issues yes. >> on that occasion do you raeg any mention we'll make by the relation between the bbc and -- >> i don't really -- i don't recall that and i think ton likely. i think that this was -- he was very keen i think to tell me directly that the son was going to support the conservatives. that he felt on the big economic judgment about what written media we have the right argument. the government had the wrong argument, and my memory is that's what the conversation with with -- >> particularly defense. he take as view you should have at least aircraft carriers i think at last count rather than two. he has lots of enthusiasm. i'm sure we discussed some of that. the key, and my memory, it's

difficult to recall all the events. i definitely remember him saying, we're going to support the conservative party. i wouldn't forget that. i think he gave me a hint of timing and my memory is, it was mostly about the big economic picture, because that was the key issue of the day. >> well this was within about two weeks of his taggert lecture. had you anything before december 10, 2009? >> no. >> had the gist of it been drawn to your attention. >> i read it after the press reports, but i never record in preparation for all this. he had very strong views. some of the things i didn't agree with, on things like the bbc. we had a clear position. dates right back to the council. you need have the license fee, and it's a i say, off come the

blue jean, we've had an opportunity atlantic. >> and amp he described himself very force blip in the lecture this is within two weeks of the lechture lecture, it's more than plausible he might have came to you on these malters on one or more occasions. do you know if this happened? >> i don't think so. this was the main -- i think for a son it was a big change and i remember it being about economic policy. that's my. he rinchts the 31st of september, we can see from multiple page, dinner, you and rebekah brooks. a social occasion now but can you remember anything about whether political issues regulatory views were discussed on that occasion? >> i don't particularly recall what was discussed. what was discussed then.

>> the support for, upcoming is a important of a son is likely to have been mentioned. ship in it-- isn't it? >> yes. i'm trying to remember the exact date of the conference. >> i think we're on about the 27th or 28th of september. >> i expect that would have been discussed in terms of what the son was going to do, but i remember the trink-- i don't particularly remember the dinner. >> rightly or wrongly, the son timed it for maximum political damage to mr. brown's government. goes without saying. seems that these plausible that that sort of -- was discussed on this occasion. would you agree? >> as i say, i recall the drink. yop rahm the dinner. >> okay. the announcement i think was the evening of the 28th of

september. or the 29th.aaaa doesn't matter for our purposes aaaa today. would you look ata 04229 then a series of interruptions with his son. interviewered george pascal in october. and dinner and mr. waltonzonz watson aaa again. dinner and 21st of october and breakfast, with james murdoch and rebekah brooks. quite a lot of activity with news international -- >> page 4229, there was also dinner with "the telegraph" meetings interview with scottish television, the bbc. i-tv. this was the party conferences, an incredibly busy media week. where i was meeting all sorts of people from all sorts of different media organizations. i just want to make that point.casaca

including the lord the whole cacaca team at the mantel sunday et @a cetera, et cetera. >> that's a very fair point, mr. cameron. i didn't mean to occlude that one.@ particularly i move forward to the 15th of december, 2009 @a@a@ which is@ the 04321, and that seems to be the first meeting @a@a@a you had with rupert murdoch after his son's support had changed. can you remember anything about that conversation? particularly about the change of support? >> not particularly. i mean in most of my lunches or breakfasts with rupert murdoch, the conversation has always been predominantly about economic issue, security geopolitical issues. he was very interested in what was happening in afghanistan. very interested in global markets. i think it's -- of course, all businesses have the, their interests and the rest, but in

my dealings with rupert murdoch most of the conversation has been about you know big, international political issues. >> the only other point on this schedule, we see you january, 2010 at page 04232, there's dinner the daily -- is that the only occasion, if you met with mr. michele? >> this is bottom of 4232? >> that's right. >> this was in davost, i think. this was a sort of dinner i've held pretty much every year i've been going. i think is what it refers to. i definitely met fred michele there and probably at sullivan

news senate parties. but i think that's -- that's probably about it. >> and of course you are aware of his role -- >> i've read a lot of texts, yes. well i have now, as it were. >> in relation to your schedule when you were prime minister this is not dc 1, it starts at 04182. what we see by way of summary is a lesser degree of contact. it's about 50%. >> yeah. >> we think. and the same sort of picture in terms of the individuals you meet. coming out. so i don't think it's necessary to look at this with any care. is there any particular point

you want to draw attention to? >> no. i would just make the point again, if you look at downing street, lots of meetings with newspaper and newspaper group, but as you say, a less intense period, i had other important things to do. >> moving away from this, and towards someone else mr. aidan farcly. >> yes. >> we've heard some evidence from him, snfk both of you had the chance to look agents transcript. he referred to the fact that he had quite frequent text messages with you. you'd exchanged phone numbers and we would see messages. day 62 particular it's in it's afternoon. pages 83 to -- 87.

