which 2kwe678ed over the years. is that right? >> that's right. and the reason for putting this in, it goes to the last point i made. the more we write these rule the more danger there is you're going to forget that you've bumped into so and so or had a meeting with such and such, and then it comes out you didn't reveal that and then the public loses all confidence they had until your new transparency regime. that's the purpose -- these are people i see very regularly and am never going to remember to tell my office every time i see them. >> you say, sometimes inform with other assistances provided with speeches. the main risk, i'll ask you to comment on it, is that you provide these journalists with -- with scoops or stories or less tan den shishly with insights? >> there's always a danger and you can't unmake the friendships

you've made. some i've known 20 30 years. some you get to the know because in some cases they're neighbors. zan smiley. i think one of the things that all ministers are meant to do and perhaps we need to sort of remind people is -- i've done this practice. you sit down with -- i actually went through my address book and told my secretary virtually every one of my friends if they had any business interactions that might bump up against the government or what have you. so at least you've had that conversation with your secretary see that if for any form of conflict does arise in the future tleecht it's not something that has been sort of buried. but this is -- you know, it's difficult stuff to get right, i think. >> now, in paragraphs 91 to 92 mr. cameron, page 04123 you're addressing the question, to what extent is political support discussed?

and is this a sense of however 92 in particular that the issue of political support is not discussed directly but it implicitly underlines many of your discussions? >> i think that is probably right. there have been occasion where is you're really keen to -- most of the time you'll try to explain, these are my policies. this is why they're right. this is why labor baert'sparty's got it wrong or forever. but there are times you do more to have the editorials support you. whether? the coverage orb what they give you. >> how often have you had that kind of conversation? >> not often. predominantly, take over five years of being leader of the opposition, most of the time it was about what i was trying to do with the conservative party. what the policies were we cared about. what the government was getting it wrong. where we would do a better job.

all of those arguments, but obviously on occasion we'd say, we'd love a bit more support from your paper. >> sir john major gave information about a conversation we had with rupert murdoch in february 1997. on his account he made three -- that's mr. murdoch made it clear he couldn't support unless it was mon phied. maybe you've not have a similar conversation with him or any other proprietor of that nature? >> not of that nature, no. >> have you had conversations with editors during the course of which they've made it crystal clear which of your policies on the one hand they favor and which they don't? >> of course yes. i mean a lot of these people have very strong views. so you have pretty robust debates about some things. >> that point may no explicitly been made, was it on occasion obvious to what the conditions for their support amounted to? >> i think one can overdo this. i think in the end a lot of

these newspapers follow their readers' views. what i felt i was trying to do and i think i say kniss my evidence, i was trying to win back the conservative cause newspapers that had been conservative and so i wasn't asking them to sign up to a whole set of views they thought were ridiculous. i was trying to get them to return to the right course, as it were. so -- and, of course you know, you have very robust conversations and areas where you don't agree. >> but an example you've given, the "sun" newspaper was won over to mr. blair and, therefore the preponderance and the readers' views were convergent with new labor. >> at that stage. yes. that's my point. at the end of -- towards 1997 the conservative government obviously had fallen massively out of favor. some readers were, anyway, switching to labor. and their decision while a -- a big blow for the conservatives,

you can see a sort of natural -- about what was happening, i think under my leadership of the conservative party, steadily some readers were coming over to it conservative party and i felt in talking to some journalists, a lot of them were very keen for their newspaper to change, because they felt they were out of tune with the readers. so i think one can overdo the whole -- no way does winning the support of this newspaper or that newspaper guarantee you an election victory. there are certain situations. >> we can all agree on the points importance of being overexaggerated, but some degree of significance to be attached in particular to the 'sun's" support, on that issue. can i go back to 2005, mr. cameron, of course you started as leader of the opposition i think in december of that year, if my memory is right.

