and departmentses and that's the nature of politics. the question is what you read into this as whether there's an abuse of the constitution. i asked my political advisers to operate under very distinct rules, and i actually had tougher rules that was the general rule that was applied to political advisers. after mr. mcdwight left, we toughened up the rules even more about the use of equipment for personal purposes. and i was determined we could integrate the political adviser into the civil service system. if it didn't work on occasion, had people behaved badly on occasion, then that was not because there were not rules that were there and instructions that were given by me that should be followed. but i think we know enough about politics to know there's rumor, innuendo, allegations and so forth. the question is what you conclude from this. and my conclusion is you need tough rules, and if people don't obey the rules, then they have

to go. i'm not sure it gives us a jenin sight into the way the media was behaving. >> well, the focus of this inquiry is rightly under its terms of reference. ethics of the press, but we are also looking at the conduct of each and, therefore, the political class. are there any lessons to be learned at all if one looks at the period 1997-2010 -- >> yeah. >> a 13-year period as to the culture of the political class? >> yes. as i said right at the beginning, and i don't know if you picked me up in the way that i might have expected. i said that we should have changed the lobby system and changed the system where people relied on exclusive briefings and had a far more open and transparent system of addressing the country through the press than we have even today. and i, obviously, have got to take some responsibility for this. my only defense in this is i

tried after 2007 to change the rules. we actually had a consultation, by the way, i didn't mention this, about the future of the lobby. simon lewis led, who's a very honorable man, but we could find no cone sense us -- consensus, but i would have preferred to have open briefings given by ministers to inform the press day by day. i'd looked to the white house system, i'd looked at other systems. so, yes, there needed to be more openness. we inherited a system that was based on, if you like, exclusivity. it was also based on insiders winning over outsiders. so a lot of people were excluded from that system. the political advisers ought to and had to work under specific guidance, and i believe they should have worked under civil service leadership. and we changed that when we went into number 10 as well. so these are the lessons i learned about what some people call the spin culture.

i come back to the point that -- [laughter] it assumes a great deal of success in dealings with the media that i don't feel that i had. you know, in the 1970s when i was a student, i read once that it was said the shah of persia when he was still the shah of iran had the worse press relations in the business, and a british politician had raised objections. and i felt if that had been said in the 1990s to 2010, i would have raised the objection. i did not have, unfortunately, good relations with the press. and i used to say of myself about spinning when people said, you know, you guys are good at getting your message across, i used to quote shelley when shelley was talking about relativism. he said he had lost the art of communication but not, alas, the gift of speech. and i felt like i'd gotten myself into a position like that before i left office. >> be did you issue guidelines to any of your advisers, or were

they just left to get on with it? >> they had to go through the official head of communications who was a civil servant. look, this is an issue that will have to be resolved at some stage because we've had political appointees as press officers. we've had civil servant appoint 250es, and it hasn't been wholly satisfactory because of what the press expects of the head of communications. i don't think we've got an answer yet to what is a real problem about how you deal with the prosecution on a day-to-day basis. but i would prefer a more open system, and i think that we will get to that at some point. and if your inquiry, sir, can take us further on these roads and call for greater openness and transparency, i would be -- i would welcome that. >> have you thought about how that might manifest itself? >> i would have thought that you move away from the daily briefing that is to what's called the lobby, and this'll be very unpopular with people who are now in the gallery listening to me, some of who are in the

lobby, that you will have someone who was briefing with the television cameras there, it would be completely open. you would have to allow in press that are not part of the lobby system at the moment, and that includes, of course, the new internet media that is, that is developing. and i think the civil service and the politicians have got to work a better relationship so the danger is you have a civil service head that people think does not speak on behalf of the prime minister or the minister because he's not close enough. but the danger is you have an overpoliticized head who looks as if he's, or she is pushing the civil service in a particular direction. so i think you've got this dilemma about how you organize the management of information. but i think the openness of it is much to be well cold. and i say to you we did try to return to the situation where when you made an announcement in the house of commons, it was new

information. and we did try to return to the situation where you made a speech, and you were giving the information for the first time. but i'm afraid that the way things worked, these things were not reported. they were not seen as news in this highly competitive business in the media unless someone either had an exclusive or a group of people had an exclusive to these stories and felt that was something that was new. so this competition between the different media outlets is intensifying, obviously. 24 her hour news is -- 24-hour news is a reality. newspapers are in danger of being left behind whereas the internet is going all the time, and this will only intensify. therefore, i think more openness is an essential element, but, of course, the trustworthiness of participants is important to this as well. >> may i just touch on mr. watson now, a different topic. you address this, page 16 of page 14223. just be clear what your evidence is about, mr. browp. you say that you can recall tell

willing watson that the government had been under pressure from news international to sack him. are we back near 2006 in relation to the plot to, um, detrone mr. blair -- >> we're talking about a conversation that you've asked me about that mr. wattton had with me in -- watson had with me in 2010. and mr. watson has thrown me off. and i remind him of what happened in the past. i'm not giving him new information as far as i'm concerned about something that happened in the last week. i'm telling him, look, you know ha that when you are p in government that news international had editorials that they wanted you sacked. and i did say that mr. mrs. brooks had made her feelings about mr. watson pretty well known to my wife. that's all the new information i think i brought to this. >> yes. there may be a misunderstanding. that's why i was trying to tease this out. did the text message you

referred to, did that relate to earlier event, or did it relate to phone hacking, can you remember? >> this was -- news international had taken the view that tom watson was to be held culpable for anything that had happened in 2006, i think. and this was still the line that they wanted to pursue. you, i don't want to get involved in this because i don't understand everything that happened. there was a legal case taken about defamation by mr. watson, and for all i know there are still proceedings. i don't know. but there was an animosity between news international and mr. watson. and i was merely reporting to him when he asked me about these things that i was well aware that news international had wanted to get rid of his when he was a minister. >> this was because of alleged machinations against mr. blair, not because of his persistent -- [inaudible]

>> but you are putting words into news international's mouth. i don't know. all i reported to him was that news international had made it clear that they wanted, they didn't like him, of course, and i think they had an editorial saying tom watson had to go, i can't remember the details. >> can you remember what the text said? >> they're not my texts. my wife's text, i think you'd have to ask her. >> she might have communicated? >> she thought it was important. i haven't asked for texts to be disclosed, but it's your right to ask for them if you need them, but i think it communicated the feeling about mr. watson. >> the issue is so important, we're going to have to ask to see the texts on your wife's phone. i'll put this question to you in relation to mr. watson, in 2006 the media reported that he visited you at your house in scotland before his resignation. did you discuss any political matters at all with mr. watson on that occasion?

