tree. we have a preview with exclusive pictures and video. join us on sunday it 6:00 p.m. eastern and later at 7:30 p.m. that same night. your phone calls, e-mail, and tweets for david maraniss. >> gordon brown testifies in the continuing investigation into the relationships between british politicians and the media. in more than two and half hours, a defence department briefing on operations in afghanistan. and on the op-ed piece, 'the age of unsatisfying wars." gordon brown testified in an examination of the relationship between british politicians and the media. he denied ever saying that he

would declare war on >> this is a little more than 2.5 hours. >> i am today handing down rulings in relation to the application made concerning operation motorman, and in relation to costs. when this inquiry was established last july it was extremely important that he would have the benefit of cross- party support. it is equally important that it conducts its work so as to not undermine the basis upon which it was established. two weeks ago, the former prime minister gave evidence. this week, i should be hearing from others who are or who have

been the leading politicians of the day. they come from different parties from different political allegiances. already, there has been demonstrated intense public interest in what they will be asked and what they will have to say. it is vital to bear in mind that the increase in terms of the referenced include, to inquire practice and ethics, contacts and relationships between newspapers and politicians, and the context of each, and to make recommendations, for how future concerns about price behavior, media policy, regulation across should be dealt with, including among others the government, and as to the future, ducks of relations for the press.

i am specifically not concerned and am very keen to avoid interparty politics. i am simply not interested. further, however much as some might want me to investigate, i know all of this week's witnesses are equally keen to ensure the inquiry itself remains on its correct track. that track relates not only to the undeniable importance of the press in a democratic society and the ways in which the press serve the public interest, but also the privilege as a consequence of the way that is the filled in practice. it also relates to the other side of the coin, which is to be extend the prize editors and journalists have treated

politicians and politics in a way that has been designed to keep the press insulated from critical, to be held accountable by anyone, so as to ensure there is no political will to challenge their culture, practice, and ethics. the purpose of this inquiry is not to challenge the president -- the present government, but to look with the much wider sweep of history across political boundaries in order to discern any kind of behavior that could not be recognized as fitting with the open, fair, and transparent decision-making democracy requires. inevitably, as i already explained, this is a small but significant part of the story. to the extent that there are political things to investigate, nothing i say or do is intended to limit that investigation from

taking place. i do hope it would be appreciated that this issue is may be the most recent example of interplay between politicians and the press to be recognized by anyone. failure to address the impact of price behavior or the consequence of press behavior is not refined to one political party. it remains essential for the cross-party's support. so far as the terms of records are concerned, in the same way i recognize in module ttwo that there would be professional and -- professional relationships in police officers and journalists, so we recognize a entirely proper social relations between reporters and journalists, and equally entirely appropriate relationships between politicians and journalists as the former seek to promote their

policies and their message while the latter seek to ensure the politicians and their policies are held fully and properly to account. secondly, it is awfully -- also to recognize an effort to keep the press on the side of supporting policies that are firmly in the interest of the public. the agenda is agreed by the entire press or a significant section of it. that might include questions related to the provision of address, particularly to the weakest in our society. to that regard, i anticipate questions to be asked about the draft criteria of the solution, which has been published on the web site. to hear their perspective on the problems to be addressed in relation to any potential

unintended consequences which they have spotted which i may not have considered. nothing essay should be taking as rigid as expressing any opinion, is spreading -- expressing ideas of witnesses. i have only this -- it may be more interesting for some to report this inquiry by reference to the politics of personality or the impact of evidence on current political issues. that is not my focus. i will be paying attention to the way in which what transpires is in fact reported. this week will not conclude the evidence for module 3. we will not be sitting next week. calling further witnesses to the media to do with the relationship tween press and politicians. not least to see if, in their possession, the need to be issues that are need to be solved. and changes made.

concerning ways forward to the future. i look forward to hearing how the industry has progressed with a plan outlined as long ago as january 31, 2012. i also look forward to considering other suggestions to the place that is being submitted in detail to the inquiry. it is on the 17th of may, that i bought to acquire assistance. that is why they are called draft. along with some key questions for model for relating -- four relating to ethics. the purpose of doing so remains to encourage everyone to consider the issues that i must think about and to welcome comments and suggestions. i repeat i retain an open mind.

all ideas will be subject to scrutiny. thank you. i am sorry for the delay in commencing. >> we would like to see the questions which some of the witnesses and the cases in their witness statement. most of the witnesses that have given evidence recently have been responding to section 21. most of them have chosen to sit out the questions for their witness statements in one or two cases, i think they exhibited the inquiries in either case, one can see. there have been a handful of

cases where the witnesses have chosen to answer the questions without exhibiting them. that is no criticism of the witness but it does make it very difficult for those seeking to understand in detail what their evidence is to reach a full appreciation of it. a particular example of this was blair. he says things such as, i do not recognize any of the quotes i have been asked about. so i do not know what they are. >> i understand that. >> yasser we have received -- the answer we have city received is confidential. given the vast majority, it rises to a lesser extent.

we would ask the for the questions in those two cases. >> thank you. >> think about it and we will come back to appear >> very good. >> thank you very much. >> i swear the this will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

>> statements of truth and you have signed it. >> yes. >> mr. brown, thank you very much. for the work that has obviously gone into the inquiry. i am sorry for the delay. >> fine by me, thank you very much. >> your general comments, which i will ask you to elaborate, if i may, on the first day of it -- first page of your statement. you referred to securing the right balance between the freedoms of the media and the privacy of the citizens. there's a premise that there is an imbalance at private -- at present. >> i think the starting point of all this has been the complaint that has been made.

they would support the freedom of press, but they are worried about the threat that was made to their privacy as individuals. who will guard the guardians? that is a question that was wanted to address. i would say, who would fit -- who would defend the defenseless? we have to regions competing with each other -- two regions competing with each other. attempts to look at some of the issues. i would still hold the view that, maybe it came for my religious upbringing, that the media, one of those institutions that have a duty to speak the truth, that they should continue to shine a torch on those dark, secret recesses.

i would say that it is best the media in this country is indeed also the best in the world. i would defend the right of the media to exercise its freedom, even when there is a political vice. i was in number 10. when the prime minister was having great trouble. i asked if there was anything i could do to help. he said, yes. he wanted an interview about how this man was the greatest statesmen in the world. that is not the best way of the press exercises its freedom. i would defend the right of the press, also, even when it gets things wrong, as it does on

occasion, i remember when i started off as a member of parliament i was played for the first few years with a story in the times that said i had been -- i had been born in 1926. it said i was a veteran and that i was getting elected as some pension company was saying a new job later in life and your about to retire and i would want to make provision for that. there was a photograph of me at the age of 19 and it says i was 57 years old. that was an honest mistake. where i think we have a problem in two respects -- the freedom the press has has to be exercised with responsibility, the rights in our society can only come with responsibilities attached to them, and two a very specific areas in britain today

have a problem. it is totally against the press guidelines. i think we also should explore that. how it can be upheld in a situation where there is a tendency for newspapers in particular to editorialize outside their editorial. and the second thing is how can we defend the privacy of the family who, at the moment, and at a time when they are most vulnerable, have their privacy invaded by the press in a way that splits the family apart. and it makes everyone suspicious of each other. i do not think the complaint system has ever work properly.

i think there is an issue not just about reaching out the bad and how you discipline a sanction or mistakes are made that are incurious to families, i think we have to have some means -- the standard of journalism declines. i think there was an issue in the internet age. the must be a way to incentivize the good. >> thank you. you mentioned it in your witness statements. how does one instill the necessary cultural change in the press to create that responsibility? >> i think in the first case is a matter of upholding standards of journalism.

when i was editor of my newspaper, we had one of the greatest journalists of that. and i used to debate with him this issue about the responsibility of the press. i rely on him because he influence my judgment very much on this issue. he said very clearly that the press had to exercise its judgment about what it published, how a framed its coverage but also how it completed back to an opinion with responsibility. i cannot think we do enough to encourage the good. if i can say what i think the problem is, and maybe we are dealing with the problems of yesterday and not with the promise of tomorrow, we are in

the internet age. i think it is true in the 1930's there was a news coverage and some people would say there is no news to report today. could you imagine the situation in 2012 in a 24-hour news media or something like that could ever be said? we are about to see a flood of the formation onto the internet. we are moving from the ordinary wed to the semantic web. the web of link data. the amount of the information on the internet will increase exponentially. the amount of information about you and me and people will increase exponentially. there is a zero cost for publication on the internet. i could become a publisher overnight almost at zero cost. we have all these things that are happening. that is putting pressure on the quality of ordinary journalism because the advertising and business model of today's newspapers, to a's print media, is being shot through as

advertising. the question arises, who will sponsor. who will pay for? who will be the person underpins quality journalism? i believe we have to live -- look at mechanisms by which we can enhance and identify. -- in sa tohink there's a huge debate be had. you cannot ignore the fact that the whole of the coverage of news now is intimately related to the development meant of the internet. the standards are not there augean -- on the internet. the issue is a new one, and it

is one we have to deal with with the transformation of the technology that is now available to us in the information that is just absolutely massive for an ordinary member of the public. >> you refer to the inflation of news. how, in practical terms, would you want us to segregate so that they fall into clear compartments? >> we have come to the practice as editorializing outside the ordinary editorial. we used to talk but the editorial as a chance for the newspaper to reflect its abuse. perhaps i could illustrate this best by giving you an example of what happens during the period of governments. perhaps i could take one example that is controversial.

the covered -- the coverage of afghanistan. we had and a crab read it -- incredibly difficult decisions to make. 135 troops at maximum. you have nothing like the coverage that you've got where you have 150 people in their. very complex circumstances in a country that has never been subject to effective law and order and at a time when an army of occupation that started in the army of liberation and you are making very difficult and complex decisions about how you deal with these problems and so we increase the number of troops. we increase the amount of money sentiment in afghanistan. the chief of the defense staff said these are most effective

defense forces we have ever had, given the forces -- sources we were putting into them. you can have an honest debate about whether we may policy mistakes. a very effectiveac debate. what i think was decided, if it did not want to take on the difficult issues, so it reduced their opinion and we were doing something wrong to leave you -- to a view that we simply did not care. the whole right of coverage was not what we had done, whether we had done the right thing, but was what i personally did not care about our troops in afghanistan. that is when you conflate back to afghanistan. you make it not an issue about honest mistakes or judgment, but

about the intentions. you can laugh about it now when i do laugh about it sometimes. if you pick up a newspaper, that is an example about how he does not care about our troops in afghanistan. the story was not true and that is at the conclusion that should have been drawn. you have a story before that when you fellas tree but the festival. you are praying and babbling your head. one decides this is an example of falling asleep and is honoring our troops and again you do not care. you have been told that you have 25 misprints and it says this shows a lack of empathy. it goes on and on and on. that is the idea. here is a difficult issue that the press really counts in the

interest of the british public, has to treat seriously. all the reporting in these newspapers has been done. the issue is not the facts of what is happening. or even an anonymous disagreement. the issue is reduced to, this person does not care. that is where i find it -- it's the media had a political view and said we are conservatives, you could except that as editorial and that is part of freedom of speech. to use the political view to them to conflate back to opinion, that is the opposite of press rules, and at the same time to sensationalize and trivialize and in a sens. trust -- a license to deceive. add i think that is where the danger arises.

it is too easy. when you have right-wing and left-wing loggers on the internet, then to sensationalize to disport -- to sort fact and mix them together. initial -- an issue of legal practice. i think that is where the felt --, the press has held ever country. i could give you examples, but this conflation of fact and opinion and the way it is done is very damaging to the reputation of the media. i think it is done differently in other countries. speech on june 2007,

to you agree with the sentiments he expressed in that speech. >> i think tony was saying exactly what i am saying. an issue of fact and fleeting with opinion. i never used these words and nor would i use these words -- i think the importance of the press have been expressed. we should try to defend and uphold the best standards of the free press. i think the remarks are exactly what i am saying. if you set out to editorialize beyond your editorial column, if you conflate fact and opinion and printed on the front page of your newspaper, if you sensationalize it by alleging the opinion is not about the policy that you are supposed to be discussing but about the person that you are now attacking, then that is not a healthy sign for a democracy. i do note in afghanistan that, and this is what makes me very sad, i am afraid that half of

the country is falling into the hands of the taliban. i am afraid as we reduce troops , but the very newspaper that wanted to make the issue of whether we are doing enough for our troops had been virtually silent since the day of the general election of 2010, and i have to conclude that these were not campaigns that were related to objective journalism exposing the fact. these, unfortunately, were campaigns designed to cause discomfort to people who were politically unacceptable. >> what is your analysis? >> tony gave good evidence a few days ago. he rightly said a decision was made that there be no manifesto commitment to reform the media.

when i came in in 2007, we had no mandate in our manifesto to propose reforms to 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 is called the lobby system and what really has led to these allegations of spin. spin assumes you have success of getting your message across, even if it is superficial. i tried to move away from that. we moved from having a political chief of communications to have a civil servant. that was to send a message that we were not trying to politicize government information. we were trying to give the information that was necessary for the public to understand what was happening.

we then tried to move back to a system where announcements were made in parliament and they were not debriefed, they were made in parliament. there were a selective group of people who previously could expect to get early access to information. i think that has been a problem with the way the media system has worked. i am afraid it was unsuccessful. the current government has moved back to having a political appointee. the lobby system remains intact. it is not the lobby system that is the problem. it is a small group of insiders who get the benefits of that early access to information. i think that is one of the problems that prevents the greatest that we have to see. the changes that we eventually try to make, we did not make successfully because there was a

huge resistance to them. if you had announce something in parliament, it was not been reported. unless it had been giving -- given as an exclusive to a newspaper it would be -- newspaper, but it would be on page 6 rather than page one. >> the political world did not exist to take on. >> i think that is completely wrong impression of what was happening. i do not see as as having sun."ted the s"the when i started off as prime minister, the first thing it did was watch a huge campaign that i was selling britain down the river and demanding european referendum and demanding and

supported. at no point in these three years that i was prime minister did i ever fear -- field that. i have to be honest, when the international decided that their commercial interests came first, and i have to be absolutely clear about that, the point in 2008 and 2009, the speech at the lecture when he set out and examined the which was quite breast taken in its arrogance, it was a whole series .f aims that wa

their commercial activities were to be reduced, the listing of sporting occasions was to benefit news international, product placement was a coup -- was to be allowed. it should be like fox news and not sky news. the remarkable thing about this. in government, and i say this with a great deal of sadness, is that we could not go along with that sort of agenda. nor could we see a case of the bbc being taken out of much of

its work on the internet, because that is a valuable media service for the future a wobbly resisted that, we were not supported. -- future. but all we resisted that, we were not supported. -- but while we resisted that, we were not supported. you suggested that some of our relations with the sun newspaper broke down because he decided that he wanted to support this it -- the conservative party. i want to suggest to you that the commercial interests of news international or very clear long before that and had support from the conservative party.