>> correct. >> was your strategy then, as your then press secretary george eustis has said, to create distance between yourself and mr. murdoch? >> i wouldn't put it like that. i'd won the leadership of the conservative party without the support of any newspapers practically. i think i won the leadership basically up through what i'd say the conservative party conference, and it was television that had helped me to get my message across. i wanted us to have a good relationship with newspapers. i knew we needed to win over more support, but to start with there were certainly some in my office content on doing things completely differently and operate more tlurp the internet and what have you. i was more cautious thinking about that thinking we wanted to work hard on television. we should do what we could with the newspapers, but i think that's the way it was. it wasn't quite sort of one set of circumstances after 2005, and

then another set later on. >> well, mr. eustis has said -- i would invite you to comment on this -- which i was his press secretary we pursued a -- punctuating the editors and proprietors and raising the stakes of what i term real journalism. is that a fair analysis in your view or not? >> i think parts are right in that we did want to have this -- we didn't want top go down the same route as everything labor had done. we did want to have a bit more distance, but if you look at the record or the sort of meetings i was having and the rest of it i was still you know flying off to meet proprietor and trying to win people over. so i don't think it totally squares up. there was one approach tried and found and then another approach. i think it's -- there's slightly more illusion between the two, my reflection. >> you also made a point that you wouldn't have flown half way around the world if i can put

it in those terms to speak at news corporation's annual concert. was that your thinking in 2005 jimplts certainly wasn't it vided, when i did i was checking the record. and george did a brilliant job working for me. i saw what he wrote, but looking at the record of the meetings i had and the amount of activity we were doing trying to win over and win support of newspaper include, i think actually flying off to meet the owners of "the telegraph." as i say, i don't think i would characterize it as one approach and then a different approach. i think there's slightly more -- similarity between the two. i think there's one other thing nib say which was at the beginning 67 my leadership a lot of what i was trying to do was make changes to the conservative party, to the policies of the party, the approach of party. not all of these were very popular with the conservative press. so i had a difficulty in trying

to make changes to the conservative party while at the same time, convince the conservative press i was doing the right thing. >> identifying the change of tack as it were in iran in 2007. >> right. >> wrongly and that flows from the fact that you didn't have widespread support in the media? 196 of your statement, it says that you -- you say you didn't have widespread support at the time you became leader of the opposition. >> yes, yes. >> that may have continued until about 2007. >> yes, i think it is. i mean, some of that as i say, was because i was making these changes to the conservative party. vor of course, i did progressively realize i think over 2006-'07 that it's very difficult, if you're running a political party, and you're trying to win over the public, or trying to create momentum, it's quite difficult if you

don't have what i'd call sort of the different bits of the society. you need your police supporting you, counselors, member, and you also need -- those parts of the conservative press, that should be sort of getting behind you, and i had this situation where, quite conservative parts of the press. i just wasn't really getting much backing from them, and i was -- frankly i think i was still struggling a bit to get some of the message across. so i put in -- i'm thinking i put in a lot of work already, but they now had put in small work. >> thank you. now, dc 2, under three of this bundle. this reflects together the meetings you've had with media because of leader of the opposition. you're not putting it forward as a sir tiffcertificate in the sense you can't guarantee every single meeting was there and we understand that. >> yes. >> for what it's worth over four years and five months of

opposition, we've counted 1,404 entries, which equates to around 26 meetings or interviews per month, which is more than one every week pb day. it's fair to say in government, there would be fewer. it works out at about 13 amongst. so about 60% of the time you lavished on this opposition? >> as i say, when i was elected, i did try to do less of this and try to have more of a distance. tried to make sure -- genuinely, when you're in opposition what are you doing. ? you should be spending your time governing, not talking about governing. so i did try to create some more distance, but as i explained earlier, i think it's very difficult, because of these daily battles that you find. >> well, do you think there's a problem, just -- talking about

the difference between opposition and government. you map have, be aware that mr. campbell made of the point that they felt that there was a mistake taking approaches adopted in opposition and running with them in government. now, not everybody's agreed with that, but i'd be interested to know whether you think there is a difference, because whatever system one puts into plates, it's difficult if it doesn't -- if it's not recognized as appropriate by both or all main parties. >> yes. i think it's right that you know, in government you're making real decisions rather than just policy ideas and campaigns. so it's more important that what you do is done properly, and that's why you have special advisers codes, ministerial codes and the rest of it. but i do think perhaps there

is -- when you're leader of the opposition, and i did the job for five years, it's only in the last year you get the sort of civil service regime starting to talk to you about how you translate your structure and your processes into number 10 downing street. i think that could be a strength in, i don't believe in hiring some official opposition office, as it were, but it could be a strength having earlier discussions between the cabinet secretary and opponent secretary number 10 with the new leader of the opposition to make them appear of the practices that might assist them in the work that they do and avoiding conflicts and the rest of it. that is something perhaps we can write to inquiry about. >> that's very much along the lines that i was thinking about. that if practices develop, that aren't appropriate for government, it might be better

