explain why you're doing what you doing if you want to get things across, television, as i tried to explain, is extraordinarily important and powerful. that is the next -- >> yes and broadcast is a subject of different obligation.

>> absolutely and rightly so. >> thank you. paragraph 16 and 17, you give examples of the benefits, and this relates to campaigns, and also you've given an example of a journalist from the sunday telegraph, the company who in august of last year, in the context of the -- [inaudible] you'd agree this work is easier in the realm of less politically charged issues; is that right? >> what is easier? doing interviews or campaigns or -- >> well the benefits which accrue -- >> yeah. >> from campaigns and it's -- it's easier, i suppose, in areas that are less physically charged. >> well, i suppose that's the case, yes. >> would you say the same about some of the shriller campaigns in certain sections of the press over the years? >> well, i would, i mean, i would say these campaign

newspapers run, and it's not always newspapers television stations run campaigns too and some of them are extraordinary important and powerful. a number of your witnesses have mentioned the person worked by the daily mail and i think that was the trial case that was extremely important. some of them are very reflective of the readers of that paper and some of them are more about what the editor cares about and i think the politician has to just judge in each case just a campaign that is right and reflective of what people really think, something that needs to be answered or is it something i'm prepared to have a disagreement about and so a recent example of our disagreement would be the hands off our land campaign by the telegraph objecting to the planning reforms, and i felt you need to reform the planning system, and we have to have that

argument listen to the point, but it's an argument to have. some of them and i, you might be referring to the sarah's law campaign, and, yes some are very controversial, but i think it's good that these campaigns have been put forward because part of the challenge in a democratic system to say to the politicians, you know, a lot of people care about this. what are you doing about this? what's your answer to this question? i think it's good and right to have that vigorous debate. >> although the volume on the megaphone is turned up very loud, it's difficult to separate the noise from the message would you agree? >> i'm not sure i would. i mean, i think generally because, as i've said, i think the 24-hour news cycle means newspapers have to turn up the volume on everything, but sometimes i think i feel newspaper reporting coverage can be -- it feels like you are shouted at rather than spoken to on lots of things. on the campaigns i wouldn't particularly say that because if

a newspaper gets a good campaign going, and it taps into a reign of poll concern, then they are doing an important job for the democracy, and the politics need to answer. for instance, the sarah's law campaign, for instance, i think there's quite a lot of people condescending, and, of course, we can't tell anybody, and the public was angry about this, and the public said, you know all parents worry about their children and the dangers to the children more than anything. it's important politicians sort of understand that and respond to that rather than just trying to push it away. >> in paragraph 19, you explain that in order to maintain and enhance the benefits identified this has been mutual respect and understanding between politicians, and give respect without favors. how does one foster in your

view, that necessary degree of mutual respect and understanding? >> well, i think it's a very difficult question. i don't think we have it at the moment frankly. i think the relationship while i argue that it's got sort of too close and unhealthy, and i argue my evidence is also not a particularly trusting relationship at the moment. i think a lot of politicians i wrong and a lot of the press thinks politicians are in it for themselves, aren't in it for the right reasons and it's become sort of a bad relationship. how we get it to a better place, i think, part of it will be about having greater transparency, having better regulation, having a bit more distance. that will be part of respect, but respect also has to come from high standards in both spaces as it were. it was a massive knock to

politician standing, and politicians have to prove they are worthy of respect and the press, obviously took a tremendous knock rightly from the appalling things found out through this inquiry, and respect has to be earned on both sides. >> you had a bit more distance and now that depends, i suppose, on each party to the beabt as it were, having aceps of propriety to what is right and where the boundaries are. are we agreed about that? >> i think that's right, but i think distance is also about the politician, and this relates to the issue of the 24-hour news cycle. there is a typical politics that you fight a permanent battle of issues being thrown at you hour by hour and response is demanded incredibly quickly, and it can, if you're not careful take up all your energy dealing with that, and that's hopeless.

if that's what you spend time doing, you'll never improve our schools, stop the deficit, and build on economics and the rest it. what i mean is the politicians, and particularly prime ministers have got to get out of the 24-hour news cycle, and not try to have the battle and focus on long term battle and take a hit on the story it responded to so quickly. we try to do that and i'm not sure it's always been totally successful, and that's what i mean by distance. it's not sitting under a 24-hour news television screen looking at the ticker worrying about what's happening every hour. if you do that you get completely buried by the daily news agenda. >> let's say i'm more distant and that could relate to the engagement, and you talked about that, but it could be the

quality individual engagements with journalists? >> yes. >> are we agreed? a are we also agreed in the second stance, we have to have major constructive pension or certainly each party each side having understanding of what is a appropriate and what may not be appropriate, is that so? >> we. >> and do you feel in relation to the part without relying on individual examples that in the second sense, there may not have been sufficient distance? >> yes. i mean, that's part of the evidence, really is to say that i think this relationship has been going wrong for you know -- it's never been perfect. there's always been problems and, you can point to examples of issues for years but i think in the last 20 # years, i think the relationship has not been right. i think it has been too close, as i explained in the evidence,

and we have to try to get on a better footing. >> in paragraph 20, you talked about the need of avoiding regulation, and we don't necessary agree with that, and the key principle you identified as being transparency. is transparency sufficient though? >> no, i adopt think it is. i think where transparency helps is, in my evidence, i try hard to think. what are the risks when this relationship isn't right, and i tried to enumerate the risks and some of the risks, one of them perhaps is the perception that media owners or editors or key figures in the media wield too much power. that risk, i think you do mitigate in part by transparency. if everybody sees how often you meet people, who you meet on the rest of it that enables others to draw on your meetings, and now i think we've got a much

better situation with transparency that this government introduced, but, yeah, that's not enough because there are other risks, and some of those other risks need effective regulation to deal with them, and i don't think the regulatory system we have at the moment works and so we need to improve it and so if we just said transparency, and that's it, everybody sees who is meeting whom that's enough and i think that would be a mistake. >> we'll come to your ideas in due course, mr. cameron. >> are you here talking about the relationship between the press and politicians or at a wider level? because i -- in relation to how politicians engage with the press, i would struggle a bit to see how regulation could assist. it's the cultural thing it seems to me. >> what i say, sir, is the transparency can help address

some of the problems of perceptions because people see who you are meeting and when, but one of my arguments is that because the relationship has not been rightings because it has been too close, as i've put it, the politicians and the press vice haven't spent enough time sorting out the regulation system under which the press exists, and we need to fix that, and i thought it was put quite well identifying another risk which is it's quite difficult for the politician to sort out on their own the regulatory situation, the press face, because we are clearly an interested party and if we just regulate in this way or that way, the press has an argument to say you are beneficiaries of this, and we need some independence, and that's part of what this investigation is

about. sorry. >> no, i understand the point. it seems to me that just getting back to the politician relationship with the press that it's absolutely critical with this democracy and i entirely understand that, and as i said to a number of people, human beings being friendly with other human beings, but to some extent, would you agree that the problems that the politics face is that actually it's on them because the press will feel, perhaps, legitimately, that they ought to push in order to be able to hold politicians to account, to investigate what they want to investigate, and the more ways they get information, the better, therefore, it's up to the politicians actually to say, well this needs -- this dynamic needs to be changed. >> you need bobbed boundaries but -- boundaries burks but it's

difficult to do. if we take the expenses scandal,-deeply painful for politicians, but it was absolutely right that it was revealed, and i think it's, you know, the free press we have in this country is a very important part of our democratic system. we shouldn't better them inappropriate. completely wrong. we need to have that politicians continually called to account by vigorous press campaigns so that's why we need to get the relationships right transparency's part of it. how we make a regulatory system work is another and i think we need to find a way for some independents to be brought to that so press and politicians can say well it's not perfect in every way, but this is a fair set of ideas, and we can put them into place. >> mr. cameron some of the risks introduced in paragraph 22

of your statement 4103 and the paragraph 23 because politicians con focus on media coverage, there is a day not to devote enough time to how the media operates in particular instances of bad practices but why does that constitute slow from the focus on media coverage? >> i think because the press wants access politicians want coverage for what they do in their policies and approach, and so the two parties focus on that, and when things were going wrong, as they clearly were, and i give examples of the information commission ear reports, what didn't happen was the politicians and the press didn't disengage and say hold on a second, we have a problem here, we have to deal with it it might be changes to the law

improvement of the self-regulatory system ect., ect. that didn't happen, and i thought tony blair's evidence to you was there and i'm not quoting, but i know there was a problem, but it was an enormous challenge and i had other challenges to deal with so i didn't deal with it, and i think that was my risk number one. >> thank you. in relation to operation motor man which you testified in the paragraph, at end of the paragraph you regret opposition of front bench politicians failed enough times to scrut news the governments holding them to account but did you devote any time this this issue? >> well, i was aware of the issues, but frankly, i think you know as i say here, the government didn't give enough attention, the opposition didn't give it enough attention, as i think that's a matter for regret. >> when you were a little higher up in the paragraph to the

exampling other media related issues in 2003 no other details, is that intended to be a reference to evidence to go to the committee? >> no. i think it's just a general reference to things that were not right. doing right from the evidence, i was trying to reflect on how i felt as opposition generally and i look back at the everybody sees and thought, well, you know, parliament was doing its job ands select committee doing its job, but the party leaderships were not picking up the issues in perhaps the way they should have dope. >> before the house of commons liaison committee when you appeared there in september of last year, you pointedded out explicit that, and i paraphrase an overly close relationship permitted regulation issues to be put on the back burner so your attributing cause and

effect is that something that you are comfortable with? >> yes. i think that's right and politicians spending their time getting their message across and when it was necessary to disengage from that and discuss regulatory issues, that was not happening, and i think that was in both parties for some time. >> okay. what was your reaction to mr. blair's speech of june 2007 aside from the few days before he was departing? >> i can't -- i mean, i read it again, actually, in the last couple days preparing for this, and there's a lot of -- there's a lot of good points 234 it, but there's not much of a solution. there's quite a good analysis of this problem of the 24-hour news cycle, the turning off of the volume on news and comment, but

there was not really a specific solution. i can't remember what i said at the time. i have a horrible feeling, like all attempts to raise the issue, i suspect the parties probably didn't give it much of a battle. >> okay. paragraph 25 you identify leading to the public perception that media proprietor and media figures in general can have a voice in the country's politics. isn't it more than just a perception then, that particular aspect you've identified there? >> well, i think that depends on how robust politicians are in standing up and defending their values their policies in their approach. i think we deal with this risk by making transparent meetings so people see what we see and i argue strongly that my policies are determined by my beliefs values party's beliefs and

values, and not by one particular editor or proprior tore wants, and i have examples in the evidence where i have you know, quite strong disagreements with rupert murdoch, bbc, the daily telegraph planning, or what have you. it is a risk. i think you mitigate it through transparency, but i 2k3w0 on to -- but i go on to say you need a vigorous public debate so people can see if politicians are regularly caving into media pressure that goes against something they previously said and, well, the public can draw their own conclusions. >> looking a bit more broadly one put it in this way, the part of the problem may be the politicians have been guilty of a form of appeasement. they submitted the power of the press to console decade and be exercised unhindered for generations. >> i don't like the word

"appeasement," and i think that's too strong. i think what happened, as i said is politicians have been focused on getting the message aacross rather than regulation. i think there's been good examples of politicians on all sides actually confronting and facing down very strong campaigns that newspapers or others might have so i don't think politicians have always been guilty of appeasing in that sense, and i use the example of identity cards or 42-day detention, which i was vigorously opposed to which some part of the press wanted, but i think more than appeasement it's more about just not focusing on the regulatory issues when they needed to be focused on. related to that, it's not the size of the voice, in part a manifestation of economic and commercial power. in other words, we've allowed too much to accumulate in a small number of individuals. >> i think this is a difficult

question. i think sometimes a lot of the time, it is not necessarily the size of the newspaper group. it's the strength of voice of the paper. i mean, actually the daily mail is a powerful voice in the nation's politics because it's a very strong productive voice that's powerful, and that's not related to the market power, but to the way it pushes its agenda. it's not always about market power, no. >> do you feel nonetheless although it might not always be about market power market power is not the sole explanation just part of the explanation, part of the problem. i think -- >> i think you need, i'm not sure about that. you need as i say, i think you can have individual prepares that are particularly strident if i can put it that way, whereas if you look at the news

international group, not always, have all the papers headed in the same direction, and some of them as it were shouted a bit louder than others. i think it's about the nature of the voice necessary but having said that, you do need effective policy rules and perhaps we'll come into them. >> thank you. paragraph 29 announced cameron this is page 04015 and you touched on this for media pressure to shake the political agenda. there's a number of issues here as you know. a number of witnesses have identified the heart of the problem as the fusion of news and comment. do you agree with that analysis? >> i don't really because i think it's quite difficult. in an ideal world it'd be lovely if the front page of the newspaper was all the things that happened in the world yesterday, and the comments were

separate and all the rest of it, but i think it's impractical and i've been thinking about this because your witnesses have made this point and i think it's quite difficult to separate. so often, the headline captures a fact and also an opinion and i think it's very clear not in news and comment, but it happened, and i think it's long from hope to think you can separate them. >> to some extent, it closes to the point you made earlier whereas 50 years ago when there was little television and therefore people got their news very much from their daily newspaper, and they would read the parliamentary debate or read the court case, that was how they learned facts. >> yes. >> it really plays into the point that because of the 24/7 news cycle newspapers are now

required much more to provide their own angle. >> and impact. >> and that means inevitably opinions. >> i think that's correct and that's why i'm sure other politicians take this view that, of course, we spend a lot of time acting with newspapers and get our point across, but talking to any modern political party in britain and ask what you really think of the times on more than anything, it's actually the six o'clock news ten o'clock news, the thing they still watch, not by 15 minutes or i don't know, 6 million people, all at once, and that's where it's regulated so it's not a problem, but in terms of how much time we spend with newspaper groups and the rest of it, a big big focus, particularly since i've been in the conservative party on television, that comes across in what i say. >> but it does mean that the

argument about not being held to account don't work when you are held to account by broadcasting journalists all the time without it being obvious in the way they impact your view. >> well, i think newspapers and television hold politicians to account in a different way because of the way news is put together. the newspapers do play a very important role in terms of accountability because they have got, you know investigative approaches and budgets and the rest of it that they can really go after stories, get to the details. i think there's a difference and, you know, our strength of our democracy would be weaker if we didn't have both, you know, giving us a rightly a tough time. >> if that was not right, but

not immediately apparent that broadcasters don't hold politicians to account. it seems that they do, and certainly broadcasters don't recognize the suggestions they have in their duty to ask questions or probe appropriately, and not withstanding the -- notwithstanding the structures of the regulatory regime. >> i'm sure that's right but perhaps there's some things that newspapers have been able to do because they don't have the impartiality guide course. things like the oral campaign or other campaigns which are more edgy, and if you didn't have that -- >> i tend to agree. >> there's not a problem so

there's no need for a solution, but there's not a solution. >> there can be a problem in some cases, but you know, we have to -- i think it's solvable. i think we should not try to find people who come up, and i don't think they are particularly credible. >> the issue may be one of culture, would you agree? >> yes. i mean i think with all of these things culture is fantastically important. we can write all the rules that we like and have training packages whether it's for ministers or journalist behavior and culture is massively important, and it's important in every aspect of life. >> can you make light of the%&%& paragraph 131?

