fail to be incredibly moved by the efforts made to get them back. i thought of this as a prime minister, but i can't remember the exact prominence of who called who and when. i think it was the police played a roll n trying to keep the investigation going and the government helped them with that. >> in terms of any interaction between you and mrs. brooks, was it braun to your attention that mrs. brooks went to see your special advisers on the 11th of may? >> i don't recall. it might have been. i don't recall the exact conversations. i do recall because i can see what might lie behind the question. are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly? i do remember as prime minister

consulting the secretary number ten about the accept that the police were about to take backed by the government which was to provide extra funding for the investigation. it was drawn to my attention. there is a special home office procedure for helping with particularly complex and expensive investigations used in various cases and it would be used in this case and he was satisfied that that was dealt with properly and effectively. it's an example, if you like, of the experience of making sure these things are done properly and i believe it was. >> were you aware of any pressure being put on you directly or indirect le by mrs. brooks to cause the review to take place? >> pressure, no. i wasn't aware of any pressure. >> it wasn't pressure, was any influence then sought to be imposed?

and a case that a number of newspapers wanted to champion because their readers wanted to champion it. obviously as government you have there is media pressure or is it genuine public pressure or a genuine case and are we treating this fairly? i did ask those questions of the permanent secretary number ten. we made an appropriate response. i don't remember any sort of specific pressure or being put on me. i think i am given evidence on this as well. >> going to a different topic, it ties in with the implied deal point. you may or may not have been following mr. gordon brown, but you made a specific point

against you and your party and you have the opportunity to deal with it. he put it to be fair to him, higher than implying to you and he was an express deal that you made with either rupert or james murdoch to follow the line of tag efforts new to trim back the bbc in exchange for news international supporting your party. and i invite you to respond to it genuinely. >> it is john sense from start to finish. where it comes from is that the son desserted him and as a result in my view he cooked up a speechless and unjustified

theory to try to justify and look through the individual parts of policy that he points to. in almost every case, it is complete nonsense to take a couple of examples. it is the government that and he makes a point of taking on the product placement. that started the process of changing the rules on the product placement under his oversight. i argued before, he is not the same as james murdoch. i support the license fee. it is complete nonsense.

there was no covert deal or nods and winks. there was a conservative politician, me, trying to win over newspapers and trying to win over television and not trading policies for that support. when you look at the detail of this, it is complete nonsense. >> that's on two matters and taking the highlights. that's a sense of a way to deal with it. the highlights and the off com issue and the bbc issue. >> maybe the easiest way to deal with this is dealing with 105. you have taken time to refer to relevant parts of situations of your party policy when in ap sigz.

this is a speech of the minster he gave, january of' 09. 04127. we were fans of the bbc and on the next page, we support the license fee and believe it's the best way to fund for the foreseeable future. we believe the level of the licenses are at the top end of what is acceptable to the public. hinting there that the fee may have to be frozen. >> that are is what we did, we froze the license fee much to the anger of james murdoch. that's fair and treenl other bbc. they cut by considerably more. again, this part of the experience theory has absolutely no wait at all.

>> as some might say, you were not prepared to go as far as mr. murdoch to cut the fee, but prepared to meet him part way along the way. >> quite difficult to argue at a time when you know if you get into the government, you will have to be making spending reductions and see the bbc license fee go up and up and up. we had a consistent argument from my own views and the bbc needed to be strong and needed the backing of the license fee and i think the bbc had gone into areas it shouldn't have done and i have mentioned that in my evidence, but it's a fair settlement and not one that james murdoch supported. this was clear from paragraph 109, you made an announcement to the effect of the license fee being frozen. did that represent your policy

at the time between march of 2009 and the election? the license fee. >> i made that announcement in march of 2009. and we have delivered that, more than that policy in government, yes. it just caught my eye, if there was this great conspiracy to hand over bbc policy to the murdoches, it would seem to be quite a strange choice for the creative industries, chaired by former bbc director general. if he wanted a murr tock experience, he wouldn't ask the labor supporter and very successful director general of the bbc to carry out the policy for you. another reason why i think this whole idea is -- >> elizabeth freud is part of

the task force. >> that's true. the list on page 37, i would argue that is a pretty balanced list of people from different parts of broadcasting leader in technology. as i say, he is hardly a shrinking violet and i wouldn't put him in charge if you had some secret agenda. >> probably not shrinking violet, but is it your position that we will have a range of views coming across from the individuals? >> what we are trying to do is assemble a group of people that included radio, music, new media, itv, so pretty good mix actually. the person leading it was a former director general of the bbc. i think that's significant. >> occur we look at it? you gave a speech that wasn't at

