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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or every other part of life. it can be done. people at the top cannot just wash their hands in pontius pilot fashion of what has been done in the name. there is a culture of getting stories. if that culture leads to wrong doing, then the culture needs to be looked at, and the culture needs to be change. and it can be changed by the people at the top. whether my prescriptions are right or wrong, i'm entirely prepared to believe that they may be wholly misguided and wrong, but i don't think the fundamental point is wrong. that it lies in the hands of those who own and control and run the

was really a exceptionally inspiring is once you realize this magnitude of difference you can make in public life everything else will pale in comparison. it was best put this week when someone from the white house came and said those who think that they are crazy enough to change actually do. >> the same man that kristopher was talking about, too many things that and not really focusing on the one thing that should be a top priority. >> what is it like to be done and now that i am in this role, what could i share with them

that either i wish i had known along the way or that they will remember when they read washington week which as you mentioned is a very intense rapid fire experience. so if you leave a few key encouraging messages at a time when you know it is very easy to be cynical about politics it's a good thing to encourage some people to pursue public service. >> now british deputy prime minister niquette clich testified for the love is an inquiry looking into the relationship of the press and politicians. he is also leader of the liberal democratic party and said the media paid no attention to him or his party until the 2010 elections. this portion is about a half an hour.

>> after the first tv debate there were three debates as we know of the 15, 2,729th of april there was coverage and some ofh. the press. first of all, what was your vie as to the objective realiti  put it

fy can put it there was sort of pragmatic. i was conscious of the fact tha from the public point of view many people were not really aware of who i was and what the beral democrats deutsch putting forward in the elections, so the widely watche television debates were a sort of new debt in that for the public was the fact that i wa there saying stuff that was the difference of david cameron and gordon brown that have an effec the most prominent alternative for something different it's no that surprising when an

alternative something different was put forward people responde to that but i have to say i never got swept away with it because i've seen them even in my time in politics fortunes  up and down quite rapidly it' about the business one spike or one opinion poll and tends not to. >> as it didn't in the defense in the final result of election day fell far short of the expectations which were sort of hyped-up around the time of the first television debate. >> there was one comment piece in the guardian on the 18th of april which is three days after the debate written by the bundle so he was editor in the late

90's if that is right. in 2002, 2003. and you made the point in your rise in the media leak out a politic indicates what his assessment of the proximity to the press. is that there? >> it is a project planned for the large parts of the press an the general election putting it too strongly when i say they were subject to indifference  he describes his own experien that there was almost a sort  instruction to provide or ign the democrats, so if that is what you are used to in the press it becomes a bit of a

shock i guess and suddenly  what a general election campaig was pretty ferocious after that because you were not going according to plan. if you place your bets in favor of other parties and suddenly they upstart intrude on the pla you start rushing out of it. a0a0a0a0a00

some of the media piece is between 526 through 29 committed daily mail express thatc8c9c9c99 telegraphs and taiwan, sub onec9  have under tab 29. but i suppose you say that if were not going to legislate for at and comment or in any event, this thing is inevitable and you just have to accept it. is that your view? >> the editorial of sub on on that day said that is why "the sun" makes the apology for th

vious warning for sub three at brown come which is one of the most inaccurate predictions. it doesn't mean why any alition should present th for making those predictions or warnings to delete. in fact, that is what editorial are about. they're about predicting partia opinions and i would defend t right of "the sun" 4% for all partisan views to my dying breath. he seemed to be barking up  wrong tree in this instance, bu9 that's theira9 prerogative.a9a99 >> thank you.a8a8a8a8a8a8a8 can we move now to paragraph 629 of your witness statementa9a9a99 please.a9a9a9a9a9a9 insert page 13810.a3a3a7a7a7a7

>> 13?a7a7a7a7a7a7a7a7 >> 810.a7a7a7a7a7a3a3a3a3 more at general elections now to the media can't pain.a3a3a3a3a33 again, can i ask you to develop1 the point you are makinga1 ther3 about newspapers being valuable7 campaign tools, but also whethe5 newspapers genuinely act in the5 public interest does reflect their constituencies? >> well, on the first point, do they act as if it campaignersn their own right? yes, they do. and often with great effect in fairly often i think to the benefit of the country at large some of the campaigns that mentioned here, "daily mail"'s