dealing with the issue of campaigns that you covered, you say in the last sentence you never traded or offered position on policy in any media outlet. do you believe that others have? >> i can't think of any particular examples. >> about lobbying we'll come back on that and touch on it if we may, but moving back to paragraph 47of your statement. we covered that in part, showingjaja recent history that tends tojeje close, and identifying sincejaja when approximately you believejaja that that phenomena started to

arise. >> it is -- this is not difficult. i would argue it's partly this 24-hour news agenda, and therefore, the different road of newspapers, and i think that had an impact because politicians have wanted to try and get their message across with newspapers taking opposed to a more aggressive stance. i think there's also some sort of history which you heard a lot of in the witness of, you know, the john major government when i was a special adviser, and they did have an absolutely wretched press and i had a terrible time, and i think labour understood that if we get in, we have to be better organized, got to be more efficient at communicating and i think like all things in life i think the pend line up swung too far the other way and that

was too much culture of daily news fighting and all the rest of it, and we needed pendulum to swing back a bit while still being professional and ail to communicate. you have to get your message across in a different world. i'm not trying to blame the whole thing, that would be a problem, but i think it's been a developing story. you have the conservative government that knew there was a problem, had this cut out process that came to nothing. the last chance saloon as if were sat forever, and then you had the rival of new labour and with the 24-hour news agenda slides behind some of the problem. >> so the pendulum was swinging in the wrong direction as it were from 1994 and 1995 and was possibly in the wrong place until certainly july 20 # -- 2011. does that sound about right? >> i think there's been various

attempts on the way to grab hold of the pendulum to do something about it. you mentioned the federal beast speech and that mentions a set of things that the last government did in terms of putting briefings on the record, prime ministers going in front of the liaison committee in the house of commons. i would argue that the new rules for special advisers we've introduced the greater transparency so i think there's been steps, but clearly you know things that happened to politicians, and those whose lives were turned upsaid down suffered from losing their children, and in a totally unacceptable way and you know, this is sort of a moment where press, politicians, police, all the relationships that have not been right, we have a chance to reset them and that is what we must do.

>> what do you see the harm to the public interest? how do you define it flowing from this relationship of proximity? >> how i put it is the closeness, how i talked about it, leads potentially to these risk, and i enumerated the risks, and clearly those risks have the potential to do the public harm unless they are properly dealt with. now, i think this is achievable and must be done. >> is it possible to describe risks in this way 245 the relationship has been transactional and may not be express deals but implied understanding because each party well knows what the other wants? >> i don't except that and the idea that somehow conservative party and news international got together and said, you know, you

give us your support, and we'll wave through the merger which by the way, we didn't know about at that stoij and overt deals is nonceps and you heard that from a lot of people in the inqirly, and also they've believed it was not in some sort of covert agreement. of course, i wanted to win over the newspapers and other journalists, editors i worked very hard at that because i wanted to communicate what the party in my leadership would bring to the country, but i didn't do it on the basis of going it covertly meaning your support means i give you a better time on this or that policy. there's plenty of examples of policies which i believe in. >> there's risks of overly close personal relationships between

politicians and journalists allowed judgments to be clouded. >> i think, obviously, you have to take care when you have personal friendships, and i think that can be done, and i like to think that i've donehy that. >> still on the general respective mr. cameron. can i ask you to comment please, on the manipulation of the media by politicians ahxhx favoritism and briefings.hyhx have you seen evidence in your own party? >> yes. i mean, you know, these things do happen. it's, you know deeply regrettable. you know, i think as long as there's been a press and politicians, these things happen but it is regrettable. it often makes, you know, running a political party more difficult, running a government

more difficult and you know, it's deeply destructive, but i think there are, you know, degrees of this. obviously, you know some politicians have journalists with a particularly good relationship with and they think they'll understand their particular speech or idea better than others and in this world where they are not reporting it, it's already been reported clearly, newspapers are something special at a particular angle or at a particular story and so there are responsible ways of handling media relations in that way, but, you know briefing against people, doing people down, those are dreadful things done in politics on both sides in recent years, and they are very very regrettable. >> what is the solution to these vices in your views? >> well, i don't think there's any one catch all. i think there's been a problem

in terms of some individuals special advisers, and i think we now have a better special advisers code. one of the things i wrote into the code is they work for the whole government not just individual ministers. i think that's important. i don't think there's any one as you say, it's a mixture of rules and culture. >> sir, john major made the point in relationships that they are responsible for the culture in their organization, and if it's within their power they were to, as it were, to have bad practice and a poor culture. does the same argument in your view, apply to politicians? that it's perhaps some familiarity of the talk? >> yes, i think it is. if, you know, i think it's very important if you find out that these things have been happening, you need to condemn them properly. i think that's the case. >> i want to ask you to address

mr. brown's point that reporting is sensationalized. he said the politicians don't make areas of judgment, and their motives are always put into question. do you associate yourself with that point or not? >> i think there are occasions when that can happen. as i said it links back to the thing about newspapers being under pressure to find something special and different and go for impact, and sometimes that can mean questioning motives, and so you do -- i don't want to make this sound like sort of politicians campaigns about, you know, of course we should have a vigorous press and a good going over and they do, and that's fine, but sometimes it is frustrating when you feel you are being questioned, and but, you know there are bound to be a certain amount 6 that, but i think the way i put it is sometimes just in terms it's

really high. i'm not sure sometimes that does anyone any favors.hx >> thehx volume knob is turned too high and as consequence of that motive is impugned. if you down it down lower and examine human nature as it is, usually, it's impairment of judgment with mistakes made and not a poor motive. >> you know, there have been politicians with bad motives, and if a politician is discovered doing something for a bad -- the press shouldn't hold off making that appointment and so, you know that, i think is all fair for the press to challenge that. it's just sometimes it feels a bit that the volume nob is turned up unnecessary. >> the second area of your evidence mr. cameron your own personal approach, and starts, ih8h8 think, in paragraph 73 of your witness statement.

page 040118.@d@d >> yeah.@ú >>@ú you explain the nature of such contact, and along the record former interviews and discussions and dialogue and so that is the same as everyone else. >> yeah. >> paragraph 74 no former record of this initiated contact, but you believe in the majority of cases contact would be initiated by your staff; is that right? >> yes, i mean we 4 a conservative leader at the end of 2005 and clearly, that program of wanting to get our message and policies and approach across, and that meant proactive campaigns talking to journalists and whether it was regional niewchs, national newspapers, television, and i hope in the exhibit dc2, i

mean, there's a fantastic set going on for five years, of meetings. i can't promise it's 100% accurate because it's paper based diaries in 2005 and the rest of it but it's a pretty big list. >> do you have a strategy in the beginning of each year mapping out who you should be seeing over the course of the year. was it much more advantageous?$6$6 in other words a weekly ord&d& month by basis there's someone you might see?d&d& there's not a strategy, newsd4d4 international is 36% of thed4d4 market follows you should seed4d4 them 36 #% of the time to put it in that way? >> strategy at the beginning of the year are the things you want to achieve the policies you want to get across. the ideas that you want to champion, and then after that how do we do that? what's the mixture of newspapers and television and direct campaigns and the rest. following that, i think you're looking at you know, where are we going to have impact?

i like to think from the information i've given you you can see i spent a huge amount of time with all newspapers, but you are thinking, you know with all republic to the daily mirror, there's only a certain amount of impact i'll have from reading the daily mirror, where as it were newspapers do half in the past or might in the future pack a conservative cause and policies.áuáu >> the main touch there isáuáu impact, and as you rightly say, and might be on the side, that's the basic point. >> yes, and just to repeat again, you know television cannot be on your side because there's rules of impartiality, but, you know a huge amount of time when i became leader of the party was spent thinking about how do we get on with this with television. i think that is the most

important form of communication. >> there's no former record, you say in paragraph 77, what was discussed in each meeting, andjtjt we can see it there was a list that would be an impressivingive account. >> yeah. >> what about the sentences and terms of fancy. would you say that or not? >> i think there are improvements we can make here. i think the idea that some suggested of a sort of written note of every interaction with every editor, every broadcast, i think that would be overly bureaucratic because most of the meetings are pretty similar. you're explaning why you're in favor of preschools and academies and how to get the message across and why the policy is a good idea. you are explaning something you already plushed but where i think there is potential for improvement is in two areas.

if it's obvious this is a meeting where the proprior tore or the broadcasting business or what have you has some commercial issues they want to raise, then i think it makesceps that a note -- sense that a note is taken, or if a meeting is really about your policies and approach and the rest of it as a discussion about commercial interests then i think, again in government you know it's urn the administer code that the minister politician should make a reference to that to the private sector. a good example of this idea you know, a kick to an industry having a difficult time anyway and regional newspapers politicians have a lot of meetings with regional newspaper groups, and they are explaning why the government's helping the west country or whatever it is.

often, they will say, quite fairly we're being hammered by free newspapers put out by low coal authorities, thetizing is not fair. this is the big state, as it were, squishing out the big society. what do you do about it? i think it's completely fair to raise the point but you could argue it's a media organization raising a policy point rather than just an exchange about politics and policies, and that needs to be registered. the more rules and codes we create, the more difficult it is to make sure in every instance that people abide by them. i don't want a system that doesn't work and is permanently broken and that hurts the public in this whole area, but modest additions to the code to deal with the two points made, i think that's something we can certainly look at.(t(t ..(t(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(÷(÷(÷(÷(t(t(p(ththththth÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷hththth÷hththththththththththththththththththththt(ththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththththvhvhvhvhthththvhvhththvhththththththththththth÷hthththvhvhvhvhvhvhththvhthththththththththththththvhvhvhvhthththvhvhvhvhvhvhvhvhvhvhththththth÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷hñhñhñhñhñhñhñhñhñhñhñhvhvhrhrhrhrh÷hñh÷h÷h÷h÷hxh÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷h÷

then the public loses all the confidence they had in your new regime. that's the purpose i think of these are the people i see regularly and i'm never going to(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(÷(< remember to tell my office everyh> you(< say sometimes formal(t(t(t(t(t assistance is provided with(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(t(p(p speeches.(t(4(t(t(t(t(t(t the main (triskier, ask you to comment on it is you provide thesehñ journalists with scoops or(t(t(t(t(p(t(t(t(4

stories(t or less contentiously, with insights which they can deploy come is that there? >> there's obvious danger. you can't unmake the friendships that you have come and some of these people i've known for 20 30 years. someone you get to know because some cases they our neighbors. i think one of the things that all ministers are meant to do and perhaps we need to sort of remind people i've done this quite resort. if you sit down with your permanent secretary, i went through my address book and i told my permit secretary virtually every one of my friends, if it any business interaction that might bump up against the government or what have you. so we should have that conversation with your permanent sectors with any form of conflict does arise in the future at least it's not something that has been sort of buried. it's difficult stuff to get

right. >> now, paragraphs 91-92 of your statement, mr. chairman, page 04132, you're addressing the question to what extent is political support discussed. in a sense paragraph 92 in particular that the issue of political support is not discussed directly but it is implicitly underlies many of your discussions. >> i think that's probably right. there have been occasions where you are really keen to most of the time you're trying to explain these are my policies these are why they are right. this is why labour body got wrong, or whatever. but, of course, there are times when you are keen for the newspaper to do more to support you, whether that's editorially or in the coverage that they give you. of course, i have had those conversations. >> about how often do you think of the conversation of that major? >> predominately it's about

what you take over the five years of being leader of the opposition, most of the time it is about what i was trying to with the conservative party or the policies where we cared about, what the government was getting wrong, why we do a better job. all those arguments. but on occasion you say we would love a bit more support from your paper. >> sir john major gave us some evidence about a conversation he says he had with mr. robert marbach in february 1997, which on his account he made it clear that, mr. murdoch medical error, he didn't support the conservative policy and less also smart if i. take it maybe you have not had a similar conversation with him or any other proprietor of that major? >> not of that nature.