>> yes. >> we know from one text message, i mean, some of these are of personal nature and not necessary to look at them, mr. cameron, but there's one message at the start of tab 25 which is page -- then. 17b 036. that is a reference to -- >> right. >> -- him. to be sure the quote an "him" is a reference to -- >> on the text themselves, or are we on the -- >> this is -- a text sent the 23rd of march 2010. so the campaign hasn't yet been launched, but it's about to be.

spoken to tony. that's tony galaho who repeated our conversation, asked him to be in touch during the campaign being discussed. it was going to be between you and mr. barkley. if that's wrong, i'll be corrected. >> i don't think so. i think the daily call was between the conservative party and tony gallagher. i don't think it was necessarily going to be me, but i think this was me wanting to make sure that there was a pelltelegram that our policies have been rested. >> i understand. social arrangements but there are some texts about liquidity. this is much later on in may 2011. just to have a look at one of them. 03112, mr. cameron. >> yeah. okay.

>> this is quite a contrite area. i suggest therefore bank of england announce extensions of liquidity scheme allow banks, say, five years to implement basil three. you can scrap bank text they won't go along with it anyway. i think you do apply to that, and maybe you don't but there's another one about credit markets. you see the airborne impression here that he has access to you in a particular way. >> well i thinkish you know we met various times. we had each other's phone number and i think he felt particularly strong about some of these economic issues and wanted to give me his view. i don't think there's anything particularly improper about that. >> no. put it another way, did you recall nip particular weight view? is if part of the whole range of

viewpoints you receive, probably an a consultmultitude and -- >> this was him not chairman of the newspaper group but al big chairman invested in. uk lots of other property and interests and this was perfectly legit. i get a lot of exposures from businesses on these points. some by text. many more by the meetings i have and that seems to me jot a bad thing. long as you border them properly in your mind. >> in order to get a fair picture, are we to understand that you always bombarded this type of material? not necessarily from media sources, but generally, people trying to get you to look at things to at least consider them as part of policy formulation? >> i wouldn't say bombarded, but you have a lot of contacts, a lot of different people in different ways.

so -- actually sort of suddenly moved away from e-mail in some ways, because i do my -- my officials papers and box very formally, but i do get texts from business contacts, friends and whan have yout have you. >> i go back to the son's newspaper. i think we agree it can't be seen as of massive importance but of some importance with where it goes, as i suppose a voter. is that a reasonable characterization? >> i think that's right. it doesn't necessarily mean you'll win the election, but you're trying to swain port build momentum so yeah. >> did you develop a strategy ass to how the son might be won over?

>> u wouldn'ti wouldn't put it like that, no. we developed a strategy how to explain the values and policies and approaches we believed in and then tried to spread that as far as we could. obviously, when talking to the son you want to talk to things that is part your policy and particularly going to appeal to "sun" readers. the council tax, people are hard-pressed, having a difficult time. that's something people can feel strongly about, because we know they're families are under pressure. going to talk about basil 3 and talking about the "sun" talking about appeal to the readers. >> you, of course, had mr. colson onboard in may, june, 2007, and come to it late. develop add friendship with mrs. brooks.

didn't you? >> yes. >> and you were aware that are mr. rupert murdochs had a good personal relationship with mr. brown. were you? >> yes. >> and was it explained to you, or did you work it out anyway, that that was likely to be an impediment, to say those terms, to the "sun" shifting sides? >> i think both that rupert -- a strong relationship with rebekah brooks. i knew we had our work cut out to win over the "sun" yes, but i felt what we had on our side was that "sun" readers were leaving the government and dumbcoming towards us. it was going to try to get a center right pro-enterprise, pro-family small seed conservative paper back into the fold. >> and was it your understanding that the final decision would be made by rupert murdoch or at the very least it couldn't be made

without his consent? >> i didn't know. obviously, he would have a big say in it, but i sensed if we could show that some readers were moving in a conservative direction, we would have a good -- a good effort a good chance of winning support. as i say, this was one of many things we tried to do. >> did mr. corson give you advice as to how best to proceed in relation to the "sun"? >> of course. he was my director of communications. so he was in charge of taking on policies and working out the best way of promoting my leadership, our policies our values what we could do for the country to all of these media outlets. >> and you knew he was very friendly with mrs. brooks. didn't you? >> yes. >> and you said mr. brooks was close to gordon brown. it wouldn't be perhaps fairer to say that she was close to his

wife, that, in fact, she was friendly with tony blair and less well disposed to gordon brown? if i can summarize that? >> i think she was pretty friendly with all of them. i remember some strong arguments when i would be gracing the government and all the works and she would be standing up prit you vigorously for gordon brown. >> when did you sense that mrs. brooks would be disposed to sporting you and your party? approximately when? >> i can't really put a date on it. i think it was -- as i say there was growing picture of disenchantment with the government. the conservative party was, i think getting its act together. looking more like a credible government, and it was a process. he had some strong allies, as it were. i don't want to ruin his career, but i felt that he was someone

who thought that labor got it wrong. thought the conservative party was getting its act together. lots of things he didn't agree with me but i always felt he was a potential ally for pointing out that some readers were moving in our direction. >> i'm sure it's -- process not an event. if it is an event, you're not going to remember the exact day. approximately when do you think mrs. brooks was on site? about six months before the shift of support? a year before? >> i can't. i would have to go through my diary and try and remember, but i can't give you a date. not even a sense of when it might have been in terms of -- i'm not asking you to give us a date. but was it months? was it weeks? was it years? i don't want to get it wrong. so -- it certainly wasn't weeks. it was, i think, more than that.

