integration into afghan government and society? >> the operations themselves are focused on the insurgency in a broadway. south of kabul, there is a mixture of taliban and hakani. the predominately work with other insurgents and provide expertise, facilitation, and leadership to conduct the operations they want to conduct. in terms of hakani itself, the foot soldiers they employ are much like any body else. given a better opportunity, i believe they will choose not to fight. it will choose to come home to afghanistan. we know from our intelligence and as we have brought in recently and those we have received by other means that

many of these taliban fighters, the foot soldiers, are weary of this fight, they're distrustful of their leadership, and they're looking for a way to reintegrate. some of them are making that step formally and informally today. from their point of view, it's a question of is the opportunity better undercroft. in many places there are seeing security and advance of basic services and are asking themselves what they want to know is can i come back safely and in my family come back safely? when they find that to be the case, they reintegrate. i think the hakani foot soldiers are like any others. the senior leadership is intent on a minimum and their intent would be to secure what is traditionally their area of operation.

>> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. sir, i will turn it over to you for any closing remarks he might have. -- you might have. >> thank you very much. it was an honor to be with you again tonight. it has been my honor to lead coalition forces here in afghanistan, which again, for this year, i am constantly in all of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and coalition soldiers focused on this mission, their dedication to, and the sacrifice they made to secure afghanistan. just as important, to secure our nation. their sacrifice is great, their confidence is inspiring. this has been at a great cost and we always have to remember that. we have to make their sacrifice

matter. i believe we can complete this mission that has been set out for us. finally, i would think the families of these soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines because they serve as well, they sacrifice as well, and they give full support to those here doing the mission. it has been my honor to do my part in their formation this year. >> ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our press conference. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the general came to live from kabul this morning, which experienced to earthquakes. scores of people are dead after the earthquake triggered a rockslide and buried a number of

houses. >> tonight, the president of espn on the networks expansion into different media platforms. john came on the way technology has changed cnn, and the vice president of cox and their small business focus. that's tonight at 8:00 on c- span2. >> the author visited kenya and kansas to visit the family tree. but tv has a preview with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya with the author in 2010. your phone calls, e-mail, and tweets for the author on a book tv. >> former british prime minister gordon brown testified today before a british panel examining the relationship to politicians

and the press. he discussed the dealings with rupert murdoch and denied ever saying he was going to declare war on him. following the decision to support the conservative party. he addressed the issue of privacy and say never gave permission for "the sun" to print a story about his son's medical condition. this is over two and a half hours. >> i am today handing down rulings in relation to the application made in relation to operation motormen and to cox. when this was established last july, it was extremely important that we had crossed party support. it was equally important to conduct work it so that it doesn't undermine the basis upon

which it was established. two weeks ago, the former prime minister, tony blair, gave evidence and this week, i shall be hearing from others who are or have been the leading politicians of the day. they come from different parties with different political allegiances and already there have been demonstrations -- there has been demonstrated public interest in what they will be asked at what they have to say. it's vital to bear in mind the inquiry is grounded in the terms of reference, these include one, to inquire into the culture, practice, and ethics of the press, including contacts and relationships between national newspapers and politicians and the context of each. second, to make recommendations, for how future concerns about press paper committee apology and a cross media ownership should be dealt with by all relevant

authorities, including among others, the government. c, as to the future conduct of politicians and the press. the present focus on the press at its relationship with politicians. i am specifically not concerned and that keen to avoid interparty politics. interested in either. further, however much some might want me to investigate all matter of issues, i know we are equally keen to ensure the inquiry itself remained on its correct track. there relates not only to the undeniable role of the press in a democratic society and the way the press service the public interest, but the privilege claimed as a consequence and the way in which that role is filled in practice. it also relates to the other

side of the point, -- the other side of the coin, which is the way politicians and journalists -- to keep the press from being accountable to make sure there is no political will to challenge the culture, practice, or ethics. to be more specific, the purpose of this inquiry is not to challenge the present government or decisions taken in the recent past, but to look at a wider sweep of history across political boundaries in order -- that could not be recognized as mixing the open, fair, and transparent decision making that our democracy requires. inevitably, as i have already explained, the way in which the bskyb issue was addressed is

only part of the story. nothing i say or do is intended to limit or prevent that investigation from taking place. i do hope that this issue is merely the most recent example of interplay between politicians and the press and will be recognized by everyone at failing to address the impact of press behavior or the press interests is not confined to one government or political party. for that reason, it remains essential that the cross party support for this inquiry is not jeopardized. lot so far as the terms of reference the third, there are bound to be acceptable and professional relationships between police officers and journalists. there are entirely appropriate

relations between politicians and journalists, doubtless board of friendship and entirely appropriate professional relationships between politicians and journalists as a former seek to promote their policies and messages while the latter seek to insure politicians and their policies are held fully and properly to account. second, to recognize the risk that an effort to keep the press on the side, supporting policies firmly believe to be in the public interest, too much attention may be paid to the power of the press can't exercise pursuing its own agenda, particularly where it is agreed by the entire press or at least a section of it. that might include questions related to redress related to the weakest in our society. in that regard, i anticipate questions will be asked about the draft criteria of the solution -- not to commit any

party leaders getting evidence, but to hear their perspective on the problems to be addressed in relation to the culture and the ethics of the press and any potential unintended consequences they have spotted which i may not have considered. nothing i say should be taken as expressing any opinion. testing with this is is doing no more than testing ideas. it may be more interesting for some to report this inquiry to the politics of personality. that is not my focus and as ever, i will be paying attention to the way in which what transpires is in fact reported. this week will not conclude the evidence of module 3, though we will not be sitting next week. it is intended to call for the witnesses from the media to deal

with the relationship between the press and politicians not least to see if there are issues that need to be resolved and changes made. we will then turned to module #4 which concerns ways forward for the future. during the course of that model, i look forward to hearing how the industry has progressed with the plan outlined long ago. i also look forward to considering various other suggestions for the replacement of the pcc that have been submitted in detail to the inquiry. i sought to provide assistance to those intending to make submissions by publishing on the web site what the potential draft criteria for regulatory regime -- that is why they're called draft, along with key questions related to public interest and press ethics. the purpose of doing so remains

to encourage everyone that the issues i much think about and welcome comments and suggestions -- i retain an open mind as to the future. all ideas will be subject to scrutiny and i have no doubt will help form conclusions and recommendations that ultimately make. i'm sorry for the delay in commencement. >> we would like to see the questions which some of the witnesses are answering where they have not answer the questions in their witness statement. most of the witnesses have been responding to section 21 notices from the tribunal. most have chosen to set out the question in their witness statement. and one or two cases, they have

exuded the motive. one can relate the answer to the question, however there have been a handful of cases where the witnesses were chosen to answer the questions without setting that out or revisiting them. that makes it very difficult for those seeking to understand the evidence to reach a full appreciation of it. a particular example of this was mr. blair his statement has a heading turning to the particular question which runs several pages. he says things such as i do not recognize any of the "i have been asked about. >> i understand that. >> we have been in correspondence with the inquiry about this and the answer we have received is that this correspondence is confidential. that simply cannot apply in this

instance. the vast majority of witnesses have set out and it cannot be confidential and the remaining cases. it is also in evidence with mr. brown, whose evidence we're about to hear. >> thank you. >> i will think about it and come back to you at a convenient moment. >> i call this morning's witness, the right hon. quarter brown. >> thank you very much. >> i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> mr. brown, your full name

question >> james gordon brown. >> you gave a statement the 30th of may, 2012 and it has a standard statement of truth. you signed it. is it your formal evidence to our inquiry? >> yes, it is. >> mr. brown, thank you very much for the work that has gone into the inquiry. i'm sorry about this morning being slightly delayed. >> thank you very much. >> may we start with your general,? on the bottom of the first page of your statement, you refer to secure link -- securing the right balance of the freedom of the media and privacy of citizens. implicitly and that is that there and in balance and presence. how you do that without impinging on the freedom of the

media? >> the starting point has been the complaint made by families that would support the field -- the freedom of the press, but they are worried about the threat made to their privacy as individuals. i think the lord justice put it who will guard of the guardians? who will defend the defenseless? we have got to provide answers in a situation where we have to freedom is competing with each other. i have had some time to reflect on this matter. you may call a forced reflection courtesy of the british people, but i have had a chance to look at some of these issues and i would hold that these came from my religious upbringing. one of the institutions in society that has not we right

but a duty to speak truth to power and they should continue to shine a torch on those dark, a secret recesses of unaccountable power, for example the great sunday times in campaign. at its best, the media in this country is also the best in the world. i would defend their rights of the media to exercise freedom even when there is a political bias. during the time i was in number 10, when the prime minister was having great trouble with his other colleagues around europe, i said is there anything i can do to help? he said yes and the next day the editor of the best-selling daily newspaper arrived wanted to do an interview about how this man

was the greatest statesmen in the world. that is not the best way the press exercises its freedom. i would defend the rights of the press even when it gets things wrong, as it does on occasion. when i started as a member of parliament, was plagued for the first few years with a story in the times which was then and every one of the copies that said i was a new mp -- is that i was born in 1936 and was a veteran of stalwart and then is getting letters from pension companies saying i was about to retire and what i want to make provisions about that. they have a photograph of me at the age of 19 and said i was 57 years old. that was an honest mistake. where i think we have a problem is in two respects.

the freedom the press has its to be exercised with responsibility and rights can only come with responsibilities attached to them. two specific areas we have a problem -- the completion of facts and opinions, which is against the council guidelines and we ought to explore how standards in journalism could be upheld in a situation where there is a tendency for newspapers in particular to editorialize outside their editorial content. the second thing is how can we defend the privacy of a family who at the moment of greatest grief and at a time when they are at their most vulnerable have their privacy invaded by the press and the latest with the family apart and makes everyone suspicious of each other? specifically since it has been done by unlawful means,

including telephone tapping. you can deal with legal means by enforcing the law but i don't think it has never worked properly. this is where i part company with some of the statements so far today. i think there is an issue not just about rooting out the bad, but i think we have to have some means to incentivize the good as well. there is an issue in the internet age about the declining standards. >> thank you. you mentioned a freedom with responsibility and you mentioned it in your witness statement as well. how does one and still the necessary cultural change in the press to create their responsibility? >> in the first case, it is a

matter of upholding standards of journalism. when i was very young, i was the editor of my student newspaper at at of our university. we had one of the greatest journalists of that time as my teacher and i used to debate with him this issue of the responsibility of the press. he influenced my judgment very much on this issue and he said very clearly that the press has to exercise its judgment about what it published and how it framed its coverage, but also how it conflated fact and opinion or how it fit with our responsibility. i don't think we do enough to encourage the good. if i could say what i think the

problem is -- we're dealing with the problems of yesterday and not tomorrow. there is a massive flow of information available to everyone. in the 1930's, the bbc had news coverage and the people would say there is no news to report today. can you imagine a situation in a 24-hour news media when something like that could ever be said? we are about to see a flood of information on to the internet. from my web of linked files to a web of linked data. the amount of information is going to increase exponentially. the amount of information you and me is going to create acts -- is going to go up exponentially. there is a new citizen journalism that is developing and we have these things happening at that is putting

pressure on the quality of ordinary journalism because the advertising and business model of today's newspapers, today's print media is being shot through as advertising gravitates from ordinary news media to the internet. the question arises who is going to pay for, who is going to be the person that underpins quality journalism? i believe we have to look donnelly and mechanisms by which we deal with this in the press but a means to enhance the standard. the bbc found a way to do it in the 1940's when they introduced a license fee. perhaps this should be available for the internet. there is a huge debate to be had you cannot ignore the fact that poll of coverage of news now is intimately related to the development of the internet and

its standards are not there on the internet and print media can rightfully say they have to observe standards that are not being applied to the internet. the issue is a new one and it is one to deal with the transformation of technology now available to us and the information flow this massive for the ordinary public. >> you refer to the completion of news and comment parrot you refer to clause 1 of the code which directly addresses that -- -- you refer to the conflation of news and comment. you refer to clause 1 of the code. >> we refer to editorializing outside the normal editorial. these to talk about the editorial is a chance for a newspaper to reflect its views. perhaps i can illustrate this

best by giving you an example of what happened during the time of government and it's good you are taking a number of examples. perhaps i could take when it is controversial -- coverage of afghanistan. during the time i was prime minister, we had an incredibly difficult decisions to make. this is a country of 35 million people, 135,000 troops at the maximum. you have nothing like the coverage he have in kosovo we have a peacemaker for every person in there. you are dealing with a complex set of circumstances in a country that has never been subject to effective law and order and at a time when an occupation, an army of liberation is becoming an army of occupation and your making difficult and complex decisions about how you deal with these problems that we increase the number of troops and increase

the amount of money spent sixfold. the chief of the defense said this is the most effective defense forces we have ever had given the resources we are putting into them. you could have an honest debate. you could have a very effective debate about what is the right judgment about troop numbers. but one newspaper in particular decided to -- and this is my point by way of illustration -- it didn't want to take on the difficult issues, so reduced their opinion we were doing something wrong with the editorializing position that we just did not care. the coverage was not what we have done and whether we have done the right thing, but that i did not care about our troops in

afghanistan. that is where you conflate facts and opinion and make it not about honest mistakes or matters of judgment, but about people's intentions. you can laugh about it now and i do laugh about it sometimes. if you pick up a newspaper -- that is an example of how he doesn't care about our troops -- the story wasn't true and that's not the conclusion that should have been drawn. you are actually praying and a bell your head and this is an example of someone falling asleep and discovering the troops and again you don't care -- you then have a mark of respect to someone who is deceased and you are told you -- and a handwriting expert appears

and's she says that this shows a lack of empathy. it goes on and on and that's the idea. here is a difficult issue that the press has to treat seriously. there are very few war correspondents in afghanistan reporting what is happening on the ground. all the reporting is being done -- the issue is not the facts of what is happening or even an honest disagreement. the issue is reduced to this person does not care. that is where -- if the media only had a political view and said we are conservative, people could accept that. it is part of freedom of speech. but to conflate fact and opinion, that's the opposite of the press rules. to sensationalize and trivialize and in a sense, demonize.

the lectures earlier in this century about trust and a license to be deceived -- that is where the danger arises. it is it too easy with citizen journalism of the internet where people have a right wing and left wing of blotters and distort facts and opinion and mix them together -- an issue of character and practice -- i think that's where the press has failed our country and i could give an example from the economic crisis, but this conflation of fact and opinion and the way it is done is very damaging and i find it done differently in other countries. >> mr. blair's speech which was

on the 12th of june, days before he left town after you took over -- did you agree with the sentiments she expressed in that speech? >> i think he was saying exactly what i'm saying today. facts completed with opinion -- by sentiment about the importance of the press it was expressed in my earlier remarks. we need a free press and should defend and uphold the best of standards in a free press but the remarks are exactly what i am saying. if you set out to editorialize, if you conflate facts and opinion and put it on the front page of your newspaper, if you sensationalizes by alleging opinion is not about policy, but about the person you are attacking, that is not a healthy

sign for democracy. i do note that on afghanistan -- the country is falling into the hands of the taliban. as we reduce troops, we're handing over power not to the army, but it very newspaper that wanted to make the issue that they have been silent since the general election of 2010, i would have to conclude as mr. barrett -- as mr. blair concluded, these were not campaigns related to objective journalism. these were campaigns designed to cause discomfort to people who were politically unacceptable. >> what is your analysis for the failure to address this issue? >> tony gave evidence a few days

ago and he rightly said a decision was made that there would be no manifest of commitment to reform of the media. when i came in in 2007, we had no mandate in our manifesto to report on performance of the media. i did want to make a change and i did try to move away from what i thought was the excessive dominance of what i call the lobby system and what has led to these allegations of spin -- spin assumes you have success getting the message across. i don't think anyone could accuse me of having great success in getting my message across, but i tried to move away from that. we moved from having a political chief of communications to

having a civil service -- civil servant do the job, that was a message that we are trying to get the information necessary for the public to understand what was happening. we then tried to move back to a system where decisions were made in parliament. that moved away from a system where there were a selective group of people who previously could expect to get early access to information and that has been a problem with the way the media system worked. but it was wholly unsuccessful and the current government -- originally the head of communications and the lobby system -- it is not the lobby system that is the problem. it is a small group of insiders to get the benefit of early access to information and that's

one of the problems that -- yes we should have made changes earlier and the changes we tried to make we did not make successfully because there was a huge resistance to them. if you announce something in parliament, it was not being reported unless it had been given as an exclusive to a newspaper and they tended to put it on page 6 rather than page one. the reasont part of for the inaction was that until december 2009, your government had support of "the sun and the political will did not exist to take on the pieces? >> i think that's a completely wrong impression about what has happened. having the us support of the sun the entire time i was prime minister. the first thing they did was trying to ruin my party

conference by launching a huge campaign about how we were selling britain down the river and demanding not only european referendum but then they ran a huge campaign taken out by the conservative party. at no point in these years -- at what really changed is when news international decided their commercial interests came first -- and i have to be absolutely clear about that -- there was a point in 2008 and 2009 where particularly with james murdock's speech, when he set out the agenda which was quite breathtaking in its arrogance and ambition -- it was it to the

bbc and the regulators and it was a whole series of policy aims itemized for you in the evidence i gave. no government i was involved in ever agreed to. their commercial activities were reduced and they were to be neutered and the listing of sporting occasions was to offense -- was to help news international and a series of issues, the impartiality of news coverage should be removed and it should be like fox news and not sky news. the remarkable thing about this -- and i say this with regret and sadness is we could not go along with that sort of agenda. we could not go along with the bbc seeing its license cut in real terms, something like 15%.