>> wasn't on occasion what the conditions of their support amounted to? >> i think one can overdo this but i think in the end a lot of these newspapers follow their leaders whose. i felt when i try to do i say this am evidence, i'll try to win back to the conservative course newspapers that have been conservative and have been won over by tony the. so i wasn't asking them to sign up to a up to a whole set of use they. i was just trying to get them to return to the right course as it were. and, of course, you have very robust full areas we don't agree. >> and example you have given

>> can i go back to 2005 mr. cameron. of course, you started the league opposition in december of that year if my memory is right.

i would say i was more cautious about thinking we wanted to work very hard on television. we should do what we could with the newspapers. but i think that's the way it was. quite sort of one set of circumstances after 2005 and then another set later on. >> i would invite you to comment on this. when i was his press secretary we pursued a strategy of quietly puncturing the arrogance of both editors and proprietors in raising the state to what i term real journalism. is that a fair analysis, in your view, or not? >> parts of it are, all right and that we did want to have this, we didn't want to go down the same route as everything labour have done. we did want of a bit more distance. but if you look at the record of the sort of meetings i was having and the rest of it you know flying off to meet proprietors and trying to win people over. so i don't think it totally

squares up. there was one approach that was tried and failed and another approach. i think they're slightly more dilution between the two my reflection on it. >> you also made a point that you wouldn't -- halfway around the world to speak with news corporation's annual conference. with that event an accurate assessment of your thinking in 2005? >> i certainly wasn't invited. i was checking the record. i saw what -- george did a brilliant job working for me. i saw what he wrote. but looking at the record of the meetings i had and the amount of activity we were doing trying to win over when supporters of newspapers, including i think actually flying off to meet leaders of the telegraph but as i said i don't think i would characterize it as one approach and then a different approach. i think it's slightly more similarity between the two. i think there's one other thing may be to say which was at the

beginning of my leadership, a lot of what i was trying to do was make changes to the conservative party, to the policies of the party, approach to the border. not all of these were very popular with the conservative press. so i had a difficulty in trying to make changes, while at the same time convince the conservative press i was doing the right thing. >> some have identified the change around 2007, rightly or wrongly, and saying you didn't have widespread support in the media. paragraph 196 in your statement that you say didn't have widespread support. >> yes. >> that may have continued until about 2007. >> yes, i think it is. some of that as i say was because i was making these changes to the conservative party but also i did i think

progressively realize over 2006-7, that it's very difficult if you're running a political party and you're trying to win over public or trying to create momentum, it's quite difficult if you don't have what i would call sort of the bits of the conservative family behind you. you need your in piece you need your chancellors, your members, and you also need those parts of the conservative press, that should be sort of getting behind you. and i had a situation where quite conservative parts of the press i just wasn't really getting much backing from them. and i was fine frankly i was struggling a bit to get the message across. i put in i put a lot of work already but maybe i'll to put in more. >> your exhibit d.c. 2 which is under have three of this bundle collects together the me she'd had with media, leader of the

opposition, you are not putting forward as a certificate in the sense you can't guarantee that every single meeting here -- we understand that. for what it's worth, over four years and five months of opposition we counted 1404 entries, which equates to around 26 or interviews per month which is more than every weekday. it's fair to say in government there are fewer, it works out about 13 a month, 50% of the time you lavished on this in opposition. >> as i say when i was elected i did try to do less of this and try to have more of a distance try to make sure that genuinely when you're in opposition, what are you doing with your campaign, trying to convince people in government that it is and should be different but you should be spending her time

governing, not talking about governing. so i did try to create more distance but as i explained earlier i think it's difficult because of these daily battles that you fight. >> do you think this is a problem, just talk about the difference between opposition and governments. you may be where -- you maybe aware of of the point he felt new labour made a mistake taking approaches adopted in opposition opposition, and running within in government. not everybody has agreed with that. i would be interested in what you think there is a difference because whatever system one puts into place, it's quite difficult to, if it's not recognize as appropriate by both or all parties. >> i think it's right that, in

government you're making real decisions rather than just policy ideas and campaigned. so it's more important that what you do is done properly. and that's why you have special advisors code, minister zip codes, and the rest. i do think perhaps there is when you are leader of the opposition, and i do the job for five years, it's only in the last year you get the sort of surplus issue about how you translate your structure and/or processes into number 10 downing street. i think that could be a strength i don't believe in having an official opposition office as it were, you know. but i think that could be a strength in having our earlier discussions between the cabinet secretary or permanent secretary at number 10 with a new leader of the opposition just to make them aware of some of the processes and practices that might assist them in the work that they do and avoiding any conflicts and the rest of it. so that is something i perhaps

we can write to your inquiry about. >> perhaps very much along the lines i was thinking about, that if practices developed that aren't appropriate for government, it might be better i appreciate that opposition government is very different for the reasons you've identified but if practices, good practice can be developed while in opposition it will flow naturally into government, but even opposition party developing ideas without the experience of having been in government it becomes much more difficult. i'm sure that's right. so that may be of value to try and deal at least in part with the issue. >> given the very significant amount of time to what extent did those demands get in the way, do you think with the policy formulation leadership? >> i don't think they were so

extensive that you didn't have time to do the other things. as leaders of the opposition do. we had huge policy commissions because we were starting from scratch, drawing up new policies very active program of campaigning around the country. i get a huge number of what i call cameron directs public meetings, all over the country. so it takes up a lot of time. there are moments when you think there's a part of your life you will get back. but if you're a politician and joining a political party and you want to win people over, you need to get your message across. >> in government, then in particular, idc you have a fuller day job. does the same thing apply -- do you feel that media engagement less intuitive in government than it has been in opposition, as entered in policy formulation leadership, and governing? >> it shouldn't but again.

i think i've explained the 24 hour news agenda. when i arrived in downing street i did think that the setup was quite geared to 24 hour news. it felt too much like a newsroom newsroom. and that's what the press department should lie, but you've got to try and create a structure and a private office and a set of arrangements where you can think take decisions rick fehr -- preferred for decision probably, structured your day so you're not permanently in a sort of news mode if i can put it that way. >> looking at this list, which extends over a number of pages start with 04198 we poured over it and attempted to deal with different analyses and come to the conclusion that would be

misleading, mr. cameron. we are not going to bore you with any of these. just pick up a couple of points the. we have identified mr. rupert murdoch, 10 entries, mr. james murdoch 15, and for rebekah brooks 19. in relation to her does that cover all social interactions or not? >> this is for the period when i was in opposition, yes. what we did for this, the short answer is it minot because will we did for this was go back over the diaries for all the time i was leader of the opposition, try and work out whether we missed anything out but it doesn't always include, for instance, a weekend, my diary wouldn't cover my weekend necessary. so there could be other meetings in there that i haven't identified. going through some of your part does the dashing some of your

other participant meetings, we found some that didn't count with ours. we've been through and we try to reconcile as much as possible but inevitably you have some of the government is different because certainly in the obvious you have a diary. a diary of what you meant to do that way and then a diary of what actually happened that day. but government runs in the office i'm pretty confident about. the opposition was our best attempt but it may have gaps. >> it will be to others, if so -- [inaudible] mr. murdoch's list doesn't quite match yours. but, frankly comparison in our view -- >> is clearly a mistake to over exaggerate the importance or accuracy of these documents. these our best efforts in retrospect. from records which were never intended to provide a historically accurate account of what you are doing.

so it may be a mistake to try to do that analysis. what you do is you create a picture, and the picture seems to me is sufficient for purposes of the inquiry. >> before we break, mr. cameron, may i just ask one item please. the 16th of august 2000 a, page 04200. dinner here with elisabeth murdoch, rebekah wade and matthew freud. was that part of the visit which we believe it to be? >> i don't have a date of the santorini visit on may but it must be in my evidence somewhere. so if we cross check i'm sure we can find that out. it looks like it was. yes, it is.

>> page 67. >> yes, my evidence. >> it is, mr. cameron. >> got it. >> okay. can i just ask ask you, please. mr. rubin per murdoch wasn't out to dinner there, is that her? >> no, i think he was at the dinner. i don't think this is -- i don't think that is right. i think he spotted an air, of which i'm very sorry. >> i'm not seeing -- >> no, no. basically it looks like, i deal with it in my evidence because 199, 200, 201, basically this was my memory was that this was drinks and then a dinner, but i think the dinner was everyone was there, including the people listed in d.c. tonight. but i think rupert murdoch was

there. [inaudible] >> certainly. prime minister, we have a break. >> very good. >> all lives. >> british prime minister david cameron answered questions yesterday from the levinson include looking into the connection between politicians and the press. prime minister cameron appointed inquiry to look into phone hacking by rupert murdoch newspaper. the inquiry now has turned to the murdochs influence on british politicians and in the next hour and half portion, mr. chairman goes into detail about his friendship with former news international executive rebekah brooks. >> mr. cameron, may we look at some individual entries into your schedule d.c. 2. i'm not going to look at that many. first of all, the 16th of december, 2005, which is our page -- that the and elizabeth

freud. says the social. spent yesterday and matthew freud i must have known for some 20 years. he married someone i was just university with. so i have known him since then. i'm trying to find the page but i think it was a social occasion. >> now elizabeth freud, how long have you known her? >> i suppose since they got married but i can't put a date on it. >> your first meeting here with rupert murdoch as your witness statement made earlier account before your leader. the first of february, '06 drinks. is it unfair to ask you one particular case which was six years ago, do you think that was

a one on one as a work, or were there people their speakers i don't remember. it was a long time ago, but the meetings i've had with paul dacre i would say most probably would've been a one and one drink, occasioned a lunch. he has done some where there's been a ranger journalist from "the daily mail," number one or two of those but a mixture but i think one on one. >> if one were to look at one of the with mr. dacre the 18th of december '06. which is page 04205, dinner actually. about the time that the information commissions second report came out. again, i understand it's difficult to search one's recollection, but do you recall whether that point might have been discussed then or not? >> i don't recall that, i'm afraid i can't remove or where the dinner was. i think also i had that dinner

in my home. so i have trouble with that would. i can't remember where it was or what we talked about. >> and in the santorini visit, page 04220, can i just understand who's idea was that? >> i think it was matthew freud's idea. i think he's going to -- i think he phoned me about it. i think it was his idea. >> did he have a discussion with rebekah wade about it to your knowledge of? >> i don't know, no. >> do you know why the visit came about or what its purpose was? >> from my point of view it was just an opportunity to try to get to know rupert murdoch better. i was trying to win over his newspaper and put across my opinion. for me it was an opportunity to try and build that relationship. it was quite a long ways ago and it seemed like a good opportunity.

>> so presumably there was an earlier conversation or driving early conversations with mr. freud as to the possibility of having this sort of medium is the current? >> my memory is a came together quite quickly. i seem to remember, i was on some tour dates around the country. i got a call or a text from matthew cacao just about to go off to georgia to visit georgia at the time of the georgia invasion. and it just seemed like a possible opportunity to link up. but i seem to matter at all came together very quickly at the last minute but i might have got it wrong. >> we know that rebekah wade was there, but did you have a conversation with her about this before you flew out or not? >> i don't recall. >> in 2009, mr. cameron the third of may you had lunch with

james murdoch, page 04225. do you think it's possible on that occasion that you discussed regulatory issues including ofcom and bbc? >> well, i don't i don't recall what was discussed correctly at the launch. i'm sure that 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 the. they are not really the same views, and i'm sure we would have had discussions about it. perhaps particular well i think probably on both i don't recall the specifics but i'm sure we must have with strong views. >> this is a few months before his mactaggart lecture, which was delivered i think in late august of '09. did you have any discussions with them about the subject matter of that lecture i vacated or afterwards of? >> not to my memory, no. i think these would've been, as

i say, most of these meetings were really about me trying to promote a conservative policy and the concert approach and the rest of the. but sometimes i'm interested -- have long-standing views. sometimes i'm sure we would have discussed them. >> one can see the intensity of his feeling. if you can put it in those terms. he expected himself quite strongly, disney? >> yes. i've always believed in a strong bbc, funded by the licensee. i think off does have an important but i think as i put my evidence, ofcom got overbloated and like other quakers needs to be reduced and stupid but both have important roles. >> in september 2009 which is page 04228, you have lunch with "the sun" on the first of september 2009.

again, can you provide any particular occasion, but you think on that occasion -- [inaudible] support for your party was discussed or not? >> i don't recall. by this stage obviously i was making arguments that some readers were coming over to conservatives and, you know, our approach was what the country needed and all the rest of the. but i don't remember the specifics of that conversation. >> is it fair to use we see the overall picture, there's a lot of references to nic robertson on this page and elsewhere pretty someone you keep in contact with for obvious reasons. >> yes. >> and i go to the 10th of september, 2009, described as dreams with james murdoch. that was with george, wasn't? >> yes. this was the page on 229, are we?

>> 04228 actually. >> yes. spent the evidence has been that it was on that occasion that he told you that "the sun" was for the conservative party. do you remember that? >> yes, i do remember that. i remember him saying that the government of that conversation, yes. >> how long was the conversation, approximately? >> not particularly long. it might've been half an hour 40 minutes. it was a drink and the ketchup, but it was, he wanted to tell me that "the sun" was going to support the conservatives and he told me, i think if my memory, it was going to happen around the time of labour conference. and i was pleased that the conservative party was going to get the sons support. and i think we had a conversation about other policy issues at the time. that's my memory of it. >> so he gave you some inkling of the timing? >> i think so. that's my memory of it yes.

i have forgot the precise timing by seem to remember it was sort of a hint it was going to be sometime in labour's conference. >> did he identify which aspects of your policy constituted the reasons for his newspaper, in particular, "the sun" wanting to support your party? >> i think at the time and a lot of the focus was on the economy because we were in the midst of all the economic difficulties, and we were setting out very clearly that it was important for britain to get on top of its debt and its deficit and all the rest. so i do remember discussing economic issues, yes. i think that's right. >> on classification, do you recall any mention be made by james murdoch called your policies in relation to the bbc and ofcom? >> i don't recall.

i don't recall that. and i think unlike, i think this was, he was very keen i think to tell me directly that "the sun" was going to support the conservatives, and he felt on the big economic judgment about what britain you can we have the right argument and the government had the wrong argument. my memory is that's what the conversation was, was about. >> yes. usage of the conversation about policy issues spent just. he's got lots of enthusiasm. particularly about defense. he takes the view we should have at least six aircraft carriers rather than to pick so he has lots of enthusiasm and i'm sure we discussed some of us but the key, my memory is and is difficult to recall all of these things, i doesn't remember him saying the sum is going to support the conservative party. i wouldn't forget there. 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 mactaggart lecture. had you read his lacked your before? >> no. had the gist of the been drawn to your attention? >> i read after it delivered. i would've seen the press reports by the donor reading the whole thing at the time. i read it subsequently in preparation for all of this but as i say he had very strong views. some of his views i didn't agree with, and other things like the bbc, we had a very clear position which dates right back to my time in the bbc is the cornerstone of british broadcast bikini that the licensees. and doesn't say, ofcom while bloated it had an important role. >> some might say the ofcom government, bbc was betting wild with james murdoch and he spent and so forth in the election but this is within two weeks of the

lecture. is more than plausible that he might've unburdened himself about those matters to you on this one occasion. do you think that might have been? >> i don't think so but as i said, this was sort of i think for "the sun" it was a big change. and i remember it being about economic policy. >> the 21st of september we can see some pages dinner, you james murdoch and rebekah brooks, a social occasion a, but can you remember anything about whether political issues, register issues were discussed on that occasion? >> i don't particularly recalled what was discussed what was discussed the been there. >> the support for the upcoming support of "the sun" is likely to have been mentioned, isn't it a? >> yes, i think, i'm try to remove the exact date of the labour conference. spent i think we're on about the