>> no. our baby had just been born. he was bringing a present for our baby with his wife and his family. and we were talking about children. i mean, if i had known that he was planning any political initiative, i would have told him not to do it, but i knew nothing about it. >> and the follow-up question was, did you discuss mr. watson's subsequently published round robin letter according to mr. blair's resignation -- >> i think i've already answered that. if i'd known that he was planning on anything like that, i'd have told him to desist. this was a bad mistake, it was wrong thing to do, and i told him so once i found out about it. >> so your evidence is this is entirely a social call to deliver a present for your baby, is that right? >> entirely. because he had his family with him, and they were talking to sara, and they were talking about -- we were all talking about our children. >> and, mr. brown, you called for a judicial inquiry in

september 2010 in the sense that i think you wrote a letter to lord o'donnell. we've got it at tab 35. >> yep. i remember. >> [inaudible] and, obviously, the context was, although you don't refer to it, was the piece in "the new york times"es which was published on the 1st of september, 2010. is that correct? >> yeah. and the report that was being done by the culture media committee. that was the prompting for asking whether something had to be done. look, we did not know about, as i said in my speech in the house of commons about this matter, we did not know about the extent of this phone hacking, and it only gradually became known to me that it could be considerably more than what had been reported than this rogue hacker or rogue reporter was not a proper

defense. but as the information became available and as i realized that this was a bigger issue than people had imagined, it seemed to me we had to look at what needed to be done. now, the home secretary had looked at whether the police investigation should be extended to, or be carried out by another body. i had to look given there was some, i think, media speculation at in this time, but there was a case for public inquiry as to whether there was a case for judicial inquiry. unfortunately, when i asked sir gus o'donnell to look at this, he did not look at other evidence than simply the report of the culture select committee. i think that probably was an unfortunate decision. and, therefore, we had to report back that, basically, reflected the minimum amount of information that was known to the culture select committee and said nothing about any further information that was actually

known within government at the time including the home secretary's examination of this on his open behalf. own behalf. >> to be fair, mr. brown, the letter he wrote back to you on the 10th of september, 2010, simply says the information is under review -- >> you're talking about the second letter. my first be question was before we left office. >> yes. >> and that was a request that he answer with a memo that i think you've now got about the various pros and cons of taking action. and it's at that point that i think we might have looked at the other evidence available within government. and that's the point i'm headaching. when i wrote him in september, 2010, it was because further knowledge was available, and that is "the new york times" -- >> i'm focusing on the september 2010 issue because as you rightly say, we've looked carefully at the march 2010

consideration. >> yeah, yeah. >> can i ask you this, we know that mr. miliband was not elected leader of the opposition until, i think, the 25th of september, 2010. did you discuss these issues with him at any stage, either before or after his election? >> this letter was independently done me. i didn't consult anybody before i sent that letter. >> no. i'm not suggesting you needed to consult. >> yeah. >> i was suggesting did you discuss your concerns about the issue with mr. miliband? >> i had expressed my concern to a number of people about what was happening, but i can't remember a specific conversation with mr. miliband. perhaps there was one, perhaps there wasn't. i did raise it with mr. craig i remember at one point. >> okay. now, may we look to the future now, mr. brown, and recommendations? [laughter] we know what you said in 2007,

and we've seen that speech, the excerpts of which you kindly provided us with. your witness statement at page 14212 you set out some ideas for the future. >> yeah. >> and the internal numbering is page 6. which we've considered. but can i just pick up some themes and where we are? statutory backstop, could you elaborate on that? and differentiate between that and state regulation of the press. >> can i just say by way of introduction to this section that i would make a distinction between two roles that this inquiry might have and, indeed, the way that further self-regulation or regulation may go.

i think there is the issue of dealing with wrongs that have to be righted, redressed for individuals who have a complaint to make. and i've said i think pretty clearly in my evidence that i don't think the present system much is it maybe the better part of the complaint's commission dealing with complaints is satisfactory. the second aspect, however, that you would urge you to -- i would urge you to look at is not just how we can deter the bad, but how we can incentivize the good. if i'm right, there was a problem developing in this but also every advanced country in the world about the quality of journalism and the commercial basis on which it can proceed. and if in the 19th century you have big proprietors and in the 20th century you have advertising that manage to finance quality journalism, there is a big issue about what can incentivize or give support to quality journalism in the future. so i would just want to make by way of introduction if you're dealing with that, yes, we can

look at a better complaint system, and you have, sir, put on the web site, i think, very, very good guidelines for how we might proceed in sorting that issue out. and i believe there will be all party support to do so, and i know that that is important to you that there is all party support. but we have to look at a second issue about the quality and standards of journalism and how that can be improved and what we can do to help good journalists actually be able to survive based on their ability to sell their content across the media, not just across newspapers. and that may demand quite radical thinking about how we incentivize this for the future including what happens to the bbc license fee, what happens to spectrum auctions and the fees that come from that. and i think these are all issues. there is going to be a real problem in the next 20 years

the leveson inquiry is concluded and this afternoon we are showing highlights from this week's testimony about the british investigation into the connection of press and politicians. prime minister david cameron was asked about inquiry during this weeks question time in the house of commons.

american politics has been distorted, so this idea that the further we move away from the left a closer you get to bad things. one is fascist, another one is and another sex is so in some ways american political life is a conservative winning an argument. former british prime minister john major testified tuesday before the loves and inquiry into the relationship between politicians and the press. he says during his time in office he was often too sensitive about media reports written about him and felt the

press and politician should remain distant and their relationship rakove is part of his testimony last about an hour. >> well, of course there's a natural symmetry between the press and politicians. the politicians, all of them, myself included, would like to have a supportive press. the press has a quite different objective. they need stories, and they wish to sell their newspapers, so it was quixotic not for me to be close to the press. wasn't able to seek to impose and in a way that i had editorial support in particular. i did not do that, a because i thought i wouldn't do it very well and i am sure i wouldn't do it very well but secondly i did think it was rather undignified. i think there is a different world for the press and the government. the role for the government and politicians is too as best as they can run the country and determined what legislation is

correct for it. the role of the press it seems to me is to hold the government to account. they may do that fairly or unfairly. but i think once you begin to meld those roles, then i think neither the politicians nor the press are doing their job properly that they are best fitted for. and so i thought it may have well up and quixotic in most people tell me it was -- i thought a relative distance between the press and the government and particularly myself was a good idea. now it would be easy to misunderstand that. and to say that indicated a hostility between me and the press. i wasn't hostile to the press. indeed when i first became prime minister i tried, not only tried try but i did go back to the lobby from which i think they excluded themselves if i remember correctly. i think that appointed press secretary who i thought would serve the press well beyond

controversial, and would be able to speak in a manner that the press would accept it as being authoritative, so i was keen to build a good relationship and let me not pretend anything otherwise. but i thought to close a personal relationship was probably not for me. >> in one of your colleagues patentee used the word to meaning in this context. is that a term which you would associate yourself with? >> i prefer undignified. i don't think it's the role of the prime minister to call out the press and i think it is an undignified if it is done to obviously if it is done but if it is done obviously i think there are clear downsides to that at the time. identified in paragraph 6, your lack of close relationship with any part of the media may be being a country bidding factor too, and you list three aspects,

hostile media, mistake in judgment the media made about you and a close relationship with the media by your immediate successors. would you agree it's difficult to disentangle cause and effect in relation to those matters? >> it's very difficult to disentangle cause and effect and it was partly my own fault that the relationship with the press was not very close. i had just indicated why i thought it ought not to be and clearly that was not very amenable to some sections of the press but if i may i would like to make clear, i didn't come here to complain. it's not my press coverage 15 to 20 years ago. that is long since gone and i've long since moved on from that. i don't want to waste my time or yours company about that. i think i can explain while it was more hostile. i think firstly, i didn't inherit the naturally close affinity that might predecessor had earned with the press over overlong period of time. i hadn't earned it and i didn't

have it. and on a human level, i think from the point of view of the press, if they have a prime minister they don't know and the prime minister who seems to them to be keeping his distance more than they believe perhaps he ought, it is perfectly understandable that it is easier to be hostile about people you don't know and it is about people you know well. i think that is a basic human emotion, and i think that was one of the reasons why they were in my judgment less well-informed about some of the things we thought and we did at that time, and it worsened after 1992 in the early 1990s to 1992 period. i certainly wouldn't claim the press were especially hostile. they observed a more even

