there'd be nothing in carrying on the 163 pages which would cause you surprise or your -- >> i didn't read those 163 pages. i'm sorry. but i certainly tasted them, if you will. >> what about an answer to my question, mr. murdoch? >> what was that? did i feel mr. hunt was on our side? >> that's right. >> no. i assumed that any responsible minister would be responsible and deal with it in a completely unbiased way. i thought dr. cable was an exception. >> we understand, dr. cable anti-murdoch. but certainly turning the other way around, mr. hunt pro-murdoch.

that must have -- is it true that the longer this went on the higher the price might have to be? >> no. well, the longer it went on, the grittier the hedge funds got and big talk. that was their way of negotiating. it always is. >> is it your feeling, mr. murdoch, that were it not for the -- really the hacking scandal, the voice mail delete allegations you would have got the remaining shares in b sky b. >> well, i don't know whether we

can put it down to this fortune. but the hacking scandal, yes. i mean, the hacking scandal was not a great national thing until the disclosure. half of which -- i'm not making excuses at all -- but half of which has been disowned by the police. but not for many weeks afterwards. we didn't know -- we didn't have any information because the police had under lock and key. still do. and we've been limited at all times by that. >> can i ask you this direct question, mr. murdoch. i told you that mr. hunt was in new york until the 4th of

september 2009. the meeting between your son and mr. cameron in a private club called the george was on the 9th of september 2009. is there any connection between those two events? i should make it absolutely clear that on the 9th of september, mr. cameron was told -- >> what date was this? >> 4th of september -- >> what year? >> 2009. >> oh, mr. hunt had nothing to do with a matter at that stage. that's my understanding. and mr. cameron wasn't even prime minister. >> well, i'm not sure you're talking about the same matter. i think you're turning to a different subject beyond -- i think you are. try again.

>> may i combat to that? >> yes. >> i move on now to the phone hacking. you with me? >> yes. >> you tell us in your witness statements paragraphs 169 and 170 -- turn those out. page 03028. you learned of the arrests of mr. goodman and -- >> excuse me.

in my witness statement paragraph 160? >> 169. >> oh. yes. >> just getting our bearings here in chronology. you say that you think -- you believe you learned about the arrests in the telephone call with hinton which may have been -- when do you think that was? september 2006? >> i think i've said here my family in august and not in london. i mean, mr. hinton could reach me at any time. may have been wherever i was. >> top of paragraph 170, page 03029, you said that you recall being told probably by lez

hinton in cooperation with police. you see that? >> yes. >> the evidence to the inquiry might be said to demonstrate that news international were not cooperating with police. >> well, i don't agree with that. we -- if i may defer. we appointed a special law firm to look into this. and to aid our corporation with a place. and when the police after the charging of -- i think after the charging, not just the arrest. of the charging of mr. goodman, that was it. they were closing the file. and i can't believe they would have done that if they were unhappy with our corporation. >> well, that's not the evidence we have at all, mr. murdoch. the evidence we've had

demonstrates the lawsuit you produced was one document not to represent the position at all. and one where another news international was being object instructive. does that not shock you? >> that shocks me deeply. i'm not aware of it until you just said that. >> news international is still claiming privilege in relation to advice given by the law firm you mentioned. this is bert and copeland. you know that, don't you? >> i'm not aware of that detail, but i'll take your word for it. >> well, it's a detail which emerged when you gave evidence before the select committee on the 19th of july of last year. you knew the position then. the one law firm -- >> i think i spoke about a second law firm. >> lewis.

privileges waived. bert and copeland privileges have not been waived. do you know why that is? >> no. i don't know. i'd have to ask them why they gave that advice. >> that's not the question mr. jay's asking. you appreciate that communications between a lawyer and his client are privileged. >> yes, sir. >> and the only way people can see what is said is if the client, not the lawyer, the client waives privilege. and in the spirit of openness, your firm or your company, the company waived privilege in relation to the work that was done by harbock and lewis. so they were able to talk both to the select committee and, indeed, to this inquiry about what they did for news international and how they went about what they did. the other firm that were

involved bert and copeland a specialist criminal law firm were apparently very heavily involved but in respect of that firm, the company has not waived privilege. now, they don't have to. it's a matter for them. but that's the position. >> thank you, sir. i was not aware of that. but it doesn't order the fact that the police said they were satisfied this was a rogue reporter and we're closing the file. >> well, that may be one aspect of this. but news international would have the means of knowing to what extent this cancer, to use a term related to your son's evidence, to what extent this cancer was evident.