27th of february. >> i suspect that would've been discussed, in terms of what "the sun" was going to do. but i don't, i remember the drink. but i remember what he said about "the sun." i don't take a remember the dinner. spent rightly or wrongly "the sun" had served maximumrg political damage to mr. brown's government, it goes without saying. that sort of point was discussed on this occasion. would you agree? >> as i said i recall the dream. i don't recall the dinner. >> the announcement i think was evening of the 28th of september, it might be the 29th but it's not going to matter today. look at 04229.aaaa a series of interruptions. interview the first of october,

dinner, the fifth of october interview "the sun" fifth of october. breakfast "news of the world," the seventh of october. dinner, at times, the 21st of october. then breakfast the second of november, rebekah brooks. there's a quite a lot of activity with news international in the months -- >> it's not on page four -- there was also dinner with the telegraph, meeting with radio manchester, scottish television the bbc itv. this was the party comfort is an incredibly busy "mediaweek." where i was me all sorts of people from all sorts of media organizations. i just want to make that point. including lord rother mayor the whole team at the mantle on sunday, et cetera, et cetera.aaaaaaaa >> yes, that's a very fairbabababababa point, mr. cameron. i didn't mean to include

gallagher can move forward to@ the 15th of december, 2009?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ that seems be the first meeting you had with rupert murdoch@a@a@a@a after "the sun"'s support had change. can you limit anything about that conversation, particularly about the change of support. >> not particularly. and, in most of my lunches, breakfast with rupert murdoch, the conversation has always been predominantly about economic issues, security issues, he was very interested in what was happening in afghanistan various global markets. i think, of course, all businesses have their interests and the rest of it but in my dealings with mr. rupert murdoch, most of the conversation had been about the big international political issues. >> the only other point on this22

schedule we see you on 28th of january 2010 at page 04232bc@g there is dinner, the telegraph, news corporation, james harding the times. that's the bbc. is that the only occasion that you met with mr. michel? >> this is bottom of four 232? >> that's right. >> this was in that false. -- davos. this is a dinner i held pretty much every year i had been going but i think this is what it refers to the i met fred michel that but i think i also also prominent in that some of the news international parties. but i think that's probably it. >> and, of course you're unaware of his role? >> i've read a lot of text yes. well, i have now as it were.

>> in relation to your schedule when your prime minister, this is not d.c. one, it starts at 04182, what we see by way of summary, a lesser degree of contact, about 50%. and the same sort of picture in terms of the individuals you meet. coming up. so i don't think it's necessary to look at this with any care. endless there are any particular points you want to draw attention to. >> no. i just make the point i suppose again, if you look at the arrival at downing street there is meetings with lots of different newspapers and newspaper groups. but as you say, a less intense

period. i have other important things to do. >> ask you, moving away from this, and toward someone else, mr. barkley. we've heard some evidence from him, and i hope you had the 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 in exchange of phone numbers. we have seen evidence of some of beyond those messages. these transcripts -- is in the afternoon, pages 83-87. >> yes. >> we know from one text message

and some of these are a personal nature sorts not hazard to look at them, mr. cameron, but there's one message that starts at tab 25 which states pr oh p. and 100-3106. >> right. >> a reference to him the pronoun him who is reference to. i think it's sound, i think -- >> are we on the text itself or on -- we have it on the screen. >> text sent by -- 23rd of march 2010. so the campaign hasn't yet been launched but it's about to be. spoken to tony that's tony gala, isn't? >> yes. >> repeater our conversation asked him to be in touch to arrange daily call during campaign as this goes. i think the evidence was at the

daily kos going to between you and mr. barclay but if that's what i will be corrected. >> i don't think so. i think the daily call was between the conservative party and tony gallagher. i don't think is necessarily me, but i think this was me wanted to make sure that the telegraph knew that are posted under plans and all the rest of the. i think that's what it was about. >> understand. as i said some of the texts are about social arrangements so there are some texts about liquidity. this is much later on may 2011 just have a look at one of them. 03112, mr. cameron. is quite -- suggests therefore bank of england about extensions the liquidity scheme, allow banks five years to implement basel iii. other countries won't go along

with it anyway. i think you do reply to that. and maybe you do. there's another what about credit market. is -- he has access to you in a particularly? >> well, i think we we have met various times. we had each other's phone numbers. i think coming in, he felt particularly strongly about some of these economic issues and wanted to give me his view. i don't know if there's anything particularly improper about that. >> but did you can't put another way, did you recall any particular waste or was it part of the whole range of viewpoints you receive, probably on a multitude during the course of a working the? >> this was the view of him. not really as chairman of newspaper group and chairman of a big business, heavily invested in the uk loss of property and other businesses, and this was

his strong views about the financial situation. i think it's perfectly legit. i get a lot of exposure to businesses on these points. some bike techs, many more bindings ahead. and that means 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 understand that you all were bombarded with a sort of macho, not necessarily with the media sources generally, but people trying to get you to look at things to at least consider them as part of formulation? >> i wouldn't say bombarded but you get, you have a lot of contact, a lot of different people in different ways. so actually sort of slightly moved away from e-mail in these ways because i do my official papers in everything very formative but i do get texts from business contacts for

instant and what have you. >> i go back to the issue now of "the sun" newspaper. i don't agree that it can't be seen as massive imports. but it is of some importance. >> yes. >> with where it goes. and as i suppose,. [inaudible] >> i think that's what but it certainly doesn't mean you're going to win the election, but we are trying to win support, build momentum. >> did you develop a strategy as to how "the sun" might be one over? >> i wouldn't put it like that. no i developed a strategy of how to explain the values and the policies and approaches we believed in. and then tried to spread that us

or you could. when you're talking to the subcommittee want to talk to those that will appeal to "the sun" readers. the freeze, the cancer tax it's something that people really can feel strongly about because they know the pressure their family finances. so obviously when you're talking to the financial times you'll be talking about basel three-peat when you're talking to design you want to talk about policies you that directly appealed to their readers. >> by this stage you of course had mr. gordon on board in may or june, 2007. an outcome to this in more detail later. you develop a friendship with mrs. brooks, didn't you? >> yes. >> and you are aware that mr. rupert murdoch had a good personal relationship with mr. brown, where you? >> yes. >> and was his explain to you or did you work it out anyway, that that would likely be an

impediment if i can put it in those terms, to "the sun" shifting sides? >> i think both, robert byrd had a strong relationship with gordon brown. rebekah wade had a strong relationship with gordon brown. i knew we had our work cut out to win over "the sun," yes. but i felt we had on our side was "the sun" readers were leaving the government and coming towards us. so i thought passionate as i said right throughout our task was to try to get what i see a sort of a center-right pro-enterprise, profamily small c. conservative paperback in. >> 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 consent of? >> i didn't really know how these -- >> i assumed he would have a big say in a but i sense that if we could show "the sun" readers we

are moving in a conservative direction, we would have a good good effort a good chance of winning their support. but as i said this was one of many things we tried to do. >> did mr. coulson did you advise as to how best to proceed in relation to the some? >> well of course but he was my director of communicate shows and so he was in charge of taking our policies and working out the best way of promoting my leadership, our policies our values, what we could do for the country to do more of these media outlets. >> agenda of course he was very friendly with mrs. brooks, didn't you? >> yes. >> you said mrs. brooks was close to gordon brown. would it be perhaps fair to say that she was close to his wife but, in fact, she was very funny with tony blair and less well disposed to gordon brown, if i can summarize it like a? >> i think some strong arguments when i would be bracing the

government and all it's worth. she would be standing at pretty vigorously for gordon brown. >> when did you you sense that mrs. brooks would be disposed to supporting you and your party approximately when? >> can't really put a date on it. i think it was as they 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 mean, i don't want to ruin his career but trevor kavanagh on "the sun," i felt he was someone who thought that labour government was getting it wrong. thought the conservative party was getting its act together but lots of things he didn't agree with what what a thing but i felt he was a potential ally for pony up to "the sun" readers were moving in our direction.

>> i'm sure it's process, not an event come in any event. do not remember the exact dates, but approximately when you think mrs. brooks was on cyclics about six months, a year before? >> i can't, i would have to go through my diary and try to remember, but i can't give you a date. >> not even a sense of when it might've been in terms of, i'm not asking you to give just give the day but within months, with a, within years? >> i don't want to get it wrong i mean, it certainly wasn't weeks. it was i think more than that. but i can't really give you any more than that. >> we've given any advice as to the importance of james murdoch in his decision that he would have influence over his father and put bluntly maybe --

[inaudible] spent i think they're all t important. i didn't quite understand. so i "the sun" liken it under the white smoke coming out after i di a papal election and i did quite understand how the decision would be made but my view was they were all important in terms of making that decision. "the sun" readers trusted voicesder like trevor kavanagh, james murdoch, rupert murdoch, rebekah wade. and i felt i had to focus on showing how the conservative party would be good for the country, good for "the sun" readers and we had a chance as i say wingback and that's what iem back focus on. >> how important -- asis n facilitators? >> very difficult. >> v i'm not quite sure of that. so, i'm not totally, i'm not s totally sure, i don't know. kn. not totally sure with what role

he was blind but he was being helpful in terms of trying to-- facilitate a meeting here for some advice or something like that. he's a m. friend. i think politically he supportedd v various different sites at various different times. >> okay. mrs. brooks, you may clear froma the statement was a friend. >> yes.may notagai >> may not again be possible to identifyn data but would you have counted her or did you did counter amongst your good friends, say, by 2008 at? >> yes. you know, we got to know0 each other. because of our role in the media, my role in politics. roe we struck up a friendship thatendship friendship grew even though she was at that stage, you eve knowst steel, her paper will still supporting gordon brown. she was still quite personally supportive of gordon brown and our relationship got married --ship go got stronger when tshe married om i'v

charlie brooks who i knew for for some time and was a neighbor. >> s >> she gave us some evidence asdence to come if i can put it, in this way, the quantity and toad ofe text messages. ghana ask you this yo straightforward question? do you agreera in general with the gist of her evidence on that matter? >> yes, i think i do. >> and answer phone calls, i'm ca not asking you to count themt approxime out, but approximately how often would you or did you speak to her by phone, including by mobile phone? >> in opposition perhaps particularly 2006-seven not an, not huge amount. i always filled when i did ring her, i always felt it felt like i was telephoning aou lot less than gordon brown, which i thought was interesting. he was the prime minister and i was the leader of theas i was opposition. i i was in contact a lot less than he was. w

but i can't put numbers on it i but certainly 2006 2007 not06 necessarily every week, i don't weeken think. >> can we just move it forwardu intos 2008-2009? was was the contact by phone, say, on a weekly basis?s? >> i think as we get closer to get closer to the election andion the decision of "the sun," and also you know the wedding and she's moved into charlie brooks house, which is very near where i i live where we live in the constity, constituency, then the level of contact went up.we we saw each other socially more. >> about how frequently?quen >> what data we talk about? taking >> we are in 2008-2009, mr. cameron, just to get an ideajust to ge first of all of contact by of telephone and then social contact.

>> it's very difficult, because i don't have a record and they don't want to give you an answer that isn't right. a so sometimes sometimes quite i suspect we would've been talking to each other quite a bit particularly you know, around the time perhaps at the weddingound or when we were both inbot oxfordshire or we would've been more frequent contact. >> okay. so so when wyou're at your and constituency at weekends, i, did mean, did you see her everyery weekend or most weekends in thevery period 2008-2000? >> not every weekend. spent most weekends at? >> in 2008-2009, i'd have to check.d i might beha able you can go backand go to check but i don't think ato the weekend. i don't think most weekends but it wouldt depend.

>> i don't think it's necessary a to ask you to check, becausehis questions are designed to be to that precise but it's just to get -- >> definitely we were definitel we particularly, once she youparticarly, know started going out with charlie brooks, living a couple mles down miles down the road i was definitely seeing her more often of because my sort of friendship w with charlie as a neighbor and you know charlie and i playedaye tennis together and all sorts of other things, which i'm sure we will come onto. so that t was why i was seeing more of her. >> there's one text message which i'm going to invite you to look at now. and get you if ito can say something about. it's dated the seventh of october 2009 not sure which number it is being given in our system but it is than 35 of thee addendum bundle which is being prepared.

