ministers themselves ended up having to resign. but this was a long learning process. >> the extent to which your media special advisors acted unders your general direction, can you help us with that? >> they acted around my complete direction. it wasn't general direction. i knew what they were doing. and i knew in realtime what they were doing. they were in and out of the office. they were part of the private office. and in each case they weren't on exactly the same floor. in the foreign office there's one -- there's an old building one area so thers just out and the same is true in minister of justice. and i was thinking about this, when if there'd ever been a moment where they acted inappropriately, then somebody else in this very open

environment close ring of confidentiality, but very open environment itself would have told me, the private secretary, a press officer. he just would have found out immediately. >> okay. at pekts now mr. straw, of your own individual practice is paragraph 30 of your statement following our page 02550. will you explain in paragraph 30 you've known a number of the senior journalist, editors for years. we each have each other's contact numbers. the correspondents would often call for issues how forthcoming i was would depend on a number of factors. understanding the underlying reasons for that. can i ask you please about mr. day coe who you identify. you've known him since university many the late 1960s. and but since then, how frequently do you meet him?

>> not that often. as i say it's a respectful acquaintship. it's not a friendship. it could have been a close friendship, but it isn't. that's just how it's been. i'd have to troll through my diaries. i guess aside from when there was policy business to deal with as there was towards the end of my period at the hinn industry of justice, i probably see him four lunch or so maybe once a year. i might bump into him in other viemts. i could if he trolled through my diaries and asked him to do the same. but i was president of the students union lead in my last year. i think he was very -- obviously very talented young journalist when he arrived in leads and

became the editor to have union news very quickly. so i think he was in his first year. we rubbed along. and i say there was i think a position of kinds of mutual respect there. as i said in my evidence my relationship with him is being made more straight forward his political views and mine and those of his newspaper are different so i've never ever held my breath that jus because i knew him somehow or other in the editorials on the election day saying that people insane if they voted labor there'd be a secretary in blackburn. that doesn't happen. i never expected it. so it's a clean relationship. >> your evidence is that the exchanges between you not frequent or indeed perhaps any text messages, rarely spoke on the mobile telephone, is that snit. >> with paul? >> yes.

>> no. i don't think i've ever exchanged a text message with him. sometimes -- in fact, he's -- famously i don't think he does. he's like mr. blair in this respect. i don't think he uses computers. what i wanted to say i've sent him email to a pa in his office. i've got his phone number on my system, but i can't remember. i think i've ever sent him a text. >> did the relationship change at all when mr. brown became prime minister. mr. brown is much closer than was mr. blair. >> yes, mr. day career was -- i think you'd find he was spectacle about mr. blair in a way that he was less skeptical

about mr. brown. it did partly because mr. brown before he became leader had had conversations with mr. decker about heading up an inquiry into the 30-year rule. that in a sense was a done deal as i -- mr. brown became prime minister. but i then took on the operational side of that inquiry. and subs subsequently there were long conversations with senior colleagues from the press about segment 55 of the di ta protection act. >> we'll come to the detail. just before you go on, can i go back to a phrase i rather like, respect jchl acquaintship. was that because you or he felt that your respective paths took you into different directions and therefore that was the best way or was it just that's -- it's just a coincidence and

that's how it went and you would have minded if it had mind. do you understand the question i was asking? >> yes, i do. never anything explicit. at university all of us you meet people. so i was never close to him. it was a respectful relationship, nothing more. our paths could have crossed more often, they didn't. i think there was quite a period when i was in london and indeed working briefly at the bar when i didn't have anything to do with him. as far as i gather he's pretty private about his family life. we are about ours. we have turned our houses skboo sort of salon for politicians. we liked almost all of our

personal friends, our family friends are not politicians or journalists for that matter. they're friends. i suspect his friends are rather similar. >> i wasn't seeking to be personal. i was really seeking to examine whether you'd taken a decision which in the light of what you said would be entirely understand able that here was a guy i did get on with, oh, sure i could try and friend him, but actually because i think there is an issue about closeness. >> i see. >> then i won't. and if you didn't reach that conclusion, i'd be interested to know is it going back years because it's very relevant to the issues that we've been talking about about the extent of closeness of relationships? >> my instinct always was not to get too close.

although i think it was rather inco-ent that view of mine. that was my instinct. for example, if i was getting worked over many the press, which happens from time to time if you're a minister of the senior opposition person. sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly, my view always was really to not to try and phone up an editor and complain about it. i just thought it would make it worse and look pretty weak. and that would have been -- they'd think of something else to write about. but there was nothing much to do about it. i might get special advisor or the press officer to talk to the journalists concerned. but not to go to the editor. what's the point? does that answer your question, sir? >> yes. it's really the thinking because you're talking now about over 30

years. and one of the interesting issues for me is what everybody now concedes has been -- has become an overcozy relationship is recent or really endemocratic in the system. from what you're saying from my perspective it was never indemick i always decided that wasn't a sensible line. >> yes, i think -- that is true. is it recent? no, it's not recent. it's as old as the popular papers. >> one co-go to north cliff. >> you think about the relationship between hugh and the labor governments the -- and when i worked for barbara castle

she had been a journalist. she was very much the labor equivalent of margaret thatcher. she had very strong opinions about people. she kept a list in her head of journalists she liked and was willing to talk to and journalists she detested. i remember there was one called norah belloff on the observers. she used so pit about her. the lobby was very -- the press lobby was very tight 60 journalists worked sort of free masonry. it was even more incestuous than it is today. i'm not saying how i would have operated in this sam.