campaign on bringing to justice the brief campaign, entirely justified. the guardians dogged campaign such as recorded to not taking no for an answer and keep plugging away at the issue of phone hacking. i suspect if they hadn't stuck to their accounts we wouldn't be sitting here today. i remember being appalled with a number of media outlets on the mpaign to give retired soldiers to respect and support they deserve. again, my only point is as a politician, you quite rightly need to be dispassionate about which campaigns you act upon in which you don't. if we get to the point where the intensity of the campaign is very successful, that would not

be bright. it's whether the campaign is right in content as these three examples i have used our  down again, i think it is one o the great virtues of our press, certainly compared to press cultures to the democracy that we've got the start of campaigning video and i thinkc)) readers appreciate it and it's something we should celebrate. >> are there any risks to which you first see? >> as i said earlier, it's just simply government, in rticular, politicians and government have always got to b clear that they are deciding things in the public interest and for the benefit of the country as a whole and not ju in response to the loudest voices in the strongest campaig and the press. and that is in a sign stating

the obvious, but i do not think one should underestimate how, you know, how powerful it was orchestrated, press campaign. and of course the overwhelming campaign to want to respond on the positive and i think that will communicate to the public. but that's before politicians remain objective as much as the can and skeptical, but open to . new ideas. it can be a healthy thing. topic. this is under question and start to paragraph 36 is your ( ( ( (( statement. ( ( ( ( ( ( ( this is the issue of your own (( personal approach to engaging with media ( ( proprietary. in paragraph 86, who points out that they are private meetings0+

or0+ engagements or interaction! fall into three main categories at the formal meetings and interactions a social event and) informal discussions. and you differentiate between those in your exhibit. ur exhibit one, which is attached to 13817 were looking first of all i'd meetings bef you and the government 2000 name. and not with others who understand one stands in the next four pages, you see how a range of editors woke up and is it impossible really to pick ou y? you agree with?

>> looking back on it, i'm no sure this is irony, but the interesting thing is i actually feel that the regularity of my contacts, not just with editors and proprietors, but with journalist and political editors and so on, you mean come was tually much more in tents in opposition messages and vernment. and partly because of the physical location where i was working. you can physically share the same space in westminster as journalists to. and you always have passing conversations with any number o journalists. in the interesting thing is of course you're slightly more considering more cut off. and so, the nature of my

interaction with proprietors, itors and so on this is muc more formal and i would say muc more sparing now than it was when i was in opposition. not to contacts in opposition switches the underlying@l@,@l@ll significance towards the@l democrats which as they did to@( earlier.pápápá >> i guess one maturation to thá list, definitely a point which@l simply isn't@l anyone else, the, under@l the column, what discussed, which we can't always generally say in a party conference, and may be to be possibly counterproductive to have an elect the topic discussed on the particular occasions. but do you think that more information might be routinely

supplied or not? >> yeah, i mean, i think you ar u hard to provide aggravati accounts, and i mean, all of these meetings are a whole lot less intriguing and suspect t outside world might finish. a lot of them are really humdrum. but i suppose one could just come you know come in very telegraphic farm just mention two or three issues which republicans prevalent in a discussion. frankly, i just simply do not remember the precise content of a huge number of these interactions, not least those from some years. >> particularly you are not asked previously to record them and have been a formal system. of course they can't be unknown because that would ultimately destroy it the informality of some content.

but at significant times, do you have announced innovation on the idea of noting that were in two or three words general topics, just so that actually you would be able to refer back and say actually we never talked about   y, -- >> i wouldn't have a problem with that. i would now. if i nominate an editor or proprietor on my own, i wou a routine noster of course, if something is raised which touches on official governm business and of course relay that to officials in my prime office so, you know, there's no agreed late between now and jotting down on a piece of pa in science among these are the things that were raised. and in very normal ways. but these conversations are not

stinguished as much by informality, humor and goss said. but invariably there two or three pieces which are predominant. >> and that -- those first three categories are very important and i understand not. one doesn't want to do anything to minimize the sort of links, which then are part of you putting out your message and then challenging you, holding you accountable to every a language you want to use. >> yes, yes. but that is in proprietors have a unique ability to access politicians often on their out in a way that people domains  public corporate, economic life do not. and sometimes beyond the politics they were meant to ints which were come back t some of the early conversations we had about lobbyists on their