better -- i've appreciated that opposition government is very differ for the reasons you've identify, but if practices, good practice can develop it will flow naturally into government, but if an opposition party developing ideas without the experience of having been in government, it becomes much more difficult. >> i'm sure that's right. >> so i think that may be of value to try and deal at least in part with the issue. given the very significant amount of time for engagement what extent did those demands get in the way of policy formulation and leadership? >> i don't think they were so extensive that you didn't have time to do the other things. leaders of the opposition don. we had huge policy commissions starting from scratch. drawing up policies are

interaction around the country. i did a huge number of what i call cameron directs which are public meetings all oevlg are the country. so it takes up a lot of time. there are moments when you this these are area of my life i'm not going to get back. but if you're a politician and leading a political party and want to win people over, you need to get your message across. >> in government, nbc particular obviously you have full day job. do the same points apply? do you feel the engagement is less troop in govern and included in poems formulation leadership and governing? >> it shouldn't, but i think it can. the way i explained the 24-hour news agenda. wlp i arrived on downing street i think the setup was indeed

geared to 24-hour news. it felt too much like a news room and that's what the press department should be like but you've got to try and create a structure and a private office and a set of arrangements where you can think, take decisions, prepare for decisions properly. structure your day so you're not permanently in a sort of news -- news warfare mode if i can put it that way. >> okay. looking at this list which, of course, extends over a number of pages and tarts with -- we've pulled over to do statistics and analyses that have come to the con delusion that would be misleading, mr. cameron, for a number of reasons, and i'm not going to bore you with those. just pick up a couple of points though, that we've identified for mr. rupert murdochs.

mr. james murdoch 15 and for rebekah brooks 19. in relation to her does that cover all social interactions or not? >> this is for the period when i was in opposition? >> the short answer, it might not. what wep did did go back over the diaries for the time i was leader of opposition. try and work out if we missed anything out but it doesn't always include -- for example diary count captured my decisions. there could be other meetings in there i haven't identified. going through other participant meetings we found some that didn't tally with us. we've been through and tried to reconcile as much as possible. i mean government is different because certainly in the office you have a diary -- john major

explained this. a diary of what you want to do and a diary of what you actually do. in the office opposition was our best attempt but made gaps. >> it's going to lead to others if so karng the. mr. murdoch's list doesn't quite match yours but quite frankly an area of comparison in our view which we're just going to leave it there. >> it's clearly a mistake to overexaggerate the importance or accuracy of. >> reporter: in rettrospect from records never intended to be counted, stow would be a mistake to try and do that analysis. what do you is you create a picture, and the picture, seems to me, sufficient to the inquiry. before we -- we break, mr.

cameron, might i shed light on one item. the 16th of august 2008, page 04220. we -- we have elizabeth murdoch, matthew freud. >> hmm. >> was that part of the -- which we believe it to be? >> i don't in the date of the santorini visit on me but if we cross-check i'm sure we can figure that out. it looks like it was. >> yes it is. >> page 64 is my evidence. >> yes, it is, mr. cameron. >> right. got it. okay. >> es. >> could i just ask you please mr. rupert murdoch wasn't at the dinner then?

is that correct? >> i think he was. i don't think that is right. i think you've spotted and error to which i'm very sorry. >> i'm not saying it's -- >> no no. basically, it looks like -- yeah. i deal with it in my evidence, because at 199-200-201 basically this from my memory. it was that this is driner syncs, and the dinner was the people listed in dc 2. but i think it was, yes. >> is that a convenient memo? >> yes. >> can we have a break to good give a short -- >> yes, sir. >> all rise. and where we look at

individual entries in your schedule dc 2. i'm not going to look at that many many. first of all the 16th of december 2005 matthew and elizabeth freud. is says social. those are friends of yours? >> yes. math through i must have known for some 20 years. he married someone i was at university with, his first wife. so i've known him through then. i'm trying to find the page you but i think it was a social occasion. >> and elizabeth murdoch. how long have you known her? >> i suppose since they got married, but i can't put a date on it. >> your first meeting here, january, 2006. your witness statement makes