>> the general comments, onto your own experience. can i go back to 2006, and the story in relation to your and "the sun" newspaper. do you know the newspaper's source story? >> this is very difficult for me because i never wanted my son or to ever be my docto a cross -- and my daughter to ever be across the media. i hope he will address this about the rights of children to be free from unfair coverage in media publications. because this issue became an

issue for me, i have had to look at what actually happened at the time. it is only in a sense latterly that the facts are necessary to a fair examination that has become available. >> let me make clear. i do not want to cause you and your family any distress on necessarily. but i hope you will see the value of the example in the same way that i apologize to those that complained about press in creek -- press intrusion. i do think that is an important part of the story. >> i am very grateful to you. i have never sought to bring my children into public domain. but i do think if we do not learn lessons, we will continue to make mistakes. in 2006, "the sun" claimed they had a story about a man

industry to happen to be the father of someone who suffered from fibrosis. i never consider that to be to correct -- to be correct. we did not know one effort -- when my son was first alive becau. it was at that time that medical experts told us that the was no other diagnoses they could give them that this was the case. only a few people knew. i submitted a letter that makes it clear that we have apologized. they now believe they -- it is highly likely that the authorize information given by a working

member of the that allowed the middle man to publish the story. whether medical information should never be handed out of -- without the authorization of the parent is one issue that i think is addressed. i know the press complaints commission port is very clear that there are only six exceptional circumstances when it is to be broadcast and i do not believe this is one of them. it is that 2012 and members of the news international staff are coming to this inquiry and being told fiction that a story: be obtained, through me or my wife and it was obtained another way. i think we cannot learn the lesson of what has happened in the media must there is some honesty about what actually

happened and whether payment was made and whether this was a practice that could continue. if we do not retire this kind of practice, i do not think we can sensibly say we have dealt with some of the abuses that are problematic. i would say this about every child. i cannot take any job losses 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 and your wife were told that your son had the story -- that "the sun" had the story? >> this is something that i believe you have been given information in this inquiry that is not strictly correct. our press office was formed by a journalist from "the sun" that said they had some information about our son's condition and

they were going to publish it. i was contacted. i was engaged in the report. i informed my wife. we had to make a decision. if this was going to be published, what should happen? we wanted to minimize the damage, to limit the impact of this. we said that if this story was to be published, then we wanted a statement that went to everyone was an end to this and there would be no further statements and no days and days and days of talking about it. unfortunately, this was unacceptable to the "the sun" newspaper and got a letter to the editor of this was not the way to do -- to go about this. they said they would not give us any information on any other story they would do if we did

this. it was at that time that my wife, having accepted that this was a plea, there was no fault that the press complaints commission could help us on this. we were in a different world then. nobody ever expected that the press commission would act to give up any help on this. we were presented with the fate i am afraid. there was no question of implicit or an explicit permission. any mother or any father presented with a choice as to whether a four-month-old son's metal could addition, your child's medical condition, should be broadcast on the front page of the tabloid newspaper, and you had a choice in the matter, i do not think there's any parent in the land that were made -- that would make the choice that we were told we made, that we gave permission

for that to happen. if my son were to read on the internet that his mother or i had given permission that all his medical information to be broadcast in a newspaper, he would be shocked. i cannot accept as a parent that we would ever put ourselves in a position where we would 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. we were very aware this was a problem. when you are presented with this, there is nothing you can do other than try to limit -- limit the damage. we had to tell them about a hereditary condition.

you could never imagine the situation. if people were to say that they had permits but -- permission when they had not, when there is no evidence, this practice will go on and on and children's information and information about people will go into the public arena with this idea that you can claim afterwards that you had explicit permission for something you never had permission for. i think this is important because we have to learn lessons from this. i think there are more general lessons to be learned surely the rights of children must come first. >> thank you, mr. brown. i have to put questions to you. i might just run through them. there was -- it was taken on of

tot "the sun" had consente run the story. if no consent was given, you and your wife must have been extremely upset and angry. if so, why was no complaint made by either yourself or your wife until june 2011? >> that is not correct at all. i think the travails ionization of this is very unfortunate. when we found out that this happened, and we have had our previous experience with information, medical formation about our daughter had been made public before she died, we thought the only way to deal with it was to get the press complaints commission through the editors of a major newspapers to reach an agreement that they would not publish information or photograph our children.

before our beat -- before i was prime minister, we would ask the editors of all newspapers -- we felt is was a structural problem, not as one newspaper -- we wanted them to agree that our children would not be covered while they were industry school and primary school. they're very young. we did not want our children to grow up thinking they were somehow minor celebrities. we have seen the effect of this in our country. we wanted our children to grow up just as ordinary young kids that went to school with everybody else and were treated like everybody else. it was important to us that we had this agreement. that is how we went about changing the way things had been dealt with. to be fair with the media, and i say this in my written evidence, we did have only two incidents

where this was breached. it was possible after this to hold to an agreement. the idea we did nothing is quite wrong. it is offensive. we took action to try to do with it in the best way we could without any noise. to get an agreement the children would not be covered in this way. i hope it is help to others in similar situations. >> why did you in your life remain friends with brooks. attending her birthday party in s' wedding.rs. brooks popsie >> my wife is one of the frigate -- most forgiving people i know

as she fights the good in everyone. we had to accept this happened and had to get on with the job of doing what people expected of a politician to do -- to run a government. my wife had done a massive amount of charity work she was engaged in. if i am being accurate, i think it was when mr. murdoch's wife joined and in the come -- campaign to cut internal mortality campaign, which is incredibly successful in cutting mortality by 30%, and i 0th birthday a 48 poss party. my wife's charity work was something she was engaged in quite separately from my political work. as far as i was concerned, i cannot allow what had 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 personal notes in 2006 and 2010 in which she expressed her gratitude to the support given to her. >> i think my wife is one of the most forgiving and would be kind to people regardless of what happened. i do not think that is evidence that we gave explicit permission. >> the last question that concerns you. the records show there are 13 meetings between you and -- you or your wife after mrs. brooks. why did you have those meetings? >> i am not sure there were that many. i didn't we had regular meetings. what is the role of a politician, particularly someone who is prime minister? he has a duty to explain. you have to engage with the

media. they are a medium by which the concerns of the nation are expressed. we were a country in war in afghanistan and before that in iraq. we were a country that faced a great economic crisis. i would at been failing in my duty if i had not tried. i listed all of my meetings. partly people that actually did a huge amount. i met mall because i believe that had a duty to reach a consensus in this country about how to approach a difficult problem. and how we approach to economic crisis. i think i would be criticized if i had failed to talk to the media and talk and engage with them. i must say to you that there was a red line in everything i ever

did. there was a line in the sand across which i can never cross. if there was any question, i could have nothing to do with that. you have to have a clear dividing line between what you do in politics. for me, there was ever a point toere we have issues related -- we had every news media concern about different things. and no point what i have ever allowed a commercial interest to override the public is shut -- interest. i looked at all the records of what happened.

we would never allow the public interest to be subjugated to the commercial of invested interest. >> to you sense in your dealings with news international that they were trying to persuade you to pursue media policies which were favorable to them. >> news international had a public agenda. what is remarkable about what happened in 2009 and 2010, is news international moved from being to having an aggressive public agenda. they wanted to change the nature of the bbc. they wanted to change the media rules. they wanted to change the way we dealt with advertising so that there was more rights for the media company to advertise as they wanted, to open up sporting events.

they were purposely entitled to this agenda. what became a problem for us is that when everyone of these single issues -- the conservative policy when along with this. we were trying to defend the public interest. >> the agenda was public and not private? >> i think the public's been rejecting the agenda was public and not private. -- i think the agenda was public. >> part of the reason few continuing to have meetings with mrs. brooks. would it do -- wouldn't have been a dancer interest? >> i do not think i had a

conversation with her in the last nine months of my government. it became very clear in the summer of 2009, when mr. murdoch jr. gave a lecture that news international had a highly politicized agenda for changes that were in the media policy of this country, and there seems to be very little point in talking to them about. -- about it. , you are going to knnote identify a number of breaches of your privacy, assaults.

we have heard evidence in relation to a lot of them already. >> politicians must expect scrutiny. i have no doubt of it -- that the level of certainty that will happen in the modern technology age will be very great. i think the question is whether we can justify what you might call fishing expeditions that are based on nothing other than a political desire to embarrass someone. the evidence i give you is in relation to fishing expeditions were newspapers precipitating everything metas personal about your life, your medical records, your tax affairs, your lawyer and his legal records, your accountant, in every era during

the. i was prime minister, there was a break-in or a breach of these records. in most cases, that happened because of an intrusion by the media. i have been the first to say that there is a public interest defense if people are looking for information where they feel there is a crime being committed and the police or someone else are not investigating it for there is a security issue that is vital to the safety of the country and is not seek not being properly -- not being properly looked into. i look in these instances and i give you one as an example. buying a flat.f i got it at a knockdown price. they would not accept that the

starting point of any investigation was something we would not knowledge. 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, 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 murdochs, 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 recoed 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.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i do also think he's been as i said publicly a very successful businessman. and his ability to build up a newspaper and media empire not just in australia but in two other continents is something that is not going to be surpassed easily by any other individual. but i think you have to distinguish again between the views that you have about him as an individual and the red line

that i would draw, the line in the sand i talked about, between that and any support for commercial interests. >> when stating the relations also made it clear that neither mr. blair nor you crossed that line. so i think his point was more about perception than reality. on that basis, do you accept his observation? >> no, because the impcation is that i would be influenced by what mr. murdoch was saying about his big issues. the idea that mr. murdoch and i had a difference in -- had a

common idea is not correct. this was identified with what we were doing. i don't detract from the respect that i think he deserves for having built up a strong media empire. starting with the importance of a free media. >> in june 1997 were relations closer? >> no, i don't think so. i rarely met mr. murdoch. i don't think he was in the slightest bit interested in what i was doing, and i can't remember many meetings with him at all. other than you have a record of these meetings, but i think you will find they are few and far between. >> i am speaking of the government of which you were a part. do you think that government was too close than was wise to mr. murdoch? >> i don't think so, but i don't know all the details of what was discussed at the time. i had very few dealings with mr. murdoch.

weren't you courting the media? is that something a that you were aware of? >> my efforts were to persuade every media group that what we were doing was serious. we were trying to rebuild the national health service, improve education, get more police onto the streets, legislate for freedom of information. we had agendas on civil liberties. interests in gay partnerships. as for the particular media group, i don't think when i was involved in any sort of way that

i was aware of now. >> you must have been aware in march and april of 1997 which were told adopted a rhetorical position s. but not one of substance. didn't that cause you any qualms at the time? >> that's a strange coincidence. i think this goes to the heart of what happened during the period of 13 years of government when the euro was a huge, huge issue. some people argue that if britain did not join the euro, its future was to be been the periphery of europe. that was an argument that had to be taken seriously. i have an argument that the economics of the euro made it

impossible for britain to join. we did a series of studies showing that it might not be of great benefit to europe to have the euro. >> even looking back to -- we should have reformed that system earlier. the system has stood too close

to the system. it is liberty for some people within the lobby, it is something that still eludes us. >> in 1997, did you believe that we supported the state, it was important or not? >> well, i wasn't involved in that particular issue. i wasn't involved in talks about that. but clearly, if you've been in opposition for what has been 18 years in a newspaper that has previously been conservative comes to you or is prepared to come to you, that is a bonus,

that is something you welcome. it is not the be all and end all. it is not something that dictates the future of politics in your country. but it is an important element in building a coalition for success. >> going forward then, to the years 2009, were you not concerned about the signs of the sun moving away from you to support the torry party? >> i think it happened from the time that i became president, i'll be honest. they had reservations that were expressed in the european campaign, the broken britain campaign or the afghanistan campaign. and i think, as i said also, there was a new agenda. mr. james murdoch was promoting about the future of media policy in britain. i was not surprised at all when -- i perhaps was surprised about the way they really did it. which was a strange thing to do.

but the act of deciding to do it with the conservatives i think had been planned over many, many months. >> the shift of support stunning you, to use his words, and in the weeks and months that followed grated on you more and more. is that an accurate observation or not? >> no, i don't think so because i never complained to the sun about us losing the support. i never asked a newspaper for the support directly, and i have never complained when they haven't given us the support. i don't think we should be dependent on people by begging them to support you in this way. and perhaps it is a failing on my part that i didn't ask them directly. i never asked them directly, and they never complained to -- and i never complained to them directly when they withdrew support from the labor party.

>> lowell anderson is saying that he's making a personal observation about you. >> i don't think the word "stung" is correct. i expected it to be something we could read for months previously. i think the manner in which they did it was offensive, but that was their choice. i don't think i was stung by it at all. >> many government officials have said, rightly or wrongly, that you were someone obsessed by the news. and therefore, from that obsession, you were likely to be stung by this change in support. is that a fair observation? >> i'm so obsessed by the newspapers that i barely read them. i have to tell you that is not -- even on downing street i didn't spend a great deal of time reading newspapers. obviously if you are at a job when you have 24-hour questions about what's going on, you have to be able to answer them. if you have someone telling you,

you have to answer this question and that question and that question, for that reason, but as far as the telegraph or whatever, i can tell you i don't spend a great deal of time reading them. >> are we to interpret your evidence that really you received this news in relation to the sun with complete equanimity? >> i was the editor of the sun in the afternoon of my conference speech. every time i did a conference speech or did a budget, i used to form ask the political editors of the newspaper to ask if they had any questions arising from the speech. and sometimes they had more questions than others. if it was an unpopular budget, we would have lots of questions. if it was a popular budget, less so. i told the editor of the "sun" that afternoon as i called the editor of the "times" that

afternoon. he had one or two questions about afghanistan. he did not mention at all that the "sun" was making this decision and it was to be announced in two hours. the editor of "the sun" talks to you and doesn't tell you anything, there doesn't seem to be much point in filling in anyone else on.