nor could we see a case for the bbc being taken out for much of its work on the internet. while we resisted that and would not support it, on each and every one of these issue -- i think this is an issue of public policy, the conservative party supported every one of the decisions made by the rock group. >> -- >> i wanted to make the point -- i want -- somehow to suggest that relations with the sun newspaper and mr. murdoch broke down because he decided he wanted to support the conservative party, i want to suggest to you the commercial interests of news international

is very clear long before that. they had support from the conservative party. >> may i move off the general comments to your own experience, which is page 8 on the numbering of your statement. can i go back to 2006 and the story in early didn't -- related to your younger son. can we start by establishing the facts as you know them to be in relation to this story? do you know the source for that story? >> this is very difficult for me because i never wanted my son and my daughter ever to be across the media. i think there is an issue that i hope you will address this,

about children to be free from unfair coverage in media publications. because this issue was raised and became an issue for me, i had to look at what actually happened at the time. it is only in a sense laterally that the facts have become available. >> let me make it clear that i do not want to cause you or your family any distress unnecessarily. i hope you will see the value of the example in the same way i apologize to those who complained about press intrusions last november when they gave evidence because i do think it is an important part of the story. >> i am grateful. i have never sought to bring my children into the public domain, but i think if we don't learn

lessons from this, we will continue to make mistakes. in 2007, the son claim they had a story from a man who claimed to be the father of someone who suffered from cystic fibrosis. i never believed that to be correct. he could have only been the middlemen because there were only a few medical people who knew our son had this condition. for the first three bunts our son was alive, we did not know because there were tests being done all the time to decide whether or not this was indeed his condition. only by that time, just before the sun appeared with this information and the medical experts told us there was no other diagnoses they could give, only a few other people knew this. i have submitted a letter from the hall's board which makes it

clear they apologize to us because they believe it is highly likely it was unauthorized information given by a working member of the staff that allowed them to publish this story. whether medical information should ever be handed out without the authorization of parent or the doctor is one issue, and i know the press says there are only exceptional circumstances under which information about a child should be broadcast, i don't believe this is one of them. i find it sad that even now in 2012, members of news international are coming to this inquiry and maintaining this fiction that a story that could only have been obtained through medical and formation or me or

my wife leaking at was obtained in another way. we cannot learn the lessons of what has happened with the media unless there is some of the -- lester is honesty about what actually happened, whether payment was made and this is a practice that continued. if we don't retract this kind of practice, i do not think we can say we dealt with the abuses that are problematic for us. i don't think any child's medical information, particularly at four months has any interest for the public and should be broadcast to the public. >> could you tell us the circumstances in which you or your wife were told that they had this story and printed it? >> it is something i believe they had been given information in this inquiry that is not

strictly correct. our press office said they had this story about his condition and they're going to publish it. i was contacted and i informed my wife and we had to make a decision that if this was going to be published, what would happen? we wanted to minimize the damage and limit the impact of this. we said if the story was to be published, we wanted a statement that went to everyone and there would be and to this, no further statement and no days and days of talking about the condition of our son. unfortunately, this was unacceptable to the newspaper. they called the press office and said this is not the way we should go about it and if we were going to continue to insist

on making eight statement, they would not give us information on any other story there were going to do. it was at that time the editor of the sun, having accepted this was a fait accompli, there was no thought the press commission could help us on this. nobody ever expected the press complaints commission would act to give us any help on this. we were -- there was no question of us getting permission and i asked if any mother or any father was presented with a choice as to whether a 4-month- old son's medical condition should be broadcast on the front page of a tabloid newspaper and you had a choice and the

matter, i don't think any parent and the land would have made the choice to give explicit permission for that to happen. if my son were to read at a later stage on the internet that all of his information be broadcast in a newspaper, he would be shocked. i cannot accept as a parent we would ever put ourselves in a position where we give explicit permission for medical knowledge about our son to be broadcast to the press. we had previous experience of this when our daughter died and we were very aware this was a problem, but when you are presented with a fait accompli, there is nothing you can do other than try to minimize the damage. this is a hereditary condition

and we had to tell them so there was no question about being willing, complice it or as one participant said this morning, deciphering that this information be made public. you could never imagine a situation. if people are able to say they had permission when they hadn't and could claim x post facto that permission was given when there is no evidence that it wasn't, this practice will go on and on and childrens' information and information about people going to the public arena with this idea that you can claim you have an explicit permission for something you have never had permission for. this is important because we have to learn lessons about this. surely the rights of children must come first. >> thank you.

i have been required to put some questions to you. mrs. brooks has stated on a but both that they had consent from your wife to run a story on december 6. do you deny consent was given? >> absolutely. my wife has given a statement to that effect. >> if no consent was given, you and your wife must have been extremely upset and angry. why was no complaint made until june, 2011? >> that is not correct at all. the trivialization of this is unfortunate. when we found out this happened and we had our previous experience and a medical information about our daughter had been made public before she died, we thought the only way to deal with this was to get the

press complaints commission through the editors of the major newspapers to reach an agreement that they would not publish information or photograph our children. before i became prime minister, we set in motion this procedure that we would ask the editors of all the newspapers. we felt this was a structural problem, not just a problem with one newspaper. we wanted them to agree our children would not be covered while they are in a nursery school. they're very young, as you know. we did not want our children to grow up thinking they were minor celebrities. we have seen the effect of this in other countries. we wanted our children to grow up just as ordinary young kids who went to school with reveals and who were treated like everyone else. it was important that we have this agreement with the press.

to be fair to the media -- i say this in my written evidence, we had two incidents where this was breached. it was possible to hold to this agreement, but the idea that we did that thing after this incident is quite wrong and i'm afraid we take action to deal with that in the best way we could without any fuss and without any noise, but to get an agreement the children would not be covered in this way. i hope this will be of help to others in similar positions. >> why did your wife and a particular remain friends with miss brooks? and her wedding in 2009 -- >>

she is one of the most forgiving people i know and finds the good in everyone. we had to accept this happen that get on with the job people expect a politician to do to run the government. my wife had been a massive amount of charity work she was engaged in and if i'm being accurate, it was when mr. murdoch's wife joined us in the white ribbon alliance and the campaign to cut the maternal mortality campaign which was successful in cutting maternal fatalities -- it was wendy murdoch and her four -- her 40th birthday party where they campaigned together on this campaign. my wife's charity work -- this is something she is being gauged

in separately from my political work. i could not allow what happened to me to become a huge issue when i had a job to do. >> are you aware that your wife wrote mrs. brooks a number of letters in 2006 and to thousands 10 in which she expressed the support -- expressed the support given to her? >> i think my wife would be kind to people in respect of what happened at this particular incident and i don't think that is evidence we give explicit permission for the story to appear. >> my last question -- the record shows 13 meetings between you or your wife after mrs. brooks had caught the article prepublished in december

2006 >> i think we had regular meetings. what is the role of a politician, particularly someone who is prime minister? you have a duty to explain. you have to engage with the media. they are a medium by which the concerns of the nation are addressed. we were a country at war in afghanistan and in iraq at the time i was prime minister. we were a country that faced a grave economic crisis. i would be failing in my duty -- i listened all of the meetings with the telegraph and people who did a huge amount -- and that the all to try to explain because i believe i had a duty to build a consensus in this country about how we approached the most difficult problem after the economic crisis -- people

would be criticizing me if i failed to talk to the media and failed to engage with them. but there was a red line in everything i did. there was a line in the sand across which i could never crossed. if there was any question there is a time to promote something against the public interest, i had nothing to do with that. you can serve up better, but you don't need to serve out bskyb as part of the dinner. you have to have a clear dividing line between what you do in politics and for me, we have issues related to the it tempted takeover of itb, news international was very annoyed, we had other news media concern about different things and and there was concern about the licensing fee, but in bell.

what i have never allowed a commercial interest to override the public interest. i have looked at all of the records, including the ministers. we would have never allowed the public interest to be subjugated to the commercial interests of any company. >> did you sense in your dealings with news international they were trying to persuade to to pursue policies favorable to their interests? >> news international had a public agenda. what is remarkable about what happened during that time is that news international moved -- i think was under james murdock's influence, some much rupert murdoch, if i may say so, they had an aggressive public agenda. they wanted to change the whole nature of the bbc. they wanted to change the media impartiality rules and change the way we dealt with

advertising so that there were more rights for media companies to gain advertisers'. they wanted to open up sporting events. that was the agenda they were putting publicly. what became a problem for us is that every one of these single issues, the conservative policies went along when we were trying to defend the public interest. >> is it the gist of your evidence that the agenda they pursued was done publicly and not privately? >> i think their agenda was very public. i don't think they should be criticized for having a view about events. however, it's the duty of the political system to determine what is a public interest and what is a vested interest. >> was not part of your reason for continuing to have dealings

with mrs. brooks that he procedure to be a powerful woman and it would have been against your interest to have taken her on? >> i don't think so. i think i had one conversation in the last nine months of my government. it became very clear in the summer of 2009 when mr. murdoch jr. gave the lecture and news international had a highly publicized agenda for changes in the media policy of this country and there seemed to be very little point in talking to them about. >> page 9 of your statement, you identify a number of breaches of your privacy, the assault on

your building society account, we have heard evidence in relation to a lot of that already. but you have brought this to our attention. >> politicians must expect scrutiny. i have no doubt the level of scrutiny is going to happen in a modern technology age is going to be very great indeed. the question is whether we can justify what you might call fishing expeditions based on nothing other than a political desire to embarrass someone. i think the evidence i give you is in relation to fishing expeditions where newspapers -- if you take everything that is personal about your life, your

tax affairs, your lawyers and and what his legal records, your accountant, in every area -- every era when i was chancellor, there was not a breach of these records. in most cases, that happened because of an intrusion by the media. i would be the first to say there is a public interest if people are looking for information where there is a crime being committed and the police are not investigating war if it is a security issue vital to the safety of the country not being properly looked into, or whether an individual who is lying and deceiving -- i look at these instances and i give you one as an example. i was accused of buying a flat by the sunday times inside team.

they suggested i bought a flat and it had not appeared on the open market and i got it at a knockdown price. they would not accept the starting point of any investigation would not acknowledge this a very flat i was supposed to haveadvertised s itself. we had a meeting at bank information. we had my lawyers and reverse engineering of telephones. they were talking to each other, i was afraid, about how they would use this. but there was no public justification for this, because there was no wrongdoing. he had said that he had evidence of something that he was never able to prove. there was no reason for the

impersonation. i except a huge amount that needs to be tolerated for politics free of corruption, but i do not think the newspaper would have resorted to these tactics and then found nothing to report and held to a story that they knew patently to be absolutely wrong. if you can laugh at it now, they were claiming something that a new one paper was not correct, they have a few lessons to learn from that as well. it is about freedom to exercise responsibility. responsibility in a way that freedom is exercised. >> may we please look at your exhibits gb3, your meetings with the media between 2010 -- 2007

and 2010. it is under tab no. 5, just to give you the flavor. >> it was a duty of office, if i may say so. had i not met the media, i would be failing in my duty. we had to explain to them two huge national issues. the reason that it is greater in some parts and others is because of afghanistan and issues at the times. >> the telegraph on the first page, then on the second page, there are quite a few interactions year, mainly over breakfast. after that, from the telegraph, the editors, limited meetings

with "the guardian," "the times," one more meeting here -- this is a full range, really. >> i try my best to meet everyone. i think that probably, yes, i met everyone where i could. sometimes i did it at events that they had organized. i did it as regularly, but not with a great deal of success. >> with relation to the , top right, page 12, there are only two relevant meetings with mr. james murdoch. if you see that. then the list of your meetings with mr. rupert murdoch, you put in a revised schedule recently. >> it was a kind of office that

gave me the information. i gave you the information that they gave me originally. >> we will publish the schedule. removing the meeting from the fifth of october, 2007, you say that it did not take place. there was, according to exhibit 27, mr. murdoch's statement, there was a meeting on the sixth of october. i thought that there was also by phone call on the fourth. that may not be right. he is meeting staff on the sixth of october. nothing since the fourth of

october. if we could deal with one. in evidence, it relates to the snap election, if you could call it that, in 2007. a pre recorded interview with you on saturday, the sixth of october. we know that there was dinner at checkers with mr. murdoch, his wife, and others, on the evening of the sixth of october, 2007. >> there was a misunderstanding that people thought i had met mr. murdoch and it would have somehow improve relations with mr. marr. i was very careful to do it before i had any meetings. i spoke to him and did the interview the day before. when i went to dinner with mr. murdoch later on, he had no influence on that interview or any decision that i made. he was not consulted, nor should he be, nor should he have

expected to be. >> there's also a correction. the dinner with president bush was the 15th of june, not august, 2008. there were a couple of other meetings that you added to your schedule. we will publish the revised schedule in due course. there is also a list of phone calls that we will come to in a short moment. in relation to mr rupert murdoch, we recall that relations were closer than was wise and he included you in that statement. do you agree? >> i do not. i am sorry, i think that he is deceptive about it.

obviously, i came from a scottish presbyterian background. he was the grandson of a scottish presbyterian minister. he had immediately been put into prison because he defended the church against the state. the same presbyterian interest in the freedom of conscience and, if you like, it was very much a part of what his view of the media was. i understood quite a lot about his scottish background, but the idea that i was influenced in what i did by his views is patently ridiculous. mr. murdoch would have, if he had had the chance, persuaded us to leave the european union, not just leave the euro. we probably would have had a civil war with germany. and scotland, of course, which

he wants to be independent, with a republican scotland. the idea that i went along with mr. murdoch's views is patently quite ridiculous. mr. murdoch has very strong views. he is entitled to these views. the idea that i was entitled to them is nonsense. >> mr. murdoch himself described the war relationship that he had with you. is that fair? >> our similar background made it interesting. i think that he has been, publicly, a very successful businessman. his ability to build up a newspaper, a media empire, not just in australia, but in america and europe, that is something that will not be surpassed easily by any other individual. you need to distinguish, again, between the views that you have

about an individual and the red line that i would draw in the sand between that and any support for commercial interests. >> stating that the relations were closer than was wise made it clear, so i think that his point was in -- was more about deception. do you accept that? >> the implication is that i would be influenced by what he was saying over those issues. i thought that it was wrong to join the euro, talking about some of the issues related to the media later, but i did not agree with him on most of these opposition's. the idea that mr. murdoch and i had a problem bonded in policy is not correct.

mr. murdoch was probably more in the flat tax policy school then the school policy identified with what we reducing, but i do not detract from the respect that i think he deserves from having built a very strong media empire. >> between 1997 and 2007, were relations closer than was wise? >> i do not think so. i do not think he was in the slightest bit interested in what i was doing. i think that if there is a record of these meetings, they are few and far between. >> i am speaking more generally to the government in which you were part. >> i do not think so, but i do not know. there are not many dealings with

news international. they have their own views on issues of policy. in many ways they are similar to mine. >> were you according and persuading the media? particularly news international? is that something that you were aware of? or that you consented to? >> not to my mind. we were trying to rebuild and improve the education system. legislate for freedom of information. we had agendas for civil liberty issues, like gay partnerships. all of these issues, you needed an understanding of the media. you needed to talk to them. as for the -- as for any particular media group, i do not think i was involved in any sort of way where i would feel uncomfortable with any

particular media group at all. >> you must have been aware of the cases in "the son," in march, adopted over time, without being one of substance. did those meetings not cause you any distaste at the time? >> you are talking about articles around the euro? it is a strange coincidence that i, while supporting the idea of a single currency in principle, was always dubious about its benefits to britain in practice. i found it was no great difficulty to me that people were questioning the euro. this goes to the heart of what happens after 13 years of government. the hero was a huge, huge issue. some people argue that if britain did not join the issue -- the euro, it was an argument that had to be taken seriously. however, i argued that the

economics of the euro made it impossible the britain could take part and we did studies with great detail showing that it may actively not be of any great benefit to europe. >> looking back on this. , looking now at 1997 to two -- looking back on this period, looking at 1997 to 2007, is there a relationship between the labor party -- >> i hope that i am not misunderstood. my original point is that we accepted to easily a closed culture, where it was possible for stories about political events could be told to a few people, rather than openly by the parliament through speech. we should have reformed the system earlier. i am afraid that that system is

still waiting to be reformed now. it relies on to small of a number of people. it has its heart in the lobby system, but it is exclusive for some people within the lobby, people who likely resent what we tried to change after 2007. this openness of culture, which we should have encouraged earlier, still is with us. >> in 1997, did you believe the support of "the sun" newspaper was warranted? >> i was not involved in that particular issue. but if you have been in opposition for 18 years and the newspaper that was previously conservative comes to you or is

prepared to come to you, that is something the would welcome, but it is not the be all and end all, and it is not something that dictates the future politics in your country. but it is an important element for building success. >> 2009, were you not concerned that the rooms, the signs of the sun moving away from new to support -- of "the sun" was moving away from you, towards the tory party? >> preservation or expressed in the broken britain campaign, the afghanistan campaign. there was also a new agenda around the future of media policy. i was not surprised at all and was perhaps surprised about the

way that he did it, which was a strange thing to do. the act of deciding to go with the conservatives. >> the account in the book was that the shift in support stunned him, his words, and that it graded on you more and more. is that accurate? >> i do not think so. i had a complaint to the paper about losing the support. i never asked a newspaper for their support directly and have never complained directly when we have not received their support. i do not think you should be dependent on people by begging them to support you in this way. perhaps if i and my part if i did not ask them directly, i never complained to them directly when they withdrew

support from the labor party. >> he is making a personal observation about you. >> i do not think that the word is correct. i expected it to be something the you could read four months previously. but that was their choice and i do not think that was stunned by it at all. >> many said, rightly or wrongly, the you are someone who is obsessed by the news, and more likely to be stunned by any sort of change of support. is that a failed relation? >> i am so obsessed by newspapers that i barely read them. even at downing street, i did not spend a good time reading newspapers at all. obviously, a job where you have 24-hour questions about what is going on, you have to be able to

answer them. you can answer this question and that question, but as far as editorializing, i can tell you i did not spend a great deal of time reading. >> i will wait to interpret your evidence and come to the defense in a moment, but you received this news with relation to "the sun" with complete equanimity? >> it is strange, every time i did a conference speech or a budget, i used to inform the political editors of the newspapers to ask if they had any questions arising from the speech. some had more than others. if it was an unpopular budget, there were more questions. if less, less so. i phoned up the editor of the sun that afternoon -- "the sun,"

that afternoon. he had a few questions about afghanistan, but he did not mention at all that they were making this decision that was to be announced in two hours. if you talk to the editor and he does not tell you what is happening, there's not much point after that. so , i just left it. >> a convenient moment, yes. mr. brown? >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> can we first look at exhibits gb3, tab four. first of all, what is the source of this list? >> and the call that i would have made regarding downing

street, there was a switchboard that would take calls wherever i was in the world, it was whoever i wanted to speak to, as well as anyone else on this list, i would come immediately. >> does it call in as much as out? >> as much as any call that took place with me or with anyone else, it would include calls through a mobile phone or land line phones. it would include any telephone conversation i had had with someone like mr. murdoch. >> was at practice to call up directly to someone? either from your mobile phone or hotel? >> not someone like mr. murdoch. i would always go through downing street.

you would want someone on the phone call. you would want to have record of what was being said and exactly the time you did the call and everything else. there is no question that any phone call could have been made in this procedure. >> if for some delivered reason you did not want there to be a record of what was said, that might be a reason for arranging the call to take place without going through downing street? >> if i was calling in newspaper proprietor or political media around the world, calling someone who had a policy issue, i would always go through downing street. i will always wants someone on the call to verify what happened. that is the way that we did things at that time. no call could have been made.

