useful addition to this area. now, the other area -- because of course you've got a problem. is that you're looking at the print industry, which is really challenged at the moment for reasons that are obvious. technological change and advance. that's accelerating. but why i think it's still important to keep the focus on the print industry is because these are the same people who to be fair to them are having to and in some cases are successfully adapting to this technological revolution. so actually, if you do get the regulatory framework right for print journalism i think that will have a profound effect on the way the internet develops. >> this is not so much whether mr. remember lebedev made the point, it's not so much as whether your news comes on dead trees or through the -- >> tablet p. >> the tablet or whatever. the fact is it's about -- or may

be about the thing that journalists do that nobody else does, which is to go out, to get stories, to put the facts together, and then to write about them in a way that is accessible to a wider population. which is perhaps different from those that are simply tweeting to one another or otherwise communicating on facebook. >> yeah, but otherwise the -- when we had the little break, and i was just sort of having a look at my phone and -- the guys from the bbc and itv and sky who are covering this, they're not here. they're outside. they're watching it. why don't they want to be in here? because that is now part of journalism as well. so they tweet, they write, they

blog, they go on television. they are journalists. what i think is happening is we're going to end up in a position where there has to be a redefinition essentially of what a journalist is. i think it would be absurd to expect you to regulate, have regulation for every single person who's on facebook and twitter because then you're not far off from saying we have to regulate the content of text messaging and so forth. it's absurd. so i think there has to be a definition of what a journalist is, what a media organization is. and there, this is where i have some sympathy for the print industry, it's not just about the print industry. >> well, i'm sure that's right. the problem is as lord o'donnell made clear that you've not merely got to capture where we are at the moment but do it in such a way to where it's relevant 20 where you'll be in

five years' time. >> and i think that's difficult because if you think that ten years ago facebook, google, twitter, youtube didn't even exist and now they are dominant within this space and the newspapers are struggling to catch up. and as rupert murdoch himself said, in their mind being ripped off the whole time for content. that's a difficult -- now, you've been given the specific area but i think in terms of this debate it's developing so quickly that -- but i've heard you many times and i read you in the transcripts talking about the elephant in the room. maybe for a while the elephant kind of has to be parked a bit because i still do think if you get the press -- the new pcc whenever that becomes, and however it's constituted, if that works better than its predecessors, i do think that will be a big impact on the way the rest of it, the blogosphere

and so forth develops because again, mooeg people aren't stupid. they can work out who knows what they're on about. when you see which of these websites get lots of traffic and which don't, it does tend to be the ones that invest properly in journalism and do real stories and so forth, and hopefully the best get to the top. >> well, the great problem is that you so define the issue that it is incapable of any sensible resolution. and that's a pron. >> but i sort of sense that the press who have -- who i since fear most, what you may conclude, are hoping that first you and then the politicians will say this is so complicated and it's changing so fast we can't do anything about it. i think if nothing is done given how we got to where we are now

and the broader cultural issues that we talked about, i think then we will be missing probably the only opportunity that we'll have a for a generation to get this right. and i totally understand what gus o'donald's saying, but it's really not the role of legislators, let alone an inquiry, to say let's predict what the world's going to be like in ten years and legislate for that. they have to take a decision based upon what's happening now. >> in lord hant's proposals, paragraphs 41 to 43, you make a number of points there. paragraph 41 i paraphrase without obvious carrots it's hard to see what good will and

good faith will bring everyone into the sheep pen, as it were. paragraph 43. third line. perfectly possible to have a systems regulation accountability which carried the authority of the government. but independent of government, parliament, commercial-invested interest. and then you furnish us with analogies oof regulatory spheres. and then you have some full authority. what do you say about the word structure? >> what do you mean by that? >> in other words, it's perfectly acceptable to have a system of regulation that structure frt government in part can confer. >> yes. let's take the legal services out leading to the legal services board. i think the fact that it's flown

from an act of parliament gives it great authority. and i think the fact that parliament then can have recall upon its effective neness is a d thing. i think the fundamental weakness of the pcc has always been the fact that it's a self-regulatory body run by the people regulating it. so the regulator is regulating those who have been regulated. without any real parliamentary oversight of any kind. >> what lord hunt says was that if you even go down that route there are enough parliamentarians who will really want to screw the press down. >> i know that's his view. and i say in my statement i saw lord hunton, i know that's his view. it's not my view. i think people are seized enough