>> it would have gone through downing street, and it is their list. >> does this list include calls in as well as calls out? >> yes. it would include any calls that were placed with me. it would include calls that were transacted through a mobile phone as well as through the fixed line. it would include any telephone conversations i had with someone like mr. murdoch. >> when you were out of london, or perhaps from a hotel phone? >> it would always go through downing street because you would always want someone on the phone call. you would want to have a record

of what was being said. there is no question that any phone call cannot be made without this procedure. >> in my term, that's what i said. if for some reason you did not want there to be a record of what was said, that might be a reason for arranging for a phone call to take place without someone on the call? >> i would never have done that. if i was calling a newspaper or i was calling a political leader around the world or smn calling someone about a policy issue, i would always go through downing street, because i would always want someone on the call to verify what happened. >> did you have his number on your mobile phone?

>> no. i didn't know rue bert dr rupert murdoch's phone number. there was one letter sent and two or three e-males but it was -- e-mails but it was sent through downing street. >> we go to g.d.p., we can see that there are two phone calls in 2009. one in march which is not relevant for our purposes, but one on the 10th of november, 2009. it was 12:33 in the afternoon. can you remember what mr. murdoch -- if mr. murdoch was in new york at that time? >> i don't know. i suspect he was in new york. he may have just come back from australia. it was a call i had placed because of what was happening in afghanistan.

>> and there is other surrounding evidence that bears on that call, tab 2, page 1422 the 8 -- 14228, there is an e-mail which you caused to be sent to mr. murdoch on the evening of the 10th of november which refers expressly to a telephone call you had earlier that day in relation to afghanistan. do you see that? >> that is absolutely right. i decided to follow up the phone call about afghanistan with information that i thought would be of use to him about public support for the war in afghanistan and what was actually happening. and i think it was originally sent in an e-mail, so he got it that day, but it was also sent as a letter to him. there were two follow-up letters on afghanistan. there was correspondence. one to this inquiry. three letters to afghanistan over the three months. i may say that's the only time in government that i have had any letter of communication with

mr. murdoch. >> december 24, 2009, in relation to afghanistan, number r-52, number r-514, this is mr. murdoch. >> i think that's mine. yes, which someone said could be somewhat illegalible, yes. >> 01997. there was another one, mr. brown. the 26 of april under tab 14. page 09121. >> that's 101. there was only three. the other two followed.

>> are you clear, mr. brown, that you had no conversation with mr. murdoch shortly after the 28 of september, 2009, in which you declared war on these international or other words to that effect? >> this is the conversation that mr. murdoch says happened between him and me that threatened him. i am smocked and surprised that it was suggested even though there was no evidence that such a conversation should have happened, that there was no such conversation. i decided after september 30, when the conservative party voted, there was no point in

contacting them. as i said earlier, i never asked them directly, nor did i complain. i don't return their calls, i didn't phone mr. murdoch. i didn't talk to his son, i didn't text him, i didn't e-mail him, i didn't contact him. this was a matter that was done. there was no communication about it at all. first of all, i'm surprised this is a story where i sort of slammed the phone down. it was a story from mr. murdoch himself that i threatened him. this did not happen. i have to say to you, that there is no evidence it happened, other than mr. murdoch. but it didn't happen. i had no reason to call him. i did not want to call him given everything i have said to you.

is it possible you might have uttered that sort of language? >> there is only one telephone call, and that is in november. it is a sequence that led to that call. it was on a monday. the subpoena had said that i disrespected our troops by not buying in the summertime. at the same time there was a letter that said i had been discourteous to the mother of a soldier. i could understand that she was upset. they claim i have done things i haven't done. then on a tuesday they had taken a phone call. i wanted to phone this lady to explain that we felt a huge

amount about his son and were grateful to his contribution to our country. that it was grateful how much she knew the country was grateful to her son. and her son had printed a partial bit of that conversation, which they had clearly had a mechanism for taking which they should not have had. the tape is in their hands, and it is surprising for a conversation with the prime minister and an ordinary member of the public to appear in some newspaper, but to appear in this distorted way with these headlines is bloody shameful and everything else. i had concluded that "the sun" was damaging our effort in afghanistan and were now persuading people in favor of the war that there was no point in supporting the war. mr. murdoch always told me he had supported what we were doing, and i felt 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 that we had to have a collective effort,

not just to get more afghan troops organize but to get more european -- on the ground, but to get more european troops to support this. that was what the call was about. there was no reference to threats or conservative parties or anything. i am quite surprised. in fact the conversation ended in a quite different way from what he's saying. he asked me during which he said there should be no personal attacks by "the sun" due to afghanistan which he supported, he asked me, would i be on a phone call with the editor. she did want to apologize for what had happened. i said i saw no point in calling her, because the son was pursuing this course of action. he then asked me again, and for a third time. i said, well out of respect to you, i will contact her.

that's how the conversation ended with me agreeing that i would talk to her. and at the same time me sending the letter that explained, as you can see, it is completely and entirely about afghanistan and what was happening to afghanistan. that was what the call was about. the problem about this is, i can see why it led some people to think there was preo. -- preorchestrated campaign and this is the documentation, so it has nothing to do with telephone hacking but it has to do with some political campaign. but this call did not happen. the threat was not made. i felt it shocking that we should get to this place sometime later when there was no evidence of this call happening at the time he says it happened,

and we need to be told under oath that this was the case and to be backed up by other people who continue to make comments about such a position. now, i think because we are dealing with a very important issue about the press and the responsibility of the press and about whether people have been favorable to these internationals, it is important that this is oob versusly -- that this is obviously cleared up. there is no evidence of this phone call or for the threat or for the judgment mr. murdoch made as a result of something that he was never party to. the only call that ever happened was in november, and it was about afghanistan and it was weeks after when people allege the call took place. >> there was a call on the 10th of november 2009, and of course she is no longer with "the sun."

she said you were angry and aggressive. is that right or not? >> no, i don't think so. i had written a letter to him about afghanistan. out of respect to him, i was calling her to hear what she had to say. unfortunately, she wanted to tell me that the son had gotten this tape of our phone call. it was a sad sad case of a lady whose son had died, and she had a lot of questions to ask about this that i was trying to help her with. she tried to explain that she had gotten this tape, which of course was unusual circumstances, which was a tape of a conversation from downing street to appear suddenly in the sun's newspaper. she wanted to tell me she had gotten this entirely lawfully. that was the nature of what the call was. i didn't get the feeling there

was an apology coming from the -- "the sun." it was simply a conversation where she told me they have this information. >> it sounds as if you had every reason to be angry and aggressive. >> i think when things are difficult, you tend to be calm, indeed. it was difficult. we were going through a period where the whole afghanistan area was being undermined in a way on the part of the sun that was alleging that we didn't care at all about our troops. it was this distortion of facts and opinion that worried me. on the other hand, on top of it, the son's position was that we should be supporting afghanistan. as my letters to rupert murdoch showed, i tried to persuade them this was the way to move forward. not in any other way than producing facts.

>> if i had been persuaded to be created with the opportunity to investigate further a private conversation, i would be rather ill-equipped. >> mr. murdoch gave me the impression that an apology was forthcoming. he also gave me the impression "the sun" was going to remove their personal attacks about afghanistan. i didn't ask for this. he offered them. i didn't discuss other issues with him. therefore, to some extent, that was where the conversation lay. really, finding out how "the sun" was going to proceed. but i don't think i was aggressive. >> well, you have a thicker skin than i might have had. >> i think when you are dealing with some of these issues, you

tend to be calmer. >> 2010 was in the general election campaign. you have other things to do. why do you take time? >> because mr. murdoch had replied, and for the first time mr. murdoch had said, which he had never said to me before, that he disagreed with the management of the war. all my conversations with mr. murdoch were perfectly civilized and courteous. and then suddenly, out of the blue, in our correspondence, he suddenly says, well i disagree entirely with the management of the war effort. i felt this was the first time he said this to me personally, but this is what he thought.

i didn't understand what he meant by "the management of the war effort" because we had put extra resources in. and i have had little complaint about the management of the war effort since. it seemed to me he was making a political report and i wanted him to know that he had never said this before and i asked him to reconsider it. you can look at the letter. "i'm surprised to hear this news from you personally because you never said this in any conversation we have had. would you like to reconsider these views?" i said to him, no matter what the sun and the times does, i am afraid i would rather be an honest one-term prime minister rather than a dishonest two-term prime minister. whatever happened, we are pursuing the campaign in afghanistan which i believe is right. if "the sun" is undermining it, even though you say you are supporting it, i have 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 whether you did so. i did not get a reply to that letter. he did not think it necessary to reply. >> you felt this was a personal attack on you. and you wanted to show that you do care deeply about what newspapers write about you and ad homynym attacks. >> it had to do with taking extraordinary action which i believe he laid the way, we were trying to prevent taliban control. the taliban are now in charge, i'm afraid. and it mattered to me what was being done in afghanistan.

it mattered to me that we got the policy right in the war effort and to persuade people that we had -- so he's these are not issues about me personally that i was really trying to take up with mr. murdoch. these are issues of policy. if you look at the letters, i suspect they could only be looked at now. the sequence is only available. you see that none of these letters refer to the political news of mr. murdoch or to "the sun" or the "news of the world." i still feel to this day that huge damage was done to the war effort by the suggestion that we just didn't care what was happening to our troops. it was clearly something i felt strongly about.

>> mr. murdoch, your relationship with him, some would describe that as personally close, although you were not often on the same page politically. is that a fair description? y didn't see him that much, as you can see from the records. we disagreed about many things in politics. i think he, like me, believes there should be an ethical basis for any political system scomprks that that is an issue that is not properly addressed both in our media and in our politics. he was personally very kind. as rupert murdoch could be personally kind. we had difficulties with our first child.

and i had not for gotten that. but to be honest, i got no support from "the daily mail." i said you are entering a situation where you have a party that has a relationship with the murdoch empire and their commercial interests, and you should be very weary of it. i did warn them that was one of the problems that was going to happen. >> less hostile to you now than personally and prior to your position on the euro. do you think that's a sad comment or not? >> i don't know whether it was. one of the huge dividing lines of course in british politics -- and of course most of the newspapers were against it. i was in the minority in our

government for a very long time being skeptical about the euro. my colleagues, advisor to the treasury at the time, and later a member of parliament, did an enormous amount of work proved to my satisfaction that it could work. that if "the daily mail" had objections to the euro, that was understandable. but i'm afraid to say on just about every occasion they held it against us, and wanted to fear a conservative government. >> casinos, reclassification of cannibus, attempts to appease "the daily mail" in your view? >> if you look at each one of these issues, and i don't want to bore you with them, i personally have strong opinions as an individual about excessive

gambling. i thought the 24-hour liencing was completely necessary. on canibus i don't hold what is probably the more conventional view about the effects of soft drugs. we reclassified it. these are views i hold personally and i hold them quite strongly. i would say i use my position to persuade members of the government. >> section 55. the data protection act. the information commissioner's report in 2006 at a time when you, of course, were chancellor and this did not fall in your policy area. do you recall these issues being raised at the time or not? >> not in huge detail at the time.

but it became an issue when i became prime minister, and we had to make a judgment. it comes back to this important point that i think we discussed at the beginning about the protections that are available for the press. where there is a public interest defense for actions that they may have taken that might initially sound unacceptable. and you know, the press complaints call three public defenses called. one is about wrongdoing, another is about security and safety. another is a bit more, i think, difficult about whether deception is by an organization or individual is being exposed. i felt quite strongly and too still do that there has to be a public interest defense available in these circumstances , and that was what the -- basically my own view about how most of the institutions outside the state, who you have the power to question and hold accountable, and no matter what we think about the way the media

behaved in certain instances, there is, in my view, a public interest defense. that's what we were debating after the information commissioner made a number of proposals about data. i can understand the position of feeling the heat, and therefore i was anxious not to overrule him, but i could understand also my own instinct that there had to be at least a public interest defense in favor of the media where they ventured into areas where for good public reasons they were exposing something that was -- >> again, evidence about it. there was a conversation you had on the 10th of september, 007.

do you remember the issue being discussed on that occasion? >> i remember the issue. i told them as we started the dinner what my review was. i didn't ask them their view, and maybe i should have. but i told them my view, that maybe there should be a public interest defense. therefore it wasn't the question of lobbying. i was informing them that this was my view. he did a great job of consulting other people as well and how well he could implement this in a way that was a public interest defense. that we weren't going to back oven tirle the potential need for legislation. >> under tab 34, he gave a speech to the society conference on the 9th of november, 2008. it's about 16, 17 months after the date.

he says about 18 months ago, and he means on the 10th of september, 2007, i had dinner with the prime minister gordon brown. on the agenda was our deep concern that the newspaper was facing a number of very serious threats to its freedoms. then he said the top issue we raised with gordon brown was a frightening amendment to the data protection act. >> i don't think there is any disagreement. he had it on his agenda for the meeting. i told him, look, this is my view. i told him this is my view. i remember this distinctly. i had already made up my mind, and i told him my opinion that there should be a public interest defense. at that time, of course, we didn't have all the information we now have about the abuse of

data by the media. at that time there was no suggestion that there was anything other than what was called the rogue hacker. again, my instinct is still the same, that there ought to be a public interest defense. i know it is uncomfortable because you are bouncing off two freedoms. as we said at the beginning, we have this right that i would defend for people to have privacy, and we have this right of the media -- the individual to express themselves and for the media to do this through a freedom of speech. therefore anable to investigate things that are wrong. you are balancing off these two freedoms. it seems to me, you may end up with the -- that was an option left to us. we said we would come back to

this. at that time we thought letters leaked for a public interest defense could be introduced in this legislation. which is what we did. these are very, very difficult issues. i thought about them at the time. i thought about them since. i would still hold to the idea that the public interest defense, but i think we're now in a course where there is a lot of uncertainty. but i think as the government of the day has said, they go through final judgment on this as well before they make a decision. >> what this did is produce a public defense to data protection services. >> yes. >> but it wasn't for a moment suggesting in relation to other breaches of the criminal law that this should be a public interest defense. >> no, it was in relation to

data protection. and i hope i'm not over-eelaborating on the argument. it seemed in that instance there was a difference in the public interest defense. >> i understand. but you are not suggesting, or are you suggesting an open question, that there should be a public interest defense in relation to any crime? >> no, i'm not saying that. but what i am saying, i do think the press -- you are looking at the press can selling guidelines. and one of these guidelines, is the editors suggest this there is a public interest at stake, that freedoms are in issue and have to be taken into account when judgments are made. i bore that in mind as well when i was looking at this issue.