>> did you have his number on your mobile phone? >> no, i did not have rupert murdoch's number. no reason to engage in anything like that. one letter was sent through e- mail, but it was sent through downing street. i would not have had one of those proprietors on my mobile phone. >> we can see that there are two recorded phone calls in the years from 2009, march, and one on the 10th of november, 2009, at 12:33 in the afternoon. can you remember what mr. murdoch wanted from new york on that occasion? >> he may have just come back from australia.

it was what was happening over afghanistan. >> there is other surrounding evidence that bears on the call. under tab no. 2, gb1, our page 14228, there is an e-mail that you had cause to send to mr. murdoch's referring to the telephone call the you had earlier in that day, in relation to afghanistan. do you see that? >> i decided to follow up the phone call with information that i thought would be of use to him about public support and what was happening. >> he got it that day, but it was a letter that was sent in follow up, because there was a cause from three letters, one which was key to this inquiry.

the key letters on afghanistan over three months, which was the only time in government i ever had any letter communication with them. >> the 24th of december, 2009, under tab 14, this is the exhibit on page 33. >> the famous and writing, yes, which someone said is certainly legible. >> there you have the transcription of it. somewhere. there is a question we had about 01917. there is another one there, mr. brown. the 26 of april, under tab 14, 09121 -- >> that is and written.

one was november. the other two followed. >> one was the fifth of april, the other the 26 of april, and earlier was december 2009. are you clear, mr. brown, you had no conversation with mr. murdoch shortly after the withdrawal and support of the -- the withdrawal of support from "the sun," in which you threatened to declare war on news international, or something to that effect? >> this is a conversation that he says where i threatened him and am alleged to have acted in an unbalanced way. this conversation never took place. i am shocked and surprised that it should be suggested, even when there is no evidence, that it should have happened.

after the 30th is when the conservative party came to "the sun," but i never asked them to directly, nor did i complain when they started to support the conservatives. i did not return calls, did not talk to his son, did not text or e-mail. this was a matter that was done. there was no point in further communication at all. i am surprised, first of all, that this is a story where i slammed the phone down or threatened him. this did not happen. i have to say to you that it did not happen, because i did not call him. i had no reason to want to call them.

>> finally, on this point, sir, absolutely clear, would you say that mr. murdoch might be mistaken about the date? is it possible that you might have under that sort of language? >> there is only one further telephone call, and that was in november. if i might say, the sequence that led to that call was on a monday, regarding disrespecting the troops. the following sunday they said that i had been discourteous and written a letter with 25 misprints. i could understand that the mother of the soldier was upset, but they had claimed i had done things i had not done. on tuesday, they had taken a

phone call. i had wanted to phone this lady to sympathize with her and explain that we felt a huge amount about his contribution to the country, and that it was important that she knew how much we valued the service of her son to the country. clearly, they had a mechanism for taping which they should not have had. the tape was in their hands. it was very surprising for the prime minister and a member of the public to appear in this distorted way, with these headlines, bloody shameful, and everything else. i had concluded that "the sun," were damaging our efforts in afghanistan, persuading people who supported the war there was no point in the effort. i felt that he should be aware of the facts and how we were losing public support at a

difficult time, when we were trying to persuade the americans and the rest of europe to have a collective effort to not just get more troops on the ground, but more european troops supporting them. it was a very delicate political move. now that is what the call was about. there is no reference to threats or conservative parties or anything. i am quite surprised. the conversation ended in quite a different way from what he is saying. given what he said about no personal attacks from "the sun," which he supported, he asked me what i thought mrs. brooks thought, where she should be. he wanted to apologize. i said there was no point. "the sun," was pursuing this course of action and it was for

him to talk to her. i said, look, out of respect to you, i will contact her. that is how the conversation ended, with me agreeing to contact her. at the same time, there was the letter that explained, as you can see, that it is a target of afghanistan. that is what the call was about. the problem is, i can see how they could say now that there was a pre orchestrated campaign around a threatening phone call and that this was the justification around telephone hacking and some political campaign around news international, but this call did not happen, the threat was not made. i could not balance between a call the did not happen and a threat that was not made. i think it is shocking that we

came to this situation sometime later when there was no evidence of this call happening at the time he said that happened and needed to be told under oath that this was the case. the fact that the continued to back the position, because be thought it was an important issue regarding the press and people hostile to news international is important. there is absolutely no evidence of this phone call, the threat, it was something he was never party to. it was about afghanistan and it was weeks after when people mentioned the call taking place. >> this is the brooks account of the call the two mentioned, attend the vote -- 10th of november, 2009.

she was no longer with "the sun ,". she characterized u.s. angry and aggressive. is that right, or not? >> i do not think so. i had written a letter about afghanistan and out of respect to him, i was informing her of what she had to say. unfortunately, she wanted to tell me that the -- that "the sun" had gotten a copy of the phone call with mrs. james and she had a lot of questions to ask about. she tried to explain that she had gotten this tape, from this very young news officer, as i said, this tape appeared in "the sun" newspaper. she said she had gotten it

lawfully and everything was checked. i did not get the sense that there was an apology coming from "the sun and i did not think there was a point continuing a conversation that was ended. it was a conversation where she tried to tell me that they had gotten this information in totally appropriate ways. >> sounds like you have every reason to be angry and aggressive and decided not to show it. >> it was difficult, because we were going through time when the entire afghanistan line was that we were not caring about our troops. as my letters to rupert murdoch show, this was a right way to

move forward. not by anything other than the facts. >> i think that if i had been persuaded to phone someone to listen to an apology and be greeted with the opportunity to investigate further a private conversation -- [laughter] >> i think that in these circumstances, you are surprised what comes back to you. he gave me the impression that an apology was forthcoming and that someone would remove this personal element of their attacks over afghanistan it is really about finding out what is a surprise to me.

>> you have thicker skin than i might have had. >> it is about whether you tend to be calmer when you're dealing with this. >> the last letter, hand written in the general election campaign, why did you take time to write in this personal hand written letter at all. >> for the first time he said he disagreed with management at all. they were perfectly civilized and courteous. i wished his family well at the end of my letters and everything else. and he said he disagreed entirely and i thought that that

merited a reply. i did not understand what he meant by the management of the war effort. equally, there has been debate over the management since. he had never said this before, and if you look at them he says he is surprised to hear these views personally. no matter what the sun and the times -- "the sun," and "the times," does, i would rather be an honest one term minister than a dishonest two term minister.

i have got to tell you that that is the case. given that this is the first time you have criticized the management of the war effort as an individual, i would like to know what you were thinking of. i did not think it necessary to reply. >> what about that it was a personal attack on you and you cared very much about this? >> there were two big issues then. one was a global economic crisis, which we had to deal with. we took extraordinary action in britain. i feel that international leadership is something that is needed. at the same time, we were trying to prevent taliban control in areas where they are now in

charge, i am afraid. it mattered to me that we got the policy right in the war efforts, dissuading people, getting the afghan army up and running. these were issues of policy. if you look at the letters, i suspect in the sequence of them is presumably available. you see that none of these reflected the political views of the set -- "the sun." it was all about the management of the war effort. to this day, i still feel that huge damage was done to the war effort by the suggestion that we did not care about what was happening to our troops. it clearly impacted public

opinion and was something. >> your relationship with missile -- mr. paul baker, now. your clothes, though you often were not on the fare -- same page, politically. is that fair? >> i did not see him that much. and i disagree about many things on politics. like me, he believes that this is an ethical basis for a political system and that that is an issue that was not properly addressed in the media. there is common ground on that. he was personally very kind.

we had difficulties with our first child and i had not forgotten that. to be honest, "the daily mail," was totally against the labor party. i said -- look, you are entering a situation with a party that has a relationship with the murdoch empire and their commercial interests and you should be wary of it. i did warn them that that was one of the problems that happened. >> someone said that they were less hostile to you personally. do you think of that is a fair comment, or not? >> one of the huge dividing lines over the last 10 years, i

was in a minority. my colleague, the economic adviser of the time did an enormous amount of work that proved to my satisfaction that it could work. had they sit -- supported the suggestions i have for the euro, i am afraid that every other issue, they wanted to see a conservative government. >> with policies such as casinos and the retreat on 24-hour treaties, was that attached to the daily mail -- "the daily mail," in your view?

>> personally, i have strong opinions about excepted gambling. i thought that 24-hour licensing was causing a problem. i do not know the effect on soft drugs. these are views that i hold personally. >> section cist -- section 65 was the data protection act. there was a time at which you were still chancellor of the exchequer. did you consider raising those at the time, or not?

>> we had to make a judgment and it came back to this very important point that i think we discussed in the beginning about the protections available. the actions that we may have taken may have initially been found unacceptable. there were these public defenses about criminal wrongdoing and threats to the safety of the well. one is about deception by an organization being exposed. i felt there had to be a public interest defense available in these circumstances. basically, it was my own view

about how you must have institutions outside the state. hold them accountable. no matter what we think about the way the media be paved -- media behavior, that is what we were debating. i could understand the strength on the issue and i was anxious to not overrule them, but that also my own instinct in public interest defense was where they ventured into areas for good public reasons the exposed something that was wrong. >> the government's original position was to introduce such custodial offenses. there was a dinner that you 10,'t on the september

2007, which we have in the 34th bundle. do you remember the issue being discussed on that occasion? >> i told them as we start with a dinner what my view was. i did not ask them for my view, i am afraid. i said that there should be a defense. therefore, it was not a question of them lobbying meet. i was informing them that michael will's had done a great job on this. it was about how it could be implemented, but we could not back off entirely. >> the other account does not quite match that. under tab 34, you give a speech

on the ninth of november, 2008. he says that 80 months ago -- i had dinner with the prime minister, gordon brown. on the agenda was our deep concern that the newspaper industry was facing a number of serious threats to its freedoms. he said the fourth issue that we raised was a truly frightening amendment to the protection act. >> he had the account on his agenda for the meeting. this was my view. i did not say i was waiting to hear yours. i have already made up my mind before i went into the meeting. i had told michael that there should be a public interest

defense for the implementation of this clause. at that time, of course, we did not have the information that we now have about the use of data by the media. at that time there was no suggestion that it was anything else. again, my instinct is the same and that there should be a defense. you are balancing two freedoms. i would defend the right for her -- for people to have privacy. i knew that it was right for the media. for the individual to express themselves. you are balancing of these freedoms. it seems to me that we may end up with the custodial sentences.

an option that was left, let's look at whether public-interest defenses can be introduced into this legislation. these are difficult issues. i talked about them at the time. i have spoken of them since. i think that we are now on a course where there are certainly custodial defenses for final judgment on this as well. >> it is important to be careful about this. they created a public interest defense for data protection defenses. but it was not for a moment suggesting a relationship

between other breaches of criminal law that they create a public interest defense. >> you are absolutely right. i hope that i am not over- elaborating on the argument. >> you are not suggesting, or are you, suggesting that there should be a public interest defense in relation to any crime? >> i am saying that i think that the press has complaint counsel guidelines suggesting that there is a public interest state in which meetings are an issue and they need to be taken into account when judgments are made. i bore that in mind as well when i was working with the opposition. >> defense to an allegation for

breach of the code. let me just ask you, asking you this in an entirely open way, of course in relation to any criminal offense, is the agenda in a public interest? or is it reasonably believed? that must be an important feature. it is why i asked the director if he would be prepared to consider publishing a policy on this approach to the public interest when there is no defense in the statute. i wonder -- the fact that the

defense cannot be made out does not mean that everyone who is then convicted goes directly to jail. >> i think i am being misunderstood. i was conscious that there was a public issue raised and it seemed to me that this was reasonable. >> the account is that you were hugely sympathetic to the industry case and did what you could to help. that you were persuaded by the public case. is that fair? >> i distinctly remember that conversation. i think that they would confirm that i was persuaded that they needed this defense. we were talking about how we

could do this. i think we sent to an extract from it. i felt that the debate as written had been colored. we knew that it was controversial and that we wanted to have a longer period of potential regarding terrorist suspects, but i felt that i and other areas where liberty was an issue, we could do better about the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. so, i made a speech on liberty. these are my views, not the media. they are not anyone else's. these are mine. an issue that i felt strongly about. i felt that america had labeled itself and the ideas that lay behind it were some of the

things that we've valued greatly had originated in britain. these were my views. i began the suggestion that i was under pressure in the industry. i am still prepared to say that this is my view. >> were you aware that there was already a public-interest defense? >> yes. >> the speech he referred to, october 2007, it obviously postdates the dinner. arguably, if you look at the second page of the speech, page 14235 -- >> i think that i remember when

i said. >> taking into account -- >> 31? >> confusing, that is the second page of the speech that involves the number on the speech. >> it is an extract. the commissioner has been ask to produce and guidance to take into account concerns over the new rules allowing for a sentence of up to two years. at that point, the sentence was appropriate. >> the issue was whether we would trigger the sentence or leave it in the legislation. >> that did not come until march 20 -- 2008.

>> what you're saying here is that clear guidance would make sure that legitimate investigative journalism was not impeded upon. you are keen to protect legitimate investigative journalism, but where that is not triggered there would be a sound show to protect individual privacy? >> yes. providing a strong deterrent, yes. >> it is worth noting in this speech that at the top of the same spade -- same pace -- the same page, it should be maintained as adequate. correct? >> we have never proposed that that should happen. i think that tony blair explained that in his own evidence.

we had decided that this was not a priority for us and not part of the mandate, so it was obvious that that was not what we were doing. >> what about the evidence they did not respond in september of 2007, taking into account the powerful views of the press? >> i have explained the background to my own views. i really did not need persuading by mr. baker about this. or whoever else was there. >> before the 10th of september, 2007, brought exceptional communications. >> we had conversations about a

lot of those things. i do not think that there was an informal meeting about it, but we were having conversations. >> the evidence was along the line of bowing to pressures from criminal justice investigation, the eighth of may, 2008, the compromise was carved up, as it were, starting in march of 2008. do you recall that? >> i recall conversations with jack straw, the minister, about finding a way forward. i believe that we did. >> can i ask you now about the issue of special advisers? i want to put to you a number of questions about them. mr. campbell and his second

witness statement suggested that there was a real problem with a special treasury advisor, meaning mr. leland. do you agree with his analysis? >> it was typical rumor, gossip. political advisor, there were a lot of them having debates and arguments. the one thing that i insisted on, and this deals with the point about mr. campbell, our political of visor's worked through heads of communication. anything they did as related to the press reported to the head of the civil service communications, which is how we dealt with those. >> systematic perpetrators of selective anonymous readings, up to your knowledge?