clear an encounter 2005 before you were a leader. around the 1st of february '06. daily male drinks. it's unfair to ask you on what particular occasion this was six years ago, but do you thinks that was a one-on-one? >> yob remember because it was a long time ago. the meetings i've had with him probably have probably been a one-on-one drink. supposedly a lunch. i remember one of two of the daily bail a mixture. one or two a month yes. >> one other. the 18th of december '06. which is page 4205, it's a dinner actually. about the time the

commissioner's second report came out. again, i understand it's difficult to search one's recollection but do you recall whether that report might have been discussed then or not? >> i don't -- don't recall. i can remember where the dinner was. ip think i've also had dinner my home. the trouble with that one, i can't remember where it was loet alone what we talked about. >> and then the santorini visit, page 04220 if i can understand whose idea was that? >> i think it was matthew freud's idea. i think he phoned me about it, but he was -- yes. >> did he have a discussion with rebekah wade about it? >> i don't know. >> do you know what came of that? what his purpose was? >> from my point of view, just to get to know rupert murdoch

better. obviously i was trying to win over his newspapers and put across my opinions. for me it was an opportunity to try and build that relationship. it was quite a long way to go and all that but seemed like a good opportunity. >> early conversations with mr. freud as to the possibility of having this sort of meeting. is that correct? >> my memory is it came together quite quickly. i seem to remember. i was on a tour day around country. i got a call or a text from matthew. i was just about to go off to georgia to visit georgia at the time of the russian invasion. and it just seemed like a possible opportunity to link up, but i seem it's to -- at the last minute that i might have got it wrong. >> we know that rebecca wade was there. did you have a conversation with her about this before you flew out, or not? >> i don't recall that.

>> okay. now in 2009, mr. cameron the 3rd of may, you had lunch with james murdoch. this is page 04225. >> yes. >> would you think it's possible on that occasion that -- shooting off in dc? >> i don't recall directly what was discussed at the lunch. i'm sure over the years i discussed with with james murdoch. she strong view i have strong views they're not really the same and i'm sure we would have it discussions about it. perhaps in particular -- well eeshgs think probably on both. i don't recall the specifics but i'm sure we must have described our obvious opposition. >> this is a few months because

his lecture delivered, i think, in late august 2009. did you have any discussions with him about the subject matter of that lecture? i'mer memory. i think these would have been -- as i say, most of these meeting were really about me trying to promote conservative approach and the rest of it. sometimes i'm interested in media issues and have longstanding views. sometimes -- i'm sure we would have discussed them. >> one can see the intensity of his ds feeling. and the text of the letter itself, he expressions himself quite strongly. doesn't he? >> yes. and lots of things mixed right in to make you agree. i i've always believed in a strong, there is an important role. evidence, overbloated, overbig and needed like other quangos needed to be reduced in scale

but both have an important role. >> in december 2009 which is at page 04228. you have lunch on the 1st of september 2009. >> uh-huh. >> again seemed to -- shed light on any particular kags is possibly unfair. do you think on that occasion at least you are a support of the "sun" and support for you and your party was discussed, or not? >> i don't recall. by this time i was making arguments that some were coming over to conservative and our approach what what you remember. i don't recall the specifics of that conversation no. >> and we see the overall picture. a lot of references to mitt robinson on this page and i'll swear he's someone that you keep in contact with for obvious reasons?

>> yes yes. that's right. >> can i go to the ten eth of sent. describe add as drinks with -- >> yes. this is the page still on 229 are we? >> 04228 actually. >> yes. >> the evidence has been it was on that occasion that he told you that the son would support the conservative party? do you remember that? >> yes, i do remember that. i do remember him saying that, i. >> how long was the conversation. >> not particularly wrong. half an hour. 40 minutes. it was a drink and a catch-up that he wanted to tell me that the sun was going to support the conservatives, and he told me i think from my memory, it was going to happen around the time of the labor conference. and i'm obviously pleased the

conservative party's going to get the sun are and there were other policy issues at the time. >> he gave you some inkling of the timing? i. think so. that's my memory of it yes. not the precise timing but i think they were probably still debating it, but i seem to remember there was sort of the hint it was going to be sometime in labor's conference. >> did he identify which aspects of your policy constituted the reasons for his newspapers or in particular sun of jesus abode. >> i think a lot of focus was on the economy because obviously we in the midst of all the economic difficulties and we setting out clearly that it was important for britain to get on top of its debt, deficit and all the rest of it. so i do remember discussing economic