>> let me ask you this again. of course in relation to any criminal offense, if one is acting in the public interest or reasonably believed that he or she is acting in the public interest, then that must be an important feature. it is why i asked for direct public prosecutions, whether he would be would be prepared publishing a policy on his approach the -- to the public interest in relationship for the prosecution of journalists for a crime for which there is no statchtri defense. as you know, he has done so. i am just keen to know whether you would suggest going further than that. of course, the fact that the defense can't be made out doesn't mean that everybody who is convicted then goes directly to jail. there are an enormous number of

variations that will always be taken into account. >> i think i have been mude. -- misunderstood. my understanding -- my statement was in relationship to the data protection act. it seemed to me. >> you were interested in the industry's case and did what you could to help. >> i remember distinctly this conversation. i think if you asked him on cross-examination would confirm at the beginning of that conversation he asserted i need this public interest defense. we have been talking about how we can do this. i also, before or after, made a speech in liberty. i sent you an extract from it.

i felt the debate in britain had become colored by what we had to do. and we know it was controversial that we wanted to have, for example, along the period of potential detention people who are terrorist suspects. but i felt an area of whole range of other areas where it was an issue, we could do better. we could do better about the freedom of semiably, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. so i made a speech on li liberty. these are my views. these are not the media's views. there was an issue i felt strongly about. i felt america branded itself to the world as a country of liberty and was able to persuade people that liberty was invented in america. in fact, the ideas of liberty that lay behind the british constitution and some of the things we val eye greatly originated in britain, and i wanted to make that clear. these were my views.

and i think any suggestion i was under pressure from the industry in relationship to it is ridiculous. i was prepared to say it is my view, and i am still prepared to say it is my view. >> were you aware there was already -- the data protection act? why yes. >> the speech you refer to under tab 3, this post dates the dinner you are referring to by six weeks. >> yeah. >> tab three. >> i don't remember what i said. >> you are still referring to taking into account -- >> tab 1?

>> each -- i'm confusing this. >> i think it is an extract. >> it is not the full speech. i wouldn't want to bore you with all that. >> you say there was guidance and consultation to make sure we take into account the new rules which allow for a prison sentence of up to two years. at that point was your thinking still that the sentence was appropriate? >> yeah, i think the issue was whether we have the two-year stage while leading it in the legislation. >> that did not come as an idea until march of 2008. >> yes. >> the documents you have. >> yes. >> what you are saying here is that clear guides will make sure

that investigative journalism is not impeded. so you are very keen to protect legitimate investigative journalism. but where that is not triggered, there should be a sanction to protect individual privacy. >> yes. >> that is precisely what you are saying. >> i would say sanctions provide a stronger term. >> yes. >> it was also in this speech where you said at the top of the same page, no case of statchtri regulation in the press. it should be maintained. in other words, the status quo. is that correct? >> there was never a proposal that should happen. tony blair explained in his own evidence that we have decided that this was not a priority for us. it was not part of our mandate,

and therefore it was not what we were doing. >> so is there evidence that you didn't respond to lobbying after the 10th of september 2007 and notify the government's existing proposals? >> i felt strongly about this myself. i'm not sure every other minister felt as strongly as i did. i have explained the background to my own views. i really can't be persuaded. >> it is your idea that you had a conversation in which your skepticism was communicated? >> i think we were having conversations quit a lot about this which arise from time to time. i don't think there was any formal meeting about it. i think we were having

conversations. >> the evidence is along the lines that having to find pressures for the criminal justice and immigration bill had to come in before the 7th or 8 of may 2008, a rapid compromise was carved out, if you will, and that process started in march of 2008. do you recall that? >> i recall conversations with michael wells, who is an administrator and jack who was an administrator. i had this view that we could find a way forward, and i think in the end we did. >> after -- mr. brown, we refer now to the number of special advisors, and i will put my questions to you about them. mr. campbell in his second statement, paragraph 64, suggested there is a real problem with the treasury special advisor.

by that he means mr. weiland who was one of your appointments. do you agree with his analysis? >> there was rumor, gossip, political advisors. there are lots of them around, having debates and arguments. the one thing i insisted upon, and this, i think, deals with mr. campbell, our political advisors worked through the head of communications and was a civil servant. so anything they did in relationship to the press they to report to and through the head of the civil servant head of communications. that's how we dealt with these issues. >> were -- >> no, i don't think so at all. they were under these rules that

would work to the head of communication civil servants. >> so if they did indulge in this behavior, that would be without your knowledge, is that correct? >> it would be without my knowledge. >> we'll come back to that. mrs. brooks in her statement, paragraph 61, states that tony blair and his aideses were convinced gordon brown and his aides had conspired together to force his early resignation. do you agree with that analysis? >> this is again, are you relying on second-hand conversations being reported by people who are not participants in the event. i don't think that serves as a serious comment about what happened. >> were your aides involved until attempting to force mr. blair's resignation? this is in 2006? >> i would hope not.

>> were they involved? >> i would hope not. >> mr. blair said that he didn't know whether you, mr. weiland, mr. mcbride were briefing against him in the media. did you authorize your aides to boost against mr. blare? >> no. >> do you think they may have done so without your approval and with your knowledge? >> if they did so, it was without my authorization. >> is the role of an aide to a special advisor? >> no, i made it clear. i'm trying to explain why they changed the system when they went to number 10 and why i thought it was better to have advisors that new development from the 1970's onwards. bringing in political advisors, and they are obviously party people. you have to find a way of

looking at the civil service. my insistans was the political advisors were doing a job and had to work under the auspices of the civil service head, and this is what we tried to enact in the treasury. i removed the order and canceled. i said we would not have a political appointee as head of communications. i found a traditional head of civil servant as the head. and when he retired and went back to the treasury and incidently went back to performing a policy job which was for the new government which was of a different political color, i found the person who had previously been head of communications at buckingham palace that was not in the sense a career civil servant but one trusted absolutely, and his provisos. so i wanted to send the message that we wanted to work within these traditional terms.

and political advisors were instruct today -- instructed to do exactly that. >> did you instruct your special advisors of the treasury of your prime minister to conduct off the record briefings with the press? >> no. but as the civil service head of communications was informed, then that was the way that anything would have to be done in relation to briefings. so there would have to be some communication. >> the political advisor would never talk to the press. i think they had to go through the civil servant. >> he says he had developed a reputation for attacking anyone

that was against his interests. is he correct or incorrect about that? you have gossip and rumor. what i can say, the people that worked for me were under specific guidance of what they had to do. i think that is the specific point in this. were the rules there? and there were rules. were they observed? there was a bad case in which they were not observed and the person had to go. >> he notes a conversation he had with you. in which he thought he had what was a clear understanding in which he was transferred to the cabinet office as a stepping stone. is that correct or not? >> i think he did not like mr.

mcbride. i don't think there was any doubt about that. this is the first time i have read this, by the way. it is supposed to be in his memoirs. i can't remember. mr. mcbride was pushed back from the frontline and given a new role. unfortunately, in this new role, he made a bad mistake, and he had to go. i think that's what happened. he was being pushed back to another role. i don't think it was in the cabinet office. i think it was still in number 10, but he had to go. >> i'm back on october 2008. i was wondering if you agree or disagree? >> i don't think there is any doubt that he didn't want -- like mr. mcbride, but i don't think there was talk about a cabinet office. . different but in the end it was only a few months later that he had to go.

>> did either, or both, one you specifically about mr. mcbride? >> i don't remember any specific documentation or letters they may have said something in conversation. >> today in the course of conversation when you about mrmip bright? >> i don't know where the our document what happened in the leaking of these e-mails. they certainly would've talking about that when it happened, but i was very clear to on my own line that he had to go. >> i'm talking about earlier. and early warning speak to i don't recall other conversations. and perhaps you could better come information from these people that i have but i don't recall conversations about that. cozied general view that some had that mr. mcbride had to change his role. >> you also -- were you also

warned by ed miliband, douglas alexander about mr. mcbride? >> when i say there was a general view, i'm not excluding the fact that one or two people might have talked to them -- talked about him to me. he was moved back into we had this incident where he had to go. i may say that mr. mcbride was a career civil servant. he worked his way up through customs and excise and the treasury. he only became a political adviser in 2005. he was originally a fast-track civil servant. >> there's also evidence that jacqui smith warned you about him as will be to you remember that? >> i get women were all these things. >> it sounds like a lot of people will warned you about mr. mcbride. did you see that warning? >> are you wanting to us and what relationship of political advisors and minister is a network itself through? i can say this, that i was aware that we had to move

mr. mcbride from his original role to a new role. he had to be moved and that neutral and we had the assistance that he had to go. that's how it works. .. it is not -- about an interview alistair gave to the guardian. the issue was he thought this was the worst crisis for 60 years when actually what he wanted to say, was this was the worst global crisis in 60 years. he told me he wanted to tell the

media that is the case. >> indeed remember conversation you had a where he told you specifically that he knew where the anonymous meetings were coming from and they had to stop? ation within government, everybody worries who is saying what about whom 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 nobody in my position would have instructed any briefing against a senior minister. and alistair darling was a friend of of mine as well as a colleague. >> there's reference as well, it's not clear these were the words he uttered to you about henry ii's outers -- utterings,

he says he didn't order his knife to go and kill beckett, but they had his blessing to do so. [laughter] >> these are very dramatic comments. no, they're not near the mark at all. they're quite wrong, quite the opposite of what actually happened. i think, if i may say, on the incident that you're referring to there was an interview given to "the guardian," and it was about the economic crisis. and alistair was sure that he'd talked about the global economic crisis. and "the guardian" had reported it as speaking about the british economic crisis. of course, the distinction was important, but there was no tape of the interview. the treasury had no tape of the interview, and that was the source of the problem, that we couldn't get to the bottom of it because the treasury had not taken a tape, and i think that was the source of the issue. >> i've also shown you a letter from john major. he, of course, is giving

evidence tomorrow. taken the 30th of june, 2008, and it relates to the withdrawal of the mcgarvey knighthood. and he makes the specific allegation that you briefed or you instructed either mr. wheeler nor mr.-- [inaudible] to brief against john major. is that correct or not? >> well, mr. wheeler was not working for us at that time at all. and mr. mcbright, i don't know which your year referring to -- >> this was june 2008. >> just before he'd gone. i don't know anything about this because i don't think despite the fact that my name is mentioned in this letter and gus o'donnell and i talked about this in any detail, and i don't know really much about this incident. i know that mcgarvey lost his

knighthood. i know that when sir fred gibbons lost hid knighthood, i was blamed for -- people say things and do things, and the press say things, and i've never been involved in a briefing operation against john major. >> is the position this, mr. brown, that a sort of mythology has built up around these special advisers described in certain quarters as paranoid attack dogs or whatever, but there's no evidential basis for it, or is it the position that if they did act in this way, they acted without your instructions? >> look, you've got special adviser, they're a new innovation. they've got a role to play in defending the minister and defending the policy. you've got competition in different departments because that's the nature of politics. you've got competition, unfortunately, between ministers and departmentses and that's the

nature of politics. the question is what you read into this as whether there's an abuse of the constitution. i asked my political advisers to operate under very distinct rules, and i actually had tougher rules that was the general rule that was applied to political advisers. after mr. mcdwight left, we toughened up the rules even more about the use of equipment for personal purposes. and i was determined we could integrate the political adviser into the civil service system. if it didn't work on occasion, had people behaved badly on occasion, then that was not because there were not rules that were there and instructions that were given by me that should be followed. but i think we know enough about politics to know there's rumor, innuendo, allegations and so forth. the question is what you conclude from this. and my conclusion is you need tough rules, and if people don't obey the rules, then they have to go. i'm not sure it gives us a jenin

sight into the way the media was behaving. >> well, the focus of this inquiry is rightly under its terms of reference. ethics of the press, but we are also looking at the conduct of each and, therefore, the political class. are there any lessons to be learned at all if one looks at the period 1997-2010 -- >> yeah. >> a 13-year period as to the culture of the political class? >> yes. as i said right at the beginning, and i don't know if you picked me up in the way that i might have expected. i said that we should have changed the lobby system and changed the system where people relied on exclusive briefings and had a far more open and transparent system of addressing the country through the press than we have even today. and i, obviously, have got to take some responsibility for this. my only defense in this is i tried after 2007 to chan the

rules. we actually had a consultation, by the way, i didn't mention this, about the future of the lobby. simon lewis led, who's a very honorable man, but we could find no cone sense us -- consensus, but i would have preferred to have open briefings given by ministers to inform the press day by day. i'd looked to the white house system, i'd looked at other systems. so, yes, there needed to be more openness. we inherited a system that was based on, if you like, exclusivity. it was also based on insiders 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 they should have worked under civil service leadership. and we changed that when we went into number 10 as well. so these are the lessons i learned about what some people call the spin culture. i come back to the point that --