>> i would not say that. i asked them to operate under these rules. he would have to report to me if those things were wrong. >> if they did indulge in this behavior, it would be without their knowledge, correct? >> we will come back to that. >> they were convinced that gordon brown and his aides had conspired to force his early resignation. >> i think that is tony blair's of view, not mine, and again you are relying on second-hand conversations from people who were not involved in the events. >> were your aides involved in

using force on the designation in 2006? were they involved? >> i would hope not. >> mr. blair said that he did not know that you, mr. wheeling, mr. mcbride, were briefing against him in the media. did you authorize your aides to authorize against mr. blair? >> no. >> do you think they may have done so without your knowledge or approval? >> if they did so, it was without my authorization. >> role of an aid or special adviser is only to impact with your expressed advisory? >> i am trying to explain why we change the system when we went to no. 10 and what i thought it a better to have political advisers. they were a new development from the 1970's and on words. you have always worked the civil servants.

political advisers are obviously party people with their own views of what should happen. they had to find a way with working with the civil service. my insistence was the political subscribers who were doing their job had to work under the auspices of the self-service. this is what we try to enact in the treasury. when i went to downing street, i removed the order, said that we would not have a political appointee as head of communications. i pointed a traditional civil servant as the head of communications, and then when he retired and went back to the treasury and incidentally went back to perform a policy job which he now does for the new government which is of a different political color, i had appointed the purpose and previously the head at buckingham palace who was not a career civil servant but one that was trusted absolutely for both his discretion and propriety.

i wanted to send a message that we wanted to work with in these traditional channels. political advisers were instructed to do just that. if they failed, as happened in the terrible incident where mr. mcbride had to resign, then they had to go. >> did you constructor special and visors at the treasury at no. 10 to conduct off the record briefings with the press? >> no, but if the civil service head of communications was informed, then that was the way that anything would have to be done in relation to briefings. it would have to be communication between him and any political advisor. it is not realistic to expect a political advisor will never talk to the press. i think that have to go through the civil service head. >> in the book, it describes mr. mcbride as your attack dog, have

developed a reputation for briefing against anyone who was perceived to threaten his bosses interest. is that correct or not? >> this is what i mean about tit-for-tat. you have a rumor, innuendo, people saying something about someone else. i do not know the truth of all these things. what i can say, the people under me were under specific guidance on what to do. that is the important point. there were rules. were they observed? in one case they were not. and one person had to go. >> he also notes a conversation he had with you in october 2008, when you invited him back into government where he raised the issue of damien mcbride with you, reaching what he thought was a clear understanding that he would be transferred to the cabinet office as a stepping stone to the party altogether. is that recollection connect --

correct? >> i think peter did not like mr. mcbride. there is no doubt about that from -- as does the first time i have read this, by the way. this appears to be his memoirs. i cannot remember -- mr. mcbride was pushed back from a front- line role. he was given a new role. unfortunately, in this new role, he made a bad mistake and had to go. he was not doing his original role, was pushed back to another role, still at no. 10, but he had to go. >> october 2008, i am wondering whether you agree or disagree with lord mendelssohn's recollection that in his memoirs -- >> there is no doubt mr. mendelson did not want mr. mcbride, but there was no discussion about cabinet office. we probably talked about how mr.

mcbride was moving back from what you call the front line and that he had a different role, but in the end, it was only a few months later that he had to go. >> did either or both of does o'donnell and jeremy hayward warn you specifically about mr. mcbride? >> i do not remember any specific documentation or letters. they may have said something in conversation. >> did they warn you about mr. mcbride? >> i do not know whether you are talking about what happened in the leaking of these e-mails. they certainly wouldn't talk to me about that when it happened, but i was clear that he had to go. >> i am talking about an earlier warning. >> i do not recall other conversations. perhaps you have better information from these people then i have. there was a general view that

mr. mcbride had to change his role. >> you were also worn by adam delevan and douglas alexander about mr. mcbride. >> when i say there was a general view, i'm not excluding the effect of one or two people and have talked about it to me. the fact was, he was moved back to his original role and then we had this incident where he had to go. mr. mcbride was a career civil servant. way up.orkehad worked his he only became a political advisor in 2005. it was originally a fast track civil servant. >> there is also evidence that jackie smith warned you about him as well. you remember that? sounds like a lot of people warn you about -- did you heed their warnings? >> what is material to this, i

suspect, is wondering what the relationship between political advisers is. i was aware that we had to move mr. mcbride from his original role to a new role. he had been moved into the new role and then we had this instant, and then he had to go. >> did you instruct mr. willing to -- >> not at all. >> you have seen the extract of mr. darling's memoirs in which he is convinced that you did. >> i think this issue about back from the brink -- which i only read for the first time yesterday, this extract -- is an interview that alastair gave to "the guardian." the issue was see have beenquoted as saying that this was the worst crisis for the

british economy in 60 years, when he had actually said, this was the worst global crisis in 60 years. he told me he wanted to go out and tell the media that was the case. that was the incident. i do not think there was any in -- disagreement. >> do you remember the conversation that you had with mr. darling when he told you specifically that you knew where the anonymous briefings for coming from and that they had to stop? >> there may have been a conversation like that. this conversation between government -- everybody worries about who is saying what about whom, so on and so forth. the one thing i can say to you, which is absolutely clear, i'm not sure how relevant this is to your conclusions, but the one thing i can say definitely is that no one in my position would have instructed any briefings against a senior minister. alastair was a friend of mine as well as a colleague.

>> it is not clear that these words that he uttered to you abouthenry ii's under is terry beckett. he says he did not order his nights to go and kill becca but they believe they had his blessing to do so. his dad near the mark or not? >> no, they are not near the mark at all. quite the opposite of what actually happened. on the incident you are referring to, there was an interview given to "the guardian" about the economic crisis. alistair was sure that yet talked about the global economic crisis. they have reported it as being about the british economic crisis. of course, the distinction was important, but there was no tape of the interview. that was the source of the problem, that we could not get to the bottom of it.

the treasury had not taken a tape. that was the source of the issue. >> i have also shown you a letter from mr. john major, who is giving evidence tomorrow, from june 2008. it relates to the withdrawal of the mccarthy knighthood. he makes the specific allegation that you briefed or constructed -- instructed mr. wheeler and or mr. mcbride to brief against john major. is that correct? >> mr. wheeling was not working for us at all at that time. mr. mcbride, i'm not sure what you're you are referring to. >> june 2008, so he was working for you. >> i do not know anything about this. despite the fact that my name is mentioned in this letter, we had

not talked about this in any detail. i do not know much about this incident. i know that the garvey lost his knighthood. these things happen in politics. people say things and do things, and press, and i do not recall anything like his at all. -- this at all. >> is the position this? that is sort of mythology has built up around these special advisers, described in certain quarters as paranoid attack dogs or whatever, that there is no evidential basis for it, or were they acting without your reporter for instructions? >> you have special adviser that are part of the government machine. they are a new innovation. they have a role to play in defending the minister and

policy. you have competition between special advisers and different departments because that is the nature of politics. unfortunately, competition between ministers and departments. the question is what you do about this. to the extent there is an abuse of the constitution, i asked my political advisers to operate under very distinct rules. i had tougher rules and what was the general rule apply to political and pfizer's. after mr. mcbride left, we toughened up the rules even more about the use of equipment for personal purposes. i was determined that we could integrate the political advisers into the civil service system. if it did not work on occasion, people would act badly on occasion, but that was not because there were no rules or instruction given by me. i think we now know enough about the nature of politics to know that there is rumor, gossip, innuendo, allegations, so one and so forth.

the question is would you conclude from this. i conclude you need tough rule of the people have got to follow. if they do not obey the rules, they have to go. i'm not sure it gives us a general insight into the way the media was behaving. >> the fact that this inquiry is roughly under terms -- perhaps it is a question of the ethics of the press, but we're also looking at the political class. are there any lessons to be learned at all, if one looks from 1997 through 2010, 13- years period, about the culture of the political class? >> yes, and i said at the beginning -- i do not know if you pick me of the way i expected. i said we should have changed the law the system, changed the system so that people relied on exclusive briefings and how to have former open transparent systems of addressing the country through the press and we

have, even today. i, obviously, have to take some of that responsibility. my only defense in that is that i tried to change the rules after 2007. i did not mention this about the future of the lobby. simon lewis, an honorable man, led this. we could find no consensus about the media should have done. i prefer to have open briefings that were given by ministers to inform the press day-by-day. i looked at the white house system, other systems. yes, there needed to be more open this spirit we inherited a system that was based on, if you like, exclusivity. it was also based on insider is winning over outsiders. so a lot of people were excluded from that system. the political advisers ought to and had to work under specific guidance, and i believe should have worked under civil service

leadership. we changed that when they went into number 10 as well. these were the lessons i learned about what some people call these been culture. i come back to find it assumes a great deal of success in dealing with the media that i do not feel i had. in the 1970's, when i was a student, i read once that the shah of persia had the worst press relations in the business , and the politicians had raised objections. i felt and that had been said in the 1990's, 2010, i would ever is the objection. i did not, unfortunately, have good relations with the press. i used to say it myself. you guys are going to get your message across. i used to call shelley, when he was talking about relatives. he said that ben had lost the part of communication but not

speak. i felt like i was in that position before left office. >> did you give any special guidelines to your advisers at no. 10? >> they had to go through the official head of communications, who was a civil servant. this is an issue that will have to be resolved one day. we have political appointees and you cannot say that it has worked in its entirety. civil servant appointees have not been wholly satisfactory because of what the press expects of the head equivocations. i do not think we have an answer yet to what is a real problem about how you deal with the press on a day-to-day basis, but i would prefer a more open system, and i think we will get to that at some point. your inquiry can take us further on these roads and called for greater openness and transparency. i would welcome that. >> have you thought about how that might manifest itself? >> i would have thought you move away from the daily briefing,

the lobby. this will be unpopular to people in the gallery or in the lobby, that you would have someone briefing with a television camera there, but would be completely open. he would have to allow in press that are not of the lobby system at the moment, including the new internet media that is developing. i think the civil service and politicians have to work out a better relationship. the danger is you have a civil service had that people thing does not speak on behalf of the prime minister or minister because he is not close enough, but the danger is you have it over politicized head that looks like he or she is pushing the civil service in a particular direction. i think you have this dilemma about how you organize the management of information but the openness of it is much to be

welcomed. i say to you, we did try to find a resolution, when you made an announcement with comments, it was a new information. we did not want to return to a situation where you're giving a speech and giving a news for the first time, but the way that these things were given, there were not seen as news unless someone had an exclusive to these stories and thought that was something that was news. this competition between the different media outlets is intensifying, obviously. the 24 hour news is a reality. newspapers are in danger of being left behind because they publish at a certain time, whereas the internet is going all the time. this will only intensify. more open this is an essential element of it, but of course, the trustworthiness of participants is a born as well. >> could i touch on mr. watson

right now. you addressed and on page 16. , to be clear about this evidence. you say you recall telling mr. watts and that the government had been under pressure from news international to sack him. are we back here in 2006 with relation to dethrone mr. blair? >> we're talking about a conversation that you have asked me about, that mr. watson had with me in 2010. mr. watson had phoned me, had asked me what was happening. iris reminded about what happened in the past. i am not giving you information, as far as i'm concerned, about what happened in the past week. you know news international had editorials that they wanted you sacked. but i also did say mr. brooks had made her feelings about mr. watts and pretty well known to my wife. that is all the new intermission

i think i brought to this. >> there may be a misunderstanding. that is why i try to tease this out. did you see the text message to refer to? did that relate to earlier events or did it relate to phone hacking? can you remember? >> news international had taken the view that, watson was to be held culpable for anything that had happened in 2006. this was still the line that it wanted to pursue. i do not want to get involved in this because i did not understand everything that happened. it was a legal case taken about defamation uwith mr. watson. perhaps there could be proceedings. there was animosity between use it to national and mr. watson. i was merely reporting when he spoke to me that i was aware that news international wanted to get rid of him. >> this is because of alleged

machinations of mr. blair, not because of his assistants and the phone hacking interview? >> i do not know. all i reported to him was that news international had made it clear that they did not likened. i think they had editorials saying that often had to go. i do not remember the details. >> can you remember with the text said? >> they are not mine. they are my wives. -- wife's. is all i remember, and i have not ask for them to be disclosed, but i think it communicated the feeling of mr. watson. that is it. >> having ask you this other question in relation to mr. watson, in 2006, the media reported that he was at your

house in scotland before his resignation. did you discuss any political matters at all with him on that occasion? >> no, our baby had just been born. he was bringing over a paired with his wife and family. we were talking about children. if i had known that he was planning any political initiative, i would told not to do it, but i knew nothing about it. >> the following question was did you discuss mr. watts and's subsequently published round robin letter calling for mr. blair's resignation? >> i think i've already answered that. if i had known that he was planning anything, i would have told them to desist. i told him once i found out about it, but i did not find out from a conversation with him. >> so you say this is entirely a social call to deliver a present to your baby? >> entirely. he had his family with him. they were talking to sarah,

talking -- we were all talking about our children >>. mr. brown, you have called for a judicial inquiry in september 2010. you wrote a letter to lord o'donnell. we have got this in hand. >> yes, i remember. >> obviously, the context was a piece in "the new york times" published in september 2010. is that correct? >> yes, and the report being done by the media committee, prompting about whether something had to be done. we did not know, as i said in my speech, about the extent of this phone hacking. only gradually became known to me that it could be considerably

more than what had been reported, and that this road hacker or reporter was not a proper defense. as the information became available and as i realized that this was a bigger issue than people had imagined, it seemed to me, we have to look and what needed to be done. the home secretary have looked and whether the police investigation should be extended, or carried out by another body. i had to -- there was the speculation at the time, but there was the case for a judicial inquiry. i asked mr. o'donnell to look at this. he did not look at other evidence. it was probably an unfortunate decision. therefore, we had to report back, basically reflected the

minimum amount of information that was available to the committee, no further information that was not known in government at the time, including the home secretary's examination of this. >> to be fair, the letter that he rode back to you on september 10 simply stated the review is on the matter by the metropolitan police and subject to an inquiry. >> you are talking about the second letter. my first request was before i left office. that was a request that he answered with a memo that you have got about today's pros and cons about taking action. it was at that point that we might have looked at the other evidence available within government. that is the point i'm making. when i wrote to him in september 2010, it was because further knowledge was available.

>> i am focusing on the september 2010 issue. you say that you look carefully, looking at the march 2010 consideration. we know that mr. miller band was not selected the opposition leader until september. did you discuss these issues with him at any stage? before or after his election? >> this letter was independently done by me. i did not consult anybody. >> i'm not suggesting that you needed to. did you discuss your concerns about the issue with mr. milliband? >> i have expressed my concern to a number of people about what happened, but i cannot remember a specific conversation. perhaps there was, perhaps there was not. i do remember speaking to mr. claytor at one point.

>> maybe look to the future now and recommendations? we know what you said in 2007. we have seen the exurbs of that speech, which you can provided us with. your witness statements on page 14212, you set out ideas for the future. on the internal numbering, page 6. statutory backstop. could you elaborate on that? differentiate between that and state regulation of the press. >> could i say, by way of introduction, i would make a distinction between two roles

that this inquiry might have and, indeed, the way further regulation may go. i think there is the issue of dealing with wrongs that have to be righted, addressed for individuals who have a complaint to make. i have said clearly in my evidence that i do not think the present system, as much as it may be the better part of complaints, dealing with complaints is satisfactory. the second aspect that i would urge you to look at is not just how we can deter the bad, but how we can incentivize the good. if i am right, there is a problem developing in this and every developed country in the world about the quality of journalism and the commercial basis on which it can proceed. in the 19th century you had the proprietors, 20th-century, you had advertising at managed to finance quality journalism. there is a big issue now about what can it incentivize or give

support to quality journalism in the future. i just want to make by way of introduction, yes, we can look at a better complete system, and you have served on the website very good guidelines on how we might proceed in sorting that issue out. i believe that what we all produce, there is all party support, but we have to look at the second issue of the quality and standards of journalism and how that can be improved, and what we can do to help good journalists actually be able to survive based on their ability to sell their content across the media, not just newspapers. that may demand radical thinking about how we incentivize this for the future, including what happens to the bbc license fee, spectrum auctions, the proceeds that come from that. these are all issues -- there will be a real problem in the

next 20 years about how quality journalism can flourish. >> when you made that comment at the beginning of your evidence, i wrote in the margin, how? if you can answer that question, even with some ideas, i would be very interested to hear them. >> i have tried to give some thought to this, but when the bbc was set up in the 1920's, developed its license fee, it was clear there was a market failure. in other words, the finance that was available for support and quality broadcast journalism, quality content, was simply not there. there was a market failure, so it had to be done with -- despite winters murdoch says -- that it needed action. the action was popular for some time, the creation of a license fee. that was to support quality journalism. of course, the argument was

that there were great externalities, great benefits from high-quality debt -- journalists, from getting trusted information, and it was a public good to be supportive but thought the market would not support it in broadcasting. then there were for the benefits because wednesday put it on a broadcast network, the marginal cost of development -- delivering it to millions of people was minimal. some of these arguments, in my opinion, now applied to the internet. there is a problem about the lack of quality journalism. most internet journalists to not have the resources, if you like, to be trusted with information. advertising model has collapsed and they are finding it more difficult. every week i see a new local

newspaper going under. there are journalists sitting here today who are unemployed, but the quality journalism that we need, and that they represent for the future, will have to find new ways of financing it. is the bbc model of any use to us? we should look at that. it certainly does with this issue that there is a public good that the market simply cannot supply, and assert that deals with the issue of how you might deal with this on the internet, as well as to broadcasting. there is 0 cost to get to 1 million people want to get the first 1000. if we are genuine in trying to take out the bad but also trying to encourage the good, i think we have to say something about how quality journalism in this country can be supported and sponsored in the future. this is a problem that is even greater in america and there's a huge debate now about how quality journalism can survive,

and there are some very good people joining the debate. forgive me for doing so, but you can do with this issue about what i feel was a terrible injustice done to the baker family, who have their rights trampled over. we need a complete system that deals with that. we need proper penalties and fines to deal with this. we also need to look and how we do not discourage the bad, but encourage the good. that is not making a judgment about what is good and bad in journalism, but you will need trained journalists and you need internet to be able to support that in the future. >> one need not just look at the journal or the national newspapers. you have commented, and it has been the subject of evidence, that local journalism is very much suffering from a lack of advertising, and the constant is, local issues therefore are

not reported as they once were. as more newspapers find it difficult to survive, the loss of local information will be a very serious blow to the development of local politics, local holdings, health boards, because there will be no one else to report it. >> this is why i defend the premium of the press, the right of the press. -- freedom of the press, the right of the press. without shining a light on potential corruption or maladministration, abuse of power, which is true that the local level and national level, people get away with doing things in an unaccountable manner. that is why you need a local press. there was a study done in america about what happens to a town when they are faced with a

flooding or something. because there was no local journalism in place, because the information could not flow properly, citizens were being deprived of the means by which they could do with this particular difficulty. this will continue to happen. >> one of the witnesses has given evidence that has brought my attention to the development of the concept of local authorities, newspapers, which then deprive the independent journalists an opportunity to develop their product. >> more of a debate about whether the bbc should be in local radio or whether it should simply be commercial radio, and how the integration of local radio and broadcasting and all that should happen. it is clear to me, however, without some underpinning -- into may be financial -- and there is a market failure here.