position, the sort of position that i think is probably correct at all times. referred to your disengagement in the first sentence of paragraph 7, but would it be fair to say though john, that you were very sensitive about what was written about the press? >> is certainly would be, yes. i wouldn't deny that it all in retrospect. it is certainly true. i was much too sensitive from time to time about with the press wrote. god knows in retrospect why i was, but i was. and i think you can explain that in human terms. if you pick up the paper each day and read the caricature of what you believe you are doing and what you believe you are, then i suppose it is a race acumen in motion to get a bit bratty about it and in time to time i did. friends for kind enough to carry out in public so it became more widely known. it is not something i deny in

retrospect. i was too sensitive. >> if i may put it in context, the press to me advertise, it was a source of wonder. i woke up each morning and i open the morning papers and i learned what i thought that i didn't think when i said that i haven't said and what i was about to do that i wasn't about to do. >> i've had that same experience. [laughter] >> it's very interesting and it goes on for quite a long time. it does go on as well for me for a long time. >> well i do hope not. i wish you every success. but it is a bit wearing, and i freely confess that i probably overreacted to that, and my overreaction was principally a human reaction but of course as prime minister you do need to know what is being written, because people read it and use me to try to counter it and most crucially of all you are likely

to be asked about it. in those days we had them twice a week, not once. and what appears in the media generally and the written press particularly is likely to be fodder for the questions you will get at the prime minister's question time so there was a practical need to know what was going on. but i'd bred them too much? yes, do. was at hurtful sometimes? yes i was. did i think it was malicious? i think that is for others to make a judgment about. >> i've been asked to raise this. did you phone mr. mckenzie after black hyundai to ascertain the sons response? >> i did. very bad mistake. i hadn't done so before and i was certainly never going to do so again. it wasn't a very successful phonecall and it is a assumed arab mythology. >> not necessarily.

john do you wish to -- >> i have read the substance of the alleged conversation with a degree of wonder and surprise. if the conversation has proceeded as i read it and perceive it than i do not think i would have forgotten it. neither do i think that mr. mckenzie would have been invited to downing street 12 months later as he was on one occasion. so perhaps my memory is very faulty indeedand d., but i certainly don't recollect the same conversation that has been circulated from time to time. >> i've think that might be quite useful if you can give me a recollection for quite different purposes. >> my recollection is quite plain as to what the substance was. it was on the day of black wednesday when things have gone horribly wrong. there are more myths about lack wednesday than the greeks ever created. and, at this very conscious toward the end of that day that it was going to be so and it was

suggested to me, and i can't recall whether it was my press secretary of my principle private secretary, that i might phone up one or two to see how they had viewed it from the outside. and one of the names of just did was that of the editor of "the sun" because plainly they had a bigger circulation newspaper. and iphone that to mr. mckenzie first, to explain to him what lay behind what had happened, and secondly to see what his respective babbitt was. as to the conversation itself i frankly can't recall it in any detail. i would have recalled the bit that bid that was centered mythology. i'm sure i would not -- affect. ..

that is the public so my perception of it. i was always struck when i went away from the chattering search your in westminster, how different was the attitude of people away from not. and so, i must say i found

anybody to a considerable degree, even in difficult times, but generally. but i think the caricature -- i think the caricature did have an effect as it has done upon other people. but that isn't new. brother, the caricature of him at the time. so there's nothing particularly new about that. it has been a part of the press coverage that politicians have to live with for a very long time. >> in paragraphs eight now, john, the second in particular, the media applied standards that were far short about was expected. he made the same point on page 359 of your book to rupert murdoch on the same day. can i ask you to elaborate on that, please? >> the british press is very like a curate's egg.

there's a very good parts of the press and arrest them parts that are not good at all. i am referring to the parts that has the standards. they don't report the news accurately. they tend to deal in caricatures. they tend to take a particular point and stretch it beyond what is reasonable need. you may remember the first film of mr. chad. mr. chips refers to a boy who is always exaggerating not to attend in this examination result. the worst part of journalism was exactly that. he takes some and that has a tiny kernel of truth in it, perhaps and it stretches it yawned where you would naturally or honestly go. and i think that is very bad journalism. and i suppose one message that i have had a lot of time to

reflect upon over the years is you cannot see the british press as a single entity. nobody should do that. it is not the case of every part of the british press this behaves. it is the case i believe that some of it misbehaves. and what i hope will emerge from this inquiry and thereafter is action that will take -- that will lift the worst of the press to the standards of the best of the press. nobody wishes to restrain their national freedom. nobody wishes to determine what they should put in the papers. but i think if what they put in their papers as grotesque, then i think there is a balance between the freedom of the press to print what they like in the liberty of the individual to be different things that are untrue, unfair or malicious and we may come to that later.

>> aircraft nine, mr. john come you covered this entire paragraph with the phrase construct detention captures in your view the best relationship between the media and senior politicians. and in paragraph 12, and you do with the risk inherent in too close a relationship. can i just ask you to develop paragraph 12? >> if i can tell you a word about construct detention, construct detention is what i was referring to before the fact that the press and politicians have a quite different role and it's not going to work properly. the price is great for shoe, as i see a comment is that they have a daily pulpit to hold the governments and politicians to account. you cannot do that properly or fairly if there is an excessive degree of choppiness between politicians and the media. that is why i think you need a

degree of distance between them. the best of journalists are scrupulously honest. we can't expect every journalist to be among the very best. but the best isn't very good, which is i reiterate the point and the distinction between the good, the bad and ugly with congress to talk about journalism as a whole. in terms of the melody of news and comfort, i think it has melted to a very good stand. i have quite a lot of sympathy with the press about those coming to the nature of modern communications and 24 hour satellite channels and television channels, there is actually a surprisingly small amount of news in the classical sense that it actually comes to the newspapers to launch upon an unsuspecting public. by the time people pick up newspapers, the news has been absorbed in the early morning

breakfast programs in the 24 hour satellite programs. and this presents, it seems to me, a proper media. they either reprint what is stale or they find a new angle to it. and yet something has happened, but why did it happen? who was responsible? what is the impact upon people? they take an angle and stretch it because that is all they can do because the news is still bound. but it's already been reported. so i have some sympathy for that. there's also the second point of the melting as though opera news. you would keep that apart. and it seems to me, the comments in the press falls in several different layers. if i can restrict myself to political comment, which is clearly what i'm most familiar with. some of it on both sides of the defense is excellent. it's very good.

you may disagree with it, but it's well thought out, well written and it is worth reading. some of that, there's a handful come as much into self-promotion as anything else. and i think this common treaties barely worth the name. there is a lot that could comment in the british media. and it knows you could use because i think newspapers have little choice to let it do so. your upon your level seems to have fallen and i suspect that trend is likely to continue with more people reading newspapers online, for example and the growing anti-by the 24 hour media channels. so here i have a good jealous that they got the proprietors face. >> thank you. paragraph 12, the person myself and just contacts, which comes too close.