[laughter] it assumes a great deal of success in dealings with the media that i don't feel that i had. you know, in the 1970s when i was a student, i read once that it was said the shah of persia when he was still the shah of iran had the worse press relations in the business, and a british politician had raised objections. and i felt if that had been said in the 1990s to 2010, i would have raised the objection. i did not have, unfortunately, good relations with the press. and i used to say of myself about spinning when people said, you know, you guys are good at getting your message across, i used to quote shelley when shelley was talking about relativism. he said he had lost the art of communication but not, alas, the gift of speech. and i felt like i'd gotten myself into a position like that before i left office. >> be did you issue guidelines to any of your advisers, or were they just left to get on with

it? >> they had to go through the official head of communications who was a civil servant. look, this is an issue that will have to be resolved at some stage because we've had political appointees as press officers. we've had civil servant appoint 250es, and it hasn't been wholly satisfactory because of what the press expects of the head of communications. i don't think we've got an answer yet to what is a real problem about how you deal with the prosecution on a day-to-day basis. but i would prefer a more open system, and i think that we will get to that at some point. and if your inquiry, sir, can take us further on these roads and call for greater openness and transparency, i would be -- i would welcome that. >> have you thought about how that might manifest itself? >> i would have thought that you move away from the daily briefing that is to what's called the lobby, and this'll be very unpopular with people who are now in the gallery listening to me, some of who are in the lobby, that you will have

someone who was briefing with the television cameras there, it would be completely open. you would have to allow in press that are not part of the lobby system at the moment, and that includes, of course, the new internet media that is, that is developing. and i think the civil service and the politicians have got to work a better relationship so the danger is you have a civil service head that people think does not speak on behalf of the prime minister or the minister because he's not close enough. but the danger is you have an overpoliticized head who looks as if he's, or she is pushing the civil service in a particular direction. so i think you've got this dilemma about how you organize the management of information. but i think the openness of it is much to be well cold. and i say to you we did try to return to the situation where when you made an announcement in the house of commons, it was new information. and we did try to return to the

situation where you made a speech, and you were giving the information for the first time. but i'm afraid that the way things worked, these things were not reported. they were not seen as news in this highly competitive business in the media unless someone either had an exclusive or a group of people had an exclusive to these stories and felt that was something that was new. so this competition between the different media outlets is intensifying, obviously. 24 her hour news is -- 24-hour news is a reality. newspapers are in danger of being left behind whereas the internet is going all the time, and this will only intensify. therefore, i think more openness is an essential element, but, of course, the trustworthiness of participants is important to this as well. >> may i just touch on mr. watson now, a different topic. you address this, page 16 of page 14223. just be clear what your evidence is about, mr. browp. you say that you can recall tell willing watson that the

government had been under pressure from news international to sack him. are we back near 2006 in relation to the plot to, um, detrone mr. blair -- >> we're talking about a conversation that you've asked me about that mr. wattton had with me in -- watson had with me in 2010. and mr. watson has thrown me off. and i remind him of what happened in the past. i'm not giving him new information as far as i'm concerned about something that happened in the last week. i'm telling him, look, you know ha that when you are p in government that news international had editorials that they wanted you sacked. and i did say that mr. mrs. brooks had made her feelings about mr. watson pretty well known to my wife. that's all the new information i think i brought to this. >> yes. there may be a misunderstanding. that's why i was trying to tease this out. did the text message you referred to, did that relate to

earlier event, or did it relate to phone hacking, can you remember? >> this was -- news international had taken the view that tom watson was to be held culpable for anything that had happened in 2006, i think. and this was still the line that they wanted to pursue. you, i don't want to get involved in this because i don't understand everything that happened. there was a legal case taken about defamation by mr. watson, and for all i know there are still proceedings. i don't know. but there was an animosity between news international and mr. watson. and i was merely reporting to him when he asked me about these things that i was well aware that news international had wanted to get rid of his when he was a minister. >> this was because of alleged machinations against mr. blair, not because of his persistent -- [inaudible] >> but you are putting words

into news international's mouth. i don't know. all i reported to him was that news international had made it clear that they wanted, they didn't like him, of course, and i think they had an editorial saying tom watson had to go, i can't remember the details. >> can you remember what the text said? >> they're not my texts. my wife's text, i think you'd have to ask her. >> she might have communicated? >> she thought it was important. i haven't asked for texts to be disclosed, but it's your right to ask for them if you need them, but i think it communicated the feeling about mr. watson. >> the issue is so important, we're going to have to ask to see the texts on your wife's phone. i'll put this question to you in relation to mr. watson, in 2006 the media reported that he visited you at your house in scotland before his resignation. did you discuss any political matters at all with mr. watson on that occasion? >> no. our baby had just been born. he was bringing a present for

our baby with his wife and his family. and we were talking about children. i mean, if i had known that he was planning any political initiative, i would have told him not to do it, but i knew nothing about it. >> and the follow-up question was, did you discuss mr. watson's subsequently published round robin letter according to mr. blair's resignation -- >> i think i've already answered that. if i'd known that he was planning on anything like that, i'd have told him to desist. this was a bad mistake, it was wrong thing to do, and i told him so once i found out about it. >> so your evidence is this is entirely a social call to deliver a present for your baby, is that right? >> entirely. because he had his family with him, and they were talking to sara, and they were talking about -- we were all talking about our children. >> and, mr. brown, you called for a judicial inquiry in

september 2010 in the sense that i think you wrote a letter to lord o'donnell. we've got it at tab 35. >> yep. i remember. >> [inaudible] and, obviously, the context was, although you don't refer to it, was the piece in "the new york times"es which was published on the 1st of september, 2010. is that correct? >> yeah. and the report that was being done by the culture media committee. that was the prompting for asking whether something had to be done. look, we did not know about, as i said in my speech in the house of commons about this matter, we did not know about the extent of this phone hacking, and it only gradually became known to me that it could be considerably more than what had been reported than this rogue hacker or rogue reporter was not a proper defense. but as the information became

available and as i realized that this was a bigger issue than people had imagined, it seemed to me we had to look at what needed to be done. now, the home secretary had looked at whether the police investigation should be extended to, or be carried out by another body. i had to look given there was some, i think, media speculation at in this time, but there was a case for public inquiry as to whether there was a case for judicial inquiry. unfortunately, when i asked sir gus o'donnell to look at this, he did not look at other evidence than simply the report of the culture select committee. i think that probably was an unfortunate decision. and, therefore, we had to report back that, basically, reflected the minimum amount of information that was known to the culture select committee and said nothing about any further information that was actually known within government at the time including the home secretary's examination of this

on his open behalf. own behalf. >> to be fair, mr. brown, the letter he wrote back to you on the 10th of september, 2010, simply says the information is under review -- >> you're talking about the second letter. my first be question was before we left office. >> yes. >> and that was a request that he answer with a memo that i think you've now got about the various pros and cons of taking action. and it's at that point that i think we might have looked at the other evidence available within government. and that's the point i'm headaching. when i wrote him in september, 2010, it was because further knowledge was available, and that is "the new york times" -- >> i'm focusing on the september 2010 issue because as you rightly say, we've looked carefully at the march 2010 consideration. >> yeah, yeah. >> can i ask you this, we know

that mr. miliband was not elected leader of the opposition until, i think, the 25th of september, 2010. did you discuss these issues with him at any stage, either before or after his election? >> this letter was independently done me. i didn't consult anybody before i sent that letter. >> no. i'm not suggesting you needed to consult. >> yeah. >> i was suggesting did you discuss your concerns about the issue with mr. miliband? >> i had expressed my concern to a number of people about what was happening, but i can't remember a specific conversation with mr. miliband. perhaps there was one, perhaps there wasn't. i did raise it with mr. craig i remember at one point. >> okay. now, may we look to the future now, mr. brown, and recommendations? [laughter] we know what you said in 2007, and we've seen that speech, the excerpts of which you kindly

provided us with. your witness statement at page 14212 you set out some ideas for the future. >> yeah. >> and the internal numbering is page 6. which we've considered. but can i just pick up some themes and where we are? statutory backstop, could you elaborate on that? and differentiate between that and state regulation of the press. >> can i just say by way of introduction to this section that i would make a distinction between two roles that this inquiry might have and, indeed, the way that further self-regulation or regulation may go. i think there is the issue of dealing with wrongs that have to

be righted, redressed for individuals who have a complaint to make. and i've said i think pretty clearly in my evidence that i don't think the present system much is it maybe the better part of the complaint's commission dealing with complaints is satisfactory. the second aspect, however, that you would urge you to -- 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'm right, there was a problem developing in this but also every advanced country in the world about the quality of journalism and the commercial basis on which it can proceed. and if in the 19th century you have big proprietors and in the 20th century you have advertising that manage to finance quality journalism, there is a big issue about what can incentivize or give support to quality journalism in the future. so i would just want to make by way of introduction if you're dealing with that, yes, we can look at a better complaint system, and you have, sir, put

on the web site, i think, very, very good guidelines for how we might proceed in sorting that issue out. and i believe there will be all party support to do so, and i know that that is important to you that there is all party support. but we have to look at a second issue about 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 across newspapers. and that may demand quite radical thinking about how we incentivize this for the future including what happens to the bbc license fee, what happens to spectrum auctions and the fees that come from that. and i think these are all issues. there is going to be a real problem in the next 20 years about how quality journalism can flourish. >> yes. when you made that comment at the beginning of your evidence, i wrote in the margin how, question mark.

and if you could answer that question even with some ideas, i would be very interest today hear them. >> well, i have tried to give some thought to this. when the bbc was set up in the 1920s and then developed its license fee system in the 1940s, it was clear that there was a market failure. in other words, the finance that was available for supporting quality broadcast journalism and quality content was simply not there. there was a market failure, so it had to be dealt with. it had to be dealt with by taking action. and the action that was chosen which was popular for at least some time was the creation of a license fee. and the license fee was to support quality journalism. and, of course, the argument in fave of it was that there were great externalities. if you're an economist, there were great benefits from the educational effect of that, from getting trusted information, and there was a public good to be

supported. but the market itself would not necessarily support in broadcasting. and then, of course, there were further benefits because once you put it on a broadcaster network, the marginal cost of delivering it to millions of people as against thousands of people was my mall. some of these arguments, in my view, now alie to the internet. -- apply to the internet. there is a problem about the hack of quality journalism. most internet journalism is, has not got the resources to be as, if you like, persuasive and be as trusted of information as you would like it to be. there's a problem now developing in the newspapers because their advertising model has collapsed, basically and, therefore, they're find being it more and more difficult. every week i see a local newspaper going under. so we have a problem about how we finance quality journalism for the future, and there are journalists sitting here today who are in employment today, but i think the quality journalism that we need and that they represent for the future will

have to find new ways of financing it. so is the bbc model of any use to us? i think we ought to look at that. it certainly deals with this issue that there is a public good that the market cannot supply, and it certainly deals with the issue about how you might apply this to the internet as well as to broadcasting because there's zero cost in getting to millions of people once you get to the first be thousand people. and i would think that if we are genuine in trying to root out the bad but also trying to encourage the good, i think we've got to say something about how quality journalism in this country can be financed, supported and really sponsored in the future. this is a problem, by the way, that is even greater in america, and there's a huge debate now in america about how quality journalism can survive. and there's some very good people joining that debate. all i'm saying, sir, if you forgive me for doing so is that you can deal with this issue about what i think is, was a terrible injustice done to the

dowler family, innocent people who have their rights trampled over, and we need to have a complaint system that deals with that and proper penalties and finds for doapg this. but we -- doing this. we also need to look at not just discouraging the bad, but encouraging encouraging the good. it's making a judgment that you will need trained journalists and the media, like the internet, to be able to sport that in the future. >> one needn't just look at the journalism of the national newspapers. you commented and, indeed, t been the subject -- it's been the summit of evidence that local journalism is very much suffering from the lack of advertising -- >> absolutely. -- >> and the consequence is that local issues, therefore, respect reported as once they were, and 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, the development of holding local health boards, local councils to account -- >> absolutely. and this is why i defend the freedom of the press and the right of the press to have the powers that they have. because without shining the height on potential corruption or maladministration or the abuse of power -- and that's true at a local level as well as an international level -- people get away with doing things that are completely unacceptable. and that's why you need a local press. there was a study done in america about what happened to a town where they were faced with, i think it was a flooding or something. and because there was no local journalism in place and because the information could not flow properly, then citizens were being deprived of the means by which they could deal with this particular difficulty.

this will continue to happen. >> at least one of the witnesses who has given evidence has brought my attention to the development of the con especially of local free, local authority newspapers. which then deprive the -- [inaudible] of an opportunity to deliver their product. >> well, as you know, therest a debate about whether the bbc should be local radio, whether it should be simply commercial radio and how the integration of local newspapers with local broadcasting, with local television and local radio should happen. and it's clear to me, however, that without some underpinning -- and it may be financial -- then the market failure here, that there is not enough resources now to support the quality journalism that you are talking about. so my own local newspaper has just had its editorial staff merged with the next door

newspaper. they're running down the numbers of staff that are providing this local service, and i think you would find this in every part of the uncan that you -- the country that you go into and all across the world now. because an internet journalist who's someone who is sort of doing their own, if you like, self-journalism, you know, can put their views up on a screen and put their views across the world. but if they're not resourced and they're not doing proper research and there's no investigative journalism, then we're diminishing the quality of the output that is available to us. so it's not a straight answer to this problem that there's more people communicating on the internet. that's a good thing. when you don't have the research that is being done and the investigation that is being done to bring quality journalism. so my point to you is that we can deal with the issue of complaints, and i think you have got excellent suggestions, and i do applaud what you are trying to move to there. and i would emphasize when i talk about the press complaints commission that without an

investigative arm it cannot be successful. and the one thing you go to the press complaints commission to get is a judgment on whether something is accurate or not. and when they reply to you, they say we cannot make a judgment on the accuracy of these statements and, therefore, the one thing you asked them for they cannot do because they've got no investigative arm. but that's one thing. but encouraging quality journalism, i think, is something that i hope that in your next set of evidence you might be able to consider. >> i'll take that point be very, very much onboard. >> i may say i think there's quite a lot to learn from america where there is a live debate. sorry, i moved from the initial point of your question about self-regulation. >> not at all. mr. brown, the prime minister, as you know, said the relationship between press and politicians need to be reset. what, if anything, would you recommend in that regard?