except i think the wise politician would keep a bit of distance. >> in paragraph 34, mr. straw, will you look at the sun and it's particularly role in the fortunes of the labor party. i ask you to elaborate on what you mean halfway down where you say mr. murdoch has played a power game with political leaders. >> yes. the political leanings of most newspapers in brat tan are predictable. so the paragraph is going to support the conservative party, the daily mirror is going to be supporting. from recollection i think there's only two newspapers that are you been predict. one is the guardian and the other three of the four at news international papers.

the guardian normally supports the labor party expect in elections when it needs them to support us, it supports the liberal democrats. it did that in 1983 and again in 2010. so it's sort of fair weather friend. it won't support the conservatives. it's unpredictable. and for the murdoch papers since mr. murdoch purchased those papers. the sunday times has always supported conservatives and did in 1997. the other bit what i perceive of mr. murdoch's approach particularly with the sun and the news of the world was that he reckoned that his political influence would be greater if as it were his support was

available in return for what he thought he could get out of it. i don't mean a deal. i see no evidence of a deal. but he thought there was something in it. now they might, the benign view of this is that the people at news international took a very -- people at news international like other newspaper executives were very concerned about where that are readers were and that they supported between 1992 and 1997 their readers were going to support labor so they followed them. it's a more complicated set of relationships than this. the perception i found was mr. murdoch was enjoying the fact that he's been willing to play with political leaders in a way that the senior executives of the other papers who have not been -- have not because their loyalty ultimately is predictable. i hope that explains what i

meant there. >> three ways perhaps one could analyze the power game. one is just a piece of enjoyment that doesn't lead anywhere. the third and it's the most extreme is to gain which is deadly serious because underneath it there is an expressed deal. and then there's something in between just understand this, you said in return for what he thought he would or could get out of it. can i ask you to explain that? >> i've never had this conversation with him in my life. i've obviously met him. we've scantily had more than a paragraph of conversation with him ever. he's very interested in power. you done get to that position running a huge media empire without being interested in power. and i think to help him

consolidate his nonnewspaper interests in this country. i was struck when he was explaining that the print media contributed 2% or small percentage of the total revenues of the news corp. that there was a degree of disent about the point he was making. the power that those print titles provide is much greater than 2% of the total in the united kingdom. it goes back to the point that mr. adam bolton made is that the print media can have the greatest influence of all over the news values and the headlines on all the other media. and i -- i've assumed that mr. murdoch reckoned that if his

support for the winning party which is basically what he sought to do each time was available that would open more doors in government when it came to things like media regulation, licenses, regulation of football and so on. >> is this what you're giving us here is an analysis of what you believe his motivations to be rather than perhaps direct evidence of anything he has told you or others haf? >> sorry, i've never had a bit more of paragraph of conversation with mr. murdoch in my life. i have no direct evidence. this is my surmise. he's a busy man. he's a very successful man. like anybody else in a senior position he thinks about what he's doing and why he's doing it. that's the conclusion i've drawn. >> in paragraph 35 you refer to

the power of mr. murdoch's papers. one might note that you prefer to use that word rather than mr. campbell's influence. >> well, from the point of view of the -- on the receiving end it felt like power. it may be helpful to provide a bit of explanation as to why people who were on the front bench in the labor party in the 1990s -- in particular you've been through the experience of the '92 election believe that we have to get the papers on side. if i may, i'll dug out of my files one example of this which was the main story in the sun newspaper on the first of april just eight days -- eight days

before the 1992 election. and the main story was this i'll put this in as evidence, i'm all right jack. i was saying education minister lectures on -- and i was branned a hypocrite for preaching for the luxury of three homes. well, it's true my wife and i between us own three houses and that was perfectly public. what the sun was doing in the '92 election was working over each senior member of the labor front bench and this had an effect. if you want on the receiving end of it it felt like power. it had an effect on my constituency. i remember doing an open air meeting that wednesday.

you could feel support pulling away many any majority scarsly moved. although it did not reflect on national swing. this was minor. it had one consequence talking about power every burglar in west oxford shir knew that the one day of the year we were not going to be in the house was the election night. we got burglared a lot of property was stolen. i raised that subs subsequently with the sun and got the glazed eye look. that's one of the things. tough. but the more important point was that he was mercilessly treated by the sun over quite a period he did contribute to our defeat. i took that as power. and we were there for once mr. blair came into office in '94. we all shared the same view without completely compromising ourselves we should do our best to get the papers on side. it was better than the