all. it's paragraph 113. you did make puts about off comment on the two or three paragraphs. >> it's important to stress this was a big speech that was a sense after 13 years, the state got very big and they were very powerful. the people working were extraordinarily well-paid. i worked on it with oliver to try to come up with it instead of the normal politicians do. we were trying to find a set of rules to apply to see whether they needed to exist or parts of them can be folded back into government. we set out a series of questions in paragraph 113 and applied that to a number of them. a big speech that is only three paragraphs or so.

one of the reasons i picked them was because of my own experience of remembering what the independent television commissioner had done. the itc, the precursor. remembering the levels of pay that there were in the itc compared with off com. i did think off com was quite a good example that got too big, too expensive and the pay levels were pretty excessive. i would make the point that there were at this time off com was being attacked by itv. by the bbc and with which it had almost nothing to do. on the left, they were all saying off com seems to have gotten too big. this was an agenda that was very linked to my views and not in any way proposed or dictated by violence.

>> you said it would cease to exist as the merit and at the end of paragraph 113. it's restricted to the technical enforcement and that covered under the enterprise act with plurality. it will no longer play a roll n making policy. >> with all these was to say that policy making on the whole should be done by departments and be accountable to parliament. we were making an argument not just about cutting cost, but accountability and say if decisions have to be impartial, they should be carried out by independent nongovernmental bodies. it was a serious attempt to look at them more broadly. >> to take the story forward as it were, is this right?

the reason this policy was not enacted was that in the pragmatic reality of the coalition government, it wasn't possible in. >> i was not involved in the detailed negotiation of the agreement, but some policies made it through and others didn't and suspect this is one that we didn't get agreement on. we have taken action on pay levels and have tried to restrict them. >> you have denied that there was any implied deal and i will try to look at it in this way. do you feel looking back at this that there is no one the less a perception that we have the coincidence of two things in terms of time. a shift in support and policies that oent match what we see in the lecture, but not a million

miles from them and the public thinks ear people think between the two, this is a perception and it flows from the cozy relationship. did you accept at least that much? >> i think anyone reasonably looking at conservative policies and where they came from and our values and approach and personal history. i don't really accept that. there is no evidence of that and no overt deal. we slightly get into the witchcraft trials. you have proved you are innocent? the best i can do is point to all of these and explain where the media is and whether you are

dealing with a bbc license and product placement and there is good explanation for the position wees hold. that was either a deal or you don't. if you don't have a public inquiry, their perceptions. >> the public inquiry is excellent. absolutely fulfilling what i wanted and it's important alongside the appalling things that happened to innocent people. in terms of police related is absolutely right. we get to the bottom of the media relationship and how to put it on a firmer footing. not only was there no covert deal, but no overt deal and policies i produced that i am proud of and came from and our

beliefs and values and my history and my history that wasn't dealing with anybody else. >> i covered that point and going to move on to another point then. the 30 area of evidence is specific to the example and it is first one is mr. andy. you start that in your witness statement, paragraph 219. page 04168. in terms of your wish list in someone with tabloid experience? >> not necessarily, but i was looking for someone who was a big hitter. i was looking for someone who

could really cope with the huge editors and executives on the tabloid newspaper do others wouldn't. there wasn't a particular wish list, but trying to get right person with the right skills. >> without generalizing too much about tabloid editors, we are tending to look at people who are tough and not going to blink under pressure. >> that's right. -- i'm not asking for sympathy, but the media pressure the policy problem over here and marriage break down over here and a counsellor immeshed

your head and it's very fast and furious and you need someone seriously good at handing it. qualifications. had a very good guy interested in doing a good job. i wanted someone who really would be able to materially alter and improve the way we did things with respect to this massive pressure phase. >> to what extent were you looking at the example of campbell as being the politically, the sort of man in terms of temperament and robustness who would be of assistance to you. >> not necessarily. he was much more political than all sorts of ways.

there were occasions when you overstepped the role of what he should have been doing. can you remember how many names are considered? . >> i don't want to blight their careers, but there were two or three that i met with. were any from the broad sheet? >> yes. >> mr. callson, was he the only one from news international.