>> yes, i do. if you have to close a relationship -- when they first enter a caveat. very genuine friendships between some politicians and some journalists. i can think of a number of journalists who i would regard as friends and still do. but i think there is a danger with the artificial friendship that has struck out because of the mutuality of interest in the politician wants good coverage in the press wanted inside stories and i think you do see too much of that and you see it manifested with stories in the media that are obviously leaks from within government. often they are quite malicious. after they are focused on denigration of another particular, more often than not in the same party. and i think that does damage

politics. things are regarded as two splits within government, when in fact they are the perfectly proper examination of policy between ministers in terms of reaching the position. it is a fallacy to believe in any political party that there is one strand or thought in my own party, the conservative party is an amalgam of different strains. we have a right wing left wing, center. they are all equally conservative, but they are different sorts of conservatives and in determining policy, they will pitch in different ideas. when someone starts most private determination of policy, it is easily presented as a split. it is a scoop. there's a disagreement government and the foreign secretary. well, of course you put average cabinet size 20 intelligent people and not different views. no point in having 21 because

they all think exactly the same way. and i think that close relationship whisks those private discussions out in public and worse, offers the opportunity to those seeking favor at the press and then offer inside stories either of their colleagues or of either political punches. we've seen a lot of that over the period in parliament. >> thank you. and the related contacts, miami forward paragraph 16, when you referred to the development of party taken on the road of press secretary to the prime minister and all spare. you cover that they would also cover that in paragraph 32 and 33. in that sense, what you see other problems in here and there. >> this is an innovation in

1997. i think the background to it is that the incoming government saw the conservative government 90s to to 97 with the civil servants ran in the press offices spread across and i thought there were opportunities to be gained in the presentation of them is if those particular jobs were held by people with a particular opinion rather than what the dependence of the civil service and that is the background. and in 1997 come in number 10 and across whitehall, political appointments were made to the circus. i think that was a very rich repeat that. i disagree with the very strongly and i always have. but thanks us for several reasons. once you have a political appointee that if an independent civil service, the word of the government would no longer

question it. it is no longer a question. with an independent civil servant, depressed flabby they were going to forget you should have got the unvarnished truth without any political class or spin. now, we've had political spin forever. every politician since the dawn of time would put a gloss on some theme to ensure that is presented in the best possible light. we've all done it. everyone does that. but i think there is a distinction between the gods and a deliberate attempt to deceive and the way in which the news is presented. and my concern is when she moved toward the politicization of the government information service, which is what applies, you did move into a sphere, with the news could be rather than presented accurately and without spin to the media at large. and i think you also saw some other things, which journalists

are better able to talk about and mentioned to me, people given the story of another people weren't and presenting them with a particular tilt so that when the story hit the public news immediately, it had a favorable tilt to the government rather than a neutral or unfavorable tilt. ahold rejecting site, which ensure this inquiry has heard of. so i won't tediously run through them all. but in short, i think the straightforward, clear cut certainty of an honest presentation of policy from the information service that was there when you have civil servants presented on behalf of the government was lost when you move to a political information service. the >> your proposal in relation to that is set up in paragraph 33,

page 443. paragraph 8, the government service went again put the civil servants in try to contact an published regularly. can they be clear what you mean by private contacts? are you intending to cover all social private meeting? >> now, i had in my mind when i wrote that the lunches that tape plays and the meetings that take place, i was in thinking a private weekend contacts. it never occurred to me that they might be -- i said people had a private life as well and it never occurred to me they may be used in an unfavored way, so i didn't have that in mind. i do make the point is that her -- i can make the contribution. the return of the civil service of an information service would be a fairly good move. frankly publishing press lunches and private contacts because of

some value, but it's only a limited value. you certainly, for example couldn't give an example. i say some inane and returning to the government service to the civil service has some downsides and i can see that, but overall those who benefit to good government and an honest perception of what government is doing. >> subparagraph c. and d. will take this at the end of your evidence when you do at paragraph 41 through 48, which are prescription for the future. can we go back to paragraph 17 please, john? and a section which deals with general election? and the risk to the public interest and subparagraph anb at paragraph 17 to elaborate on those?

>> well, i'm really looking for the personification of the ideal, but i think there is a difficulty over his long time, they become more politicized. instinctively we say and newspaper as outlined to this or that philosophy, to a particular philosophy. if you pick up any of your daily papers. i'm not able, but when i was reading them regularly before the second of may, 1997, you could pick up a whole range of papers and read quite different reports of the same subject. and that shows the extent, which newspapers have become politicized and in a sense, part of the political process themselves. i think when you come to the general election, and is the relationship between senior

politicians is particularly close. there are some risks in the public interest. if i may define the public interest, it is that the media report accurately fairly and fully what the politicians are saying about the impact could be on the public. that ideal is that i would like to see. what we do in fact see is that where the factual news like that, which may be relatively unsexy and bear stearns is pushed aside in favor of more newsworthy to not copy of political stunts. how did the politicians get to the public? they get to the public through television or radio. on television they make it a one minute spot if they are lucky. on the radio, a bit longer. but usually with an adversarial interview. by proposing by proposing that spent 10 years ago you said something mildly different. so they pressed a very important and carried the message to the

public. but if the message to the public is, perforated by the particular editorial stance of the newspaper or because hard news is a mandate in favor of stunts and rather wild beaches come which are new see it, but not really very serious come up in the public are given much fast than they ought to have and make in their mind after a general election. i have no solution to that. i see that political reporting is covered. but the natural instincts of the newspapers the proprietors and educators. i see also the politicians will use the newspapers this week to ban to launch things particularly favorable to them or damaging more often than not their opponents. all of this is part of the game of politics no doubt, but somewhere down the middle, what about public? the public is lost.

it gets all the stories, but doesn't actually get a clear-cut information about the government proposes and what it would actually meet people said that they may make a reminds a general election? i honestly don't did they do anymore and i think that's the last because it's a huge and important role for newspapers to play, should plan to play. >> thank you. and before we get to paragraph 21 burrito with the particular conversation, but i ask you to please look at your exhibit at jm one, under path to the bundle we prepared, which is a table of meetings and hospitality perceived and provided to proprietors and senior editors when you were prime minister down to page h. 168. when you divided this between different proprietors and senior

editors. so we can see, for example, we just take the first page, random that conrad lott, of course his owner of the telegraph until 2004, where i think five, six meetings that had over the relevant period, is that right? the next six meetings over seven years. >> if you look at rupert are back on the second page from his ear 869, are there any three meetings recorded, first on the 14th and may, 1992 mcteer then press secretary, is that correct? then 1993 and second february february 1997. not that last that will come to in a moment. mr. murdoch, not much for recollection of his meeting with you. what can you throw some those

meetings have been a quick >> add-on of touch by recollection with mr. murdoch. they claimed they were unmemorable to expose. which maybe why they were so so few of them. i have absolutely no recollection of the 1992 meeting. there are two diaries that downing street. there's one diary, which lists the meetings that the prime minister is scheduled to have been the second diary come which lists the meetings of the prime minister did actually have. things get canceled, other things to shoehorned in. i have compiled or have the source compiled in the second of those diaries coming meeting at the prime minister actually hunted. so i am assuming my meetings with mr. murdoch on the 14th of may, 1992, did actually go ahead. i have to say it back shortly no recollection of that whatsoever. almost uniquely was a briefing for my press secretary for me to

raise the mr. murdoch from nature for the coverage in this newspapers. and so it is a meeting i would have thought i would have remembered. i don't have any recollection of that at all, which makes me wonder whether when i had the diaries that it did at the beginning of august. i don't recall it at all. >> s. jm five which is tied 608188. we can see that it is dated the 18th of august, 1993, which is the apparent meeting, prepared by mr. o'donnell. and we can see that it says. first paragraph, mr. murdoch

particular came to hear your views on the u.k. economy, given her a box high level of debt, he came to see and chase. sure that apply to everybody. overall diffuser antiunion, pro-free-market. price given the scary business. he keeps saying governor mckenzie in the states keep up-to-date on the british scene. this explains remarkably frequently obtains very passages of what's happening here. it's also clear that murdoch is aware of outline terms of the line taken by his papers. however, never much doubt whether he reads them regularly. you associate yourself with that opinion? >> not entirely. i'm sure he read the newspapers. and i would be very surprised if he wasn't aware of more than an outline of the line taken by his newspapers.