>> right. >> and then i were read out the before do i will say something about it. have you got its? >> i've got to get. >> i should make it clear before i read it out that newsse - news international have recently disclosed a number of other textrnational messages between mrs. brooks and mr. cameron, pursuant to sectionti 21 request. is, n section 21 request is a fact in order understand to require peopo disclo people tseo disclose material. those relate to the period9-ma 2011, october 2009-may 2011 and june 2011, and in the inquires judgment all the other texttext messages i have referred to are irrelevant to its terms of th reference.wil loo news international through their -- have also explained why text xt messa messages and otherge monthly periods are not available.vil ab and that will all be put on ourl be of website. so the one we're looking at it

seventh of october 2009, which i think is during the party conference. it's certainly within eight or >> cer nine days or so of the report. it was said by mrs. brooks to you, times 16:45 in the afternoon. the first line, it's on grounds of relevance.elev and then she says butan seriously rio which suggests the first line contains or might containsomething of something of a jocular nature. i do understand the issue with wi the times. let's discuss over country supper soon. on the party it was because i asked a number of ni news international people, to manage their post-endorsement and they were were disappointed not to see you. but as always, pham was wonderful. i'm so rooting for you tomorrow,morw, not just as a personal friend, but because professionally we're

definitely in this together. speech of your life question mark yes, she can quotation mark. o the rooting for you tomorrow wasg a your giving a speech, probably obably at the party conference?ce. >> i think was my party conference speech. i can't explain this, this e-mail. the issue at the times was at the party conference, i had note i been to the times party. the major newspaper groups had aha big party at the partyrty conference and they expect parties, cabinets, shadow cabinet ministers ago, and i will be the normal thing to dodo telegraph, the times, others with the. i hadn't gone, and i think that was what this was about. a and i wasb apologizing for that. at was that was explained to her, her disappointment as well. if that if that helps. >> just the phrase but because pr professionally we're definitely in this together.ogether. what was your understanding ofof that? >> i think that is about "the

sun" had made this decision tock consrva back the conservatives to partti company with labour. la and so "the sun" wanted to makesun" sure it was helping thet conservative party put its bestwa foot forward with the parties will announce it with a speechounc us going toing make him and all the tat rest of. i think that's what that means. >> so professionally coveringlly that, "the sun" and you were you bound together to some extent? ..eader 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 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

my view was that it was necessary to have someone tough and robust. -in my dealings with him that actually he did his job very well. a taxi he was someone who had i think a good code of behavior and how he did his job.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

did you assess at all that there was a risk to the matter go further than mr. goodman or not? >> i asked for the undertaking about what he knew. and he said that he had resigned because he did not know. and while, obviously have to be careful what i say but these 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.

question time in the house of commons defendanting his relationship with rupert her doch's news corporation you can see prime minister's questions sunday on 9:00 eastern on c-span. supreme court justice speaks at american substitution society for law and policy this afternoon. c-span will have live coverage starting at 6:00 eastern. one of the quotes from bryan that was really on the exceptional inspire i are once you reality the magnitude of difference you can make. >> and so i think it was best put this week someone from the white house came and said he said a quote and said those who think they are crazy enough to change the world are the ones that actually do. mr. bryan, the same man that christopher was talking about choose carefully and execute

relentlessly. that meant a lot to to me. too many finds we find ourselves taking too many things on and not focusing on. every year the u.s. senate youth program brings teens to government. this year bryan made an impact. he's a senior director on the national security staff. >> i started with the mind set what is it like to be them? and now that i'm in this role what could i share with that either i wish i had known along the way, or that they will remember when they leave washington week which as you mentioned is an intense rapid-fire experience. if you leave a few key encouraging messages at the time where you know it's easy to be cynical about politics, it's a good thing to encourage young people to pursue publish service. >> more with bryan on sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific on

c-span. we continue now with testimony by former prime minister gordon brown. he went before the inyour i are on monday to answer questions about. in the next portion mr. browne gives his thoughts about media coverage and possible regulation. he says the press is not separating news and comment. this is about forty five minutes. chance nor newspaper to reflect the news. perhaps i could illustrate this best in a thought by giving you an example of what happened during the period of government. perhaps it's good to take a number of examples. but perhaps i could take one that is controversial, the coverage of afghanistan. during the period i was prime minister we had incredibly difficult decisions to make.

this is a country of 35 million people. 135,000 troops at maximum. you have nothing like the coverage you have in the -- when you have peacemaker for every fifty people in the place. and did with a complex set of circumstance in a country that has never been subject to law and order and at time when an army of occupation that started in an army of liberation becoming an army of occupation. and taking difficult and complex decisions about how you deal with the problems and so we increase the numbers of troops from 4900 to 9.5,000. we spent increased the number spent in afghanistan. these were the most effective defense forces we had given the resources we had putting into them. now you could have an honest debate about whether we made

policy. you could have -- in fact, a very effective debate about what was the right judgment about troop numbers and every else. we hadn't the had the big troop numbers apart from america. what i think one newspaper decided to do. this is my point by way of illustration. they didn't want to take on the difficult issues. it would use their opinion we were doing something wrong to view that was editorializing position that we simply didn't care. the whole weight of the coverage was not what we have done and whether we done the right thing. it was i personally did now care about the troops in afghanistan. that's where you complete fact of opinion. and when you decent into sensationalism matters of judgment and evil intentions. and you can laugh about it now and i do laugh about it at the same times, if you pick up a newspaper you find that you've

failed to bow at the senator and then -- that is an example how he doesn't care about our troops in afghanistan. first of all, the story wasn't true. secondly, that's not the con collusion that should have been drown. you have the story before that that you fell asleep that the remembrance. you were praying and bowing your head. one newspaper decide this is an example of falling asleep. and dishonoring the troops. again, you don't care. you have a letter you send to to someone who is a mock of respect which is deceased. you have been told you have 25 and misprints in there and the handwriting appears it shows a lack em pa think. it goes own an on an on that is the idea. here is a difficult thash the press in the interest of the british public has got to treat seriously. there are few war correspondents

in afghanistan. all the reporting in newspapers is being done from west minister. the issue is not the facts that is happening or the honest disagreement. the issue is reduce to the person doesn't care. that is where i find. if the media only had a political view and said we are conservative, you could accept that. that's in the editorials. that's part of freedom of speech to use the political view to complete fact and opinion. that is opposite of the press rule statement to sensationize and demonize, it's what the professor the reflect of in the early years of the century talked about as a license to deceive. and thing is what the danger arises. it's too easy following, of course the citizens journalism of the internet where there is a -- people [inaudible]

right and left-wing blogger. to sensationalize in the print of media and distort fact and opinion and put them together. an policy of issue intelligence of character personal of issue personal of evil practice. and i think that's where the presses fail our country. on the particular example of afghanistan. i could give you an example from the economic imri sis or broken britain. the fact and opinion. and the way it is done is very damaging. i think to the reputation of the media, i find it done differently in other countries. >> okay. mr. blair's speech mr. browne, which was on the 12th of june, 2007 they support and you took over. did you agree with the sentiment he expressed in that speech many. >> i think he was exactly what i'm seeing today that the issue of fact conflicted with the

opinion. i'd never use the words nor would i use these words. i think my sentiment about the importance of the press has been expressed in my remarks to you that we wouldn't need support and try to defend and uphold the best of standards in the. i think it's remarks were exactly what i'm saying that if you set out to editorialize beyond your editorial column. if you can fact and opinion and put on the front page of your newspaper. if you sensationalize it by allegationsing the opinion is not about the policy that you supposed to be discussing but about person you are now attacking, that's not health sign for a democracy. i do note in afghanistan that -- and this is what makes me sad, indeed. i'm afraid that half of of the country is falling into the hands of the taliban. i'm afraid as we reduce troops -- not to the taliban but the

very newspaper that wanted to make the issue are we doing enough for the troops have been circumstantially silent since the general election in 2010. i have to conclude, these were not campaigns that were related to objective journalism exposing the fact. these were campaigns that were designed to cause discomfort to people who were politically ..

and what really has led to these allegations of spin, but by the way spin assumes you have success in getting your message across even a superficial and i don't think anybody could accuse me of having a great deal of success and getting i message across but i tried to move away from that and once we move from having a political chief of communications to having the civil servant do the job that was the message that we were not trying to politicize government information. we were trying to give the information that was necessary for the public to understand what was happening. we then try to move that to a system where advancements were made in parliament and they were

not pre-brief. they were made in parliament and therefore that moved away from a system where to be honest there were a selected group of people who previously could expect to get early access to information and i think that it's been a problem with the way theéñ?ñ? media system has worked. but i'm afraid it was wholly unsuccessful and i see the current government has moved back to having a political appointee as the original head of the communications operation, and the lobby system remains intact. it's not the lobby system that is the problem. it's a small group of insiders who get the benefit of early access to information and i think that is one of the problems that prevents the greater operatives. yes we should have made changes a lot earlier and yes the changes we have been trying to make we did not make successfully i'm afraid because there was a huge resistance to them. to be honest if you on then something in parliament, it was not being reported unless it had

been given as an exclusive to a newspaper and they tended to put it on page six rather than on page one. >> part of the reason for the inaction was simply until september 2009, your government had support for "the sun" or certainly didn't expressly not have the support of "the sun" and therefore the political world did not exist to take on the foul beast? >> i think that is a completely wrong impression about what was happening. i see as having the support of "the sun" from most all the time that i was prime minister. you've got to remember that when i started off as prime minister the first thing somebody would try to rid my party conference by my first party conference by launching a huge campaign about how i was selling britain down the river and demanding european referendum and demanding that i support it. then they ran a huge campaign which was taken up by the conservative party but was

simply in the tank on the government. so at no point in the three years i was prime minister did i ever feel it. i think what changed and i have to be honest about this, it's when these internationals decided that their commercial interests came first. and i have got to be clear about that and i submitted a letter to you about that. there's a point in 2008 in 2008 and 2009 clear particularly with james murdoch's speech in edinburgh and the mctaggart lecture when he said i have an agenda which to me was quite rough taking in its ambience and its ambition and that was to undermine ofcom the regulator and there was a whole series of policy aims which are optimized in all the evidence i've given you which no government that i was involved in could ever agree to so the were to be taken out of much of the work of the internet, the commercial

activities to be reduced. ofcom was to be muted and the listing of sporting occasions was to benefit news international. product placement was to be allowed. a whole series of issues, the impartiality of news coverage should be removed as a requirement on the media and it should be like "fox news." the remarkable thing i think about this period in government and i say this with regret, and they say this with a great deal of sadness is that we could not go along with that sort of agenda. we could not go along with the muting of ofcom or the license fee. i think it is happen by something in the order of 16% by 2016 plus a whole sees of other responsibilities put on them. nor could we see a case for bbc being taken out of much of his work on the internet because that is a valuable media service for the future. but while we resisted that and

would not support it, on each and every one of these issues i'm afraid to say, and i think this is an issue of public policy, the conservative party supported every one of the recommendations that were made by the murdoch group. >> okay. there is a slight danger mr. brown of string from the question. >> i wanted to make the point mr. mr. jay if i could -- you suggested that somehow relations with "the sun" newspaper or with mr. murdoch had broken down because he decided he wanted to support the conservative party. i want to suggest to you that the commercial interests of news international were very clear long before that and they had support from the conservative party. >> on the general comments mr. brown on to your own experience which is page 14204 or page eight on the internal

numbering of your statement. and can i go back to 2010, and the story in relation to your youngest son and the son newspaper? may we start a establishing the facts as you know them to be in relation to the story and in particular, do you know the son newspaper's source for that story? >> this is very difficult for me if i may say so because i have never chosen never wanted my son or my sons and my daughter ever to be across the media and i do think there is an issue. i hope that you will address this about the rights of children to be free from unfair coverage in the media publications. but because this issue was raised, and became an issue for me, i had to look at what actually happened at the time and it is certainly an essence latterly that the facts that i

think are necessary to a fair examination of this have become available. >> you make it clear, i don't want to cause you or your family any distress unnecessarily, but i hope you will see the value of the example in the same way as i apologize to those who complained about press intrusion last november when they gave evidence because they do think it's an important part of the story. >> i am very grateful to you lord leveson and i have never sought to bring my children into public domain. but i do think if we do learn the lessons from this we will continue to make mistakes. in 2006, "the sun" claimed that they had a story from an -- who happened to be the father of someone who suffered from cystic fibrosis. i never believe that's to be correct.

at best he could have only been the middle because there were only a few people, medical people that our son had this condition. in fact for the first few months our son was alive, i just have to say to you we didn't know because there were tests being done all the time to decide whether this was indeed his condition or not. and only by that time and just before "the sun" appeared with his information had the medical experts told us that there was no other diagnosis that we could give so that this was the case so only a few people knew. i have submitted to your letter from the five health board which makes the international service that is that makes it clear they have apologized to us they believe it highly unlikely there was unauthorized information given by a medical or working member of the nhs staff, that allowed "the sun" through this middleman to published a story.

whether medical information should ever be handed out without the authorization of the parent or of a doctor through the willingness of a parent is one issue that i think is addressed and i know the press complaints and it's very clear that they are only exceptional circumstances in which a child or information about a child should be broadcast and i don't believe this was one of them. i find it sad that even now in 2012 members of the news international are coming to this inquiry and maintaining this fiction that a story kit that could only be achieved or obtained through medical information or through media -- me or my wife leaking at which we never did of course was obtained in another way and i think we cannot learn the lessons of what has happened with the media unless there is some honesty about what actually happened and whether payment was made and whether this is a practice that could continue. if we don't retire this kind of

practice, i don't think that we can sensibly say that we have dealt with some of the abuses that are problematical for us. i would say this about every child. i don't begin a child's medical information particularly at four months has got any interest for the public and should be broadcast to the public. >> can you tell us please mr. brown the circumstances in which you or your wife were told that "the sun" had the story and were going to print it? >> if i can be very specific about this because it is something that i believe you have been given -- given information in this inquiry that is not strictly correct. our press office was formed by a journalist from the son who said they have a story about our son's condition and they were going to publish it. i was then contacted and i was engaged in the pre-budget report. i immediately phoned my wife

sarah, and we had to make a decision. if this was going to be published, what should happen and we wanted to minimize the damage to limit the impact of this. therefore we said that it is story was to be published then we wanted a statement that went to everyone that was then and to this and there would be no further statements and no days and days and days about talking about the condition of our son. unfortunately, this was unacceptable to the son newspaper, the editor from that press office who said this was not the way we should go about this and to be honest if we continue to insist that we were going to make a general statement, "the sun" in the future wouldn't give chance of advanced permission on any other story that they would do. it was at that time that the editor of "the sun" and formed my wife who having accepted this was a fait accompli, there

was no thought that the press commission could help us on this. i think we were in a different world then and nobody ever expected that the press commission would act to give us any help on this and we were presented with the fait accompli i am afraid. there was no question in as giving permission for this and there was no chance of exquisite permission. i ask you any mother or any father was presented with a choice as to whether a 4-month-old son's medical condition, your child's medical condition should be broadcast on the front page of of the tabloid newspaper, and you had a choice in this matter, i don't think there is any parent on the land that would have made the choice that we were told we made to get exclusive permission for that to happen so there was no question on the explicit condition. and i think if my son were to read the latest on the internet that his mother or i had given

permission but all of this medical information or medical knowledge be broadcast in a newspaper, he would be shocked at our failure as parents so i just cannot accept that we would ever put ourselves in a position where we give explicit permission for medical knowledge about our son to be broadcast in the press. we have i am afraid head previous experience when our daughter died and we were very aware that this was a problem but when you're presented with a fait accompli there is nothing you can do other than to try to limit and minimize the damage and i must do we have not told relatives about this. this is a hereditary condition and there were some relatives that were directly affected by it. we had to tell them so there was no question of us being willing or complicit or anxious or as one of your co-participants said this morning, desiring that this information be made public. no question about that at all. you can ever imagine the

situation. if people are able to say in the aftermath of something like this that they have the information when they haven't and they claim ex post facto that there was no evidence that there was and this practice would go on and on and on and children's information about people go into the public arena with this idea that you can claim afterwards that you had explicit permission for something you never had permission for. i think this is important because we have got to learn lessons from this and i think there are more general lessons to be learned. surely the rights of children must come first. >> thank you mr. brown. i am required to put some questions to you which i note you have -- and i will just run through them. mrs. brooke stated under oath that your wife had run the story in november 2006. do you deny that consent was given?