alternative. i've been through 18 years of opposition. >> i'm sure there was no question mr. straw of completely compromising yourselves. some might ask well what about part lshl compromising yourself? >> i i am -- the word came out my mouth. there wasn't -- it's more complicated than that. i mean mr. blair was very much in favor of the new labor agenda. so was i in terms of, say, in terms of the crucial decision on that, which was to change clause 4. i mean i published a pamphlet about that in '93 and nothing to do whatever to do with "the sun" or anything else. they regarded the pamphlet as rather boring. i don't think there was -- there was any compromise of our integrity. if you take the area that mr. blair had been involved with between '92 and '94 and i took over from '94 to '97, which was

law and order and crime, there were people who were saying, our critics sort of on the liberal left, they were saying we were only doing this because we wanted papers like "the sun" and the "news of the world" on site. that wasn't true. i was doing it because we believed in it and we hadn't been satisfied with the very soft approach which the labor party had taken on crime before that, which had lost support of an awful lot of our working class supporters. >> paragraph 38, mr. straw, you say during my period as justice secretary i would often travel to london on a monday morning from the west oxfordshire station. he used to use the same train. after a while we made arrangements to meet up and sit together for the journey but i

paraphra paraphrase, this stopped in 2009 when she became chief executive. that was formed i think in september, 2009. in general terms, were the discussions which you had with her on the train other than social or private? >> no, they were -- not much of them was social. they were private in the sense of neither of us were writing it on a blog. they weren't social, they were political. they were sort of -- we'd talk about what was in the papers, what was -- we'd gossip about personalities, that sort of thing. and a lot of the time we can't get on with our work. she had work to do, i had work to do so we weren't mattering the whole journey. i never put a figure to it. but in any case, these are crowded trains, so there are all sorts of people around earwigging so there was a limit to what one was going to say

either way, otherwise it would have appeared in somebody else's newspaper. >> fair enough. and then you say you attended her wedding in june, 2009. >> yes, i did. yeah. >> a number of specific points which might arise out of relationships with news international. what was, as mr. lance price has said was the case, the labor party's policy on cross ownership quietly dropped within six months of the cayman island trip. >> i don't know the answer to that because i didn't have any direct involvement in media policy. so -- i wish i had, but i hadn't. i have no information on why it

was dropped at all. >> now, mr. dakos claimed labor could not have committed british troops to iraq without the support of news international newspapers. do you agree with that view? >> no, i don't. let me say that since i was completely inserted and involved in the decision to commit troops in iraq, i can't ever remember a conversation along the lines where we were discussing whether we went to war or not and said we can or we will because "the sun" newspaper or the press is going to be on site. it would have been disgusting if that had been part of the conversation. this is about putting british troops in harm's way. and bluntly, it was much, much more serious than that.

so, no is the answer. >> of course you were foreign secretary at this time. we've heard evidence, somewhat unclear evidence, about free telephone calls mr. blair and mr. murdoch in march of 2003. are you able to shed any light on those? >> i'm not. i was vaguely aware that they had taken place, but it's quite hard to get across to those who weren't involved the pace of events at this time. i mean i -- at the beginning of march, on the 5th or 6th of march i went off to new york for what turned out to be the last of the series of security council meetings. and then after that, i must have got back on a saturday, i guess, between then, which would have been the 8th of march and the 17th when the cabinet made its decision to go to war, my whole

time was spent trying to get support of the security council for a second resolution. and frankly, who mr. blair was talking to on the telephone was neither here nor there, unless it was about getting support for the second resolution. >> but how important was it politically to get a newspaper on side, because the people would have to be convinced? >> well, it was certainly important to have the newspapers on side, and my recollection is that the news international papers were not the only papers who were on side. and it is -- yes, of course it's far better to have them on side than not have them on side, so i'm not trivializing it, but it wasn't ever part of the

discussions that i was ever involved in. it's worth bearing in mind that there was widespread support for military action. i know there was also widespread opposition for military interaction and the opinion was polarized. but what people are -- many people are now doing is looking at those events with the benefit of hindsight, including the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. and the awful aftermath, the chaos of the aftermath, after the fall of saddam. but if you're looking forward, it was actually very different circumstances and bear in mind that the whole international community had said in resolution 1441 that saddam posed a threat to international peace and security. 1441 as far as i was concerned and the british government was concerned, that had authorized military action if there were a material breach by saddam, which we believed and still believe there was.

so there was a huge weight of international opinion as well as opinion here in favor of it. in europe, half the member states of the european union were in favor in military action. a number of those put troops in. so this wasn't what is now presented as sort of an evil minority activity at all. there was a very large consensus behind it. and it's also just -- sir, if i can just mention this. bearing in mind that the conservative party, not all of them, but the conservative party was strongly in support of military action as well, and that was bound to affect the character of support from the newspapers in practice. >> mr. straw, move on to the topic of influence on public policy. first of all, section 12 of the human rights act.

now, we have the text of section 12, which is really the end point in the process under tab 6. >> do you want me to look at it? >> please. i know you'll know it. >> i do it but i'll try not to -- >> maybe someone following this will understand the significance of section 12. it is a procedural provision dealing only with the stepping stones as where the high court is considering whether to grant any relief which might bear on the article 10 rights of freedom of expression. >> yeah. yep. >> and there are two key points. the first key point is the high court weren't granting relief unless satisfied more likely than not that publication should not be allowed, which to be clear, that sets a