there is not enough resources now to support the quality journalism you are talking about. my own a local newspaper just had its editorial staff merged with the newspaper next door. they are reducing the number of staff. i think you would find this in every part of the country. more than that, all across the world now. an internet journalist, someone doing their own journalism, you know, can put their views up on a screen and across the world. but if they are not doing proper research and there it is no proper investigative journalism, then we are diminishing the quality that is available to us. it there is no straight answer to this problem. there are more people communicating on the internet. that is a good thing. many do not have the research or the investigation being done for quality journalism. i put to you is we can deal with the issue of complaints.

i think we have got excellent suggestions, and i do applaud when you are trying to move to. i would emphasize, when i talk about the press complaints commission, without an investigative arm, it cannot be successful. the one thing you go to the press complaints commission to get is a judgement on whether something is accurate or not. when a reply to you, we cannot make a judgment on accuracy of the statements, and therefore, the one thing you ask them for the cannot do because they have no investigative arm -- that is one thing. encouraging quality journalism is something that i hope in your next set of evidence you might be able to consider. >> i will take that point very much on board. >> i may say, i think there is quite a lot to learn from america were this is alive today. sorry, i moved from your

initial point of the self regulation. >> not at all. the relationship between the press and politicians seem to be needed to be reset. what, if anything, would you recommend in that regard? >> greater openness and transparency. i would just repeat that. i do not think -- i do want and to your previous question about regulation because it is important. i have never been one -- and this might be surprising to people despite my discomfort with the press -- that has favored regulation of the press. i have always look for solutions that would avoid the appointee, some form of interference by a politician. i have always been careful when the talk about the bbc, at the sid for the independence of the bbc. i said before, it is a religious upbringing, but the idea that people should be able to speak truth to power, and that individuals are respected, free

from state power, it is important to me. now, what do you do in circumstances where you have been used to for that will not join the press complaints commission? i know this is a problem you have faced. what do you do when you have the press complaints commission that is actually not able to deal with these big issues? in ireland, australia, new zealand, they have found a way to do -- in one case, they called it statutory underpinning. that is recognized in legislation but not decreed by legislation. i think we have got less to fear from the proposals you are talking about about a statutory underpinning that people think. certainly, there are members of the press who are not prepared to join, your case is strengthened. but i share your view that this

has to be independent of politicians, but it also has to be independent of news to predators. it has to be independent of both. -- news editors. fair and balanced investigative judgments. >> that is all a question that i have. >> mr. brown, thank you very much. it is all much easier to say and much more difficult to achieve. >> i do not envy your job, but i know you are doing a great job. >> one moment, mr. brown. >> [inaudible] there was evidence given about that. mr. brown has not addressed that. i think he ought to be given the opportunity -- at least we would

like to know what he thinks about it. >> have you got what lord mendelssohn said in hand? >> let mr. brown respond. the position is, mr. brown, the system permits for participants to put questions through counsel. mr. jay has said several times, i have been asked to ask this question. if he declines to put the question, then core participants are in touch to ask me for permission to ask the question. i think i know what is coming, but i do not think -- >> i do not know what is coming but i'm happy to question. >> my name is robert davis, i appear for news international. i think you're probably familiar

with the spirit is behind tab 8 of your bundle. that is a transcript of the evidence that lord mendelssohn gave. >> what day is that referring to? >> day 74. >> what day is mr. mendelson referring to? >> he was asked about whether or not there was a call between mr. murdoch and you shortly after the sun had announced that it was no longer going to support the labor party on the 30th of september 2009. this is day 74. in the afternoon. >> i find this very difficult to read because of the light type. perhaps you can read the section

that is relevant. >> the allegation is, rather, the appellate -- evidence was for mr. murdoch that mr. brown of the words declare war on news international, or words to that effect. from your own knowledge, can you assist us whether there was such a call? cancer -- i was not on the call, i have not been patched into the call. question -- of course not. answer -- i assume there was the call because i seem to remember the prime minister telling me that rupert murdoch was not at all happy with the method and timing of james and rebecca's actions. >question -- what did the prime minister tell you? did he communicate to you then that is what he told mr. murdoch? answer -- no, he did not say that. he told me what mr. barakat said to him. question -- so there was nothing about what mr. brown said to mr. murdoch? is that your evidence? answer -- yes, it is. i cannot remember being told by

mr. brown what he said and i have no way of knowing. but i know what he said to me about rupert murdoch's reaction, which was to say basically, i do not like how it is being done and i think it is a bad day to do it, and would not have done this when myself, but that is life, and we have to get on with it. question -- mr. murdoch's reaction to what? answer -- the decision of "the sun" to switch from the labor party to the conservative party. if i remember correctly, it was james and rebecca's response. >> there was only one call with mr. murdoch on november 10. that was a call related to afghanistan. you have cut five letters that are affidavits from people who were on that call, four on the call, one that had to report to the press what happened after. they made it absolutely clear that call was about afghanistan. what ever you are weeding out, whether you are referring to that call or not, i do not know.

the november 10 call is the only call i had in the year with mr. murdoch. i do not know if your in the position to confirm that is the case on behalf of news international or not. as for what happened lots of timber 30, when the conservative party was given -- there was no discussion. there was no text, there was no conversation of mr. murdoch. i do not know -- i notice questions are coming from participants and the suggestion is that there was somehow a mobile call that had not been registered in downing street. i think news international is doing itself a great deal of harm by suggesting a telephone call to place which never happened and suggesting that comments made on that cold war never made and tried to suggest also that the attitude of the person on the call was on balance when there was no call at all. you must tell me whether you

want to refer to a call that was made on november 10 or a call that you are claiming was made after september 30, which never happened. >> the only question i want to ask you is this, did you have a conversation with lord mendelssohn that he said that you had in the evidence i have read to you? >> i do not remember a conversation about this to specifically, but if the conversation took place, it would have happened on november 10. it was nothing to do with support of the conservative party. it was about support for afghanistan. there was no call on september 30. you are allow me the chance to make this absolutely clear, and news international has not produced one shred of evidence th the call took place, not one date or time for the call. you are not able to tell us what happened, except you have these statements from mr. murdoch that it happened. i do find it strange that we are being asked to debate a call which never took place, which you have no information about

when it took place, and where mr. murdoch was at the time, who was also on the call. >> thank you very much, mr. brown. >> right, thank you, mr. brown. >> we will have more from london coming up in a moment. we wanted to let you know, if you missed any of prime minister brown's testimony from today, we will have it tonight at 8:00 eastern. and you can see it any time on our website. more from be leveson committee all this week. on c-span2 tomorrow, john major and ed milliband. thursday, the current british prime minister david cameron. live coverage starts each day at 5:00 eastern on c-span2. also this morning, the british chancellor of the exchequer george osborn appeared before

the committee. the chancellor answered questions about conversation with rupert and james murdoch and other media executives. he was also asked to provide more details about what led to the decision to hire and the colson. mr. colson was the former editor of news of the world, now defunct tabloid at the center of the british phone hacking scandal. this is two hours. >> today is a formal witness -- today's honorable witness is george osborn please. >> is where the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the

whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> thank you, mr. osborn. your full name? >> george gideon oliver osborn. >> each with their own set a true spirit is this reform of inquiry to power questioning? you are the chancellor of exchequer ever show chancellor between 2005 and 2010? >> indeed. >> first of all, thank you for your efforts you are putting into the statements. i want to clarify one fact, or correct the misapprehension in the public domain. for some people, i have made it clear that they will have to give evidence appeared to others, i wanted to wait and see what they said before deciding whether there would have to give evidence. is quite wrong to suggest, as i have now been suggesting, that you have been required to give

evidence after the evidence of mr. hunt. the fact is, as you know, and i'm keeping the public should understand, some considerable time ago, having seen your statement, the view was taken that you ought to give evidence and are content to do so and arrange to do so accordingly. so i wanted to correct that. >> thank you. >> may we start off with some contradictory topics -- introductory topics? in your statement, a page04048 04089, you speak of the transactions interested to you, i you say sometimes these, the views of your interoperative will be presented as a personal view of the person speaking. on other occasions it would be presented as the views of their reader. you will presumably know which.

when they claim to present the views of their readers, do they speak with greater authority, in your view? >> in all my infraction with proprietor's, editors, conversation brother within individual inside an individual newspaper, or someone speaking on behalf of, or claiming to speak on behalf of their readers. when i say sometimes as they are clear about those distinctions. " often when you're dealing with a proprietor, they will have large commercial, business interests, not just in papers, and they might speak as you might speak to the chairman of a company with broader business interests, a general interest in the economy and in things related to that. other times, there is a specific readers campaign, for a campaign mounted by the newspaper. sometimes in private conversations, they will say it our readers are concerned about

this. sometimes, it is my judgment porn -- judge and whether they are speaking for their readers or not. >> do you think disproportionate weight is given to the constituency they claim to represent? namely their readers? >> i do not think so. to run all of this -- throughout all of this there is an important check in the system, which is these are commercial products that need to be sold to the public. if they are not reflecting at least some of view held by some part of the public, they are unlikely to sell their newspaper. obviously, it is up to them to judge whether or not they are correctly reflecting the views of their readers. i certainly thing they are. >> do you feel politicians gave to theportionate weight editors, the view that the editors claim to represent? >> that is up to the individual

politician, frankly. politicians are also held to account by the ballot box in this country. if politicians are seen to be with newspapers, the public senses that. i think the public is much smarter in this process and sometimes they are given credit for. i would say there are moments when newspapers have full campaigns which are not obviously of the highest interest of their readers, but which they nevertheless think is important. i could give you a couple of examples which came to mind. "the times" recent campaign on adoption. that is probably not at the top of most of reader's concerns. "the daily mail" campaign into the injustice of steven lawrence. i doubt any survey of male readers would leave that to a concern. in any case, the editors decided to make those campaigns. in the end, editorial judgment

of the people. >> you refer to the astuteness of the public, in being able to sniff it out. do you believe the events revealed by this inquiry, the public has enough information to make a sort of judgment that you apply? -- imply? >> they were always aware that the private lives of politicians, celebrities were being investigated by newspapers. where this issue -- why this issue suddenly became of such importance was the dollar family suddenly exposed to -- we will see what happens anyway -- what appears to be illegal practices totally outrageous intrusions. that is when this whole issue became much more significant. i guess one of the reason that we are here today. and i think the politicians at

the time, myself included, took the decision to suggest this inquiry. more reflecting public concern about what they have learned. whereas, the public at probably suspected for a long time that other practices were going on with celebrities and politicians. >> separate issues, and they may be public concern and press intrusion, but my thoughts concern politicians getting too close to the press. separate issues. my question was, until this inquiry, the public may not have had enough information to be able assessed at second concern. would you agree with that? >> again, i think the public is smarter than people give them credit for. certainly, over my lifetime, the public has become much more aware of the interactions between politics and the media.

there have been all sorts of television dramas, films based to run that interaction, terms like spin doctor have become common parlance. i think the public has become quite smart about the interaction. as i say, the public judges when they think a politician is craven to particular interest, or in fact, is try to represent the national interest. if they are not doing well to promote the national interest, they kick them out. >> do you feel that some have felt that the infusion of news and comments is an issue of particular concern? >> my feeling -- i think this is a bit of a blind alley in greek, personally. -- inquiry, personally. there are a lot of things that you want to concern ourselves with, we can talk about how the press can better self-regulate itself. but i think if you are trying to distinguish between fact and

comment and opinion, or at least set out in some more prescribed way, a way to police that, i think you will find that extremely difficult. i know it is part of the pcc code, but it has been proven that it is impossible to investigate fully, even for a body that would replace it. if you look at the history of politics, public opinion, the facts are very fiercely disputed, and one person's facts are another person's bleeding opinion. -- leading opinion. >> so your diagnosis is not the root of the problem, and the deterioration in standards of the press, the fact and over the last generation there has been an infusion of fact and comment? is that right?

>> i did not mean that in the last generation there had been an infusion. that has always existed in the british press. you can look right back to 18th- century times. they are very aggressive in promoting a particular opinion, which they stick to the fact. -- state to be fact. by the way, it is part of our broadcast press as well as the written press, all other broadcasters are under particular rules about the impartiality, which is reasonable, given the limited amount of spectrum that need to be allocated in some way. there is no limit on the amount of news you can produce in the country, provided you can get someone to pay for it. >> do you feel, as some have said, that the news agenda tends to be driven by the printed media and the bbc and other broadcasters follow suit? or do you feel is the other way

around? a mixture of the two? >> i would fall tony blair's evidence on this. i think that might have been the case perhaps when he was prime minister. speaking personally, as someone active in front line politics, i to the broadcasters are incredibly important. it is not always clear that there are following a newspaper is judgment. i would say the significance of the story is massively elevated if it is right at the top of one of the big news shows. that is often a judge of whether something will really have an impact in the political sphere. quite often, they will be picking up stores from newspapers, but quite often, they have their own investigations. quite often, the bbc, for example -- and i'm a supporter of the bbc. i am not seeking to criticize the institution. they will run a special support -- report, a panorama report, and put on top of the today

program, and we are expected to treat that as the most important thing happening in britain that day. i would not say that it is a trick for process whereby the newspapers from a story and the journalists -- broadcast journalists covered it. is more complicated than that. i think the power of nevertheless, it is significant. >> will come back to some of those themes that deal with the picture. can i ask now to kindly look at your table of interactions with mir proprietors, etc. -- media proprietor, etc.. obviously there are two sections

to this, but the shadow chancellor on the 11 of 8, 2010. so we are clear, how libel is an ex aid when you were shadow chancellor creston or >> we have been able to achieve -- retrieved at the request of this inquiry my diary, electronic dari from the -- might electronic diaries. because i had a very small team compared to the office i have now as chancellor of exchequer. meetings were cancelled, i cannot promise that regina it was not a diary that was kept

accurate for phone conversations. they were never of dire rise in the way they sometimes are in government and there are a wonder to occasions like party conferences, for example, where i put a general rejigger simply were no direct references because we kept separate daris -- there simply were no direct references because they were documents kept at the time while we read a particular conference. to the best of my knowledge, this is accurate. >> we can review the individual items. it is clear from this material and clear from other witnesses it has run the whole gamut. your calculation is that it accounts for about one-third of

all because increase, it is that right core cracks it was just over a third, which is roughly the share of the newspaper market at the time. >> there were one or two dinners in 2006 and those continue, we need to change, murdoch. from may 2006, you reciprocate and the fourth of july, is that right? >> yes, that is right. >> it is impossible at this distance, it is five or six years ago, to recall what we discussed on any particular occasion. any political matters would be on the informal agenda, is that fair creston arthrex yes, that

would be fair. the independence of the united states was discussed, from memory, on the fourth of july. >> or issues of media regulation ever discussed with mr. murdoch on this sort of occasion quest for >> not to my reflection. there was one issue which she was concerned about which came up on occasion and conversations with him, which was the bbc and the license fee. but it was more a complaint that we had in this country, a taxpayer funded state broadcaster, but i make clear to him then as i did subsequently that we were not going to change that, and indeed, we have not. >> is that the topic which he'd been in arrears on a quite a few occasions? >> he raised it on a number of occasions bit there weren't --

on a number of occasions. there is hardly any person in the media who is concerned about the funding of the bbc.com of that was a particular bugbear of his. to my recollection, he never raised -- with me. >> looking again at this schedule, if we were to look, for example, on the third of june, 2008, it is recorded their a dinner with paul -- are we to deduce that was a one to one occasion, or not? >> i cannot remember precisely,

although most of my dinners are the times i met him he would usually have with him his political editor, may be a columnist. they were almost like editorial boards. he would get a selection of people from the newspaper and then he would allow them to pick up the conversation and ask me things and the like. there were a couple of occasions when i had social encounters with him but normally that is how he would meet with me. >> these are sort of simi structured occasions. would they be regarded as off the record or not? >> they were regarded as off the record but i have always taken the view that you should be careful to say things off the record that you would not want to see on the record. certainly if there are a group of people, there is safety in

numbers. >> i think you mean you are being careful not to say things off the record that you would not be prepared to see on the record. you put it the right way around. >> obviously you can have a more important conversation off the record, but you just have to be careful. telling a journalist -- a journalist something that is so interesting that they feel bound in some way to reported, of course that will. there are all sort of conditions that allow people to say sources close to the shadow chancellor or sources in the conservative leadership, or whatever happens to be. as long as you are relatively careful not to say things that you would not be happy to seeks on the front page of the newspaper, then i think you will be okay.