was it more prevalent within news international's power to obtain that. >> i think the senior executives were all informed and were all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there. and i do blame one or two people for that. perhaps i shouldn't name. because for all i know, they may be arrested yet. but there's no question in my mind that maybe even the editor but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a coverup. which we were victim to and i regret. you know, i'm getting ahead of myself, perhaps. or getting ahead of you.

when i say that, you know, we did take steps. after the conviction and the resignation of mr. colson. a new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on. he did have the lead put in three new steps of regulation, if you like. but never reported back. that there was more hacking than we'd been told. harbock and lewis were given a file. now, it's argued that they were given a very specific brief. but i've got to say that i have not gone through that whole file but i have, again, tasted them.

and i cannot understand a law firm reading that and not ringing the chief executive of the company and saying you've got some big problems. >> that goes back to the question of whether "news international" would let contemplate what bert and copeland -- >> we were not about harbock and lewis. >> you mention the term cover -- >> i regret this greatly but we'll just go through the chronology before i tell you. >> mr. murdoch, you used the term coverup. may i suggest throughout this story, there is a consistent -- would you please sit down?

i would be grateful if you wouldn't do that again. >> throughout this story, this narrative, there's a consistent theme until april 2011 of coverup. coverup in relation to the police. coverup by bert and copeland either on "news international's" instruction. and coverup subsequently. where does this -- from where does this culture of coverup emanate, mr. murdoch? >> i think from within the "news of the world" and the one or two very strong characters there. who i think have been there many, many, many years.

and friends of the journalists or the person i'm thinking of is a friend of the journalists, drinking pal. and a clever lawyer. statements reported that this person forbade people to go and report to mrs. brooks or james. that is not to excuse it on our behalf at all. i take it extremely seriously. that that situation had arisen. >> i move forward to january 2007, mr. murdoch. paragraph 72 of your statement

that you say after pleaded guilty, mr. colson resigned and mr. hinton replaced him with mr. milo. do you see that? >> yes. >> were you not directly involved in the decision to appoint mr. milo as editor of "news of the world". >> i suppose he spoke to me. he certainly sent me an e-mail saying he proposed this and did i agree. and i said yes. >> did you know mr. milo? >> yes and, you know he would not have been my choice, but mr. hinton felt that he was someone who never had any contact with the "news of the world" there wouldn't be personal allegiances there and that he could look at it and he could rely on him to report back.

>> why would mr. milo not have been your choice? >> well, i could think of some stronger people who run "the sun." >> is it your assessment then that mr. milo is a weak individual and therefore the wrong man for this job? >> i would say that's a slight exaggeration. >> well, how would you put it then, mr. murdoch? in your own words. >> well, i would hope mr. milo would do what he was commissioned to do and certainly during the remaining seven or eight months of mr. hinton's regime he did not report back to him.

maybe he didn't find anything out. he certainly didn't report back. >> did you make it clear to mr. hinton that mr. colson needed to resign when mark goodman was sent to prison? >> no. i've got to say for mr. colson that he came forward and said i knew nothing of this but it happened on my watch and i think i've got to go. i should go. >> did you have a conversation with mr. colson about this issue? >> no. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hinton about mr. colson leaving the company? >> i think he called me and told me this. and thought that mr. colson was doing the honorable thing.

and we all agreed that the fact that somebody -- the police thought one person could have engaged in hacking was a very, very serious matter. >> were you aware of any aspects of mr. colson's settlement package? >> no. >> you told the select committee that mr. milo was appointed to find out quote, what the hell was going on. that's right, isn't it? >> yes. >> well, given that was his brief, what steps did you take to see whether mr. milo was discharging his brief? >> nothing. i relied on mr. hinton. who had been there for 50 years.