from all i understand, he gave a great deal of the cream of attitude to the times, quite properly in my view in "the sunday times," which is a sort of house pet. so i'd be very surprised if he was a much of where ben o'donnell suggested in his note. but we did have some important things to discuss. and if i can pick up some of those points you raised, the day i became prime minister, inches streets were 14%. they went at. we went to the exchange rate, it was in order to bring interest rates down. the myth repeated over years has interest rate spread out during the period we're in the exchange rate mechanism. in fact they came down from 14% on the day i became prime minister to 6% when i left and came rattling down during the period we were in the exchange rate mechanism except for black wednesday when i went up and

came down again the next day. so they came down consistently. in the message i wish to give to mr. murdoch was actually the british economy actually started recovering. you can see this very clearly now in retrospect. actually started recovering in the first quarter of 1992, when you are still in the exchange rate mechanism and continued thereafter. i was so secure. i don't think we made the point often enough. in 1997 we actually handed over an extremely good economy. i can't think what a better economy was handed over. from the beginning of 1992 until 2001, you had clicked every single quarter, which is pretty unprecedented in the message i was hoping that the meeting took place was that we were on track towards the recovery and it was accelerated. we were looking at how to leave the exchange rate mechanism.

we never saw the exchange rate mechanism as a first step towards a single currency and that must've been evident to everybody because i've paid enough doubt in 1991 to ensure that we did not enter the single currency. i was not in favor of the single currency. i was in favor of getting inflation down and i was in favor of it because i remember as a child but it is like when the money runs out before the week wins out. and that is what inflation did. so i was prepared to take a great deal of political pain to keep interest rates at place to get inflation down. and i know it's painful politically. more important is painful for people at the other end of these high interest rates. but when we had done it, we had over the decade of low -- low interest rates and solid growth. and that is about it was about

because we've seen for generations governments run away from inflation. inflation icon, interest rates rates gone up, then a bit painful. you have this constant curve of inflation coming up, going down, coming up. that is that the exchange rate mechanism was about. and that was what i was hoping to explain to mr. murdoch, that we've started that recovery, that there is still a long way to go in the whether is necessary, i can't remember. >> point been on the next page, 189, we don't know of course whether this message was communicated, but this is a buyer flying that mr. o'donnell was inviting you -- >> which is why he put it in square brackets. it's guarded because he knew he doesn't delivered it. so is mr. murdoch it would have been the sort of thing a prime minister was sagely proprietary.

and i wouldn't have said it. >> it might have been interpreted. >> it was -- >> it is. >> as i've said it, that is exactly what it would have been. >> it wouldn't have been appropriate to say that and i wouldn't have said it. >> earlier that month -- >> if i had said it, i'm sure mr. murdoch wouldn't have remembered. >> earlier that month, john, we see that the date, you and others were invited to a special celebration associated with new sky tv channels. this is under tab four, our page 08182. and mr. o'donnell on this

occasion says at the jan, do you want me to discourage other cabinet members from attending the launch? and whose handwriting is that with the double lines and the yes? >> that is me. that is same to me, yes, i would wish them to discourage cabinet from attending the launch. >> and the reason is pretty obvious i think. >> can i go then to the conversation, which are recall having on i think the second of february, 1997, paragraph 21 of your state page 08438. this was a dinner. i think your wife is there as well. but in your own words, could you tell us what happened in so far as the material to your inquiry? >> just before the 1997 election, it was suggested to me that i had to try and make to

get closer to the murdoch press. and i agreed that i was inviting to mr. murdoch to dinner. then i had a dinner in february february 1997. it became apparent and discussion mr. murdoch said this is no surprise to me that he didn't like public policies. he wishes to change public policies. if i couldn't change policies, his papers could not and would not support the conservative government. as i recall, he used the word we

went referring to his newspapers he didn't make the usual nod towards editorial independence. there was no question of me changing our policies. we had a great deal from sir james goldsmith to set up the referendum party because he disagreed with our political publicized and wish to have a referendum on leaving the european union. so mr. murdoch and i did not perceive that. we did not pursue that matter. my feeling, and he did not say this. my feeling is that what he was edging towards was a referendum on leaving the european union. but i made clear that was where i thought he was going by what he said. we did not actually get there. i made it pretty clear that we were going to change in the european policies. i think i said it's in the interest of the country and we

moved on to other matters. >> of the conversation in your book on page 709 is somewhat more appalling. he say in 1997, you are referring to this dinner. he made no offer, giving a fuller version now and that put you -- >> i haven't talked to that in this conversation at any stage in the past 16 years. but i am now asked the question and i think that the question. this is a private discussion. there is nobody else there except my wife and elizabeth murdoch. so i thought in that autobiography is appropriate to be a little more of a comic. if i may say so, despite how frank i was in the autobiography, their other areas

for him this iconic as well from time to time. >> clearly it has an impact on you because of those you use the words so far as i recall, you just said he didn't make the usual nod to a towards independence and referred to his paper asked me. so, reading between the lines, that is some thing that struck you at the time and has remained in your memory. >> it is not likely that she would forget. >> i understand. >> it is not often the month is in front of a prime minister and says, prime minister, i would like you to change your policy. and if you don't change our policy, my organization cannot support you. people may often take that, they may often react, but is not often that point is direct did and to put a prime minister that fashion. so it's not likely to have been something i would have

forgotten. >> i've been asked to raise this to you in relation to paragraph paragraph 21 so that mr. murdoch's title date posts. currently "the sunday times" can do need to support the conservative party and the times position more equivocal to anybody who happens to be anti-europe. >> may i please have a definition of support. if you make debate right editorial in the least of all evils of the conservative party, the answer is probably that they did. if you mean, with their news coverage day in and day out, morning after morning, we can after weekend, but i'd have to say to you that i think it wise. so i think i would prefer to have less of the editorial support and work the equitable news coverage. >> affirms support for labor, might it be sad that mr. murdoch likes to backwardness.

>> i don't think there's any surprise. i'm surprised "the sun" was always so embarrassed. maybe it was something they should've been embarrassed in retrospect. after all they have about the conservative party in 1992 in 1997, how could they come in all credibility have been said despite all we have written over the past five years, we actually invited to go for these people we've been telling you are useless. i think that would've been a quite difficult editorial position to take. so i wasn't surprised they decided they would support our neighbor. neither do i think they needed to go through this silly charade of an article with mr. player and overnight decide they begin to support the labour party because it's do-gooder chris

sharad. it was a perfectly credible reason for the newspaper not to decide to support us. we have no particular reason to expect them to support us. they couldn't say that conservatives have been there 18 years. it's too long. democratically we want somebody has to be in government. they could also have said quite legitimately the labor party had changed. new labour did change. the labor position from where it had been to the turn-of-the-century many ways. it is perfectly credible. i remember joking ones that i don unless i close on the riverbank. when i came back, mr. blair was wearing them. there is a whole series of good reasons why south winds could perfectly have said the tory government are exhausted and democratically we need a change. so i wasn't surprised when they

changed. did they change over european policy? i don't take so despite my conversation. how could they have? i had catbert nodded the euro. i had introduced legislation to ensure that any government had to have a referendum, which led to the following. and the labor party's position, mr. blairs, mr. mandelson, in 1999 were still that they should go into the euro. and i was stopped because of disagreements within the labor party and disagreements with the chancellor of the exchequer. so they could hardly switched on european policy if mr. murdoch on the international were cool about europe, which i think is a fair description. it was not a sensible job to move from the prime minister that was supposed to the euro to a prime minister that is going to be in favor of a euro.