>> thank you. the december 2008, if i can just look at to entries there. we have heard from another witness or two witnesses this celebration of elizabeth murdock i am going to disappoint people by not asking you questions about that. on the sixth of september we see a dinner with elizabeth jones moroccan rupert murdoch. do you remember whether the center revisit was discussed on that occasion or not? >> i think much trouble came from another greek island, korfu. there was no mention of center

freeney. >> are you sure about that? >> -- there is no mention of santorini.ne at least not with me. >> then we can go to december 2009 0,4078. on the 19th of december, december with -- general rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks. -- dinner with rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks. a pre-christmas celebration. can you remember whether political matters may have been discussed on that occasion? >> i am sure political matters were discussed because they normally work. i don't remember any improper conversation are in a conversation about the commercial interests of news corp. or news international.

call think it was a general discussion about the political situation in britain as we were heading into a general election year and indeed, the economic situation with the rest of the world. normally when rupert murdoch was at one of these events, the conversation was about the global economy. at the time we were brought in the middle of the financial crisis. -- right in the middle of the financial crisis progress on the 21st of january, on the 28th- 30th of january, the world economic forum, is that right? >> yes. >> many people have suggested that there was a private meeting with news international executives that you attended. is that correct or not correct mark critz no, it is not true. a good example of facts and comments getting blurred.

i am certain i did not meet rupert murdoch. he was not there. the only event i recollect is a semipublic event which was hosted by news international which david cameron spoke at and u.s. senator called lindsey graham also spoke at, maybe about 100 people and a restaurant. there was a meeting a year earlier in 2009 in a shall lchat with rupert murdoch and james brought an rebekah brooks. obviously 2009, unlike 2010, does not fit with some of that series currently going around in certain newspapers. -- some of the theories. >> we are looking in january 2009 rather than january 2010 being the date, can we be clear, there was a meeting in a private

chalet and reuben james murdock repair. can you remember the subject matter of the discussions -- rupert murdoch and james murdoch were there. >> it is not particularly unusual that it was in eight chalet. the meeting was a lunch with david cameron and myself, and rupert and james murdoch and rebekah brooks. as i remember, the conversation was partly about the domestic political situation, but the focus of the lunch was the global financial crisis, which in january 2009 was raging. if anything, i remember that david cameron and i were trying to bring the conversation gently

onto domestic politics and what the conservative party was doing to put itself in a position to win the general election. rupert murdoch was more keen to talk about the international economic situation. >> did you ever get around to discussing domestic policy -- domestic politics and the virtues of the conservative party christian arthrex briefly. -- virtues of the conservative party? >> briefly. we talked about how a change of government would be a good thing for the united kingdom and we would use every opportunity to do that. >> can you recall how the markets responded to your pitch on that occasion? >> on that occasion, rupert murdoch kept bringing the conversation back, understandably because the

economic crisis was of more interest to him than the conservative party. he kept bringing this it -- the conversation back to the global economic situation, which is also what the rest of the conference was about. >> am i to understand that you failed to get your message across? >> we did our best. ultimately, there's no doubt it will come on to some newspapers, but i don't think this launch was the crucial encounter. >> was it one step on the road, as it were, to the ultimate goal? >> i did not think the decision of those newspapers to support the conservative party in the general election was simply because we had lunches or

dinners with the murdoch family. our political opponents for having an awful lot of dinners and lunches with the murdoch family, too. >> can we move back to your witness testimony now, mr. osborne? just before we move on from these meetings, i have tried to make it clear that politicians, like everybody else, try to be freely with whomsoever they want. that is absolutely fundamental, as far as i am concerned. the issue that does concern me, and it may not matter in opposition as much as in government, but i would be interested in your view, is how one prevents the perception of influence? >> i would not draw huge distinction between opposition

and government. opposition, particularly in this case, on the verge of becoming a government are part of the government, the thoughts and has are important. i think you can draw huge distinction between the two. in the end, columbia trust to much in the public, but i think in the end, the public have a sense of what makes these people, and are they trying to pursue their idea of the national interest? i think people understand that politicians hang out with journalists and people in newspapers. the history books are littered with very close personal relationships between the owners of newspapers and some of our most famous and successful politicians. i think the public broadly understand that. i certainly think an improvement has been in the decision last year to publish

the meetings between members of the government and journalist. that of course has been brought on by the events that this inquiry is looking at. i am not claiming that we were prescient in introducing that, but we have introduced that change. i think it will help. but in the end, you can have any amount of paragraphs and codes and a web site publishing meetings. in, the public are going to make a judgment about the politicians and also make a judgment about the newspaper. if the newspaper was holding back from criticism of a government and the government was unpopular, then i think the public would start to question why they were buying the newspaper. >> i understand the point, but the public will see what is

going on, provided they know what is going on. therefore you are right when you say that publishing links makes it all the more transparent. but i was in part thinking about one of the criticisms that the attitude of a new labor and opposition before the 1997 general election was taken into government when perhaps it should not have been. they approached -- the approach of the press should have been read calibrated. >> i think it is genuinely the case that new labor were very aggressive when they became the government in pursuing it the media management techniques they developed an opposition.

they develop those because of the way people are treated by all the press. we learned in away from that. we came of political age ourselves during that time. we felt that government in its early years was too obsessive about tomorrow's headlines. the try to control every aspect of the media. that is not to say we did not want to have a good and effective media operation, but we were more relaxed about fighting for every single headline or every news bulletin. that is partly and understand people have of what had become more fragmented media. it is impossible to manage every single headline or fight over every single headline. .

we have to trust in the judgment of the media, even if along the line we got some bad headlines. i was more relaxed in the early time than i would have been as the shadow chancellor. >> you state you never discussed with rupert marc policy in relation to the bbc license bureau. the only discussion you can recall with james murdoch after the 27 october, 2010. can you call whether that was in a meeting or by phone? >> i remember this was very specific about the bbc licensing. james wood off and let us have his views in public as well as

private about the bbc. specifically about the licensing and our decision in october 2010 to freeze the license fee but not to dismantle it and in effect to continue for the next five or six years with the current structure of bbc funding. as i say in the statement, i cannot remember exactly how this conversation took place and it may well have been on the phone, because it is not obvious that there was a meeting where this would have happened. but i have a pretty clear memory of him being quite angry about the decision we had taken. i explained to him why i thought it was the right decision and why, in any case, we had always made it clear that we were not setting out to dismantle the bbc or radically cut the license fee. but he was clearly disappointed

with that decision. >> i think you have interpreted the question as covering only the time from may 2010. you told us about a discussion you had with mr. james murdock on the license fee. >> it is a conversation i remember specifically about the license fee and rather than the concept of a state-funded license fee, what he would describe as a state broadcasts. >> can i go back to august 2009 and james marc lecture. did you have any conversations with him about the subject matter of a lecture before he gave it? >> no. >> did you have any conversations with him about the lecture after he gave it? >> to be honest, i am not sure i read the lecture. i read the news reports of the elector. i don't remember a conversation with him about it.

>> this question may not be that easy to answer, but what was your reaction to the elector? >> i don't mean this in a pejorative, it was typical. it was what he thought and what he was telling anyone who wanted to listen to him at the time. >> typical in the sense of what he thought, but what was your reaction to it? >> i disagree with him, basically. certainly david cameron also disagreed with him. he had been agitating for some dramatic change in the funding of the bbc or the structure of the bbc and he was not going to get that from the conservatives. he was also agitating for the quiet dismantling of -- did that --

>> i never discussed it with him. i don't remember any great discussion within the conservative department about the future of it. there were some general concern said it had become rather bloated, but that was not a complaint about its function. many parts of government have not had a proper regard for cost. >> do you know whether any analysis was done within the conservative party on that lecture and watch your response to it should be? >> i am not aware. >> paragraph 4.1 of your statement, in the middle of december 2010.

you had dinner in new york december 17, 2010. there was no discussion at that time of the bskyb, is that right? >> i am very clear. i really i would remember bskyb that had come up. did not, and i remember remarking to my wife as i left the fact that it had not come up. i would be very clear it was raised, it was not my decision. mr. murdoch spent most of the time talking about his new newspaper that he was launching in the united states. it was a social conversation. my wife was there. it was a social conversation about american politics, the internet, how newspapers were

changing. it was not specific about british politics and neither the bbc nor bskyb came up in the conversation. >> you do remember the conversation or least part of the conversation with james murdoch, the previous month on the 29th of november 2010. do you remember whether that was a meeting or a phone call? >> that was a meeting. >> do you know what other matters were discussed on that occasion? >> i seem to remember it was a conversation about the political situation. the government had been in office for some months then. we were having an argument about tuition fees. there is a whole range of things going on in politics. at some point in the conversation he raised his frustration with how long he

thought the process was taking. i made it very clear that that was not a process i was involved in in any way. >> have you had meetings with him either one to one or in a bigger group? >> the only time i can think i came across them is the party conference, news international hosted dinners -- 1 dinner at each conference for a number of shadow cabinet or cabinet members and a number of editors. i think he was at least one of those dinners. >> we know that there was some discussion about the one aspect of the bskyb with mrs. brooks, which your party to. it is reflected in an e-mail we have.

the e-mail of the 14th of december, 2010, which is page 01679. you'll see that on the bottom left-hand side of the page. this relates to theopcon letter. mrs. brooks e-mails mr. machel and says rejigger evidence was his bafflement was conveyed at a dinner this evening. do you remember anything about that occasion? >> i certainly remember the dinner. it was a dinner with my wife and i in a restaurant. i don't have any recollection of the conversation, but i don't

question that it took place big i am not doubting what mrs. brooks says. i notice in her evidence to this inquiry, she said it was perhaps a three minute conversation in that i looked slightly perplexed. i read the issue's letter in preparation for appearing before you today, and i think that is the first time i have ever read that letter. i search my private office as to whether the issue was brought to my attention and we can find no evidence that it was. i am prepared to accept that there was a conversation, i just have no memory of. perhaps the reason i was perplexed are baffled as because i am not sure ike had read the issue. >> you might have been given an oral just of what the issues letter apparently set in my have reacted to that, is that possible? >> of course i knew from the previous conversation with james

murdoch that they were frustrated with the process. but i was always very clear this was not a process of was involved in and that was being handled by vince cable. i do not recollect this particular conversation but i have to say at this time, all sorts of people -- people were hostile. it was just a topic of conversation when you went to have coffee with a journalist. it was one of the main issues of the day. people would often raise it and i would always politely say it was something i was not involved in. >> it was one of the main political issues of the day, aside from the fact that it did not fall within your jurisdiction, presumably had a

general opinion about that? >> i did not have a strong be about it, because as far as i could see, it was just going to cause us trouble one way or the other. i just thought that it was either going to offend a group of newspapers and broadcasters who wanted to have good relations with. it was rejected project starts, it was accepted, and if it was rejected, it would affect another bunch of people who want to have good relations with. i regarded the whole thing as a political inconvenience, and something we just had to deal with. the best way to deal with it was to stick by the process. >> aside from the inconvenience of all of it, surely your own political viewpoint might have been formed in general terms, your attitude, either you would be favorable to it or hostile

toward it. wouldn't you agree? you had a couple of important conservatives supporting newspapers who are vehemently against it and a couple of conservative newspapers that were vehemently for it. it was difficult to find common ground between them. it was, as i say, a political inconvenience. >> that is a rather narrow way of looking at things, mr. osborne . >> since i was not involved in assessing the merits of it, i was merely in that sense within the government and external observer of the prospect -- of the process. my own personal view is that it has all been politically inconvenient for us. i think that judgment has been borne out. people either seem to be strongly in favor of the bid or strongly against it.

that conclusion may be drawn based on purely commercial or political considerations. there is also an ideological aspect here. surely your own view of the world would have caused you to be -- >> i am not sure you can infer that. as far as i could see, it was about increasing the shareholding in a company that most people would think -- obviously if you are commercially involved in the world, either as a rival or news corp., you have strong views about it. as a practicing politician at the time, it was not clear to me that it was anything other than an inconvenience. >> to the question of increasing share holding in a company that control anyway, it was exactly the position news corp. was

taking publicly and privately with the decision maker. do you see that, mr. osborne? >> the european commission had made a ruling on the competition aspect. the secretary of state would make judgments on the plurality aspects. i did not have a strong view on the merits or demerits of the merger. it was what it was, and it was causing trouble with various newspapers. >> it is just rather unusual for someone to have such a lack of interest in such terms in an issue which everybody was talking about. is there really where you stood? >> i could see the political challenge it was posing. some of our supporters and

newspapers were very agitated about this. you had some newspapers promoting it, others complaining about it. as i say, it was a political inconvenience, but since i thought there was nothing i could do about at, because i was not involved in the process, just let the process run. that was the way i approached it. >> we know you did not have conversations with dr. cable about it. did you have conversations with mr. hunt about it? >> i searched in the communication between the two departments and there was no communication. the, the men's kept by civil servants of mike bilateral meetings with dr. cable and mr. hunt. -- the minutes kept by the civil servants.

in no occasion have they recorded any substantial conversation. i do remember a general conversation, both of them, dr. cable and mr. hunt saying, just explain what the process was and what had already happened. but there is no substantial discussion or else it would have been recorded. >> before mr. hunt inquired on the 21st of december, the by his definition was not occupying of quasi-provincial -- official role. reece saying you believe you had no such conversations creston or >> i don't remember any such conversation. i think it was reduced early in my conversations with others, it was viewed as a process under way with dr. cable, and we have

other things we needed to be getting on with. at this 0.2010, there is a huge spending review. we had the controversial issue of commission fees occupying a lot of time. >> did you know what his view was about the bid? >> i was not aware of it. >> did you know what mr. cameron's view was about the bid? >> no. >> did you suspect what their views might be? you assumed that they did not have of view, or you simply were oblivious as to what it might be? >> i assumed, speaking about mr. cameron, that like me, he thought the whole thing was, as i say, a political inconvenience. >> important newspaper groups

like the telegraph and that that immelt were very hostile. it was pretty clear that there were a lot of people out there who were not going to be happy if it went through, and equally a lot would be unhappy if it did go through. but there was nothing we thought we should do to influence that process that was being handled in a quasi-judicial fashion. >> aside from the one conversation you had with mr. james murdoch that you referred to, there were no other conversations with him by whatever means about the bid? >> not that i am aware of. >> i asked you pleased to look accept your supplementary witness' statement now. it is under chapter 3 -- under

tab 3. paragraph 5.3, there is evidence of an e-mail mr. michelle sensed to mr. james murdock on 9 november, 2010. this is one of europe to special advisor, is that correct? >> yes. >> in terms of division of responsibilities between your professional visors, what, if anything, is irresponsible for? >> is principally responsible for economic policy. he has a ph.d. in economics and he provides me with policy advisor. >> the relevant e-mail is under tab 9.

01665. do you have it to hand, mr. osborne? >> yes. >> it is dated the ninth of november. you had a conversation with mr. harrison, is that correct, about what we see here. can you tell us which part he agreed and did not agree? >> obviously the first i saw this e-mail, or he saw in this e-mail is when it was brought to his attention in this inquiry. he says, and i believe him, that there was a general discussion that was not focused on the bskyb bid. there is a reference in the e- mail to making the case. there is no contact between the

treasury and mr. harris and and the business department. if it was raised, it's early was not followed up. he makes the point to me that he would not have known whether dr. cable had legal device or not because he would not have had a conversation with dr. cable. as i say, if you look at the texted changes between mr. harrison and mr. machel, i would say it is obvious he is implying generally and in a polite way to brush him off with his various request for intervention. for example, mr. michaud asked that i sent a letter to dr. cable agreed that was never done, never raised with me. if you look at the general tone of the text exchanges, they tend to be, i will bring that up, or

sorry, i am on paternity leave, or whatever. there is nowhere that he says big idea, i will action that point. mr. harrison, i think, was doing his job of meeting people and representing important businesses but he was very careful not to promise things that we would not have wanted to deliver. >> there is reference to ongoing dialogue in weeks to come. is that something that did not occur? >> we have done a search of the e-mail system and of correspondence with the treasury and there is no evidence of such an ongoing dialogue. i have been told that no such ongoing dialogue happened. >> reference to the commitment of news corp. to scotland.