but i can't really give you anymore than that. >> were you given any advice as to the importance of james murdoch in this decision that he would have influence over his father and put bluntly, maybe draw his father away from im important ground? >> welpol ii think they were all ers important. i mean i didn't quite understand. it's like, that the son likened it under the white smoke i didn't quite understand how the decision would be made but theyyou kn were all important in terms of making that decision.avanagh, the "sun" readers trusted ra rebekah rebekah, dominique all of them and i felt showing how the ad conservative party would be goode o for country, good for readers and had a chance of winning them back to the conservative fold and that's when i focused on. no >> how important were the freuds in all of this if not as decisionmakers but as

facilitators? >> very difficult. the politics, i'm not quite sureot of that. so i'm not totally -- i'm not totally sure -- not soelthsly sure what role he -- was playing and he will be e helpful in terms of a meeting here or advice. he's a friend. su i think he's political lyly. >> they may not be able to di identify the day but would you have counted or did you counter by amongst your good friends say by 2008? >> yes. we got to know each other..ven th we struck up a friendship.st

that friendship grew even though g she was at that stage and her q paper was supporting gordon ship brown and she was personally supportive of gordon brown. she got stronger when she married charlie brooks. she was a maybe. >> she gave us evidence in this way. thea quantity and tone of text y messages.o can i ask you this straight gist forward question? do you agree in general with the gist of her evidence on that matter. >> i think i do. >> as for phone calls i am not to asking to you count them out, but approximately how often did you speak to her by phone including by mobile phone. >> in opposition, perhaps wh particularly in 2006 or 2007, ri not a huge amount when i felt

that i did ring her, i always felt like i was telephoning a lot less than gordon brown. i thought it was interesting that i was the leader of the opposition. my sense was i was inca contact a c lot less than he was.n i can't put numbers on it. certainly in 2 then 6 or 2007 ju not necessarily every weekend. >> can we move it forward to b 2008 2009.s was? the contact by phone say on a weekly basis?s >> as we get closer to the election and decision of the sunks and also the wedding and she and moved into charlie brooks's ct house which was near where we live in the constituency and the level of contact went up and we saw each other socially more.

>> what date are we talking about? >> in 2008 2009. just to get the idea contact by telephone and social contact.ou an >> it's very difficult. i don't have a record. i don't want to give you an answer that is not right.t # a, particularly right around perhaps the time of the wedding or when we were both in oxfordshire we would've had more frequent contact. >> okay. so when you're at your constituency and weekends, did you see her every weekend or most weekends over the very 2008-2000? >> not, not every weekend.

in 2008-2009, i'd have to check. i might give and go back and 2008 2009 i might be able to go back and check, but i don't think most weekends. it would depend. i don't think it's necessary to ask you to check with the questions that are not designed to being that precise. >> definitely we were particularly -- once you started going out with brooks and living a couple of miles down the road, i was definitely seeing her more often. my friendship with charlie and as a maybe and tennis together and which i'm sure will come on to them. that was why i was seeing more of her. that was a success message.

stated in 2009, the number in the system and tab 35 of the attend um. saying something about it. >> i got it. >> i should make it clear before i read it out that news international has recently disclosed a number of other text messages between mrs. brooks and mr. cameron. pursuant to section 21 request that is in order under statute with the disclosed material. those relate to the period of october 2 thousand 9 and may 2011 and june 2011. in the inquirer's judgment, all the text messages i have

referred to are irrelevant to the reference. the link letters also explained why text messages are not available. that will be put on the website. the one we are looking at is the seventh of october, 2009. i think that's during the party conference, but it's certainly within eight or nine days or so of the support she said but seriously. that contains or might contain something of a nature. i understand the times, let's discuss over country supper soon. let's look at the post

endorsement and they were disappointed not to see you. i thought it was always the chance personified. i am so rooting for you tomorrow not as a permanent friend, but professionally, we are definitely in this together. they are rooting for you tomorrow. you are giving a speech at the party conference. the issue at the time was at the party conference, i had not been to the times party. the major newspaper groups. i haven't gone and i think that was what this was about. i was apologizing for that.

that was her disappointment, as it were. if that helps. # but because professionally we are definitely in this together. what was your understanding of that? >> that is about the son had made the decision to back the conservatives to get the company with the neighbor. the son wanted to make sure they were announcing the speech i was going to make and the rest of it. that's what that means. # that's covering the son and you were bounding to to some extent? >> as she put it, we are friends and professionally, in newspapers we were going to be pushing the same political agenda.

that was in a forward-looking way. was that the reaction huh with her? >> yes. we were neighbors. >> okay. >> moving forward to may 2011, this relates to the mccannes. were you asked by cause to take place a review of the mccann case with the police. that was the providence of the whole issue. what i remember is i had a meeting as leading the opposition. anyone who let them off read about the story and