so i don't think the change had a great deal to do with the european policy. it may have had a great deal to do with supporting after what they have said about us. and it may have had something to do at the position we've taken on calcutta, which i think will come to later or if the old cutting act which will come to later. but i don't think in retrospect, not logically anyway it will become because of our european policies. >> we has to deal with the 1992 election. you have indeed paragraph 23 and you are asked to do with this in your own words. you are clearly expressing this in your book. contrary to the commentators are conservatives were likely to lose that election, your view at the time was otherwise. as i write quite >> it always was. i mean, i disliked the sort of

politicking that was done in television studios and from radio studios to cut you off. you are cut off from the public at large and diverse for that reason that i went out to start holding public meetings again, even on a soap.during that particular election. and the response was such that i simply could not believe that we are going to lose that particular election. the opinion polls that we were going to lose it. the wife had said we were going to lose it. before suspect says elections set for record to lose that, but it didn't feel that way. he didn't feel that way to me. they felt that way on the street. there was a warrant for

suggested we were going to win that election. and the only occasion that favor and that was when i find out from a think it might've been birmingham, but i can't be certain, chris patten in the opinion polls had seven or 8% behind and chris had copies of that. that's the only time i wavered. but only very briefly then because the next team at the crowds, it was a quite different feel. i may have been delusional, but i thought all the way through that we were going to win that election. i was as clear cut about that as i was about know we were going to be an difficulty in 1997. i thought it was going to be very difficult in 1997. so i generally did believe we're going to win. and as it happens, we got pretty much the biggest plurality of those that any party and had for a very long time. we actually got more votes than any political party in history

in 1992. but the distribution of the vote and the knowledge distribution of the can to choose the boundaries meant we only had a majority of 21 despite a huge lead and does and the majority of 21 and so not everyone was steady on parade as we were subsequently to find out. i did think we could win always. >> what is your assessment of the impact of "the sun"'s coverage, particularly the treatment, if that's the way of putting a click >> well, it was a pretty crude campaign before and it was over the top. how much does that affect the election? labour party mythology had made a huge difference. i don't actually think so. i think the news coverage and 92 and 97 accelerated the trends that existed. i do not think it changed the

result of either of those general elections. i think we would have won in 92 and we would've lost in 1997. but it was a pretty way over-the-top campaign and their attacks on mr. canning. if i could say something about mr. cammack, i didn't know him at all until he became leader of the conservative party and everyone else i had read about people, i found in dealing with him a very different man. he had this fiery oratory and that is something people picked up on and attack him for. camille kinnick idea what is prime minister and he was so leader of the labor party was very straightforward. the fact that tim is straightforward if with an agreement to stay private. if you give me his word come he kept his word. it sounded very straightforward to deal with.

and my judgment, a much more considerable person than she was portrayed as being in the media i had seen before a came to know him. >> going in to move forward now because we have covered leading ground already. at which he says to the future i'm going to cover it beyond. paragraph 49 now, which is page 08449. you say as far as you can recall the press made no formal, no director for my representations of the last conservative government on matters affecting the formulation of poverty on the media itself. and then you say, we were however regularly exposed to views on all including media policies through their editorial. satisfy your recollection goes,

you can remember no express lobbying view on media issues. is that right? >> no. i mean, i've listed my contacts with the media. such lobbying would only have come from proprietors or editors. as you will have seen, the number of meetings with them is relatively limited over a seven-year period and i don't -- i don't recall many lobbying of any sort, no improper lobbying, no legitimate lobbying. they express their views in the newspapers and of course we saw that. and to the extent that he was president, it was take into account, but there is no direct lobbying. >> deicide media campaign and editorials goes without saying that the media did speak to influential policy. >> is perfectly proper for them to express a nothing wrong with that.

if they were going to be affected by legislation, the right to express their views. they may well have expressed their views in the consultation. we had over counsel in things like that and it's perfectly proper for them to express the view in the newspapers. i have no problem at all and that is what they should do. >> in paragraph 50, you identify one instance, whereas you said about eight lines down that paragraph that proposition to the peace process often cross the boundary of fair comment. but where exactly is that boundary is in general the media are entitled to express their view? >> this is what i mean by tilted recording. i think most people would agree in retrospect that if we had begun the peace process in northern ireland and early 90s and is mr. blair had carried it on after i left office, there would not have been the

president peaceful situation that a success it's the last few years in northern ireland. it's very different from the northern ireland that existed in the 1970s and 1980s. when we began, the northern ireland peace process, when robert randolph and i began it, there was a lot of opposition to it for different reasons. some people were opposed because they thought it is going to be a sellout to the united ireland. other people politically were opposed to it because they thought it was the total game and it was thought to do something with the lights on in the government would be made to look very foolish. there were senior government to thought we had not to go down the route of the peace process because it would end in tears and it would damage. but we did go down only began to make real progress with the downing street declaration in 9318 with john goodman the irish prime minister and the framework agreement soon with robert

randolph and the framework agreement with john bruton. and the framework document was leaked to the times from the very hostile unionist size. i am pretty sure i know what it is, but not absolutely certain. that may simply say it came from a resource that was very hostile to the northern irish peace process. and very late in the day, the time spring of the downing street press office said we're about to run a story. you have any comments? and they contacted me and i said, well, this story got hold of the draft as a framework document. but the narrative that has gone with it is entirely wrong. it gives entirely the wrong depression of overly feed into a problem that could break up the peace process. it is always fragile. it was always late plane with a multifaceted group to keep all the different component parts

together. and i said it could be very damaging if this is printed. it was said to the times, look, this story, firstly as from. secondly, it's come from a bad source. in thirdly, if you print it as your apparently propose to print it, you could do very great harm to the peace process. please don't do it. and they went ahead and printed it as they had planned, with a tiny little bit because they came to us thursday for comment, simply saying it wasn't accurate. and cost, that night when the first editions came in, absolute mayhem and the house of commons. i remember a big night meeting in my room, and the house of commons, pat was angry conservative members of parliament, who instinctively pro-unionist and thought as a result of that that we were selling out the union. in that meeting was saved by several things at the assurances

, not just by me, but by the assurances given to them by patrick mayhew, who they liked and respected them in northern ireland secretary and also lord cranmore and who is the leader of the house of lords known to be a very strong unionist who made it clear to colleagues that the story was wrong and that we were acting in good faith that we were not selling out the union. we were trying to stop people killing one another in ireland. and it helped. in a few days later, some of the northern ireland churchmen, fire correctly, this was the occasion, also saw me and paint my personal assurance and then went back inside to their own communities that they should trust us and continue into the northern ireland process. now i think that was irresponsible and that is what i meant my comment here. i think it was irresponsible on an issue like this, when people's lives are at stake, to print a story when the

government had flatly said to them, and not a government i may say, that is generally thought to be untrue. the government actually said to them, don't do it. this is wrong. so is a very rare occurrence but it actually concern me a lot the time. >> thank you. moving generally i wanted to ardrey particular point you make in paragraph 51 if i make a page 0841, where do you draw a distinction to indie media's world and reflecting public opinion, which we understand and use of its power to do self-interest only one side of the text argument. can you elaborate on the second and third points, particularly the third? >> presenting only one side of a complex argument, i suppose the most obvious illustration is the reporting across a wide range of newspapers of the european union

over a long period of time, being from the commission demanding we had many things about the european union but i don't like. i think at the moment it's a very great bass, but this is not the occasion to talk about it. i didn't want to go into the era of fire he said. there were many things about the european union is in the interest of the united kingdom. very few of those actually found them into proper news reports. the things that were wrong with it found their way into news reports day after day after day and into editorial say after day after day. now i am not a euro celiac as i say i see lots of things wrong with that, more now than what might have imagined in the past. but it was unbalanced reporting and it is very complex. europe isn't easy. government these days isn't easy. these decisions were taken generations ago.