>> i cannot, i am afraid. >> could mr. harrison? >> mr. harrison, when he looked at this e-mail, he said when the bid came up, mr. harrison made clear that it was subject to the quasi-judicial process that we were not involved. i think in the evidence to you, he talks about the meetings that this e-mail purports to represent as being a general conversation. >> there are a few text messages under tab 15. the first one starts with page 13517 on the ninth of november.

it says rupert, just spoke with james. he would send a letter to events on our sky merger of economic importance. do you think it is a possibility? i can help with the content. then the reply back, on the next page, will have to discuss it with g. when he is back from china. that issue, of course. >> the recently no letter and i have no memory of any discussion. i don't think a discussion took place. >> this is mr. harrison exercising his diplomatic skills. >> i am not suggesting it is necessary. the judicial process, and we are not interfering.

be off with you. >> he was being diplomatic, justice. i think if you take the tone of all these things, all these exchanges, mr. harrison is saying okay, i hear what you say. he was not acting on any of these things. the proof would be if there was any communication between him and the business department, which there was not. indeed, the only thing we have been able to come across in the department is a letter from all the people who were against the bid to the chief secretary read what is instructive here is the internal treasury regulations team that would handle media regulations says this -- the issue is solely for the resin

and competition authorities. the only internal evidence we have and the treasury it is when it is very clear that this is not an issue for the treasury. >> my question was only to express my surprise that everybody did not understand what was going on here, than that actually by doing this, either way, for or against. >> as i say, there were lots of people at the time saying the bid should go ahead or the bid should not go ahead. people were translating that to ask councils of various kinds. we would just politely absorbent but not doing anything about, or in the case of myself or mr. murdoch, it was very clear the quasi-judicial process, are making clear was not a process we were involved in. >> is it the accepted technique

for dealing with pushy and lobbyists [unintelligible] >> when you are doing a job like mine are working as a special advisor for someone like myself, you get asked about a whole range of things. people are often trying to make the case for their company or their particular campaign. happens on a daily basis. obviously you could go around being rather abrupt with everyone, but in this case, what mr. harrison was doing is simply an absorbing mr. michele's text in this case. he does not raise it with me. he does not ask me to send a letter to dr. cable, and i do not send a letter to dr. cable. >> is there any sense at all of not wishing to antagonize mr. michelle, given who he represents? >> i think it is a question --

it is not a question of antagonizing. i am not antagonizing. >> the question for me is, mr. harrison is my special adviser. did he act improperly, did he in any way trying interfere with the bid process? the he improperly made request of me? the answer is no to all of those things. he behaved completely properly as far as i am concerned. >> let me move forward in time to december 2010. in particular, the various e- mails or text messages we have relating to that.

page08159. we see here three text messages within a 50-minute period. are you with me, mr. osborne? >> yes . >> can we try and establish the chronology. approximately when were you first aware of dr. cable's comments? >> i think about 3:00. i discovered, like the rest of westminster, from robert peston's blog where he had put up that he had information that had not been published by the telegraph that morning about what dr. cable had said about the murder of -- about the murdochs. >> did you have any discussion with anyone from news international or news corp. about it on that day? >> no. >> did you have discussions with

downing street about this issue on that day? >> by downing street i take it to mean the prime minister. the answer is yes. every day at 4:00 there is a prime ministerial meeting to review what is going on that day and look ahead. i attend that meeting when i am in london and my diary allows me to do so. so i was going to downing street anyway. the meeting had any effect been cancelled. it had become a discussion of what to do about dr. cables remarks, and i was part of that discussion with the prime minister, his most senior civil servants, and his political advisor. >> would like me to give an account of that meeting? >> yes, but first of all, who else was at the meeting? >> i don't have the 10 downing

street records of the meeting. my recollection is it was the prime minister, it was the permanent secretary at no. 10, jeremy hayward, and the prime minister's close political team and the prime minister's private secretary as well. >> could you tell us, please, the gist of what was discussed? >> the principal concern in the meeting, or my principal concern, what i was thinking during the meeting was that this was not something that should lead to the resignation of dr. cable. i thought we said was wrong, but i did not think it merited his resignation -- i thought what he said was wrong. i also had concerns about the impact of such a resignation on the coalition and the unity of the government. i was looking for a solution, as

indeed were other people of the room, that did not involve someone else becoming the secretary of state for business and dr. cable leaving government, or him moving to another portfolio. that would trigger a wider cabinet reshuffle, which is not something we felt just before christmas with the coalition in its first year was something we wanted to see. we thought dr. tebbutt was doing a good job as business secretary, other than on this particular issue of what he said about the marocs -- about the murdochs. we were looking for a solution that did not involve dr. cable resigning or moving. it was suggested moving the responsibility for meeting a plurality to the department for culture, media, and sport. it was in a way a structural solution to the problem. my recollection is once mr.

hayward had proposed that, we thought that was a good solution and would help keep dr. cable in the government while removing from him the responsibility for media plurality. i think it also struck all of us as commonsensical. ideas in jeremy heyward's that it should go dtms, or was it someone else's idea? >> my recollection is it was jeremy heyward's idea. >> it was his idea of the responsibility being moved elsewhere -- the question is more focused on exactly where. >> i am pretty sure, my recollection of the event was that he thought it was sensible to remove responsibility for media plurality.

i have noted also what the cabinet secretary at the time said, surprise, surprise, the media department moves to the obvious place to look. >> how long did it take to agree on that solution? >> less than an hour. >> when you text mr. hunt back at 16:58, i hope you like the solution, that is obviously the solution we have just been discussing in the last five minutes, is that correct? >> yes. i think his department had already been contacted at that point. certainly not by me, but by the private office, that they were looking at this as the central solution to the problem that dr. cable's comments had caused.

according to the evidence submitted to your inquiry, but i am not certain that i saw them before i sent the reply. i did not sit in the meeting. i looked at my mobile phone coming out of the meeting can and i saw the text and sent my reply. >> did anybody in the meeting expressing the concerns about the impartiality of mr. hunt? >> there was an issue because mr. hunt had publicly expected support or sympathy with the bid, although he said also in public that it was a non issue for him in the process. i think the prime minister's view and the view of the civil servants was that they should seek legal device about whether that was an impediment.

i was not involved in that seeking a legal device and you would have to direct your questions to either the cabinet secretary or the prime minister. >> illegal a vice we know was obtained after 16:58, which was the -- the legal advice was obtained after 16:58. >> my recollection was the decision had been taken in principle, subject to any problems the legal advice might grow up. there was no expectation it would throw up those problem. >> what did you mean by "i hope you like the solution." >> i hope he would like the fact that he was taking on additional responsibilities, and the solution refers to the fact that he was -- refers to the problem we had with dr. cable's remarks.

that had obviously caused a political storm that day. again, my recollection is that there was coverage on the 24- hour news is that there was a crisis for the government. i think opposition at the time were calling for dr. cable to resign. so my reference here is to the solution of that political problem of dr. cable's remarks. >> went references made to mr. hunt's public expression of views, which likely touched on his meeting with the prime minister, were you surprised to hear those views? >> i don't recollect being particularly surprise. >> it would not have been a matter of surprise to you, would it? >> i think they had been reported in the press. >> but to be frank, weren't those views shared by all the

politicians present, the same community of opinions? >> as i say, our protests, an exclusive conversation was how to solve this problem that a very senior level democrat, who is important to the unity of the government, had said remarks which some people, including the labor opposition, said merited his resignation. we wanted to find a solution to that political problem and that is what took up the time in the discussion, quite abruptly, the senior civil service provided a neat solution. >> why were you present at this meeting at all? was it simply that you are one of mr. cameron's meeting advisers in government? >> i am regular a tender at the 4:00 meeting that is held and a senior member of the government

and senior conservative. ,> these four-o'clock meetings are you present on every occasion? >> when i am in london and there is not some other pressing event. >> why was there such a rush to get this sorted, and principal at least, and less than one hour? >> on the day, i remember the pressure was enormous to do something about the political crisis that had been unleashed on the government, out of the blue, at 3:00 in the afternoon. obviously we had no idea that dr. cable had said these things. they were not in the telegraph reports of the story that morning. they had caused problems. the pressure in modern government is you have to make sure you of answers to the tough

questions the media is throwing at you even if it comes in the middle of the afternoon when you are doing other things. in a modern political party for a government, you have to be on the news management cycle. that does not mean you have to control every headline. you can be more relaxed about the flow of the news than some of our predecessors have been. but it is quite difficult when you have a situation where a cabinet member has said something that makes it clear he cannot continue with those responsibilities. you have got to provide the public and parliament with an answer as to what your solution to the problem is. >> you have an expression and

the equal and opposite problem with mr. hans. was that considered? >> not to my recollection. >> should it have been? >> we received good legal advice it was not an impediment. i would say the difference between someone who is acting in a quasi-. political fashion saying he will go to war and in the way mr. hunt then sought to conduct himself, which was to take independent advice and follow that independent advice. the claim is principally by our political opponents that there is a vast conspiracy where the conservative party knows before the election, that we sign up

for some deal in return for our support as expressed through the endorsement of "the sun" and that when we get into office we handed over. that is complete nonsense. the facts do not bear it out. we have no idea they wanted it before the general election. when the election happened, a liberal democrat was put in charge. you have to be a real fantasist to believe we knowingly allowed him to be secretly recorded. the information emerged in the middle of the afternoon. we then put mr. hunt in charge. it does not stack up. we were following proper process. i think mr. hunt followed proper process.

>> now to put these to the questions to mr. osborn. are you aware of any relations between your special adviser and the head of corporate affairs at bskyb? >> i am not aware of any communication. >> i am going to move on to another topic. >> we will have a short break for in the few minutes before a few minutes. thank you. -- we will have a short break for a few minutes. thank you. >> you tell us you discussed with david cameron who the

potential candidates might be. later, when a new suggested as worth considering was andy colson. can you give us an idea of how many other candidates there were? >> there were probably three or four we identified. one of whom has been identified or identified himself. he subsequently worked for the mayor of london. there were a couple of other people we considered, one of whom we met and talked to. this other person did not work for news international, to my knowledge never has worked for news international. they are still working in the press. i do not think it would be fair to identify them. we were considering a number of

candidates. i thought andy colson would be a strong candidate. >> what were the qualities he possessed which attracted him to you? >> it was a couple of things. he had been the editor of a major national newspaper, so he had an enormous amount of professional experience. what we needed was someone who would be able to handle the communications of the political party and develop a media strategy and be able to handle the problems thrown at us. as i was saying earlier, in politics, things can be thrown at you very quickly. you need to be able to react quickly. a story can break late at night.

it can involve an individual or policy. i would suggest evidence from this inquiry has been picked up and within 20 minutes, the government has to have an answer. it shows everyone involved in the inquiry how quickly things can move, how quickly the government has to react, and how quickly the opposition has to react. i thought andy coulson had that experience as someone who had run a news room and was dealing with fast changing stories. it was not just that he was experienced. i had met him a few times, although never one on one. he struck me as someone who had conservative views, chaired by conservative values, and i thought would bring that as well to the party. i thought there were a number of

reasons why he was potentially a very good person to do the job. >> are you saying his association or contacts with news international were not relevant factors of all? >> they were not relevant as far as i was concerned or as far as david cameron was concerned. the fact that he had edited a big newspaper was the relevant fact. the other candidates we considered were not working for news international. if he had been editing the mail on sunday, we also would have hired him. i think it was not relevant he was a news international ex- employee. >> relevant he was very experienced in the ways of the press. >> i have seen people suggest the reason we hired him was

because of his connections with murdoch or his knowledge of the internal workings of news international. what we were interested in hiring or someone who would do the job going forward extremely well. if we had only hired someone because of connections they had, we would have made a mistake. we requiring an individual to do an important job for us. -- we were hiring an individual to do important job for us. we hired him because we thought he had the experience and personality to do the job. i would suggest to you everything that has happened since, no one has mounted a serious complaint about the way he did the job. there have been arguments about his time as the editor of the news of the world. there may have been complaints about police handled himself in the job as communications director, which is one of the most controversy jobs in britain. >> is it more that he brought

skills that you have seen evidenced by new labor in mr. cameron? >> tony blair had seen hiring someone from the meeting would bring an added dimension to the communications angle. the conservative party have hired a number of people subsequently to have been journalists, one person who had been an editor of the paper. that was true, but i do not think mr. coulson and mr. campbell are cut from the kind -- from the same cloth. i think subsequently the way he did his job showed he was well qualified to do that. >> he might have been attuned to

a particular brand of conservative thinking that you and mr. campbell thought he exemplified? >> i think he brought a range of experiences and values to the job. if you are referring to the fact i think he started his career in a newspaper on the beat that is close to the heart of the conservative party. >> what about his contacts? >> i did think they were of value. we already have some contacts. i do not think that was a particular thing he brought to the party. he was and remains a very experienced individual at understanding the different aspects of news media. one of the things he transformed

for us was our interaction with broadcast media, which had been quite weak until that point. to my knowledge, he had not working. broadcaster previously. >> were you aware he was friends with mr. brooks? >> i was aware he knew the owners of news of the world. >> this was not likely to be a hindrance in the future? >> we knew it would be controversial. he had resigned from being the editor of the news of the world. we knew that was an issue. if he had been the editor of the mail on sunday or some other newspaper, we would have hired him. i use that because it is a mid- market paper and conservative

leaning. it was not a consideration, let's hire the ex news international man. it was, let's hire this experienced newspaper editor. i thought he had a particular talent and ability i have detected in my dealings with him and my conversations with him. it was not my decision to hire him. mr. cameron had met him. mr. cameron spoke to him as well as a number of other conservatives before he was tired. >> you met him for a drink on the 15th of march of 2007.

you also told us you ask him whether he was a conservative supporter. he was, is the right? >> that is right. i suspected he was. one of the things you develop in my job is a reasonable sense of how people might vote. his paper supported the labor party in the previous election. it was worth asking him the question because as the editor, he had supported the labor party in the previous election. >> can you tell us precisely the question you asked about phone hacking? >> this was not an

interrogation. this was a drink where i was sounding him not to see if he was interested. i was not offering him the job. i was finding out if he was interested. until that point, we had no idea if he was interested, what other things he had offer, or if he had accepted another job. i asked of him in a general sense as you might do in the social encounter weather -- whether there was more on the phone hacking scandal that might come out that we needed to know about. he said no. the phone hacking scandal have the court case and subsequent convictions. >> why do you think you asked that question. some reports obviously it was an issue he had resigned -- >> of the league -- >> obviously was an issue he had resigned. we had discussed hiring him

would attract some controversy because of the circumstances of his resignation. if he had not resigned, he would not have been available for the job, i suspect. asking him in the way i have put down here and to the rest of my recollection -- the best of my recollection, it is also worth noting the press complaint commission said there was no evidence of anyone else involved. the former prime minister in his evidence to this inquiry has said he believed mr. coulson. i believe it was confirmed after his resignation. i guess i also assumed because there had been a criminal court case and all of these things have been investigated by the police that there was nothing else, but i asked him.

>> you asked him to exclude the possibility there might be something else. i wanted to find out from him if there was some yet undisclosed part of his involvement in the case that we were not aware of. he said no. >> in paragraph 8.1, after he confirmed he was interested in the job, you had a conversation with mr. cameron about it. is that correct? >> i spoke to him pretty soon, david cameron. my recollection is i told him about the conversation on the phone after the drink. >> you are more than impressed

with him. he was the man for the job subject to his expressing interest? >> i was very impressed by him. it confirmed my instinct i thought he would be a good candidate for the job. also i had discovered he was prepared to consider the job. he simply said you would think about it. he had not thought about it. he was somewhat surprised i turned up and ask him. i knew we had a good person for our short list. i would not say we had made a decision there and then to hire him. we have someone we could put on our short list. >> i think you told us you knew this would be a controversial appointment, particularly if it was going to be him. why was that? >> i thought it was worth hiring someone with real talent and ability and weathering the

adverse publicity of someone who had to resign from the news of the world and what that would bring. i have been involved in the junior level in politics since 2004 -- excuse me, 1994. i have seen oppositions try and hire people just because of who they were and maybe the connections they brought to them. it has sometimes gone wrong. it was better to hire someone we thought would be good for the job in hand rather than for where they came from. if you are going on simply hiring someone that was not going to attract publicity, we would not have hired mr. coulson. my assessment was he was the best candidate for the job.

>> do you remember when you asked mrs. brooks to give her professional opinion about it? >> i spoke with her after i had seen mr. coulson and after we had been considering him for a couple of weeks. i do not recollect the precise day or anything like that, but i remember a conversation where i asked her to tell me about andy coulson. is he a good person to work with, what do you think of them -- him? it was never about whether he would bring news international connections or anything about the circumstances of his resignation. i was simply asking her opinion of him as a professional. >> did she express any surprise you interested in hiring him? >> not particularly.

i think he had told her we were interested. i do not want to overstate the importance of this. it was a briefonversation. there was no formal meeting with her or anything like that. >> i suppose it would be difficult to reference in that situation. this was the best you could do. >> one of the problems we had and in appointing his successor is it is such a high-profile appointments and there is so much interest in you are going to appoint that is quite difficult to do this without attracting a lot of media attention. we had to tread carefully because we could not formally request preferences or anything like that. >> i think subsequently you passed out of the picture.

we know mr. cameron had the conversation with mr. coulson and the job was offered. in terms of his subsequent work for the party, to what extent was helpful -- was he helpful? >> he was helpful because he was the director of communications. i think the endorsement of the sun has been elevated to almost mythical status. it was just one of a range of things we felt we had to get right in the run-up to a general election. if we had not had the endorsement of the sun, i think we would have done well in the general election. i remember it was significant we have the endorsement of the financial times and the economist, both publications the previously supported the labor

party. they do not have mass readership but they bring a different kind of cache. some of this stems back to the 1992 election, the feeling that the endorsement of the sun is all you need to win a general election. as i said, i think you can win an election without the endorsement of the sun. >> was their decision on how best to achieve the support of the sun? >> i think his and vice was how to talk to editors and so forth. you would have to ask the editor of the sun and others. in the end, they supported the conservative party for the same reasons many other previously labor support in organizations and newspapers switched their

support. they felt the labor government had run out of steam and wanted a new government. as i was saying before the break, the idea there was some conspiracy that used in the endorsement of the sun with the commercial interests of news international is complete nonsense. we were trying to make the merits of the conservative case clear to all, including editors, but above all to those that run the sun. >> put in the term conspiracy to thione side for a moment and instead use the term "strategy," shirley you had a strategy -- surely you had a strategy as to how to win over the sun?

are we agreed? >> i do not think it was a particular strategy for the sun. it was a strategy for newspapers. we wanted the full support of conservative leading papers like the telegraph and the mail. we wanted to win over some of the more neutral broadsheets. we did not have much hope of the mirror and the guardian. we wanted to win the support of the sun. it was a general media strategy. it was setting out the arguments of why the labor party should not remain in office and why our party would be better for britain. we are making in private the same arguments we were making in public. >> did you not have some sort of strategy as to how specifically to win them over aside from the overall strategy to win the support of everywhere you might choose to look?