>> you told us that this was a very serious matter. it was capable of effecting the whole reputation of "news international" and the united kingdom. and the poison was -- just wait mr. murdoch. the poison was capable of seeping further. was this not something that required your personal attention? >> in hindsight as i said later, i said the buck stops with me. so i have to agree with you. >> well, we got to be clear, mr. murdoch. in one sense the buck always stops with the chairman of the holding company. but it might not tell us a huge

amount. i was talking more directly about why you, given it was such an important issue, did not find out whether mr. minor was discharging his brief. do you see that point? >> i don't know what else i was doing at the time, but i trusted mr. hindon. i delegated that responsibility to mr. hindon. >> did you have discussions with mr. hinton about this. >> no, not at the time. >> some might say all this picture is consistent with one of a desire to cover up rather than the desire to expose. would you agree with that. >> people with minds like yours, yes, perhaps. i am sorry, i take that back. excuse me. >> very thick skin, mr. murdock. do not worry oneh.

do not worry one moment. >> put slightly differently, it is very, very clear, mr. murdoch, among the vast commercial interests that you developed over your life, you have a particular interest in the print media. >> yes. >> and if i may say so, you have shown that interest is more than just a commercial interest, it is more than just an intellectual interest, it is an interest that is within your being if i could put it like that? >> thank you, sir. >> well, i am only trying to summarize what i think you have -- >> yes. >> therefore the question might be asked in this way. here was a newspaper that was in

your family that you had built up to the largest, to be the largest selling newspaper in the u.k., as i think news of the world was. >> i think when we bought it it was, and it had lost more than half its circulation by the time it got to this stage, but yes. >> yes. >>. [ inaudible ] >> quite apart from the commercial side of it, you would really want to know as you yourself put it, what the hell was going on because the news media was your print ink was running through your veins i think somebody said about you. >> yes, sir. >> well, then, that's the way that i might ask the question that mr. jay was trying to ask and indeed did ask, that this wasn't just a matter of commercial interest for you, this was the very core of your

being, so that's why i think you'll be asked, well, were you not really intensely concerned to know what was going on quite apart from everything else because this was you. >> i have to admit that some newspapers are closer to my heart than others, but i also have to say that i failed. >> well, that may be, and i -- >> and i am very sorry about it. >> i recognize that. i understand that you have made that clear and not just to the inquiry and not just in your statement but on a number of

your public appearances discussing this matter but it doesn't actually quite answer the question whether you really did try to understand what was going on or whether you felt, well, i don't need to understand what's going on, it is over, and let's just move on. that's the question. >> i think when the police said we're satisfied this was a rogue reporter, we're closing our file, i think hinted at that, probably if i had been in his place i would have to admit that i would have close, too, but with hindsight -- >> hindsight is always very

good, mr. murdoch. >> very easy. >> i understand. >> i can only say what i should have done. >> my point is the question i wanted to come to is this. this wasn't just a question of a reporter doing what the reporter did with the private detective. i wonder whether you would want to know what was the atmosphere or the climate within your newspaper that had encouraged the reporter to think that this was a correct way to proceed, that this was justifiable, quite apart from how he got away with it. that's a separate question. actually, the paper would be prepared to let this happen, would be prepared to go that

extra illegal mile to get a story. so that's quite apart from whether it is one rogue reporter. it goes to what's going on in the paper, not just with the people. do you see what i mean? >> i think in newspapers reporters do act very much on their own, they do protect their sources. they don't disclose to the colleagues what they're doing. i think you had [ inaudible ] this really rogue reporter but when you came across the times case and that didn't reflect the newsroom of the times, and this might have reflected the newsroom of the news of the world, and i think i said yesterday that i am guilty of not having paid enough attention

to the news of the world probably throughout all the time that we owned it. i was more interested in the excitement of building a new newspaper and did other things and the challenges at the times and the sunday times, and it was an omission by me and all i can do is apologize to a lot of people including all of the innocent people in the news of the world who lost their jobs. as a result of that. >> the article in the guardian in july 2009, mr. murdoch, can you recall whether that one was

brought to your attention at the time. >> yes. it was indeed. i think same moment, probably, as the police totally descended and said it was wrong. >> your son told us he had discussions with you after the guardian article was published and about the gordan taylor settlements. do you remember anything about that? >> yes, he probably did explain that. that was a year after the gordan taylor segment, and i didn't know anything about it in 2008 about the settlement. >> no, so in 2009 you get to the gordan taylor settlement. did that not surprise you? >> it did indeed surprise me. >> why? >> the size of it. >> the size of it?

>> yes, i mean -- i didn't know who hacked him, if he had really been hacked or what it was. just high it seemed. >> did you ask your son words to this effect, why the hell have we paid him so much money. >> yes. >> what was his answer? >> he said i was given a short time, like two boxes, which one do you pick. a low sum of money or relatively low or one infinitely bigger, and his advice were to take the low one. that's what happened. he was pretty inexperienced at the time, and he just had been there a few months, and mr. crowman and marlor came to him