>> there's got to be greater openness and transparency as i've said. and i just repeat that. i don't think, i do want to answer your previous question about regulation because i think it's important. i've never been one, and can this may sound surprising to people despite my discomfort with the press, i've never been one that has favored heavy regulation or even regulation of the press. i've always looked for solutions that would avoid the idea that there was some form of interference in the press by politicians. and i've always been very careful when we've talked about the bb to make sure -- the bbc to make sure we safeguard the independence of the bbc. i said before it was a religious upbring, but the idea that the individual conscience is respected, free from state power is very important to me. now, what do you do in circumstances where you have a recalcitrant newspaper that will not join the press complaint

commission? and this is a problem i know you face. what do you do in circumstances when you have a press complaint commission that actually is not able to deal and has proved itself unable to deal with these big issues? in ireland, australia and new zealand they've found a way to do, i think in one case they call it statutory underpinning is recognized in legislation but not -- >> that's the irish -- >> -- not decreed by legislation. so i think there is a way. but i think we've got less to fear from the proposals that you're talking about, about a statutory and underpinning people think. and certainly if there are recals trapt members of the press that are not prepared to join, i think your case is strengthened. but i share your views this has got to be incompetent of the politicians -- independent of the politicians, but also of newspaper editors. and it's got to be genuinely looked to and trusted as a

source of fair and balanced investigations and judgments. >> well, mr. brown, those are all the questions i had. >> mr. brown, thank you very much. it's all very easy to say, rather more difficult to seek to achieve it. but thank you very much for your assistance. >> i don't want envy your job, but i know you're doing a great job. >> thank you. one moment, mr. brown. yes, yes. >> [inaudible] between mr. brown and mr. murdoch. and you may recall that lord mandelson gave evidence about that. mr. brown hasn't addressed that, and i think he ought to be given the opportunity, or at least we would like to know what he says about it. >> do you want to put what lord happened lson said? have you got it at hand? >> yes, i have. >> then by all -- let mr. be

brown respond. [laughter] >> anybody else who wants their questions as well? i don't know. >> no, no. [laughter] >> the position is, mr. brown, that the system permits core apartments to put -- participants to put questions through counsel and mr. jay, i think several times, has said i've been asked to ask this question. and that's how he's dope it. but if he declines to put a question, then the core participants are entitled to ask me for permission to ask the question. and i think, as i know what's coming, i don't think this is going to be -- i don't know what's coming, but i'm happy to take the question. >> mr. brown, my name's roger davis. i appear for news international. >> yeah. >> i think you're probably familiar with this, it's behind tab 3 of your bundle. -- tab 8 of your bundle. if you'd like to go to it -- >> tab 8 of my bundle, the new

bundle or the old bundle? >> that's a transcript of the evidence of that lord mandelson gave. >> uh-huh. and what day is it referring to, please? >> it's the 23st of may. >> no, but what day -- >> day 74. >> no, what day is mr. mandelson referring to? >> he was asked about whether or not there was a call between you and mr. murdoch shortly after "the sun" had announced it was no longer going to sport the labour -- support the labour party on the 30th of september. and this is day 74 in the afternoon -- >> i find this very difficult to read because the light type here. perhaps you can read out the section that's relevant. >> i will do that. >> i'm grateful. >> and the questions are from mr. jay. the allegation are or rather the evidence was that mr. brown said or uttered the words declare war

on news international or words from that effect. can you assist us a as to whether there was such a call. answer: well, i wasn't on the call. i hadn't been patched into the call. question: no, of course not. answer: i assume that 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 angst. action. question: what did the prime minister tell you, lord mandelson, about the call. did he communicate to you that's what he told mr. murdoch? answer: no, he didn't say that. he told me what mr. murdoch had said to him. question: so there was nothing what mr. brown said to mr. murdoch s 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, but i know what he said to me about rupert murdoch's reaction which was to say, basically, i don't like how

it's being dope, and i think it's a bad day to do it, and i wouldn't have done it this way myself, gnaw's life, and we have to get on wit. question: mr. murdoch's reaction to what, lord hand ellison? answer: to switch to the labour party which was james and rebecca's decision, not the editor's, incidentally. >> first of all, there was only one call with mr. murdoch, and it was on november the 10th, and that was a call that was related to afghanistan. and you've got five letters that are a after kates from people who were on that call, four of them on the call, one who had to report to the press what happened afterwards, and they make it absolutely clear that that call was about afghanistan. and whatever you are reading out and whether you're referring to that call or not, i don't know. but the november the 10th call is the only call i had in a year with mr. murdoch. and i don't know if you're in a position to confirm that that is the case on behalf of news international or not. as for what happened on

september the 20 30th when the conservative party was given the information, if you like, of "the sun," there was no call. there was no discussion. there was no text. there was no conversation with mr. murdoch at all. and i don't know how -- i notice that questions are coming from core participants, and the suggestion is that somehow there was a mobile call that hasn't been registered in downing street. i really think news international is doing itself a great deal of harm by trying to suggest that a telephone call took place which never happened and trying to suggest that comments were made on that call that never were made and trying to suggest, also, that the attitude of the perp on the call -- the person on the call was on balance when there was no call at all. so you must tell me whether you want to refer to a call that was made on november the 10th or a call that you are claiming was made after september the 20th which never happened. >> mr. brown, the only question

i want to ask you is this: did you have the conversation with lord mandelson that he said that you had in the evidence i've just read to you? >> i don't remember a conversation with mr. mandelson about this peckically, but if conversation took place, it would have been about a call on november the 10th, and it was nothing to do with the support of the conservative party. the about support for afghanistan. there was no call on september the 30th. you are allowing me the chance to make this absolutely clear, and news international have produced not one shred of evidence that a call took place, not one date for the call or time for the call. you're not able to tell us what happened except you have these statements from mr. murdoch that happened, and i do find it very strange that we're being asked to debate about a call that never took place of which you have no information about when it took place and who was, also, on the call. >> thank you very much, mr. brown. >> right. thank you. mr. brown, thank you very much, indeed.

>> prime minister david cameron appointed an inquiry of the press. and here is from tuesday, john major and ed miliband. nicolette testifies on wednesday. and on thursday, the committee will hear some mr. cameron. -- hear from mr. cameron. in a few moments, the defense department's report on operations in afghanistan. the lieutenant colonel on his op-ed piece entitled "the age of unsatisfying wars" delavan 3:00 p.m. and then british politicians and

the media. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. attorney general eric holder testifies before the senate judiciary committee here on c- span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also at 10:00 a.m., on c-span3, national press club for and looks at national security and the federal budget. speakers include carl levin and retired general james car right -- james cartwright. >> nancy pelosi began her career in the u.s. house in 1987. >> mr. speaker as you know, eight years ago this month, the soviet union dated afghanistan. to no one's surprise, the application of afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with no victors.

documents of countless acts of terror against the afghan people. >> 25 years later, she was honored on the house floor by republican and democratic leaders. watch those tributes on line at the c-span library. >> the international force commander in afghanistan told reporters today that the allied supply lines in pakistan being closed is not affecting afghanistan operations. this news briefing is a half- hour.

good morning, everyone. i would like to welcome back the deputy commander of u.s. forces afghanistan he -- afghanistan. this is his third briefing with us. this will also be his last. as you know, there will be a change in command tomorrow when he will turn it over to lieutenant colonel terry. this is his second tour of duties in afghanistan. he joins us today from ijc headquarters in kabul for a file of date before completing his term over. -- final update before completing his term over. i ask you to please identify yourselves and who you are with before you ask a question. i will call on you. the general cannot see you, so

it would be helpful for him to know who he is talking to. with that, i will turn it over for any comments you might have, general. >> thank you for the introduction. and good evening from kabul. i would like to give you an update on the progress that has been made in afghanistan by both afghan and coalition forces. over the past year, afghanistan has seen significant advances. today, there are over 346,000 afghan security forces protecting the country, and a number of other partner operations continued to increase. over the next six months will see the afghan government taking the lead for security in areas representing 75% of the population. my two crops -- top priorities of the past year have been accelerating basf into the lead and maintaining the campaign in a lesson -- in relentless

pursuit of the enemy. the combined team has the initiative. and so far, the spring offensive has not been successful. additionally, the enemies's leaders remain frustrated in pakistan, creating the opportunity for formal and informal integration across afghanistan. many more informally laying down their arms and returning to their homes. there are still challenges and setbacks. the enemy continually proves its adaptability. safe haven and pakistan remain one of the greatest concerns. we have consistently expanded our security gains. it allows us to move the afghans into the lead. we have secured their helmand river valley, cavnar, and most astounding -- kandahar, and most of the surrounding districts.

we have seen positive signs in subtle areas. and one reason accomplishment was in a province where afghan soldiers with the help of coalition advisers, they will increase their capabilities and to the effective partners with advisers or the next year. these are little steps, but the building blocks for a trained and sustainable force. the capitol building has remained secured by the afghans for almost two years. they have remained capable of handling very serious security threats. including a complex attack on the 15th and 16th of april. security continues to improve. insurgent activity has decreased, and the afghan forces continue to demonstrate going -- growing confidence in their own forces.

i would like to highlight the remarkable difference between afghanistan today to afghanistan under taliban role. many more children are in school. women represent 27% of the parliament. and 52% of the afghan people believe their government is heading in the right direction. all of this success is the result of a strong partnership and great sacrifice. i would like to thank this opportunity -- i would like to take this opportunity to thank the brave men and women serving across afghanistan and for their sacrifice and dedication to the mission. it has been an honor to serve as your commander over the past year. i would be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> a question for you about the ground supply route through pakistan. we were told at the pentagon today that the u.s. team had been in islamabad for several weeks and after negotiations is

leaving. do you feel any urgency to get those routes reopened? and does the failure so far to do so, does that have any affect on the relationship with the pakistani is -- with the pakistanis? >> the good question. i appreciate it. first, in terms of the clock, that was in the incident that occurred along the border. since that time, we have continued to operate without impact at all. we have continued to build their surprise we have in afghanistan. as an operational commander, we continue to do a job that is not really effective. -- affected. i do not expected to be a problem in the future.

in terms of relationship with pakistan, we are working very hard on a buildable relationship to try to develop that and bring it back to, perhaps, where it was when i was the commander. my focus as i talk to my counterparts has to do with areas of mutual interest, and that is, along the border. in cooperation along the border, and possible future cooperation there as well. and the assistance of the afghan forces and coalition as well. those are essential to be reestablished the communication that we once had and then from there, on into operations on both sides of the border that is complementary to both their security and our coalition

objectives. >> general ackerman with wired. what can you tell us about the coming offensive with eastern afghanistan? we are hearing that this may be the last u.s. major offensive ahead of the 2014 deadline. has it started? what constitutes success? and you were mentioning future complementary operations with the package. what can the offensive accomplish is the pakistanis are not providing those operations? -- if the pakistanis are not providing those operations. >> you are offered -- you are referring to the operations we have begun in the east. that is with the 82nd airborne division. it the attempt there is to replace severson, power that has

been -- the attempt there is to replace the force, the serving power that has been there. it is a transition area that provides for support areas for trouble. that is the operation for now. we will be running that throughout this coming fighting season. i do not see that as the last operation adderall. and now we're looking to conduct operations -- at all. and we are looking to conduct operations as necessary in the east. and we will support the stand up of the afghans. this is the formula of the afghan security forces growing in strength and taking the lead. we want our forces to reduce that threat in the area and to continue to help shape the

insurgencies so they can take the lead and hold the ground. with respect to the border itself, the pakistani sanctuary is conditioned it today, and if it does not improve, relations with pakistan obviously makes reaching those conditions a more difficult a thing, of course. we also have to do more work with respect to the afghan forces. with respect to the strategy that they employed along the border, and to ensure it will be successful for them to secure their own country. i think it will be successful, but it will make things more difficult. >> should we expect that it will go beyond gaza, or will it expand beyond their? >> i do not know i want to be 6

-- the specific operational leia -- i do not know i want to be specific operationally. i will just say again that we realized in the east and south of kabul, we need to insert greater combat power and we have needed to do that for some time. we are now undertaking operations to secure area in ga zni that we have needed to do for some time and we are working very hard with our afghan partners to hold those areas once these operations are done. >> could you outline for us the new agreement that general allen has made regarding ariel engagements? could this encourage insurgents

to start taking shelter increasingly in homes? >> general allen's guidance, first of all, it does not change the rules of engagement. our rules of engagement remain the same. our soldiers, airmen, and marines, have this right to self defense against hostile intent. that will not change. there will have everything available to ensure self- defense. the second thing i will say is that it is guidance. we will not employ ariel munitions on a civilian dwelling, unless of course, is a last resort and it is, in fact, to ensure the defense of our soldiers. if -- it does not mean that we will go after insurgents and we do not expect them to use the

civilian dwellings. we know that they use civilians themselves as shields pretty much throughout this time that we have engaged with them. but we have other means and methods. our ground fourth -- ground force commanders would use those methods to engage the enemy. >> will this make it more frequent that ground forces will have to engage themselves in possibly raising the risks to those forces? >> i think, overall, in a large way, it will not. let me put this into context for you. over the last six months, we have had 3531 rotary and kinetic engagements.

our compound was damaged as a result. that is a small percentage. you know, of the number of operations that we conduct on a daily basis. this guidance gets at a very small part of the water operations that we run every day. another way to put that, if you look at it over the last two years, the number of air sorties over the last two years, only a 10th of 1% resulted in -- only two tenths of 1% resulted in kastigar. we have worked very hard to work very hard to bring down civilian casualties. the coalition has worked very

hard and we have brought down to the casualties 52% during this time. i think we are talking about precise things and a small set of events that take place in the we do have other ways of handling that. we make sure that our soldiers have what they need. when there is no other option, there is the availability of air missions. -- munitions. >> fallen up the question about the air strikes. i would like to ask you to talk about how this fits into the rules of the past several years. -- over the past several years. the roe's were relatively strict and conservative to the concern of casualties. they were loosened a bit due to

concerns of safety. is this latest shift, is the guidance going to be on par with what we had several years ago? >> in 2009, actually, we have not changed the rules of engagement, what our soldiers head and how they react to the hostile act. 2009 is when we published the first directives. it provided guidance on the employment of fires. over time, each commander has revised that. having been here in 2009, 2010, and now, the prudent and logical utilization -- evolution, we

have been moving to bring afghans more and more to the front. we are moving to bring afghans into the decision cycle to include the use of munitions. they now have 50% of the country that has gone through transition. afghan security lead. as we move forward, this is a natural transition in the guidance of our troops. once again, they have the availability of a complete array of munitions should they need air missions in self-defense, they will have them. that really only occurs in a small set of circumstances. i am confident that we will continue to protect our troops. i am confident that we can still maintain the momentum of this

campaign against the enemy. >> general, this is joe, you have mentioned the word"enemy." is it possible to give us a clarification if you have any figures, numbers, about the size of the enemy? my second question, do you still believe there are people and said the pakistani government supporting the haqqani network -- inside the pakistani government supporting the haqqani network? >> in terms of the size of the enemy, we use figures from 20,000 to 25,000. it is made up, it is a complex web of different networks. you mentioned how connie, they are a small part of that, but 10%. it is a very lethal part of

that. the largest part is the taliban. in most areas in afghanistan, 80% of the insurgents are local. only about 20% come in from other areas. what is true about our enemy today that has changed is that we believe their numbers have come down. in a study we have done, we know for a fact they are have been more trouble generating the offensive tempo they had in the past. since last may, their offensive tempo, the ability to have a tax has been on the downturn. that continues to be the case. this year, year on year compared to last year, it is down 6%.

in the winter, it was as much as 25% sun. 2 --5%. -- 25%. we also know that their ability to put together a sophisticated attack is running at 14% below last year. the percentage of those that are affected is only about 16% and. -- affective is only about 16%. that would be the way i discredit the insurgency. in terms of a connie -- haqqani, it is one of the most lethal aspects. we have indicators that there is some support for fourhaqqani. there is some coordination with

the isi. it has been our desire, the need for them to take on the network. it is a threat to us. it is one of the most lethal threat. it is certainly a threat to them as well. >> with cbs. you said you have done a study that says the number of enemies has come down. how much have they come them? i have a second question on a different topic. >> good to hear from you. in my experience, the enemy force was above 25,000 to 30,000. as we look at this year, it was turned into about 20,000.