>> absolutely and my wife has issued a statement to that effect. >> is no consent was given, you and your wife must have been extremely upset and angry and if so why was no complaint ñ? made by either yourself or your wife until june of 2011? >> that is not correct at all. again, i think the true realization of this is really unfortunate. when we found out that this had happened and we had our previous experience when information, medical information about our daughter had been made public before she died, we thought the only way to deal with it was to get the press complaints commission in this case through the editors of the major newspapers to reach an agreement that they would not publish information or photographed our children and before i became prime minister, i set in motion and sarah and i set in motion this procedure that we would ask the editors of all the newspapers --

we felt that this was a structural problem. it wasn't simply a problem associated with only one newspaper. we wanted them to agree that our children would not be covered while they were at nursery school and primary school. they were very young as you may know. we didn't want our children to grow up thinking that they were somehow minor celebrities and we had seen the effect of this and other countries. we wanted our children to grow up just as ordinary young kids that went to school with everybody else and were treated just what everybody else. so it was important to us that we have disagreement with the press but that is how we went about changing the way things could be dealt with and to be fair to the media, and i say this in my evidence, that we did have only two incidents where this was breached, so it was possible for voluntary agreement. but the idea that we did nothing

after this incident is quite wrong and i'm afraid is offensive. we took action to try to do with it in the best way that we could without any noise but to get an agreement that the children would not be covered in this way. i hope this is of help to others in similar positions. >> thank you. why did your wife and particular remained good friends with mrs. brooks to the extent of arranging a birthday party and checks to her in june of 2008, tending her birthday party in 2008 and mrs. brooks' wedding in june of 2009 if what you say is correct? >> i think it is one of the most forgiving people i know and i think she finds the good in everyone. look, we have to accept that this had happened and we have to get on with the job of doing what people expect a politician

to do to run a government. my wife had a massi ç amount of charity work that she was engaged in and in fact if i am being anchored, i think it was when mr. murdoch's wife who joined within the lines and within a campaign in the maternal mortality campaign of which was successful in cutting maternal mortality by 70% and it was wendy murdoch and her 40th birthday party as well and sarah that had campaigned together on this maternal or tell the campaign so my wife's cherny work is something that she was engaged and quite separately from a political work. as far as i was concerned, i couldn't about what it happened to me to become a huge issue when i had a job to do. >> are you aware that your wife wrote mrs. brooks a number of personal notes and left them in 2006 in 2010 in which she

expressed her gratitude for this book? >> i think i wife like i said is one of the most forgiving and would be kind to people irrespective what had happened in this particular incident and i don't think that is evidence that we give explicit permission for a story to appear in "the sun." >> the last question and my concern to you, the record shows that 30 meetings between you or your wife after mrs. brooks had called the article to be published in november 2006 why did you have those meetings? >> i'm not sure there were 30 but look, what was the role of a politician and particularly someone who is prime minister? you have a duty to explain. you have to engage with the media. they are a medium by which the concerns of the nation are

expressed. we were a country at war in afghanistan and before that in iraq at the time i was prime minister. we are a country that based a great economic crisis. i would have been failing in my duty if i had not tried and i have listed all the meetings with the telegraph and they are hardly labor supporters, are they? hardly people who did it huge amount to improve my premiership. i'm at the mall to try to explain that i believed i had a duty to try to build a consensus in this country about how we approach what was the most difficult problem after the global economic crisis and the time in afghanistan and how we approach the economic crisis. i think people would be criticizing me if i had failed to talk to the media and fail to engage with them. but i must say to you there was a -- and there was a line in the sand across which i could never, i could never cross. if there was any question that a

vested interest was trying to promote something that was against the public interest, then i would have nothing to do it that. with that. and i think you can serve up dinner but you don't need to serve up -- as part of the dinner. you have got to have a clear dividing line between what you do in politics and for me, there was never a point we had issues related to the takeover or attempt to attempted takeover of ide. news international was annoyed that was happening. we had other news media concerns about different things. at no point in my premiership would i ever allow a commercial interest to override the public interest and i have looked at all the records of what happened including the records of our ministers in this matter. we would never allow the public interest to be subjugated to the commercial vested interest of any one company.

>> did you sense in your dealings with news international that they were trying to persuade you to pursue media policies which were favorable to their interests contrary to the public interest? the news international had a public agenda. what is remarkable about what happened in the period of 2,092,010 is that news international move from being, i think from james murdoch's influence if i may say so, to having an aggressive public agenda. they wanted not just a bskyb idea of course. they wanted to change the whole nature of the bbc and they wanted to change the impartiality rules. they wanted to change the way we dealt with advertising so there was more rights for the media company to gain advertisers and they want to open up sporting events so that this guy could bid for them in a way. they were perfectly entitled to improve this agenda and that was the agenda they were putting publicly. i think what became a problem

for us is every one of these the conservative party went but along with the policies when we were trying to defend what i believe was the public interest. >> so is this the gist of your evidence? it was done publicly but not privately? >> i think their agenda was very public and i don't think that they should be criticized for having a view about events. i think however does the duty of the political system to distinguish between what is the vested interest in what is the public interest. and i did so and i think we did so at a cost. >> was not part of your reason mr. brown for continuing to have dealings with mrs. brooks, that you correctly perceived her to be a powerful woman and this would have been against her interest in taking her on? >> i don't think i had a conversation with mrs. brooks in the last, i think that one i had one conversation in the last nine months of my government. i mean, it became very clear in

the summer of 2009, when mr. murdoch gave the mac taggert lecture that news international had a highly politicized agenda for changes that were in the media policy of this country. and there seem to be very little point in talking to them about this. >> on page nine of your statement, mr. brown, this is on page 14215, you identified a number of reaches in your privacy bonjour society accounts. the national computer was entered and checked your name on files etc.. we heard evidence in relation to that already but you formally called it to our attention.

>> let me say politicians must expect scrutiny and i've got no type of the level of scrutiny that's going to happen in the modern technology age. so i think the question however is whether we can justify what you might call fishing expeditions based on nothing other than a political desire to embarrass someone. i think the evidence that i give you is in relation to fishing expeditions, where newspapers -- look if you take everything that is personal about your life, your medical records, your tax affairs, your lawyer and his legal records, your accountant, if every area that was either a break-in or a breach of these records, in most cases, i can

assure that happen because of an intrusion by the media. now i have been the first to say that there is a public interest defense if people are looking for information where they feel there is a crime being committed and the police or someone else is not investigating or whether it's a security issue that is vital to the safety of the country and it's not being properly looked into or if the press commission themselves as there is an individual who is lying or deceiving but i look at these instances and i just give it to you. i was accused of buying flags by the "the sunday times" inside team. they suggested that i had.this flat and it hadn't appeared on the open market and i got it at a knockdown price. and they would not accept that the starting point of any investigation was something that we would not acknowledge that this very flat that i was supposed to have bought in under

the counter sale had first of all been advertised in advertise in the "the sunday times" itself. we had a meeting to get bank information and we have had to work what is called reverse information of the telephone. the sunday teams -- "the sunday times" inside team are talking to each other about how they are going to use what i think are underhanded and perhaps unlawful techniques and tactics but there was no public justification for this because there was no wrongdoing and even now i'm afraid the editor of the "the sunday times" has come to your inquiry and said that he had evidence of something that he was never able to prove and there was no public interest justification for the intrusion and the impersonation of me in the breaking into the records. i accept the huge amount has got to be tolerated in the interest of politics that is free of corruption but i don't think a newspaper would have resorted to these tactics and find there is nothing to report should hold to

a story that they know patently to be absolutely wrong. if you can laugh at it now, that they were claiming something that actually was advertised in the paper was not correct then i think we have got a few lessons to learn from that as well. it's about freedom being exercised with responsibility and the irresponsibility is the way that freedom is exercised. it casts a doubt on the modus of the media. >> maybe looked now please mr. brown at your exhibit eb-3 which is a list of your meetings with the media between 2007 and 2010 under tab five of the bundle we have prepared. just so we get the flavor. it is it is a duty of office if i may say so. >> if i have not read a media

owners i would be feeling in my duty. we have to explain to them what was basically huge national issues and the reason it calls our greater some parts is afghanistan and the economic crisis were bigger issues at the time. via pc the range of people you are saying mr. brown mr. bodega on the second page, interactions with him. many of the threats coming overw3 there. some meetings quite limited with regarding. ..

>> he gave me the information come and i gave you what information they had given me originally. so that was important.

>> there was the meeting of the fifth of october 2007, whichcommittee say, didn't take place. according to this exhibit, and mr. rupert murdoch's witness statement, there was a meeting on the sixth of october. there was also a phone call on the fourth. that may not be right. so, if we can deal with one point, which is in evidence which relates to the snap elections which you recall back in 2007. it was an interview that was

pre-recorded on saturday, the sixth of october. and there was dinner and checkers with mr. murdoch on the evening of the sixth of october 2007. >> i think that there was a misunderstanding that people thought that i had met mr. murdoch and that i had met with mr. mark -- mr. marr. i spoke to him and i recorded the interview the day before. when i went to dinner with mr. rock weight onto my already recorded everything i had said about these issues, and he had no influence on that or any decision i made, nor should he be, nor would he have been expected to be. >> there is also a correction on the 15th of june the dinner and

the 15th of august 2000 and 3 there're a couple of other meetings which are routed to your schedule. we will get to that in due course. >> there is also a list of phone calls, which we will come to in a short moment. in relation to mr. rupert murdoch, lord mandelson has told us that relations were closer than what was wise comment and that included you in that statement. do you agree with him? >> no, i don't actually. i am sorry because i think mr. mandelson is [inaudible] i honestly came from a scottish as pictured in the background. rupert murdoch was the grandson of a scottish presbyterian minister. i always found it interesting

that his grandfather had gone to australia and had been put in prison because he defended church and state. the same interests in the freedom of conscience, and speaking truth to power, was very much part of what rupert murdoch had a view of the media and what it was. i understood quite a lot about his scottish veteran. the idea that i was influenced in what i did by mr. murdoch's news is faintly ridiculous. mr. murdoch would have persuaded us to leave the european union. he probably would've had us at war with france and germany. he would probably pettis as a 51st state of america. scotland, of course, which he wants to be independent. he would epidemic a 52nd state with the republic of scotland. the idea that went along with his views is frankly quite

ridiculous. mr. murdoch has very strong views. the idea that i was following his views is just absolutely nonsense. >> mr. murdoch himself described the warm relationship he had with you. is that a fair characterization? >> yes, i think there is a similar background there. they made it interesting because i understood where many of his views came from, and i do also think he is being, as i said, publicly a very successful businessman. his ability to build up a newspaper and media empire, not just in australia, but into other continents, in america and europe, it is something that is not going to be surpassed easily to any other individual. i think we have to distinguish again between the views that you have about him as an individual and the redline that i would draw that line and signed i thought -- the that line in the

sand but i talked about. >> lord mandelson also made it clear that neither mr. blair nor you crossed that line. i think his point was more about deception than reality. on that basis, do you accept that observation? >> no. because the implication was i would be influenced by what mr. murdoch was saying about these big issues. i think we will come back to that when you talk about some of the issues relating to the media later and i didn't agree come up with a a lot of other issues. i am afraid that these are not correct. mr. murdoch would probably ignore the flat tax policy than this policy that was identified with what we are doing. but i don't detract from the respect that i think he deserves

for having built up a very strong media empire and the importance of the free media. >> more than 250 people have testified before the levinson inquiry. on monday, former prime minister gordon brown answered questions about the connection between the press and politicians. in this next portion, he denies allegations that he declared war on rupert murdoch said the head of news international. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> can we look at exhibit tbc3. this is a list of telephone calls with mr. murdoch. can we understand first of all we have compiled this list and what is the source of it? >> any call that i would've made with someone like rupert murdoch would have gone through a diamond street switchboard. they would take calls where i

waver i was in the world come and would link me up to whoever i wanted to speak to. any calls i had with rupert murdoch, and indeed, anyone else in this list, would have gone through diamond street. >> is listless including calls -- this was what include calls in as well without? >> yes, calls that i had placed with him and calls that he had placed me and anyone else. it would include calls that were transacted through a mobile phone as well as a landline phone. it would include any conversations that i had with mr. murdoch. >> when you were out of london was it ever you are correct as to call it directly to someone either through your mobile phone or a hotel phone? >> not someone like mr. murdoch. i would always go through diamond street. he would always want someone on the phone call. you would want to have a record of what was being said. and you want to know exactly the

time you did the call and everything else. there's no question that any phone call could have been made without it going through this procedure. >> it says, if for some deliberate reason they didn't want to record of what was said, that might be a reason for arranging the call to take place without going through diamond street. >> i would never have done that. if i was calling a newspaper proprietor or i was calling a political leader around the world or calling someone about a policy issue, i would always go through diamond street because i would always want someone on the call to verify what happened. i don't think there is any doubt that there content that is what i did things come and in that is the way to most people i know would be doing things. there is no call that would've been made without going through diamond street in this way.