there was -- there was a tabloid newspaper i talked to earlier. at which time we made the appointment, i think i'm right that he was the only tabloid editor available. >> the additional interviews, how many did you see as part of the process. >> how many people did i see? obviously harry as he were or been outed, but i did have conversations with him. that was a senior from a broad sheet newspaper and someone else very senior in the bbc. there was this tabloid

journali journalist -- i have lost count. i think there were four people. there may have been others. the situation was very effective communicator. clearly we wanted to strengthen the operation. people are being suggest and proposed all the time. those four i can remember personally talking to. >> paragraph 225, you explained that assurances were obtained in a meeting with them. is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> can we be clear? was that something that was communicated to you in about march of 2007, namely they had specifically asked for assurances and obtained them? >> yes. obviously he was my chief of staff.

when you are trying to hire someone like this, you have to keep matters very tight. you don't want it to leak. i would have talked to edward about his interview, yes. >> mr. osbourne's evidence is that he asked for and obtained assurances. were you aware of that? >> i don't recall, but if george said that, i have no reason to doubt it. as i put into my evidence in 225, i remember the edward issue. i expect george did the same thing. >> how important was mr. osbourne's advice in relation to this process? were you reliant on him or forming your own judgment? >> we worked closely into he thought this was a good idea, but as we said, this was my

decision and take full responsibility for it. i don't try to shuffle off any responsibility to anybody else. >> in paragraph 237 of your statement, page 04172, you say that you are sure that you would have discussed his appointment and that is his appointment with rebecca wade? >> to be clear by this time, this is may of 2007, would you have countered her as amongst your friends? >> yes. i think i would. as i say in the evidence, i can't recall when i discussed it with her. whether it was before, during, or after. i am sure i would have had a conversation with her about it. >> do you remember how many conversations? >> no.

>> might it have been more than one or not? >> i don't think so. the process was george -- we both met him before. i had met andy when he was editor of news of the world and formed the impression that he was very effective individual. george met him after he resigned as being editor of the news of the world and i then met him subsequently. i made the decision to employ him. i asked for these assurances to be clear in my evidence. >> that comes with that. in your discussions with mrs. brooks, were you as it were seeking some sort of reference from her or was it far more informal? >> i can't seeking a reference. like this with editor of the newspaper, you can't seek formal references.

i am sure i would have asked how effective he would be. this conversation may well have taken place after we made the decision. i can't recall exactly when the conversation took place. in the end, it was my decision. i was satisfied this was the right thing to have a former tabloid editor to help us with our communications. it was my decision. >> sometimes the discussions are going people's couch and integri integrity. did you have a discussion on those lines? >> i'm afraid i don't recall, but i think the most important thing i would have wanted to know is would he be good at the job? i was convinced he would be because as i said, it's the massive pressures you face. you need someone with those sorts of skills. i'm sure that's what i would have been thinking of. i'm sure effectiveness is going

to be a key attribute and character and integrity might be. >> you are going to be working with this person closely. you have to have a relationship of trust with them. >> what if anything was the reaction to the idea that? >> she thought it was a good decision because she thought he was an effective operator. >> your evidence is that there was a meeting and we think it was probably in march of 2007. that ties that up with the evidence. he places the meeting as being in your office in the norman shore south building which is the leader of the oppositions building. paragraph 29 of the witness statement. might that be correct? >> my recollection is that the

meeting took place in my office. for me, that was the key meeting about deciding whether or not to employ him. i had been over the diaries and it's difficult to piece together. that's my recollection. that was the key meeting. >> and his evidence is also that there was a later discussion this time by telephone in late may of 2007. paragraph one of his at the same time and you raised the issue of phone hacking? does that accord with your recollection? the assurance in the face-to-face meeting we had in my office. that's my recollection. i vaguely remember. and that's our policy to rack my brains to remember who were the sequencing and my recollection

is that i knew and i needed to ask him that question. it says in my evidence. >> in your witness, the bottom of page 04168, you state that in particular with 2007 in the months after he resigned, various people and you separately had conversations with him. if that's the conversation, we have the evidence on paragraph 29 took place in march in your offices in the south building, then the further conversation is paragraph 227. that must have been the phone conversation in meat may. on that occasion you asked him for assurances. >> the 227.

we earth had a further conversation where we were involved in the hacking case and that is what i remember being the face-to-face meeting. >> he has them the other way maybe we should see specifically his accounts. my recollection is that he was there and you spoke by phone. that was 58 of the second. bear with me on this. it's 58 of the second bundle. qn he said after the meeting with mr. osborne, which is taking place in