-- trending to about 20,000. we got about 4300 reintegration, about 4300 now. those in the pipeline will bring us to 5000. there is more informal than formal. i hear that constantly from my commanders on the ground, who have good visibility to populations. i hear it from our afghan counterparts as well. >> you mentioned a number. you said in the last six months, there have been aerial attacks on 3,531 civilian compounds. that is 7000 civilian compounds a year. it is a small percentage that

resulted in casualties. it still cannot make it very popular -- you very popular. >> i would like to jump in. those were 3531 total kinetic engagement. we caused damage to 19 compounds. the point i am making is most of our fixed wing engagements are with the enemy that and not at the compound. there are a small number that are in the compounds. at of that 19, five of those incidents caused destruction. i just want to make sure to stir in that the.

-- sure i straightened that out. >> you did correct what i was mistaken. that still leaves you, one of every four times you had a compound. -- hit a compound causing casualties. >> i am not doing the math. if you are talking about if you hit a compound. one of the reasons we are working this hard is we want to be civilian casualties to zero if possible. -- to bring civilian casualties to zero if possible. i think that is going to be hard to do. we have brought it down 53% in the past year. we are dedicated to bringing it down. we know that in a counterinsurgency, the focus is on the protection of the people.

that is what we are here to do. it is very difficult when we create a civilian casualties. it is never intentional. we have got to get after that. that is part of the spirit of the directive, to get us to reduce the number of casualties. in this case, 19 companies, we injured civilians. >> -- compounds, we injured civilians. >> i wanted to summarize the into to this question, how critical is it to the withdrawal to block the haqqani offenses and open the g-locks. the sense i get is neither are

critical. is that an accurate understanding? >> i will put it to you this way. i am confident that we can continue this campaign in the supply this campaign and that we can also -- and supply this campaign and that we can also conduct our recovery. >> save havens, if those are not taken care of by pakistan, can the united states accomplished its withdrawal goals, albeit, with some positional difficulty? >> yes, i think we can still up to an hour with locals. i think while difficult, -- obtaine our withdrawal goals.

i think, while difficult, we can obtain pakistan as well. we can do this. >> julian barnes, "wall street journal." your operations in the east, are they primarily focused on the kabul?i attacks in what is your current view on the network? are they irreconcilable or could some of the fighters be reintegrated into society? >> first of all, the operations are focused on the insurgency in

a broadway. -- broad way. in kabul, there is a mix of taliban and haqqani. haqqani typically works with other insurgents and provides expertise and some leadership. in terms of haqqani, the soldiers they employ are much like many of the others. given the opportunity, a better opportunity, i believe they will choose not to fight. they will choose to come home to afghanistan. we know from our intelligence that many of these fighters, foot soldiers, are weary of this fight. the a distrustful of their leadership. they are looking for a way to

read it -- they are distrustful of their leadership. they are looking for a way to reintegrate. it is a question, is the opportunity better, they are saying security and advancement of basic services. they are asking themselves, can i come back safely? if they find that to be the case, they would reintegrate. i think the haqqani foot soldiers are much like many others. leadership is intent -- their intent would be to secure their area of operation. >> thank you very much. that is the end of the questioning. i will turn it over to you for any closing remarks.

collects thank you very much. it was an honor to be here with you tonight. it has been my honor to lead a coalition forces in afghanistan for this year. i am constantly in of our soldiers here. focus we of our soldiers' on this mission, the dedication to it. the sacrifices they made to secure a afghanistan. just as important, to secure their own nation. the sacrifice is great. their confidence is inspired. this has been at a great cost. we have to always remember that. we have to make their sacrifice matter. we must continue this mission. i believe we can ken -- complete this mission. i would thank the families.

they serve as well. this sacrifice as well. they will give full support to those who are here doing this important mission. it has been my honor to be an part of this this year. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] what's more on military operations in afghanistan -- >> more on military operations in afghanistan. this is a little less than 45 minutes.

host: lieutenant-colonel john nagl joins us for the discussion on how the end of the war in afghanistan might look like. we are in an age of unsatisfying wars. what do you mean by that? guest: we are fighting counter insurgents campaigns. we just concluded a long one in iraq. these are wars in which the enemies strategies and tactics preclude us from using our great military advantages. that means we're not going to surrender these victories. even when we succeed, it is a messy, slow affair. host: what are you expecting is our best exit from afghanistan? guest: success looks like handing off the war to a capable security force, usually with american advisers and the american air power. we are not going to defeat the taliban completely. it is important to say that the

secretary of defense has an important commitment to our afghan partners with american advice and support and air power. host: this is a piece in "the new york times" from last thursday. you're saying the best we can hope for is a sort of a direct model. is that correct? guest: i should say right off the bat that i did not support invasion of iraq. i think it will go down as one of america's biggest mistakes. i would say earlier wars are getting worse than better. it turned out at about as well as we could have expected, given the mistakes we made going in and the mistakes that led to us in mating. the government -- to us invading. the u.s. government is able to

stand on its own. there's not chaos. calcutta -- the terrorists do not have a significant base. out of what could have been a complete and utter disaster, we salvaged about as much as we can hope for out of the iraq debacle. host: if we could get that in afghanistan, that is a win? guest: yes. it is a wealthy country, a very well-educated country. as devastated as it was by the desert storm or and a couple years of sanctions after words, there was a lot more to work with their then there was and afghanistan. afghanistan is a much poorer, less-educated place. not as much human capital or natural resources. it will not be able to succeed on its own.

that is the bad news. the good news is that afghanistan and the afghan government is going to continue to what american advisers and american help for the least one decade to come and it looks like that will happen. host: we're talking with the lieutenant colonel john nagl. he led platoons in desert storm and is an operations officer during iraqi freedom. also, the author of the counter insurgency field manual and lessons learned from vietnam. if you have a question about how an end in afghanistan to work, give us a call. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001.

the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. if you have some foreign operations questions. one question i'd like to ask, are like to look at the end of your column in "the new york times." you said in counter insurgency, and you would be more likely to succeed if you leave the project somewhat unfinished. explain what you mean by that. guest: chief lawrence, who was an insurgent leader in the first world war said do not try to do too much with your own hands. there will actually succeed better given their culture and their history and understanding of how their own society works. it can be a key to some degree of justice. of trying to impose our world

view, our standards, our patterns of behavior. i think we have to find a way, while preserving basic human rights, at some degree the has the respect for how they want to organize their own society. i think that is one of the things we have learned of the last decade, is to allow them to do it themselves and us to help them. i think we are seeing that happen in afghanistan. host: what do you make of the strategic partnership that the u.s. and afghanistan signed to define operations going forward after the end date of 2014. guest: i think it was hugely important. the mentality that americans are quitters, they're going to leave, we enforce that

narrative. i think it is important united states has demonstrated the long-term commitment to afghanistan. afghanistan has welcome that long-term commitment. the iraqi government did not. it makes life a whole lot harder for the taliban. it is one thing when they can say, all rights, two more years and they're gone. the president of the united states came to kabul to sign an agreement saying the united states is committed to the security of afghanistan for the next decade. watch the movie "charlie wilson's war." supporting an insurgency in afghanistan against the soviet union in the 1980's, america abandon them in the 1990's. the only purpose of a war, the

dance is could not build a better peace afterwards. the analysis is committed to doing that. i think that is the single best thing we have in the government unlikely to tie the success. host: there's also more lives being lost. talk about the calls on the home front you have seemed to end the war in afghanistan. there's an article about the members of groups of congress who call for an end to the war. it came from a republican. he called on the nation's leaders to use the $10 billion spent monthly in afghanistan to rebuild america. with these comments coming from capitol hill, will we be able to sustain operations? guest: i am pretty confident that we will.

what we have learned, both in iraq and afghanistan is that foreign policy -- afghanistan is not a particularly popular war at this point in the united states. it was overwhelmingly popular when we invaded -- when we invaded afghanistan after september 11. this is not a top 10 issue for very many american citizens. one of the remarkable things, to me, as a student of a vietnam, is how well the all-of volunteer force has held together over the last decade of war. i was talking to a group of soldiers were deployed to afghanistan. they got back a little over one year ago.

they remain committed to the fight. they believe we can still achieve a degree of success. i expect america to remain committed to that for many years to come. host: what was the last time this subject was in the headlines? a lot of people were speaking about it on the debate over counter-terrorism over counter insurgency as to which way america should go. can you assess, from your perspective, how we are doing and where we need to go? guest: the important thing to remember in afghanistan is we did not focus on that war from 2002. we had already turned our attention to starting a war in iraq.

counter insurgency is troop intensive. one of the real keys to success in a counterinsurgency campaign is building a local security force. the building and afghan army that can stand most of the issue itself. since then, president obama has a vastly increase the focus on afghanistan. he has nearly tripled the forces on the ground. president obama did a 300% increase. once we started deploying resources to afghanistan, and and we're trying to do now is billed for those local successes. host: on the independent line,

you are on. caller: my feeling is that the war was not wisely but fought. we did drive the terrorists out of afghanistan, which has been our objective. then we decided that we did not need the taliban running the country, so we got more and more involved. we wanted somebody to be our guide. that result is that we are leaving behind, i am guessing, something between 20,000 and 40,000 soldiers. they are like the guard there to protect our guide. they do not want him gone. in the meantime, he goes to china to deal with the chinese. afghanistan is the treasure trove that everybody says, the

chinese will develop. they will not politicize. they will not do anything. they will build roads and railroads. they will pay good money for their rights. host: your assessment of karzai and the fight against the insurgency. >> he probably has the toughest job in the world. it is difficult for him. we have not always spoken firmly with him and to him. he endured 10 american commanders during the time he has been president. president karzai is scheduled

to leave office in 2014. the important decisions will be whether he steps down and who replaces him. the numbers the caller gave after 2014, that is much higher than the numbers i'm hearing. 20,000 is probably the high end. host: about 91,000 at the moment and that's scheduled to go down in september -- guest: 68,000 by september of this year. that drawdown is in progress. we will have special forces that will continue to conduct operations in the region. a lot of the successes we have had against al qaeda has been based on intelligence derived

from people on the ground in afghanistan and the ability to provide tabs on one the most dangerous places for the estate's today, and that is pakistan -- one of the most dangerous places for the united states today. host: leon panetta visits kabul. this is from "the washington post." calling in aircraft. how do you think the decision changes the operation for troops in afghanistan? guest: we have seen this happen over time. we have gotten better at using force more precisely. collateral damage -- the air

force is more precise than we used to be. the collateral damage has gone way down. any mistake is one mistake too many. it will be difficult to do that. we are going to rely on air power to fill the gap. this process of negotiating with president karzai, whose sovereignty we support and whose independent we're trying to encourage has a responsibility to fight the enemy and to protect his people. that balancing act continues. leon panetta was the american adviser in afghanistan.

one man has terrible back problems. john allen -- that team in afghanistan right now is the right group of people to manage this difficult transition. host: you mentioned john allen. we want to go to his apology last week. here it is. [video clip] >> we are investigating the procedures that were used and the numbers of individuals who were killed. i offer my apologies to the afghan people who are present today to the governor and assured them we would investigate thoroughly.

we will do the right thing in terms of compensation and in terms of restoring, rebuilding that area. we have work to do in terms of the investigation. host: we're here this morning with john nagl with the center for a new american security. robert from florida this morning. you're on with colonel nagl. caller: i have a brief statement to make. does the colonel believe that regulations of war in afghanistan -- syria -- the second question to ask the

colonel -- the treaty of the iraqi war and the afghanistan war and the strategic question -- we should avoid all land wars and that was extended to asia. a final comment. the rest of the war in afghanistan. the russians played a prominent part in afghanistan. why do you suspect they are going to -- the area now? host: so we can get through. guest: in syria, it remains

serious. international reports of murder by the regime against its own people. i am in favor of a cautious response. i do not advocate american intervention in syria at this point. i am concerned about what the regime is doing. there is a real crisis in the middle east today. a real chance that not the united states but some of our allies could initiate military action against iran, to put an end to their military weapons program. a real concentration in the middle east. about the wars in iraq and afghanistan were executed by the president of the united states. both of them were authorized by

overwhelming votes in the house and the senate. the constitutional system worked. the american people were able to influence the debate. congress gave the president the ability to wage war. president bush and president obama have both done that. i agree with general mccaffrey on almost everything. we should avoid land wars in asia. when the taliban regime refuses to hand over al qaeda -- the airplane went down in pennsylvania, i don't think the united states had any choice

except to respond militarily. we cheered the fight against al qaeda. that fight will continue for a long time. we will try to make sure that territory in afghanistan can be used as a base to attack the united states. the: let's go to cathy on democratic line from houston this morning. caller: thank you. this is a military mother. you are about to hear the truth. we're committing suicide. john bush and walker. spies on the american people. say hi, everybody.

get the money out. you have to look at the bush uncles. there were sending bad generators to our troops. host: edward on the independent line from north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. glad to talk to you, colonel. i like to speak in a little more civil tone and address some of these issues that the previous caller was trying to get across. there seems to be a lot of reporting that does not quite make the mainstream in america.

what photographic evidence -- the troops are doing nothing but protecting poppy fields in afghanistan. the war in afghanistan has been poorly managed. india needed a base for operations. it is all just a money making rackets for contractors. there are things going on that we are not being told the truth about. the pat tillman story tells the truth about afghanistan. guest: than me go back to kathy, the mother of a sailor and a soldier. i understand your frustration. my mother's youngest son is a lieutenant in california and he

deployed to iraq a couple of years ago. the sacrifices of america's military, the parents, the families, the wives and husbands of those who served our real. i do think we of ask more of a too-small group of military then we had any right to and they have borne a heavy cost. i was most recently in afghanistan in november. i see america's sons and daughters doing good work and fighting to keep us safe over here. edward's concern about contractors has some validity.