>> i'm just thinking to cover all possible options. >> i understand that. >> did you have his phone number on your mobile phone? >> no, i wouldn't know his phone number. i did not engage in e-mailing him or anything like that. there was one letter sent to him through an e-mail, and it was sent through diamond street. i wouldn't have any of the proprietor's numbers on my mobile phone. it would only be personal. >> we consider there to cause in 2009, one in march, the one on the 10th of november, 2009. which was 12:33 in the afternoon. you remember what mr. murdoch was doing in new york and medication? >> i didn't know where he was. i i think it was a [inaudible]

place because of what was happening in afghanistan. >> in your exhibit gb1 under tabs you, there is an e-mail from the 10th of november, which refers expressly to the telephone you -- the telephone call that you had. >> that is exactly right. i thought i would follow up about afghanistan information about public support for the war in afghanistan and what was actually happening to it. i think it was originally sent as an e-mail. it was also sent as a follow-up. and there was a follow-up -- to follow up letters one which he submitted to this inquiry. the letters on afghanistan over the next few months.

that is the only time i ever had any letter communication with mr. murdoch. >> you e-mailed him on december 24, 2009. [inaudible] this is mr. murdoch's exhibit 33. that is your letter? >> yes famous in writing which summons that could be totally illegible. >> yes, we have a transcription of it. >> we have 01917, then there is another one, mr. brown april 26 under tab 14. that is paid to see her 1921. >> that is the handwritten one i think. >> the other to follow.

-- >> the other one was december of 2009. i think we have covered the three that you have mentioned. >> are you clear, mr. brown, do you have no conversation with mr. murdoch, shortly after the withdrawal of support for you in transborder, on which he threatened to declare war on rupert murdoch or to that effect. >> this is the conversation that mr. murdoch says happened between him and me where i threatened him and i am alleged to have acted in an unbalanced way. this conversation never took place. i am shocked and surprised that it should be suggested. even when there is no evidence of such a conversation that it should happen. there was no such conversation. i decided after september 30, when the conservative party gave the support, there was no point

in contacting him. as i said earlier, i never asked him for support directly, nor did i confront him directly when he decided to support the conservatives. i did not make calls, i did not talk to his "the sun", i did not touch him or e-mail him, i did not talk to him. this was a matter that was done. there was no point in further communication about it at all. i am surprised that first of all, there is a story that i sort of slam the phone down and secondly, there is no story for mr. murdoch himself that i threatened him. this did not happen. i have to say to you that there is no evidence that happen other than mr. murdoch's. i did not call him. i had no reason. i had no reason to want to call him. and i would not have called him given everything i've sent you.

>> finally, to be absolutely clear, if mr. murdoch is mistaken about theates and the call happen later is it possible that you might have uttered that sort of language during such a subsequent call? >> there is only one for the telephone call, and that is in november. if i may say, the sequence that led to that call was on the monday "the sun" had said that i had disrespected our troops by not bowing at the cemetery. on the same monday they were sorry that i had been discourteous to a woman with whom i have the utmost severity, a mother of a deceased soldier. i could understand that she was upset. they claim that i did things that i hadn't done. on tuesday, they had taken a phone call. i had wanted to from this lady to sympathize with her and

explain that we got a huge amount that we thought a huge amount about her son. we thought it would be a comfort to get letters, but we thought it was important that she knew how much the country appreciated the service of her son. "the sun" had printed a partial version of that story, and a method of keeping taping the conversation, which they should not have had. to appear in this distorted way, with these headlines was bloody shameful and everything else. i have concluded that "the sun" was damaging our effort in afghanistan, and persuading people that were in favor of the war, there was no point of supporting the war. mr. murdoch had always told me that he supported what we were doing in afghanistan. i felt he should beware of the facts and how we were losing public support at a difficult time when we were trying to persuade the americans and the

rest of europe that we had to have a collective effort, not just to get more afghan troops on the ground, but also to get more european troops supporting these afghan troops on the ground. it was a very delicate political moment. i phone him on that basis. that is what the call was about. there was no reference to threats or conservative parties or anything. i am quite surprised. in fact, the conversation ended in a quite different way from what he says. he asked me, given that he said that there should be no personal attacks by "the sun" due to afghanistan, which he supported, he asked me if i would call mrs. brooks, the editor he wanted to apologize for what had happened. i said there was no point in phoning her because "the sun" was pursuing this course of action. it was for him to talk to her. he then asked me again, and for

a third time to call or come and i said well, out of respect you i will contact her. and that is how the conversation ended with me agreeing that i would talk to her and at the same time, be sending the letter that explained, as you can see it is completely and entirely about afghanistan. that is what the call was about. the problem is that i can see why people thought that there was some pre-orchestrated campaign and i would threaten him on the phone call and this has nothing to do telephone hacking, it has to do with political campaign against news international. these calls -- this call do not happen. the threat was not me. i couldn't become balanced on a call that i didn't have. and a threat that was not made. i found it shocking that we should get to this situation -- sort of sometime later when there was no evidence of this call happening at the time that he says it happened.

and to be told under oath that this was the case and to be back talked to by other people from news international, those who made comments about such a position. it is very important about the freedom of the press and the responsibility of the president about whether we are too hostile or too favorable to news international. there's absolutely there is absolutely no evidence of this phone call order for the threat or judgment that mr. murdoch made of something that he was never party to. the only call that ever happened in november, and it was about afghanistan and it was weeks after when people alleged a call to him. >> mrs. brooks engine the call in november 2009, of course, she was no longer editor of "the sun." she was executive of news

international. were you angry and irrational remark. >> no, absolutely not. i had written a letter to rupert murdoch about afghanistan. out of respect for him, i was foaming her to hear what she had to say. unfortunately, she wanted to tell me that "the sun" had gotten the tape of my phone call with mrs. james, who is a very sad case of a lady whose son had died. and she had a lot of questions to ask about this that i was trying to help her with. but she tried to explain that they have got this tape, which of course, a tape of a conversation from diamond street to appear suddenly in some newspaper -- and she wanted to tell me that they have got this entirely lawfully and everything else had been tapped and so forth. that really was the nature of the call.

i'd really -- i really didn't think there was a point in continuing with the conversation that ended. without acrimony, it was a conversation where she tried to tell me that they have got this information in appropriate ways. >> it sounds like mr. brown that you have every reason to be in great. >> when things can be difficult, you can be very common view, but it was difficult. the whole afghanistan war was being undermined by what i thought was a campaign on the part of "the sun" that was alleging that we didn't care at all about our troops. it was this distortion of fact and opinion that worried me. on the other hand, i felt that "the sun"'s position was that we should support afghanistan. and i try to persuade him by argument that this was the white weight -- the right way to move

forward. >> i think that i am -- i am in persuaded to phone someone in to be greeted with the opportunity to investigate further a private conversation -- i would be rather irrational. >> i think in these circumstances, when you are surprised at what comes back to you -- mr. murdoch had given me the impression that an apology was forthcoming. he also assured me that "the sun" was going to remove this personal element of their tax over afghanistan. i did not ask them for these assurances. he offered them. and i did not discuss other issues with him. therefore, to some extent, that is where the conversation later. it was really finding out that this was not necessarily how "the sun" was going to perceive. it was a surprise to me. >> well, you have a thicker skin than i might've had.

>> i think when you are going to deal with some of these issues you tend to be palmer when you are dealing with them -- >> last letter that you wrote to mr. rupert murdoch, and written it in 2010, was in the general election campaign. you had other things to do. why did you take time to write in this personal handwritten letter? >> because mr. murdoch had replied. mr. murdoch had said, which he had never said before, that he disagreed with the management of the war effort. all of my conversations with mr. murdoch were civilized and were courteous. as you can see, you know, i wish his family while at the end of my letters and everything else. suddenly, out of the blue, in our correspondence coming he says, well i disagree entirely with the management of the war effort. this was the first time he actually said to me personally that this is what he thought.

i did not quite understand what he meant by the management of the war effort, because we had extra resources put in. equally, i had very little complaints about the management of the war effort sends. it seems to me that he was making a political point, and i wanted him to know that he had never said this before, and i asked him to reconsider it. if you look at the letter, it says i'm surprised to hear these views for me personally because you have never said them to me in any conversation we have had. and would you like to reconsider these views. i'm i >> i said look, no matter what "the sun" and "the times" does,aid i would rather be honest -- whatever happened, i said we are priursuing a campaign in afghanistan that i believe isthe s right.it if "the sun" is undermining it the f and i have to say that is thegement

case -- but given that this is w the first time you have criticized the management of theto know what war effort as an individual, i would like to know what you were i d thinking of when you did so.ter. i did not actually have a replied to that letter. much a he did not think it necessary to replied. >> isn't it obvious that he cared very much about this being a personal attack on you and ity might be fair to show that you dopa care deeply about what they re newspapers write about you and attacks -- the. >> there were two issues during the period i was prime minister. one was the global economicextr crisis, which, we had to dealain, andled with and we took extraordinary action in britain.y. and i believe that we led the way internationally. where we it is something that was needed. the other d thing was afghanistan where wehe dealt with a hostile media. at the same time, we were trying to prevent taliban control in areas where the taliban were now in charge, i'm afraid. and it matteredbe to me what wascy

being done on afghanistan, and it mattered to me that we got the policyo right and persuadingthaf other countries to come to the p war effort, and persuade people that we had tool get the afghan army and police up and running. his were not just about me t personally that i was really issues o trying to take up with mr. murdoch. these were issues of policy. if you look at the letters and is suspect that that's because thepeople, you s sequence is now presumably the available to people. the political views of mr. murdoch to the -- "the sun" done tohe and "news of the world" -- iestion still feel that huge it damageur was done to the war effort by the suggestion that we doesn't care about what was happening to her troops. which clearly hacld an impact on public opinion and was something that i felt, as you can see

felt strongly about. m. >> tommy -- -- your relationship with tom daker. no one. >> i did not see mr. daker that much.i think hike mr. daker and i disagree about many things on politics. i think he like me, believesha there should be an ethical basis for any political system and that that is an issue that is not publicly addressed in the media and politics. that there is some common ground onsonally that, even though we may disagree about what it means in practice. he was personally very kind.child, rupert murdoch could be personally very kind. we had difficulties with her child, her first child, and i

have not forgotten that. "the dai to be honest, i got no support from the daily mail. you see they weri e against the labor party. and when it came to the election i talked to mr. daker th the and said that you are entering a situation where you have a party that has a relationship with theshouldry murdoch empire and theirt was commercial interests, and you should be wary of it. i didn't want him but that was one of the problems it was goingome ha tove happen.daily ma" was -- i didn't want him. >> the daily mail -- they were last less hostile. if you think those are for your comments not? >> i don't know whether it was. well, one ofe the huge dividing microcosms of politics over the last 10 years it has been a few -- most of the newspapers, of course, were against it.

i was in the minority within the government for very long period of time but being skeptical about the euro. my colleague, was the economict adviser to the treasury at the pr time and a member of parliament at theov time did an enormous amount of work that it couldsupporte t work. but it was a hugely divisive issue.that but if "the daily mail" supported the objections that i. had to the euro, then that ise absolutely understandable. i'm afraid to say i'm just about every other issue, they are holding it against us. they wanted to see a conservative government. as you know. >> policies such as you turn ong casinos -- 24 hour checking, it tends to appease the "the daily mail" audience? >> know, if you look at the hav individual issues, and i don'tn want to bore you with that. i personally have strong opinions as an individual about mbling the evil of excessive gambling.

.. nina i don't hold what is probably the more conventional view about soft drugs so i was against the reclassification of cannabis. and effect we reclassified it back. these are views that i hold personally and i hold quite stronger. i would say probably i use my position to persuade members of the government who were not -- [inaudible] >> e. pleased that section 55, the information commissioners reports in 2006 the time when you of course were still chancellor and the exchequer didn't fall directly within your policy area. but do you remember concerned the issues raised by them at the time or not? >> not in huge detail at the time, but he became an issue after i became prime minister. we had to make a judgment.

it comes back to this very important point that i think we discussed at the beginning about the protections that are available to the press whether there is a public interest that might initially sound unacceptable. and you know in the press complaints that are these three public interest defenses. one is about wrongdoing and it is about threats to the security and safety another is a bit more i think difficult about whether detection is by an organization or an individual is being exposed. and i felt quite strongly, and still do that the s.b. public interest defense unavailable in these circumstances. and that was what is basically my own view about how you must have institutions outside the state have got the power to question and hold accountable the state. and no matter what we think

about the way the media behave in certain instances there is in my view a right to public interest defense and that's what we're debating after the information commission made a number of proposals about data protection. i could understand the feeling he brought to this, and therefore, i was anxious not to overrule him, but i could understand also my own instinct that there have to be at least a public interest defense in favor of the media where they ventured into areas where for good public reasons they were exposing something that was wrong. [inaudible] the consultation of the proposal to introduce custodial sentences. the government original position when you were in charge was to introduce such senses. and mr. jack straw gives evidence about it. there was a dinner you had with mrs. henton mcclellan and they can -- >> that's right spent which we

have on tab 34 and this bundle. do you remember the issue being discussed on that occasion? >> i told them as we start the dinner what might he was but i didn't ask them for their view i'm afraid. maybe i should do. but i told them what my view was. there should be a public interest defense. and, therefore, it wasn't a question of them lobbying me. i was informing them that this was my view but that jack straw who did a great job on this and consulting of people as well about how we could implement, where there is a public interest defense, but we were going to back off entirely the potential need for legislation. >> mr. dakin's account doesn't quite match that, mr. brown. under tab 34 he gave a speech to the society of editors congress on the ninth of november, 2008. it's about 16, 17 months after your date. he says at about 18 months ago,

he means on the 10th of september, 2007, i let hidden of news international had dinner with prime minister gordon brown. on the agenda was our deep concern that the newspaper industry was facing a number of very serious threats to its freedoms. and then he said the fourth issue we raised with gordon brown was a truly frightening a minute to the data protection act. this is the eminent -- >> i don't think there's any disagreement. he had it on his agenda. they raised it but this is my view. i didn't say i'm waiting to hear you. this is my view. i remember this distinctly. i had already made up my mind before it went into the meeting and i told jack and michael that they should be a public interest defense, and that we should probably -- [inaudible] the implementation of this clause. at the time we did all the information we now have about

the data by the media. at that time there was no suggestion that there was anything other than what was called the rogue hacker. but again my instinct is still the same, but but you ought to be public interest defense. i know it's uncomfortable because you're balancing off to freedoms. as we said at the beginning, you've got this right that i would defend for people to have privacy. and you've got this right of the media, i would say the individual to express themselves, and for the media to do this through a freedom of speech and, therefore, willingness or an ability to investigate things that are wrong. and you are bouncing these to freedoms. now, it seems to me that we may end up with a custodial sentences, and that was an option that was left to us. we said we would come back to this. but at that time we thought that let us look at whether a public

interest defense could introduce into this legislation, which is what we did. these are very, very difficult issues. you know i thought about them at the time that i've thought about them since the ice to hold to the idea that public interest defense, but i think we're now on a course where there will certainly be custodial sentences but i think the government certainly wants to rely on your final judgment on this as well before they make a decision. >> it's quite important to be quite careful about this. what the protection enemy did was to introduce a public interest defense to data protection defense. >> yes. >> but it wasn't for a moment suggesting in relation to other breaches of criminal law that there should be a public interest defense. >> no, it was in relation to

data protection. you're absolutely right, and i hope i'm not over collaborating on the argument. but it seemed in that instance the case for public interest of his -- >> i understand that you not suggesting or are you suggesting, the question, that there should be public interest defense in relation to any crime? >> well, no i'm not saying that but what i am saying is i do think that the press, you're looking again at the press complaints council guidelines. and one of the guidelines of the editors is the editors suggest that there is a public interest at stake we are three things are at issue. that have got to be taken into account when judgments are made here. >> you're entirely right thing and i brought that to might as well one is looking at this issue. >> that's the defense to an allegation of breaches the code. >> yes. >> let me just ask you this again entirely open way.