>> i do not remember. it was certainly not some specific strategy. we were certainly aware the endorsement of the sun was important because of the role it has played in british politics, the role people think it plays in british politics. our own view was it was not going to be anything like a deciding factor or even a hugely significant factor. it was important, but it was just one of a range of things we have to do to try and win a general election. >> you also say in your statement that at the time he became a personal friend of mr. coulson. is that right? >> yes, we remain so, although sadly i have not been able to speak to him in the year. >> may i ask you about something else?

are you also a friend of mr. daniel finkelstein from the times? >> yes. >> is a speechwriter? >> no, he is a good friend. i have known him for many years. we've worked together for the conservative party. we have stood in the same general election but he was unsuccessful. he and his wife are very good friends of my wife and i. >> has he ever assisted you in the drafting of your statements and speeches? >> i talked to him about politics as a friend. he provides a good one lines and jokes. as far as i know, he has been providing the function for 20 years for politicians.

do you assist him in any way with providing material or information for his stories in the times? >> we have political conversations. i have other good personal friends who are journalists and involved in the media. obviously, we talk about politics. part of the job of a columnist -- by the way, i think he is an excellent column is. he often references the fact he worked in conservative central office and was a candidate. he seems to explain the thinking of the conservative party. i would also point out he is friends with many senior conservatives, not just myself. >> you make the very point i was

making before. people have got to be able to have social relationships with to they want. the question is, is there a line? if there is, how do you define it? you may be right that you can sit down and depend upon people in power to use sensible judgment. >> i would agree with that. >> there is a judgment of the public about whether they buy the newspaper and of the public about whether they elect someone to office. >> there is one further meeting i have been announced to raise with you. it is referenced in your amex. a dinner with rebekah brooks and

mr. murdoch on the evening of the press awards. do you remember it? two issues i have been asked to raise with you. were others present on that occasion? >> i do not think so. >> the names listed here represent the relevant individuals there? >> to the best of m recollection. if we get further along, i will correct you. i do not remember anyone else there. >> was bskyb raised on that occasion? >> i do not think it was. >> can you tell us what was discussed in general terms? >> it was a general discussion about the political situation

and what the government was up 2 at the time. >> ok. i will on then to issues of media regulation. mr. osborne. >> yes. >> the balance between freedom of the press, the responsibility of the rights of others. how important do you see the issue of individual harm and collective harm and harm heavily in the balance against the important rights of freedom of speech? >> my instinct is to err on the side of freedom of speech, just because i think that when you try to construct a test of some other public interest, you are at risk of muzzling free comment

in a democratic society. there are plenty occasions in our society where newspaper stood out against the general consensus, they would have been accused of harming the general public good and it were proved right by events afterwards. i think if you try to construct some type of public interest test alongside freedom of the speech, -- freedom of speech, you are in quite dangerous territory. i would certainly agree that the press complaints commission needs complete overall and changing, and i think there needs to be a better right of redress for individuals who are harmed in some way by the press in an unfair way, but i think if you try to construct some test of general harm, then you are in difficult territory, because a powerful politician will always

invoked national security or economic interests for some defense, why an inconvenience story should not be published. >> we focused on individual harm rather than other harm. why does this a rise in the context to continue to foster free speech and a democratic society? >> well, i think -- >> -- >> i think this is more of the jurisdiction of yourself and justice leveson. if they are in some way libel to take a libel action, and while the press complaints commission has done some good, and i have used it on occasion myself, it

has lacked teeth. it has lacked independence, and i may be reflective on this because of this inquiry, it is reactive to individual complaints rather than trying to foster a broader set of standards, which i think would benefit the whole process. >> that sounds as if you favor a strengthened the body, which would be able to assess damage to individual rights, and therefore, there is not an objection to those methods being properly addressed, even in a democratic society where, of course, we all believe in free speech. is that correct? >> someone who is not a prominent politician or actively involved in the media, if it is an individual who has a gross intrusion of their privacy by

the press that is unjustified, with how you make that determination, and i think at the moment, they do not have a way. generally, the complaint, when the remedies are arrived at, they tend to be, the apology or the correction is timely compared to the size of their original story, and so ordinary citizens can be harmed in this way. so i would hope that that is coming out of this, some recommendations. there was the harm visited on ordinary citizens, not on politicians or celebrities. if you can find a cheaper, more effective, more straightforward way for these people, i think

that would be fantastic, but in doing so, stray into the personal views, the facts, which is featured in these inquiries, because i think that is a broader issue. i think he would find it impossible to find some remedy, if you do in power some independent body with some investigative rights in this area, you could be crossing over a mine with a restriction of free speech. >> let's try to break that down a bit. if one takes the first bit, the pcc does require the separation of fact and comment, and if you have an appropriate mechanism, at least being able to review that, where it has gone horribly wrong, and i am not now talking

about political issues, which i see. i understand the point you are making there. that may help. the second bid is investigative rights, and again, it depends on what sort of the investigation you permit and who is doing it. the trouble is that there is a risk, it seems to me, but i would be interested in your comment, of defaulting to the position of, well, the police are there. they should do it, because the police have their own powers and their own problems. i would hope that the press in some way should be able to cope with issues that are so out with a reasonable response that somebody would say something about it, and that is really it. is that fair? >> i think from what i have

heard you say about trying to get a more independent body that is also independent of the government that provides a means to address this for ordinary citizens, i think that is all very well and good. i would just question, when i hear the discussion straight into a complaint about sometimes the virulence of the press or the anger of the press, that is partly the color of the press in our society, and i think that makes the press more effective than the media in some other countries. i have heard, for example, campbell talks about accuracy and marks. i would be quite skeptical of getting into that territory, and one person's fact is another person's opinion in the political world, so maybe there

are other worlds where there needs to be a clear line, but i think in politics, you would find it very difficult to find that line. you, yourself. >> i understand that point entirely, but let me just share with you another group that would be interested in your comments. these are now voluntary, so you are perfectly fine to say, "thank you very much. i will pass on that." i have heard evidence fro groups that feel very, very disadvantaged by the way they are continually portrayed in the press, and, of course, the pcc requires individual complaints, but if this is about individual people, and if this is from immigrant groups or transgendered groups, different, women's groups, a category

different from the politicians who, of course, have different dynamics within which they have to operate. would you agree? >> well, up to a point. i think, yes, of course, you have to respect the dignity of people, and there are laws to prevent racial discrimination and sexual discrimination and sexual-orientation discrimination. these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. equally, there is a concern in the public about immigration control and particular immigrants, and if that is not allowed to be aired, then i think you stifle public debate, and actually, since you have got me on this subject, i think it is one of the issues for our natural -- national broadcasters

as well, in in the euro zone. i remember one decade ago, it was considered eccentric to be against the british membership in the euro, and the media coverage was regarded as faintly marginal by the establishment at the time and everyone else. actually, they found that that euro-sceptic attitude got some help, though not much from the bbc, and i think we can say that that was one of the most economically and politically important decisions that this country has ever faced, so, yes, by all means, respect the individual dignities of course, but if that prevents you from airing issues which are lot of people that quite strong views about, i think you are in

difficult territory. >> i find it difficult to draw the line between what you have just said justifies protection and what you equally said absolutely must be open in a free democratic society for free speech. >> if you, for example, cut the budget of government funding to perhaps one of the groups that you mentioned, that can be representative of an attack on that group, and you never hear on the program -- a taxpayer. it is not that i am particularly against this group, it is just that they are spending too much. i am just saying if you elevate certain groups as having particular protection, you are starting to make judgments about what is in the public interest, and i think that is quite a slippery slope. we have very good laws to

protect the abuse against individuals and discrimination against individuals, but once you start going beyond those laws for some kind of code for newspapers, then i think we are straying into the territory of determining what is in the national interest, and i would personally stay away from that territory. >> you certainly straight away from determining what is in the public interest. that is ultimately going to be a decision for the press. >> and the public. >> and the public. the question is where in relation to any specific example -- >> i would say, from having followed your proceedings about asking people's opinions to create something that is independent from the government and the newspapers, that it should have teeth, that it should be more than just reacting to complaints, it

should try to set broader standards, i think those are all very good things. one final, i would make, of course, all of this has to be future proof. what we do not want to come out with is a set of projections for illuminated manuscripts. we have to come up with something that is relevant to the internet age. i have a 10-year-old and an eight-year-old child. i doubt they will ever buy a paper newspaper in their lives. they will consume a news, they do consume news, but it will consume news in a different way than i have done in my life, and if we do this with one particular part of the media, then i am afraid we will all have been wasting our time. >> and there is equally concerned about the economics of great journalism as well. i understand your point. that is not to say i know the answer. >> yes, well, thank you very

much. >> mr. osborne, thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and tonight, highlights from the gordon brown testimony in london, where he discussed his relationship with rupert murdoch and denied ever saying he was going to, quote, declare war on rupert murdoch. this was after saying there would be support for the conservative party. you can find that tonight on c- span and anytime at c-span.org. and more on this all week on c- span2. tomorrow morning, john major and edward miliband. on wednesday, the deputy prime minister nick clegg, and then

the current british prime minister, david cameron. the coverage is on c-span2. also tomorrow, attorney general eric holder testifies before the senate judiciary committee about the justice department's ongoing investigation into operation fast and furious, whether the government allowed weapons to be smuggled across the border with mexico. he will also be asked about appointing u.s. attorneys to investigate leaks about u.s. drone strikes and cyber attack street that will be live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. tonight, the espn president on the networks expansion to different media platforms. the cnn correspondent on the way technology has changed cnn, and a cox business senior vice president and their small-

business focus tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> a pulitzer prize-winning artist researched his new book, "barack obama," visiting places to investigate his family tree, with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya with the author in 2010. later at 7:30 p.m. that night, your calls and tweets on booktv. >> the senate finance committee chairman max baucus said today his committee is making progress on a plan to change the tax code. he did not give specific details, but the montana senator wants the tax code to do more to promote private-sector growth and to raise more revenue to reduce debt. his remarks were at the bipartisan policy center, but

first, we will hear from the group's vice president. >> good morning, and welcome to the bipartisan center. i am the vice president of public policy. for those of you not familiar with the bipartisan center, we are a think tank organization that works with both parties to work on key problems facing our country. we have some packets of information out front that i hope you have a chance to look at, including our tax reform proposal and a recent report we did. we were founded in 2007 by the format -- former senate majority leaders, including bob dole and george mitchell and tom daschle. when tackling the problem, certainly our debt is one of the most pressing issues today. for the past two years, our tax reduction task force has been

calling on congress and the president to come together and enact a comprehensive, bipartisan, debt-reduction plan, such as the one developed by the task force that would reduce our debt to a certain amount by 2020. there is another key piece of the puzzle, in addition to the entitlement reform, and we're pleased to be joined today by senator baucus. here to introduce senator baucus is senator domenici, with the policy center. [applause] >> i knew it would take a house member to recognize that.

[laughter] i do not know if he would applaud forepeak or not. there is no reason why he should not. i want to sit for a long time now, we have been talking about our national debt. it has not been getting any better. there are some cynics around you do not think it is very serious. we have had this problem before, do not worry. i am not one of those. i do not think we have had this problem before. it was regardless of what we had to spend, because we had to win. it took us three or four years to bring it back in balance. nobody seems to have that goal right now to see that that is done, but in trying to educate the public as best we can, with a president who does not seem to want to educate the public on this issue, we try hard, but we

are making the point, and many others are making the point, that the debt is too big, and it may be in some profound way affecting our life, now and in the future. in the promoting of this problem to our people, we have talked greatly and incessantly about reforming entitlements, no question about it. it is they're all of the time, but today, we say that the tax part of the debt puzzle is going to be discussed. the tax piece of the debt puzzle is going to be given equal progress -- progress -- prowess. anyone who looks at the tax laws of america knows you cannot have one without the other. they are both in desperate need of reform, and today, we are

very fortunate under the auspices of the bipartisan policy committee to have a number of superb speakers, experienced, knowledgeable in this problem, which they will offer in their own regard in answer to questions their idea about this enormous problem. our first speaker is a westerner like i am, max baucus, who comes from the great state of montana, and believe it or not, in his campaigning back home in the west, he has walked the longest distance of that state. he has walked it as part of his campaign. he has never forgotten that you have to get to the small people to talk with them, so annually, he has a series of events which brings the people to him to talk about problems, and he gets a pretty good idea about how his constituents feel before he goes to work on problems here in the united states congress, and as

chairman of one of the most powerful committees, if not the most powerful, he is a quiet and determined man, and i am very pleased that he has agreed to come and share. i do not think he has done this before, in this crisis, to come and share his thoughts, as i said a while ago, about the tax piece of the debt puzzle, so with that, let me think max for coming and once again introduce him to you. max, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, pete. it is a real honor to be here, and i mean that. that is not to be said lightly.

the colleagues i have worked with over the years, and you i think do a super job representing their states and working to help solve the nation's problems, they are true public servants. pete and bob and bill thomas r. ones. let's give a big round of applause to the former members of congress who are here, who worked hard, and who are still working very hard. [applause] thank you very much. for the bipartisan policy center, it was clearly formed for the right reasons. nothing of consequence was ever done by accomplishing it alone. things are accomplished in partnership, and the bipartisan policy center has done this. i want to thank them for getting together in helping to advance

the ball here. [applause] winston churchill once said, "however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." the need to overhaul the u.s. tax code seems obvious. today, the code is not beautiful. instead, it reminds me of hydra, the mythical beast with hundreds of heads. each time you cut one off, two grow back. like hydra, our tax code has grown out of control. congress has made 15,000 changes to the code. we need to get rid of the deadwood and simplify the code, and we should, but tax reform cannot be an abstract exercise. we need to hear -- heed churchill's advice, which is to look at the result we wish to achieve.

a 21st-century tax code, the keys to america's future and securing our lead in the global economy. jobs, from broad-based growth, competitiveness, innovation, and opportunity. these four goals will be the heart of my tax reform plan, but there are challenges to overcome. we need to get our fiscal heart -- house in order. american debt is unsustainable. today, the debt to gdp ratio is 73%, the highest in has been since world war ii. deficits and debt are not just a spending problem. revenues as a share of gross domestic product of the past few years are the lowest they have been since world war ii. we simply do not raise enough revenue. reasonable people disagree about

the timeline, but the reality is we are on a dangerous path. if we do not act, it will lead to a fiscal crisis, like some european countries. any tax reform plan must be developed with a sound budget in mind that reduces deficits. but the deficit is not our only horrible, not by a longshot. since the last major tax reform in 1986, the world has changed drastically. ou tax code has not kept up. and now, it is acting as a breakneck in our economy, and we need to move at full speed. it is time we had a tax code for the 21st century. when we crafted the 1986 law, i was a member of the finance committee, granted, a young junior member. it was in many ways a different world. back then, cell phones were

bigger than your head. [laughter] finding something online on the mets you pulled a black trout out of the river, -- finding some the online meant that you pulled a trout out of the river. since 1986, the u.s. economy has grown by 88%, but this rising tide has not lifted all boats. after benefits and taxes, income of the tax -- the income of the top 1% has grown faster than the middle over the past 30 years, and it has grown 50% more than the poorest 20%. the tax code can play a role, but it cannot do it alone. if we do not educate our children to be competitive in today's information and technology-based economy, -- the

increase of those with a college degree has risen only 15%. meanwhile, with our competitors, it was 19 percent said. we are also in danger of no longer being seen as the land of opportunity. in america, a child's future earnings depend more on his parents' income than they do in other countries. this lack of opportunity undermines the american dream. it hurts growth. it means we are not capitalizing on all of the talents of our citizens. the family structure is different also than it was in 1986. there are fewer tradition are -- traditional families with one breadwinner. that means that more have to pay for child care, but the code has not taken these changes into account. the makeup of the economy is also different than it was in 1986. the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped by one-third. services like consulting,

information technology make up a bigger part of the economy. exports as a share of gdp have nearly doubled, and we are exporting more kinds of products. the u.s. used to mean the export goods like television sets and clothing, and today, we export services, software, engineering. the global economy has become more interconnected. america's lead in the world has narrowed. our share of world gdp has fallen by nearly one quarter. competition has intensified. other countries have responded by making investments to education and infrastructure and by modernizing their tax goods to be more competitive. they have lower corporate rates to attract businesses. they have shifted territorial systems to keep businesses from moving overseas, and they have tougher rules. these tax games areie