of how serious this issue is. and i think -- i'm worried the other way, to be frank. i'm worried that too many of the parliamentarians just want to turn away from this. the ones -- there's plenty who get a high profile with saying what they say on the let's regulate side of the fence. but i think my worry in relation to michael gove and some of the political leaders just want this to go away. >> and then mr. campbell, will you identify what you've described as potential flaws in lord hunt's proposals? first of those you've already identified paragraph iragraph 4 paper is under no obligation to -- lack of detail about how the propose the contact will work in practice and sanctions and accountability. the fear that the industry would to any event manage to -- once

aga general agreement was reached and followed by negotiations with the desmond problem. finally you refer to aspects of the new system which are in your opinion in common with the cold. >> yes. >> are there any points you wish to develop or amplify -- >> i think the funding is difficult because press boff is it's back to their system and they pay for. so how would you fund this, perhaps it does have to be a claim upon the public first. i think the editor's code has always been a major flaw. the fact we're servinging people who decide what the editor's code is is just so obviously a flaw in the whole system. -6 i think that lord hunt, he's doing a very good job trying to make sense of this but he's an

absolute passionate believer in regulations. he's trying to get the last chance saloon. and i think they've had so many last chance saloons i think the public would think it's odd. let's have a pcc but call it something different. >> i've asked of you this final question. it's on a slightly earlier point. do you think that the existing editor's code adequately separates fact from opinion in clause 1? >> you'd have to remind me what clause 1 says other than its commitment to accuracy. is it fact, comment, and conjecture? is that the -- comme >> comment and conjecture are outside clause 1. but fact is part of accuracy and within clause 1 and within therefore the jurisdiction of

the pcc. i think that fairly summarizes the position. >> i can't claim to carry the pcc code around in my head. >> maybe it's too precise a poi point. >> i think your quality's cut on the screen. >> yes, the free are free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture, and fact. >> i think that's a very good princip principle. >> well, thank you very much, mr. campbell. >> mr. campbell, thank you very much. i'm very grateful for your help. >> thank you. >> 10:00. >> all rise. prosecutors in the media inquiry case have charged rebekah brooks with conspiring to obstruct justice. the first criminal action in the

investigation. ms. brooks is the former head of rupert murdoch's news corp. newspaper unit in the uk. she testified before the inquiry last july. this portion of that hearing is a little less than a half hour. >> there are many questions i want to ask you but i won't be able to do it bays because you are facing criminal proceedings. so i'm going to be narrow in my questioning. why did you sack tom crohn? >> we didn't sack tom crohn. what happened with tom crohn was when we made the very regressable decision to close the "news of the world" after 168 years, tom crohn has p predominantly been the news of the world lawyer. he predominantly spent most of his time, in fact pretty much 99% of his time on the news of the world. and the rest of the company and the rest of the titles had -- we had appointed new lawyers and

there wasn't i job for tom once we closed the news of the world and he left. >> someone is still dealing with the news of the world legal cases, though, presumably. >> yeah. the civil cases are being dealt with by -- like you said, the first one is the standards and management committee that we've set up. and you've seen the announcements on that recently. and i won't go over it. i know james and rupert have talked about it. but also farris, who'd been doing the civil indications all along, we've got some test cases coming up before the judge in january and there are people dealing with it. but tom crohn's role was as a hands-on legal manager of the news of the world and obviously when we closed the paper there was no job there. >> i must have misunderstood what james murdoch said. he implied that you sacked him. but it's been a busy day. as a journalist and editor of "news of the world" and the "sun," how extensively did you

work with private detectives? >> i think on the "sun" not at all. when i was editor of the "news of the world," as you know, i came before this committee, just as i became editor of the "sun," in relation to workplace privacy and operation motorman as it's called. and i think back then we answered extensively questions about the use of private detectives across fleet street. as you know, a chart was published of which i can't remember where the "news of the world" was on it. i think it was fourth. >> i think the sun on the table was below "take a break" magazine. but they're certainly in the top five was the observer, the guardian, the "news of the world," the "daily mail" -- >> to answer my question. >> can i just interrupt there? i'll declare i used to work for the "observer" but left in 2001. the "observer" was not in the top four. >> it's irrelevant. >> top six then perhaps.