of course, in relation to any criminal offense, if a journalist is acting in the public interest, or reasonably believes that he or she is acting in the public interest, then that must be an important feature to why i asked the director of prosecutions whether he will be prepared to consider publishing a policy on his approach to the public interest in relation to prosecution of journalists for crime whether there's no statutory defense and as you know he has done so. and he's consulting on this. i just cleaned to know whether usage is is going further than that. of course, the fact that defense counsel can be made out doesn't mean that everybody was convicted then goes direct into jail. there are enormous number of

variations, always taken into account. >> that, i think maybe i've been misunderstood. my position with relation to the data protection act, but i was conscious there was a public -- [inaudible] and he seemed to me, this was reasonable. >> mr. dakin's account is that you're hugely sympathetic to the interest of the case and promise to do what you could to help. sounds as if the industry through mr. dakin and mr. and mr. mcclellan were allowed and you persuaded by the. is that fair or not? >> i remember distinctly this conversation, and i think if you asked under cross-examination it would be confronted at the end of the discussion i would say we need a public interest defense, and we have been talking up how we can do this. i'd also i think either before or after made a speech, i felt that the debate in britain had

become colored by what we had to do in relation to terrorism. and you know it was very -- [inaudible] we wanted to have for example a longer print of potential detention for people who are terrorist suspects. but i felt on a whole range of other areas where liberty was at issue we could do better. we could do better about the freedom of assembly. we could do better about the freedom of speech and we could do better about the freedom of the press. so i made a speech on liberty. these are my views. these are not the media gives. these are not mr. dakin cities. is not anybody else's abuse. these were my views but it was an issue i felt strongly about. i felt that america branded itself to the world as a country of liberty and was able to persuade people that liberty was invented in america. in fact the ideas of liberty the look on the british constitution, some of the things that we valued greatly under region aided in britain, and i want to make that clear. so these were my views. and i think any suggestion that

might have felt from industry is quite ridiculous. i was prepared to say that this was my view and i'm still prepared to say this is my view. >> were you aware there already was a public interest defense in section 55 of the daily -- data protection act? >> yes. >> the speech you refer to under 103, so this post dates the dinnerware referring to buy about six weeks and arguably if you look at the second page of the speech, our page is what chapter is that? >> tab three page 14235. spent i think a rumor what i said. >> you are still referring their two taking into account -- >> is that behind have a three for one? >> i have the wrong volume.

>> it bears the number six on the top right. >> i think it's an extract. >> is not the full speech but i wouldn't want to bore you with all the detail. [inaudible] you say but jack straw has passed for guidance and consultation with the bbc to make sure we take into account concerns about the new rule which allow for prison sentence of up to two years. at that point what you're thinking still that an updated since was a progress because i think the issue was whether we would figure the two-year sentence at a later stage, while leaving in the legislation. >> that didn't come as an idea until march 2008. some documents we have on tap 20. >> what you're saying here is that clear guidance will make sure that legitimate

investigative journalism is not impeded. so you're very keen to protect legitimate investigative journalist, but where that is not triggered, then it should be a sanction to protect individual privacy. >> yes spent that's precisely what you're saying spent i say the sanctions provide a strong deterrent, yes. >> there's also noteworthy in the speech that you said, top of the same page no case of statutory regulation treads self-regulation the press should be maintained. the status quo is adequate. is that correct? >> we had no mandate for the. we never purported that should happen. i think that tony blair explained in his own evidence that we have decided that this was not a priority for us so it was not part of our mandate and therefore, it was obvious that that was not what we were doing.

>> so it's your evidence that you didn't respond to the lobbying of you at dinner on the 10th of september 2007 and modify the governments existing proposals to take into account a powerful present you? >> i felt strongly about this myself. i'm not sure the other minister felt a strong as i did but i've explained the background to my own views. so i really didn't need persuading by mr. dakin about this. or by mr. hinton or who else was there, i don't know if. >> is it your evidence that you had a conversation with mr. straw before the 10th of september 2007 in which your skepticism was communicators? >> i think we're having conversations quite a lot about some of these things. these are things that arise from time to time but i don't think there was any formal meeting about it. i think we were having conversations.

>> evidence along the line when to pressures with the criminal justice and immigration bill that had to commit i think before the seventh or eighth of may 2008. iraqi compromise was carved up as it were and that process started in march 2008. do you recall that? >> i recall conversations with michael wills it was the minister, and jack straw who was the minister, and i recall this unit we could find a way forward. i think in the end we did. >> ask you now mr. brown to return now to the issue of special advisors put to you a number of questions about them. that mr. campbell in a second witness statement paragraph 64, suggested there was a real problem with a treasury special adviser. and by that he means mr. wheeler

and, who is one of your appointments. do you agree with his analysis? >> look, there was rumor gossip, political advisors and lots around and having debates and arguments. the one thing i insisted upon, and this is i think deals with mr. campbell is our political advisors worked to the head of communication it was a civil service. so anything that a big relation to the press they have to report to and through the head of the civil service the civil servant had documentation and that's how we dealt with these issues. >> there were not -- [inaudible] a systematic perpetrators of selective anonymous briefings. either at your instigation of or with her knowledge? >> no. i wouldn't say that at all. i operated or asked them to operate under these rules that they would work to the head of

communications it was a civil servant, and he would have to report to me if things were wrong. >> so if they did in told in this behavior, that would be by definition without your knowledge, is that correct? >> it would be without my knowledge and without my sanction. >> will come back to the. mrs. brooks and her witness statement, paragraph 61 states that tony blair and his aide were convinced that gordon brown and his aides had conspired together in order to force the resignation. do you agree with that? >> i don't think that is tony blair's you. it is certain that my view. this is again you are relying on secondhand conversations that are reported by people who are not participants in the events. so i don't take that as a serious comment about what happened. >> were your age involved in using the media to force or attempt to force mr. blair's resignation -- this is in 2006? >> i would hope not.

>> but where they involve? >> i would hope not. i've got no evidence of that. >> now, mr. blair said that he did know whether you mr. wheeldon mr. mcbride and mr. balls were briefing against him in the media. did you authorize your aides to brief against mr. blair? >> no. >> do you think they may have done so without your explicit approval, even with your knowledge speak with obviously did so because it was without my authorization. >> at. [inaudible] only to act with your authority, would you agree? >> no. i medically. i'm trying to explain why we change the system when i went to number 10 and why i thought it was better to have political advisors were a new development from 1970s onward. you always have civil servants without political advisors to they are obviously party people with their own views about what should happen. they had to find a way of

working with us. and my insistence was the political advisors were doing a job, had to work under the auspices of the office of civil service, and this is what we tried to enact in the treasury but and this is why went to downing street i removed the order of cuthbert i said we would not have a political appointee as head of communicate should. i appointed a traditional conventional civil servant as the head of the communications. and then when he retired and what back to the treasury and incidentally went back to a formal policy job, you know, for the new government i appointed the person who had been previously head of communications at buckingham palace. he was not a career civil servant but one who was trusted absolutely for discretion and his propriety. so i wanted to send a message that we wanted to work within these traditional channels, that

political adviser were instructed to do exactly that. if they fail, as happened in a terrible instance where mr. mcbride had to resign, then they had to go. >> did you instruct your special adviser of the treasury and of number 10 while you're prime minister to conduct off the record briefings with the press? >> no, but if a civil servant had the communications was informed then that was the way that anything would have to be done in relation to briefings the so they would have to be some communication between him and any political advisors. the press was been talked to. it's unrealistic to expect they don't talk to the press. i think they have to go to the civil service. >> lord mandelson h. 461 states describing mr. mcbride as your attack dog develop a reputation for briefing against anyone who is perceived to threaten his boss interest, not only the tory opposition but those of the blair ride

persuasion the is mandelson correct or incorrect because this is what i mean about it or tactic at the rumor, innuendo people say something about something else. i don't know the truth of all these things. but what i can say is that the people that work for me were under specific guidance about what they have to and i think that's an important point in this. with their world there, were they reserved -- absurd. the person had to go. >> he also notes a conversation he said he had with you in october 2008 when you invited him back into government what he specifically raise the issue of gaining the bride with you and reach what he thought was clear understanding that he would be transferred to the cabinet office, a steppingstone. is lord mandelson's recognition --

[inaudible] >> i don't think there's any doubt about that. this is the first time i've read this by the way in this appears to be in his memoirs. but i can't remember mr. mcbride was pushed back from the frontline role and he was given a new role. but, unfortunately, in his new role he made a very bad mistake and he had to go. that's i think what happened if he wasn't in his original role. he'd been pushed back to another goal. i think it was to a number 10 but he had to go. >> but i'm back on october 2008, and us wondering whether you agree or disagree with lord mandelson's regulation and his memoirs about what he said -- >> i don't think there's any doubt -- but adobe is in talk about a cabinet office. i think what probably talk about how mr. mcbride was moving back from what you might call the frontline, and he had a different role. but in the end it was only a few

months later that he had to go. >> did either, or both one you specifically about mr. mcbride? >> i don't remember any specific documentation or letters they may have said something in conversation. >> today in the course of conversation when you about mrmip bright? >> i don't know where the our document what happened in the leaking of these e-mails. they certainly would've talking about that when it happened but i was very clear to on my own line that he had to go. >> i'm talking about earlier. and early warning speak to i don't recall other conversations. and perhaps you could better come information from these people that i have but i don't recall conversations about that. cozied general view that some had that mr. mcbride had to change his role.

>> you also -- were you also warned by ed miliband, douglas alexander about mr. mcbride? >> when i say there was a general view i'm not excluding the fact that one or two people might have talked to them -- talked about him to me. he was moved back into we had this incident where he had to go. i may say that mr. mcbride was a career civil servant. he worked his way up through customs and excise and the treasury. he only became a political adviser in 2005. he was originally a fast-track civil servant. >> there's also evidence that jacqui smith warned you about him as will be to you remember that? >> i get women were all these things. >> it sounds like a lot of people will warned you about mr. mcbride. did you see that warning? >> are you wanting to us and what relationship of political advisors and minister is a network itself through? i can say this, that i was aware

that we had to move mr. mcbride from his original role to a new role. he had to be moved and that neutral and we had the assistance that he had to go. that's how it works. .. you have seen them extract from mr. darlings memoirs. he is convinced that you did. are you aware of that? >> i didn't, i think this issue, again i referenced it for the first time yesterday this extract. it's about an interview that the officer gave to "the guardian" and i think the issue was, he had been quoted as saying he felt it was the worst crisis inhe british the british economy for 60 years when actually what he wanted to say or had said was that this was the worst global crisis in 60is years. wanted to

go out and tell the immediate that that -- the media that that was the case. that's the incident. i don't think there's disagreement about the interpretation of that. >> do you remember the conversation you had with mr. darling which is noted in his book on page 108 where he told you specifically he knew where the anonymous briefings were coming from and that they had to stop? >> i don't know. there may have been a conversation like that and this con front bation within government, everybody worries who is saying what about whom and so forth. the one thing i can say to you which is absolutely clear i'm not sure how relevant this is to your conclusions but the one thing i can say definitely is nobody in my position would have instructed any briefing against a senior minister. and alistair darling was a friend of of mine as well as a colleague. >> there's reference as well, it's not clear these were the words he uttered to you about

henry ii's outers -- utterings, he says he didn't order his knife to go and kill beckett but they had his blessing to do so. [laughter] >> these are very dramatic comments. no, they're not near the mark at all. they're quite wrong, quite the opposite of what actually happened. i think, if i may say, on the incident that you're referring to there was an interview given to "the guardian," and it was about the economic crisis. and alistair was sure that he'd talked about the global economic crisis. and "the guardian" had reported it as speaking about the british economic crisis. of course, the distinction was important, but there was no tape of the interview. the treasury had no tape of the interview, and that was the source of the problem, that we couldn't get to the bottom of it because the treasury had not taken a tape, and i think that was the source of the issue. >> i've also shown you a letter from john major.

he, of course, is giving evidence tomorrow. taken the 30th of june, 2008 and it relates to the withdrawal of the mcgarvey knighthood. and he makes the specific allegation that you briefed or you instructed either mr. wheeler nor mr.-- [inaudible] to brief against john major. is that correct or not? >> well mr. wheeler was not working for us at that time at all. and mr. mcbright, i don't know which your year referring to -- >> this was june 2008. >> just before he'd gone. i don't know anything about this because i don't think despite the fact that my name is mentioned in this letter and gus o'donnell and i talked about this in any detail, and i don't know really much about this incident. i know that mcgarvey lost his

knighthood. i know that when sir fred gibbons lost hid knighthood, i was blamed for -- people say things and do things and the press say things, and i've never been involved in a briefing operation against john major. >> is the position this mr. brown, that a sort of mythology has built up around these special advisers described in certain quarters as paranoid attack dogs or whatever but there's no evidential basis for it or is it the position that if they did act in this way, they acted without your instructions? >> look, you've got special adviser, they're a new innovation. they've got a role to play in defending the minister and defending the policy. you've got competition in different departments because that's the nature of politics.