n behalf and their own commercial interests in a vested interest in a way to communicat that. but they're in a category of their own because they're able to do that in a context of intimacy that is not extended to anybody else. >> and not as part of the trouble. >> that can be, yes. you know, i had a number of conversations with editors and oprietors of news organizations who were very hostile to these quite derstandably took the opportunity to say to me come we don't like you for x, y, and th reason. didn't i don they are views and obviously made it clear that this is a process the boat with and it's some sort of box as it turned out the state over a

period of time. but nonetheless, i can't think of any other area where commercial interest to be able to come to senior politicians prior and your government shoul do x or y because it harms our commercial interests. but the best antidote to that i that politicians come as they y earlier, just keep their distance and referred the issue where it impinges on formal business to the full government system.k#k#k'k' >> to particular lunch is wek'+' might discuss.k'+'+'+'+'+' the 21st of april, 2008, jamesk# murdoch and a federal way, 1317! and then there is another one,k# just jamesk' murdoch, eckstein # march 2009, 1319.+#++k/ i'm those occasions, maybe youk/

remember, but didn't mk/r. jame/ murdoch discuss issues such as popcorn, bbc license fee?  i just think -- all of those meetings were of course i becam leader in february 2008. and people didn't know me from adam. d the first year or two i w just came to take opportunities to explain who i was, what my thinking less about my visions were for my party. i'm afraid i simply don't remember. >> two occasions only when i seem to rupert murdoch on the 16th of december 2009 was the nner rebecca brewer, john bricker rado, so would have bee just the two of you.

>> know, there are quite a number of people do. under the table, where the children sit at his feet. i had quite the interaction before the dinner and said goodbye in the end. i was an observer as much as anything. >> on the 13th of january, 2010, we saw dinner with groups of people from the telegraph's table. perfect for sinusitis on that occasion? >> that was very much sort of a series of meeting and lunch in the run up to the general election. in the discussion was very mu they are centered on what my ans were for the general ection, manifesto ideas.

it is purely political imperially centered on me tryin to persuade the telegraph, the paper i knew would nevertheless give us a fair hearing. >> thank you. back to two or less but on the 16th of march, 2010, he made a solid addition to the original version of your exhibit. after the lunch, there is a ief meeting with mr. murdoch, isn't that right? >> i think meeting as quite an ambitious term for what my recollection of the last that isaiah was leaving the lunch -- anyways, rupert murdoch was in the building and i exchanged literally a few stunted up

within the perfectly civilized, amicable greeting in a corridor in the building where the lunch was being held. >> thank you. now, the second phase, you groupies under two rubrics. the first is the smaller, more formal meeting. 04130. how many of the one-to-one, without even an advisory bear?  i think a fair number of them. they were not really any pants and acts. sometimes the advisor with th in and would usually be decided fairly spontaneously, partly depending on my judgment of wha the personalized person would prefer. so there's not really any r

fair number of these were prayer at what is met with individuals on their own one-to-one. >> you see one on this 22nd of july, 2010. was that one-to-one, do you think like >> yes, the only time i met mr. baker since i've been a government within my office. i met distinctly undated distinct interest in the case for the electoral reform and he -- he explained to me his concerns about the beast i.d., which had been announced a mont before. i think we made this little impression on each other, on

both points. [inaudible] >> i said to him, you know, hear what you say and the telegraph racers need a reservation. and to be fair, he was very specific. he said i know comments churc with their than i said the decision was dealt with by the secretary of state for business at the time.k-k-k-k-k-k-k,k-k- >> well, others may have been bending your ear.k!k!k!k!k! on the 17th of august, 2010c!c!! was the lunch with mr. james murdoch. did you get as a were quiet words from the other side on occasion to the best of your recollection? >> no, i don't. i remember distinctly having --

it must've been very much in th air at the time. about when we as a government would hold a referendum or change the electoral them on  charged issue. i remember that being the tim at that time or something close  my opportunity in. my vote was mr. harding or rebecca brooks or mr. hardingo t my case for change in the event i don't think i've been much of an impression. but that i do remember the lunch. that was a subject that i do no remember coming up but not much c) all.c)c)c)c)c)c)c) >> certainly the impression is, and you have confirmed thisc)c))

c)ready, mr. clegg, that sincec) been in government there've bee) fewer meetings of editors andk)) proprietors and possibly since december of last year, has been) evenk)k) fewer.  there was a phase where i remember and i'm sure this is reflect to endocrinology sat ou here. there was a phase where i was very proactively in the run-up to the referendum in may 2011, when i was racing to try and interest the people and the ess comment in that case fo the electoral system. i think that maybe reflected in the britain that some of these entries in the summer of lastk++ year and not k+then subsided ak+ bit.k+