>> the "observer" was at four instances. >> but it was on the table. >> just to answer my question, you extensively worked with private investigators, is that the answer? >> no. what i said was that the use of private detectives in the late '90s and 2000 was a practice at fleet street and after operation motorman and what price privacy fleet street actually reviewed this practice and in the main the use of private detectives was stopped. don't forget, at the time, as you are aware, it was all about the data protection. data protection act and changes to that which were made. and that's why we had the committee in 2003. >> just tort third tifor the th extensively did you work with private detectives? >> the "news of the world" employed private detectives like most newspapers on fleet street. >> so it was fair to say you were ware 1/2 approved payments to private detectives? >> i was aware the "news of the world" used private detectives

under my proprietorship of "news of the world" yes. >> so you would have approved payments to them? >> that's not how it works. but i was aware we used them. >> who would have approved the payments? >> so the payment system in a newspaper, which has been discussed at length, is very simply the editor's job is to require the overall budget for the paper from the senior management. once that budget is acquired it is given to the managing editor to allocate to different departments. each person in that department has a different level of authorization. but the final payments are authorized by the managing editor. unless there is a particularly big item. a set of photographs or something that needs to be discussed on a wider level. and then the editor will be brought in. >> so stuart cutner would have discussed some payments to private detectives with you? >> not necessarily, no.

i mean, we're talking 11 years ago. he may have discussed payments to me but i don't particularly remember any incidents. >> you don't remember whether you would have discussed any payments at all? >> no, i didn't say that. i said in relation to private detectives. i was aware the "news of the world" used private detectives, as every paper on fleet street did. >> so you don't recall whether you authorized payments or talked with stuart -- >> the payments of those -- the payments of private detectives would have gone through the managing editor's office. >> you can't remember whether cutner ever discuss td with you? >> i'm sorry? >> you can't remember whether stuart cutner ever discuss td with you? >> i can't remember if we ever discussed an individual payment, no. >> okay. in your letter to us in 2009 you said you did not recall meeting glenmore camp. you'll appreciate that this is an inadequate answer under the circumstances if we require a specific response to our questions. did you ever have any contact directly or through adwith glenmore camp --

>> none whatsoever. >> would your former diary secretary michelle be able to confirm that? >> michelle? >> former diary secretary. ? i've had a p.a. for 19 years called cheryl. >> well, would your diary secretary -- your p.a. -- >> absolutely. >> does she hold your diary for the last 19 years? >> no, she probably doesn't. we don't keep back 19 years. but she will -- i mean, she may have something from back then. i don't know. >> would it be in a paper format or electronic format? >> i never met -- i did not meet mr. mullcare. >> i'm talking about your diary. is it in an electronic format or paper format? >> it would have been in a paper format until recently. ? do you think glenn mullcare would deny he met you? >> i'm sure he would. i mean -- yes. it's the truth. >> were you aware of the arrangement news group newspapers had with mullcare whilst you were editor of "news of the world" and the "sun"? >> no. >> so you didn't know what he did? >> i didn't know particularly glenn mullcare was one of the detectives that was used by the

"news of the world," no. >> didn't know he was on the payroll? >> no. in fact, i first heard glenn mullcare's name in 2006. >> did you receive any information that originated from glenn mullcare or his methods? >> to me? >> you. >> to me personally? >> you as editor. did anyone bring you information as a result of glennmullcare's methods? >> i know it's an entirely appropriate question, but i can only keep saying the same answer. i didn't know glenn mullcare had -- i'd never heard the name until 2006. there were other private investigators that i did know about and had heard about but he wasn't one of them. >> we'll come on to them. now you that know what you know, do you suspect you might have received information on the basis of stuff gathered by glenn mullcare? >> well, now i know what i know, this is one of the difficulties. obviously, i know quite an extensive amount now, particularly the last six months

of investigating this story. and glenn mullcare i am aware worked on and off at the "news of the world" i think in the late '90s in the late '90s and continued through 2006 when he was arrested. so, obviously, if he worked for news of the world for that time, he was involved. and i think the judge said in 2007, which, again, we may disagree with that now, but the judge said in 2007 when glen merker was arrested, he had repeated contact. that's what i can tell you. >> do you know a jonathan reese? >> again, i heard a lot recently

about jonathan reese. i worked the panorama program, as we all did, and he wasn't a name familiar with me. i am told that he rejoined the news of the world in 2005, 2006, and he worked for "news of the world" and many other newspapers in the late 1990s. that's my information. >> do you find it peculiar for having been sentenced for a criminal offense that he was then rehired by the paper? >> it does seem extraordinary. >> do you know who hired him? >> no. >> do you know who renewed his contract? >> no. >> did you not take time to find out? >> the investigation we've been conducting in the six months has been particularly around the interception of voicemails, as you know. the management and standards