every group of politicians coming into office are now finding it more difficult in the multifaceted world to produce policy and their predecessors. i don't have any candy for people trying to govern people now for the next few years because it is so complex. if anyone thought if anyone's had a complex argument is presented, it takes root in the public mind. and as they say, there's many reasons to be opposed to the european union. but over the last 20 years or so, the tired negativity that has been served that day after day after day and month after month and year after year has presented only one side of a complex argument. one for gas, for example, that one reason the european union was formed was at the end of the second world war, the european nations for pancreatic and they looked around the world in a

sauna the power of the united states. they foresaw the power of asia and china and they said to themselves, if we don't get back together economically, we are going to be an world of economic china. until things went badly wrong because of overspending, they were beginning to show he could return to that. the other point is, i suppose, for a thousand years, and european nations have been abroad troopers so closely enmeshed now that this generation and the next generation and our grandchildren need never fear the contact of a war in europe. you don't find that sort of balance in fact it anywhere in the scale when people talk about the european union. that is the sort of imbalance that has calmed down after so many years of negative publicity. >> thank you. in paragraph 52 b. -- >> former john mayer was

originally set up to an sdk phone hacking by rupert murdoch newspaper. the inquiry is expanded to the relationship between the press and politicians. and this hour-long portion, mr. major talked about this practice for the press when he was prime minister in the 1990s. >> we arrived for a family holiday in portugal. and when we arrived there, we had learned from the maid, who didn't speak english, but we learned through the group in conversation with the interpreter that some newspaper had arrived before we could but did either talked or bribed their way through the holiday home, rearrange the furniture, took photographs and published the story is subsequently printed the story the photographs, i can no longer

remember. and my wife who is fairly tolerant of these things was not at all tolerant when it comes to dealing with our children in our family life. and she thought of the editor, mr. mckenzie to ask for an explanation. during the course of the conversation was told by mr. mckenzie that she and i had, i quote, no right to any privacy. after further exchanges, i believe he hung up on her. >> thank you. paragraph 61 now, mr. john, we are referring to are and i requested you to conversations you had with mr. mueller noted in his diaries. but one of these on the fifth of december 2000 you were recorded having said that you were, quote, the continual attacks by the murdoch person than the telegraph.

you set out in paragraph 61, your recollection of that conversation. but more importantly, you're accused mr. murdock generally. can i ask you to address that quite >> i don't remember the conversation with chris mullen. he's a pretty honest guy. and what he writes that ifad sounds very much to me is that when i it to him. although he sacked the other side of the political fence, he was something of a distant friend. but i mean to the sense to say to my house, but have a puritanical cast for bush or rather admired, so i did talk to mr. mullen. it's entirely late late that i said what he reports he's saying sorry he reported it as a private conversation, but it's entirely inaccurate. as to my view of mr. murdock, i was not a special admirer of mr. murdoch's activities as a

proprietor. i did recognize his enormous skills as a businessman that he built up sky, that he rescued the times in "the sunday times" in a possibly faced a very big future, that his sky channel offered a very diverse variety of very high quality programs. i think their sports programs and their wildlife programs are very high quality and had i recognize many of the things mr. murdock did, but i think mr. murdock, simply against acknowledgment is saving those newspapers and setting up that alternative on television channels is a very substantial contribution to the national life. the >> in terms of the aspects of his activities, we can see that at least one of them, in

paragraph 64, was referred to as having accepted influence over editorial bias that we understand that. but are there any other aspects you would throw into the mix? >> i think the principle concern i would have as i do think part of the press, and i do not enter this charge against all elements of his prize, i think part of the media empire have lowered the general quality of the british media. i think that is a last. i think it is evident about which newspaper i am referring to. they have lowered the term. i think the interaction of her politicians that have done that good either to press her to the politicians. i think the sheer scare the influence he believes to have,

whether he exercised it or not is an unattractive faster it and british national life. and it does seem to me an oddity that a nation which prides itself on one man, one vote we should have one man who can't vote with a large collection of newspapers on a large share of the electronic media outlet. now, i don't think you could or should, in a sort of diverse world, in which we live actually do anything about that. but it does strike me as slightly odd, but that actually is the position. >> thank you. now, you cover in paragraph 65 through 71, i think we have our detached on, but there oddities about paragraph 71. i think this may be relevant to the future.

808460. to your suggestion a two party lines would be necessary to do with the influence of mr. murdock in the policy is certainly something i believe to be true. you have no hope in securing such an intent with mr. blatter or pursue this action. but putting aside the power from now, third country mr. john, is it something you still think is necessary looking forward? >> i think it's probably necessary and certainly desirable. i have no idea what this inquiry will back a non. but if it makes recommendations that require action, then i think it is infinitely more likely that that action will be carried into legislation if it has the support of the major parties. if it does not, if one party breaks off and besides it's going to seek future favor with

powerful proprietors and press hounds by opposing it, then it will be very difficult for it to be carried into the period and i think that is something that is very important. i think there is a special responsibility and the leaders of the three major parties. 20 odd years ago, 23 years ago i think the minister said the press were taken in the last chance saloon. i think on this occasion is the politicians who are in the last chance saloon. at the end of this inquiry where the recommendations that may be made and i don't seek to forecast what they may be, but it's too documentation that i've made are not enacted nothing is done, it is difficult to see how this matter could be returned to in any reasonable period of time.

undoes price of the press which would behave badly will continue to behave badly and put out a disadvantage, those parts of the prius who does not behave badly. and i reiterate, the underlying purpose is to eliminate the bad behavior and bring it back to the level of the good and that that is just a cancer in the journalistic oddity. it isn't the journalistic idsa hole. i think in the interest is the best form it is important that whatever is recommended taken seriously by parliament and is in nothing more likely to be enacted if neither of the major parties decides to take partisan and short-term party politics by seeking to court the favor of an important media. who may not like what is proposed. ..

set up in 1991 and reported in january, 1993. can i go into paragraph 76 and

the overall assessment that it was not an effective regulator of the press and didn't hold the balance fairly between the press and the individual etc. the assessing which you agree that such an issue secretary of state who was then the secretary of state for the national heritage and to what extent as it were to acquire direct ownership. >> i didn't acquired in our ship of the issue. it was one of 20 or 30 issues that crossed the prime minister's desk. the fact the matter is he or she can almost never have direct ownership with an issue. it has to be subcontracted to the appropriate secretary of state and the appropriate cabinet committee and that is what happened with the report. i think my view that the report was necessary was well known and

understood and was the subject of correspondence. the day to deal in detail of examination which is a very complex matter it is not merely as simple as it looks as we found out to actually address these particular items that was predominantly in the hands of the secretary of state. although they were reported back to me and i became sutphen in the opinion of people to go back and look at something again for recognizing that it wouldn't work. but largely it was subcontracted. >> the response of government and you referred to this in paragraph 78 was to accept the recommendations in relation to criminal offenses and also further consideration be given to the introduction of a new choice of infringements of privacy. is that right? >> that's correct.