>> in paragraph 39 of your káatement, you deal generally -- this is page 1305, with thek!k!! content of thesek! discussion,k- withk- without realizing on any) one particular event.k)k)k)k)k) and you make it clear andk)k)k)) opposition to discussion wherek- tending to be quite general,k/k- focusing on general policy issues and concerns rather than on media policies about thek-k/- particular newsk/ organization.) i does on occasion media policy and commercial steady rise.k-- >> yeah, yes.k!k!k!k!k!k!k!k!k! >> we move forward tok! paragra! paragraph 41, were you makej#j## reference toj# mr. schaller.j!j! and you explained that you have) met in an opposition in both socially formulate. can i ask you to tell us about

that? >> i have known him -- we f met each other many, many years ago, well before it was even thought of it entering into british politics. when i recollect, possibly a decade or more ago, he was working at the time for a nterleft think tank, which i' forgotten. that is when i first came acros them and then our paths crossed from time to time and latterly we threatened for children to go to the same school in southwest london. so i very much, even while before his current capacity and knew him socially as well. >> you haven't been in since september 2010 and discussed ayed with him. >> no, i can us it happens,

since the general election in may 2010, and my social contact with him, it says here, you know, this is very commensurate and frequent indeed. this is one dinner where he invited, and we both know in september of 2010.i) >> paragraph 47 now, mr. clegg,- d.c. herek- is the extent to wh) political support by the media for an individual party ork)k)k) policy to staff suchk)k)k)k)k)k) interactions. ank)dk) ubp clear that the topi! certainly raised as far as youk! are concerned.k-k-k/k/k-k- he says k-i always understand tt o-is is thek- last in since abo- 47, his only generation tok-k-k- newspapersk- that share yourk)k) parties liberal values.

is that right? >> well, i will give you an example. before the last general election, you now, i never once entertained for a millisecond that "daily mail" or the telegraph would come out in support of the liberal democrats, but that didn't mean that i thought it was a waste time to try and seek to explain to them what they stood for, what my plans were for the party, so that if not in the editorial starts, nonetheless have the courage they would give us the hearing. i would still do that today. and there were other newspapers i suppose notably independent o the observer that i saw was a much stronger convergence,  hope would lead to more explicit form of endorsement, which happily did occur.

but as i said in my written idence, i don't think one should give to orderly honda. i don't want you to devote undu focus on the editorial written by the newspaper in the wake of the general election because i don't think that ships very man es one way way or the other. my own view has a much, much bigger effect on the public's view of politicians as people and their parties is the sustained presence through which ey are described over a sustained period of time and that is immeasurably more important. >> in relation to the three places you've named, whether direct and explicit discussions along the lines of you asking the editor whether they would b supporting the liberal democrats? >> yes, yes.

>> and as reflected in one of those visits, there were, for example, if we must let u the editorial written by the guardian supporter, the liberal democrats announced the g action -- the editorial speaks for itself. they were very explicit for t reason why they were, from the guardian's point of view or a party at that time the very thoughtful come electoral refor which is what pat said with the liberal democrats have followed the election. so is very much a specific endorsement, if you like, which was a subject of discussion. i observe, by the way, not to make any wider points, but as i happened, that support didn't last very long, but as the person who understood if i agreed with that of the reasons which i have entirely was

disillusioned with the coalition d entry into it. but with the referendum happen, the issue upon which they supported us, the guardian was quite sort of ambivalent towa it. o9 jay shows that things can change very quickly.o9o)o9o9o!o% >> the example you gave and thereo% can be any idea because o9ur policy has been the sameo99 for decades. the merger or whenever it was. but is there a danger here at the discussion you are scribing become transactional i'm talking more generally. >> nothing romantic. it's a transaction of views a

opinions. and of course there is. if you're having a conversation with two entities to people, parties who both want something from each other, you've got t ingredients for transaction. but enough you can legislate against that, but you can guard against that by becoming a means against which government is warped in the public interest is undermined. >> you can see mr. sub reason tire testimony in c-span.org. we've been showing portions afternoon at the love and send inquiry between the price and british politicians along with mr. clegg's testimony you can see the entire statement of david cameron and former prime minister, gordon brown and john major on c-span.org's video library.