committee of sun international are going to look at jonathan reese and we already do have some information. but as to the conclusion of the investigation, i do not know. >> what information do you have? >> we have information, as i said, that jonathan reese worked at the news office, many newspapers, in the late '90s, and then he was rehired by "news of the world" sometime in 2005 or 6. >> do you know what he was doing at that time? >> in -- >> 2005-6. >> i don't, i'm sorry. >> did you not ask? >> i was at the summit at that time. i didn't know they rehired him. >> did you not wonder what he did in 2005-6? >> absolutely, and i've had the information that panorama have, that jonathan reese worked as a private investigator. in the panorama program, it said he was conducting many, many illegal offenses. that's what i saw, like you did. but also he used to work for

panorama. he worked for many newspapers presumably before his conviction, as you say, and then he was rehired by the "news of the world." >> do you believe he conducted illegal activities on behalf of "news of the world." >> i can only comment that i don't know that. >> what do you believe? >> i don't know. >> you don't know what he did? >> i don't know what he did for "news of the world." i'm sorry. i don't know what he did. >> don't you think people would find it incredible that you don't know what he did for the company? >> it may be credible, but again, it is also the truth. i heard about jonathan reese's rehiring by "news of the world" by an investigation conducted by panorama. >> did you ever have any contact directly or through others with steve wittemore? >> yes. >> what did you do with him? >> steve wittemore was one of

the private detectives. >> i want to know what you did with him? >> i'm sorry? >> i'd like to know what you did with him. >> in the main, my use of private investigators while i was at "news of the world" was purely legitimate and in pursuit in the main, as you know, for the addresses and whereabouts of convicted peter serezeau. that is my almost exclusive use of private investigators myself. but i suspect that "the news of the world" also used private investigators for other stories. >> are you aware that steve wittemore conducted directing of illegal funds? >> i wasn't aware of that until two weeks ago. >> you are now? >> yes, i am.

>> and why do you think the conversion of steve wittemore? >> again, it's 11 years ago. i answered this question many times, but just to repeat, a mobile conversion is finding an address from a mobile phone and can be gotten by legitimate means. in fact, it was a business number and the address was widely known. >> so you can remember what the story was, then? >> i read it because i read it in the "new york times." i think it would be fair to the person concerned because he's been named by "the guardian" and the "new york times." what i'm saying is there are very few occasions on which i used private detectives was on serezeau. >> do you know any of the

private detectives? >> no. >> did the paper use other private detectives other than steve wittemore, jonathan reese and glen mmerker? >> it isn't that i can't remember. you have the same information that i have which is from operation motorland. >> one last question. do you have any regrets? >> well, of course i have regrets. i mean, the idea that dialing of the phone was by access of someone being paid by "news of the world" and information was being used in that way is as horrifying to me as it is to everybody in this room.

the speed at which we've been trying to get to the bottom of this has been too slow, and we are endeavoring -- well, they are endeavoring; i've left the company -- and continuing to investigate. of course i have regrets. >> i want to draw you out from the end of our last session, which is the culture of hacking private detectives within fleet street and to what extent the "news of the world" felt justified in doing those practices because everybody was doing it, if you like. piers morgan, celebrity news reporter on cnn said in his book before this whole controversy broke, that he has hacked

phones. he said that he once scooped the air for stories, he once gave a tutorial in how one accesses voicemail by punching in access codes, and by the account he gives, he did it daily at the daily mirror, and it was something that happened daily at the daily mirror. when you talk about operation motorman and the different amounts of use that was made of steve wittemore by various members of fleet street, i went through and added them up. for transactions in the daily mail's associated newspaper group, there were 1,387 transactions with mr. wittemore used by 98 journalists in total in that group. is it not obviously the case, then, that blacking, hacking, the use of private investigators

for illicit purposes was an absolute culture of fleet street and that the "news of the world" participated in illegal activities with perhaps the same use of entitlement mr. morgan used in his book because everybody was doing it? isn't that the case? >> we've heard a lot of stuff in the last ten years, but i think particularly this committee felt to inquire into operation motorman, which was incredibly extensive. every member of fleet street, i think, was cool to this committee, and as far as i was concerned, the failings of all newspapers and not understanding the extent of the use of private investigators across fleet street was held to account then. and there were many changes because of operation to the data protection acts.