>> can i ask about paragraph 79. musette although the government agreed that the dcc had shown itself an ineffective regulation of the press it stays in the outset as extremely reluctant on grounds of principal to go down the statutory tribunal route without further objection. what were the grounds of principle which were bearing on this issue? >> the ground of principle that we have in mind is the freedom of the press to comment, and that is why we regarded the idea of the statutory tribunal announced very much a last resort and something that the time we had been attracted to. there was a very different balance, very difficult balance to be kept that i think has become crystallized between the early 1990's when we look at today. there's the extremely important principal of the freedom of the

press. the government cannot and should not dictate to the press what it should print. that is off the scale not possible and certainly not desirable and i don't know of any politician who would contemplate doing that. what we are seeing is that there are counterbalancing requirements. one is the freedom of the press. the other actually is the liberty of the individual inland by the press. there are many others that have given evidence to this inquiry or have not that could cite far worse illustrations than that and it isn't practical say they can always go to the law against the public of the proprietors. it isn't practical and in fact many of the elements or problems that the face of our simply not

credible to take to court. and so when we talk of the freedom of the press, which with i agree we do have to balance it with the rights of the individual coming and when we come to what i propose, that is where i have made an attempt to do so but i think at an earlier stage that balance needs to be recognized. freedom of the press by all means, but do not forget the individual liberty. freedom of depressed must not mean a license for the press ought to do whatever it should without hindrance. >> the thinking of 1993 was a statutory tribunal ruled on the grounds of principle might impinge on the freedom of the press in an unacceptable way. is that the gist of the sentence? >> that was the concern. >> is it a valid concern regardless they may be different?

>> they had more than one thing in mind. when people talk about freedom of the press, they have in their mind the fear that the government would actively regulate the content of what the press would publish wholly unacceptable. other people to a lesser view of what the freedom of the press might mean. i think the press should be free to comment in any way it wishes at any time it wishes but i do think it is then in place a credible mechanism to hold them responsible for what they have printed to ensure that irresponsibility and on fairness does not then creep into the reporting with the belief that they are immune from responsibility for what they say and do. >> taking the chronology forward in paragraph eda, you remind us of the national heritage select

committee on the media intrusion reported on the 23rd of march, 1993. it rejected the recommendation for statutory tribunal but recommended the statutory press which might be set up also recommended legislation to reduce the sort of infringement privacy in the new criminal offenses. of course at that stage we would look at the human rights act so october 2000 there wasn't a common law active pervvijze as such. we take the story forward in paragraph 8182 particularly about paragraph 82, the difficulties you salles at the time in relation to the definition of the new privacy. can you tell us about those? >> there were several difficulties with the privacy

and one of the difficulties is that it was a sort of privacy as a piece of legislation that has favored people that were relatively well-off and relatively well organized but without complete access to legal aid for every one wouldn't be available to be used by the vast majority of people so it was in the words one of my private secretaries put to me it could be portrayed as being a piece of legislation for you in your power but not for the public as a whole and it is a real concern that we were very wary of with the privacy. the other became apparent in the deliberations as the cabinet subcommittee is there was a jury substantial philosophical difference within the

conservative party as to the desirability of the tort for privacy. some thought that would be very difficult to frame and might only be unfairly framed and that would be unfair on the media. others thought it would provoke such a study that it would dwarf everything else the government were doing. others were simply philosophically on sure that it was the right time and the right place to actually go down that route. so people fell into quite different groups. there were several different reasons why people were opposed to a. curiously some of the lawyers are much more attractive to the heart of privacy than the criminal offenses. our information was that the press were not relaxed, but not very concerned about the risk of

criminal offenses of things like intrusion but there are very concerned about the port and privacy presumably because it could bring a huge raft of civil actions against them. they were not very concerned about the criminal clauses in and he said that is what they had told him in the discussion. i don't suggest they were enthusiastic. i suggested it was in a last-ditch determination of 24 against that. >> of the hostility that you referred to in that answer is likely to include if not dominated by hostility from the press itself is that right? >> can you give examples of press reported at the time it's

all the consultation on the select committee report the range of views from the independent financial times the daily mail page 0415 express themselves somewhat more stringently than the other papers i mentioned. >> you already had a range of -- >> the universe about deal of the opinions of the press that the tort in particular would be very damaging to investigative journalism that was their view

and the expressed it very forcibly in their newspapers and it was also the view of a member of colleagues in the subcommittee. >> and probably did not know that the had a number of people that took the same view inside of the subcommittee dealing with the recommendations. >> the prez influence in that way was a factor was it? >> it wasn't the factor. it is probably a factor with some of our colleagues. but it's difficult to know what is in someone's mind. you know what comes out of their mouth but what the motivating forces that causes it to come out of their mouth is not clear. it may be an instinctive philosophical view of their own and they may be influenced by what they've read. there are a number of colleagues that or did the same case as the press and the subcommittee.

>> it does say something does it not about the relationship between politicians and the press that you include with the concerns that you've identified, the risk that taking on a policy such as this would dwarf everything else that you wanted to do as a government because that somewhat echoes something that mr. blair said a week or so ago taking on the press would takeover of the time and actually have all sorts of other policies wished to promote. >> here we were talking about something that directly affected the press, and it was for that reason that i think it was potentially likely to be so serious. i think there are many cases. >> i think mr. blair was also talking about policies that affected the press. >> in that case i think that he and i would be in agreement on

that. certainly there was a universality of opposition to the torch in particular and the universality of the opposition that we thought what spell out beyond opposition to that in to the opposition on the wider areas of the policy as well. the government in effect would be tainted. i think some colleagues felt that and would be a general opposition to what the government was doing, not just in opposition fit to be to focus on that particular piece of legislation and at that particular provision. the was the concern that some colleagues had. >> the risk of the balance that gets out of kilter. it does push the balance out of kilter. the balance then is out of kilter. it is exactly why i regarded it as important. its action was taken. there was the consensus that leads. something may be right but it may not be possible to enact. one of the reasons, the principal reason at the end of the day, not the only reason the

principal reason at the end of the day when we were unable to enact is that we couldn't have gotten it through the house of commons. you cannot get something for the house of commons you are powerless. that is the difference between the government with a large majority can force something through the government with a small majority. it makes very dependent upon a handful of members of the parliament in your own party quite apart from your position that you would expect from parties other than you're own. so it isn't something in the real world of politics. the political position and whether you can carry something isn't something you can lightly brush aside if you are defeated and the government just looks weak and incapable carrying its

legislation. the truth of the matter is it is in the literal sense week because it doesn't have the votes. that is always the problem with the majority. and we at the time and had no workable majority. >> in paragraph 85, you said the government drew the two conclusions from the process of the consultation. deciding what has been in the summer of 1993. first it isn't believed that there was a public consensus on which to base statutory intervention. second, it strongly preferred the principal of the self regulation. but it was the principle which they told us hadn't worked wasn't it? >> self regulation was tried again and again and again. what i am referring to is not having a statutory press complained. i'm not referring to the fact it wouldn't have been desirable to enact the privacy if we could or other criminal offenses if we had been able to do so.

we were not able to do so. >> the hope was in paragraph 86, you address the consideration of the cabinet subcommittee you're not involved day today with that. consider the possibility of the enactment of the new criminal offenses and the possibility of a mystery pervvijze as well as the abdication of the pressure on the pc see to strengthen its of the regulation could be encouraged to reach the position on the regulation without a statutory trivial. that was aspirational, wasn't it? >> very. >> very aspirational. >> in the event which happened, we know that the the new statutory port of pervvijze and the new criminal offenses were not introduced, with a? >> no, they were not. they were not introduced.

they were not introduced because of philosophical differences. they were not introduced at the end of the day because there was concern among the government as to the drafting of those particular clauses, and they were not introduced ultimately for the ultimate reason that nothing was done was that wes simply could not have been certain of gettingo it throughou the house of commons. there was sufficient opposition within the cabinet to be certain there would be a larger degree of opposition within the parliamentary party. since there was no credible waye that i could have relied on the opposition party to pass legislation like that, i simplyt didn't have the majority to do it. so it couldn't be done. >> lord whitcomb, which was on the first of january, 1995, paragraph 91 of your statement.l >> overall do you think there was a positive step in terms of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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