a lot of those contractors are patriotic americans and doing tough jobs. a number of them have lost their lives. we need to have more of a national discussion about the role of contractors in america's war. i have written on that subject. host: contractors are a big part in the drone industry. a question on twitter from boringfileclerk. guest: that is a great question. it is important to note that the hard part is finding your enemy. a lot of the work is based on

intelligence gained on the ground. that can happen when we have america's sons and daughters physically present. building relationships with the local population. that will play an increasing role as we draw down the american troop numbers, retaining an advisory presence. there will be operated by american soldiers. host: the republican line from -- is it goose bay harbor? caller: yes. good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i have a question that is not directly militarily involved. i have been interested in the poppy industry in afghanistan. how important is it to the afghan economy? is the united states replacing that with something more beneficial to them and to us with something more beneficial? guest: that is a great question. it is about the only thing that will grow there. it can be compressed and carry out on the backs of mules and donkeys. winter wheat will grow in afghanistan but the infrastructure is not there to send it out.

part of our efforts in afghanistan have been to build it and never structure so the farmers have an alternative to poppies. that will remove the lucrative drug trade which is one of the primary sources of funding for the taliban. host: a question on twitter from bill. is not be a good time to explain what they center for democracy and technology is? guest: the old american security was not good enough. it is a defense department think-tank. the undersecretary of defense for policy.

i have stepped down as president. it advocates for in former defense and security policies for america. we do think about the prospects for additional conflicts in the middle east. we have air force assets in the region that are serving to constrict the freedom of action. we have some ideas and present some ideas. our annual conference is wednesday of this week and we'll be releasing papers on the subject. the american military which has been stretched by the last decade of war does have the assets to respond to any contingency in the region and to influence events in the region. we do remain concerned about the ongoing humanitarian

disaster in syria and the prospects for war, which i see as enhanced by the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons. host: baltimore, maryland, on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the propaganda that i hear spouted by your guest is so sick you could cut it with a knife. host: what do you disagree with? caller: the nonsense about the september 11 events. that could have been carried out from any nation in the world. he talked about al qaeda. many people are questioning all of this.

i do not believe any of this anymore. i do not believe what your guest is saying. i trust none of them. host: a chance to respond. guest: i'm sorry to hear that she doesn't understand why we went into afghanistan. that was in late 2001 while the twin towers were still smoldering. when somebody murders 3000 american citizens, it is the duty to pursue them until the ends of the earth. i am proud that america's sons and daughters have brought to justice osama bin laden. we've taken out the number two members of al qaeda.

i think that is a huge accomplishment. the fight continues. we still continue to have enemies. there's not been in other terror attack on this country in the past 10 years. those who disagree of the actions we're taking now -- the drone strikes -- if america is successfully attacked again, there will want to know why more is not done. host: jesse from michigan. caller: good morning. i do not believe a word you're saying. eisenhower -- [unintelligible]

he built a military complex and your part of that. host: when do you think the operation should wind down? caller: right now. the so-called president we have, a man of color -- [unintelligible] we do not bother them. guest: there are of course people in the united states attempting to become terrorists. they have been prevented from taking action. i do think there is a real domestic threat but the fbi has a good handle on that.

it remains true that there are people in the united states who are working every day to try to do violence against america. our interests remain at risk. there's broad bipartisan support. we continue a war against al qaeda. we're working to wind down the war in afghanistan while making sure we do not have to go back their 10 years from now. we neglected the endgame against the soviet invasion and as a result, a cancer grew there. host: we have a comment on twitter.

back to the phones. steve from tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate you and the fact that you have served our country. i talked about the drone strikes that happened. 26 innocent people died. "i want that job." my brother was a loving and gentle person before he went into the military. now he is one of the cruelest individuals that i know. host: where do get the facts on the drone strikes? caller: on the internet.

i don't know if it is more or less. guest: the numbers are a lot lower than that. the drone operations give us the ability to attack enemies of the united states in countries with which we are not formally at war without putting as many american boots on the ground. i expect it to be an effective tool of american foreign policy to dismantle al qaeda. that effort has contributed significantly to keeping americans save over the last decade. i'm sorry to hear that military services changed your brother for the worst. many have served in uniform under fire and it was the most

meaningful thing i have ever done. i have seen horrible things. i think that on balance, the experience has made me stronger and hope that is true for your brother, as well. host: about five minutes left in this segment with lieutenant colonel john nagl. he works at the center for a new american security, a senior fellow. doug is waiting. caller: good morning. i would like to say something. i have been in the military and all my brothers were. the people in this country do not understand what we're dealing with over there. these people are not educated and they are so far behind time.

it is like a million years behind us. we went over there and god bless every one of our servicemen. we cannot democratize that place. that would be like trying to find a pack of rattlesnakes and democratize them. we're wasting our lives, our money. we need to get out of the place and do the very best we can to get out of there without losing any more lives. guest: doug, thanks to you and your brothers for your service. there were flaws in the election, to be sure.

but democracy is working in afghanistan. life in afghanistan is better than it was 10 years ago. millions of afghan children now in school. i wish that more of the american people could visit kabul. it is relatively safe place. the country is making real progress. there are problems. an act in accordance with the national security interests to keep us from being attacked again. we continue to keep all eyes on the region. it is a country that will continue to get better.

the cost is high. i believe americans who served in afghanistan will be very proud of what they have accomplished. host: eric from jacksonville, florida. you're the last caller with colonel nagl. caller: thank you for taking my call. what makes you think the end game in afghanistan will be any different? that country has never been conquered since the beginning of civilization. what they should think it will be different than alexander the great, the british, and the russians? thank you. guest: i did not serve in vietnam.

i served in iraq a couple times. afghanistan will not end like vietnam because of the force we have and the billy that is the u.s. government to conduct long-term operations without incurring the wrath of the american people. there is broad bipartisan support for the continuing war effort in afghanistan and so i believe the drawdown will continue responsibly. america will leave a force of the advisers to continue to support the afghan military. afghanistan will continue to improve over the next decade. america should be proud of what it has accomplished there. host: colonel nagl, thank you for joining us this morning.

>> in a few moments, gordon brown testify as a continuing investigation in the relationships between british politicians and the media. in two 0.5 hours, a briefing on operations in afghanistan. and then we will be air john nagl on his op-ed piece. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow morning, our guests include -- he will look at politics, the economy, and next week's house committee vote. our other guest will discuss his new book. the chairman of the commodity

futures trading commission will take questions about the role of his agency. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> pulitzer prize-winning author traveled the globe to research his new book. he visited places like kenya and kansas. join us on sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern and later at 7:30 that night. booktv.'s >> david cameron testified on the media.

>> this is a little more than 2.5 hours. >> i am today handing down rulings in relation to the application made concerning operation motorman, and in relation to costs. when this inquiry was established last july it was extremely important that it would have the benefit of cross- party support. it is equally important that it conducts its work so as to not undermine the basis upon which it was established. two weeks ago, the former prime minister gave evidence.

this week, i should be hearing from others who are or who have been the leading politicians of the day. they come from different parties with different political allegiances. already, there has been demonstrated intense public interest in what they will be asked and what they will have to say. it is vital to bear in mind that the inquiry is grounded in terms of reference. these include, to inquire practice and ethics, contacts and relationships between newspapers and politicians, and the conduct of each, and to make recommendations, for how future concerns about price behavior, media policy, regulation across should be dealt with, including, among others, the government, and as to the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press. i am specifically not concerned and am very keen to avoid interparty politics and the politics of personality. i am simply not interested. further, however much as some

might want me to investigate, i know all of this week's witnesses are equally keen to ensure the inquiry itself remains on its correct track. that track relates not only to the undeniable importance of the role of the press in a democratic society and the ways in which the press serve the public interest, but also the privilege as a consequence of the way that role is fulfilled in practice. it also relates to the other side of the coin, which is to the extent the prize editors and journalists have treated politicians and politics in a way that has been designed to keep the press insulated from criticism, to be held

accountable by anyone, so as to ensure there is no political will to challenge their culture, practice, and ethics. the purpose of this inquiry is not to challenge the present government, but to look with the much wider sweep of history across political boundaries in order to discern any patterns of behavior that could not be recognized as fitting with the open, fair, and transparent decision-making democracy requires. inevitably, as i already explained, this is a small but significant part of the story. to the extent that there are political questions that parliament wishes to investigate, nothing i say or do is intended to limit that investigation from taking place. i do hope it would be

appreciated that this issue is the most recent example of interplay between politicians and the press to be recognized by anyone that failure to address the impact of price behavior or the consequence of press behavior is not refined to one political party. it remains essential for the cross-party's support. so far as the terms of records are concerned, in the same way i recognize in module two that there would be professional relationships in police officers and journalists, so we recognize a entirely proper social relations between reporters and journalists, and equally entirely appropriate

relationships between politicians and journalists as the former seek to promote their policies and their message while the latter seek to ensure the politicians and their policies are held fully and properly to account. secondly, it is also to recognize the risk in an effort to keep the press on the side of supporting policies that are firmly in the interest of the public rather too much attention may be paid by governments to the power the press may exercise to pursue an agenda. the agenda is agreed by the entire press or a significant section of it. that might include questions related to the provision of address, particularly to the weakest in our society. to that regard, i anticipate questions to be asked about the draft criteria of the solution, which has been published on the inquiry website. to hear their perspective on the problems to be addressed in relation to any potential unintended consequences which they have spotted which i may not have considered.

nothing essay should be taken as expressing any opinion, expressing ideas of witnesses. i have only this -- it may be more interesting for some to report this inquiry by reference to the politics of personality or the impact of evidence on current political issues. that is not my focus. i will be paying attention to the way in which what transpires is in fact reported. this week will not conclude the evidence for module 3. we will not be sitting next week. it is intended to call further witnesses to the media to do with the relationship between press and politicians. not least to see if, in their possession, the need to be issues that are need to be solved and changes made concerning ways forward to the future. i look forward to hearing how

the industry has progressed with a plan outlined as long ago as january 31, 2012. i also look forward to considering other suggestions for the replacement of the pcc that have been submitted in detail to the inquiry. it is on the 17th of may that i sought to acquire assistance by publishing on the inquiry website what are possible or potential draft criteria. that is why they are called draft. along with some key questions for module four relating to ethics. the purpose of doing so remains to encourage everyone to consider the issues that i must think about and to welcome comments and suggestions. i repeat i retain an open mind as to the future. all ideas will be subject to

scrutiny. thank you. i am sorry for the delay in commencing. >> we would like to see the questions which some of the witnesses are answering in the cases where they have no quoted the questions in their witness statement. most of the witnesses that have given evidence recently have been responding to section 21. most of them have chosen to set out the questions in their witness statements than to answer them. in one or two cases, i think they exhibited the inquiries. in either case, one can see there have been a handful of cases where the witnesses have chosen to answer the questions without exhibiting them.

that is no criticism of the witness but it does make it very difficult for those seeking to understand in detail what their evidence is to reach a full appreciation of it. a particular example of this was mr. blair. he says things such as, i do not recognize any of the quotes i have been asked about. so we do not know what they are. >> i understand that. >> the answer we have received is that the correspondence is confidential. there cannot be an confidential in the remaining cases. we would ask for the questions in those two cases. >> thank you.

>> think about it and we will come back to you. >> very good. >> thank you very much. >> i swear this will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> you kindly provided us with a witness statement. it has the standard statements of truth and you have signed it.

is this your formal evidence to our inquiry? >> yes. >> mr. brown, thank you very much for the work that has obviously gone into the inquiry. i am sorry for the delay. >> fine by me, thank you very much. >> your general comments, which i will ask you to elaborate, if i may. on the first page of your statement, you referred to securing the right balance between the freedoms of the media and the privacy of the citizens. there's a premise that there is an imbalance at present. >> i think the starting point of all this has been the complaint that has been made.

they would support the freedom of press, but they are worried about the threat that was made to their privacy as individuals. who will guard the guardians? that is a question that someone wanted to address. i would say, who would defend the defenseless? we have two regions competing with each other. i have had a chance to look at some of these issues. i would still hold the view that, maybe it came for my religious upbringing, that the media, one of those institutions that have a duty to speak the truth, that they should continue to shine a torch on those dark, secret recesses. i would say that it is best the media in this country is indeed also the best in the world. i would defend the right of the

media to exercise its freedom, even when there is a political vice. i was in number 10. when the prime minister was having great trouble, i asked if there was anything i could do to help. he said, yes. he wanted 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 right of the press, also, even when it gets things wrong, as it does on occasion.

i remember when i started off as a member of parliament i was played for the first few years with a story in "the times" that said i had been born in 1926. it said i was a veteran and that i was getting elected as some pension company was saying a new job later in life and about to retire and i would want to make provision for that. there was a photograph of me at the age of 19 and it says 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 has to be exercised with responsibility. the rights in our society can only come with responsibilities attached to them, and in two very specific areas in britain today, we have a problem.

it is totally against the press guidelines. i think we also should explore that. how it can be upheld in a situation where there is a tendency for newspapers in particular to editorialize outside their editorial. and the second thing is how can we defend the privacy of the family who, at the moment at greatest grief, and at a time when they are most vulnerable, have their privacy invaded by the press in a way that splits the family apart. and it makes everyone in that family suspicious of each other. it was been done by unlawful means. i do not think the complaint system has ever worked properly. i think there is an issue not just about reaching out the bad

and how you discipline a sanction where mistakes are made that are injurious to families, i think we have to have some means -- the standard of journalism declines. i think there is an issue in the internet age. the must be a way to incentivize the good. >> thank you. you mentioned freedom with responsibility in your witness statements. how does one instill the necessary cultural change in the press to create that responsibility? >> i think in the first case it is a matter of upholding standards of journalism. when i was editor of my student

newspaper, we had one of the greatest journalists of that period, and i used to debate with him this issue about the responsibility of the press. i rely on him because he influenced my judgment very much on this issue. he said very clearly that the press had to exercise its judgment about what it published, how a framed its coverage but also how it conflated fact and opinion. i do not think we do enough to encourage the good. if i can say what i think the problem is, and maybe we are dealing with the problems of yesterday and not with the promise of tomorrow, we are in the internet age. i think it is true in the 1930's there was a news coverage and some people would say there is no news to report today. could you imagine the situation in 2012 in a 24-hour news media or something like that could ever be said? we are about to see a flood of information onto the internet. we are moving from the ordinary

web to the semantic web. the web of link data. the amount of the information on the internet will increase exponentially. the amount of information about you and me and people will increase exponentially. there is a zero cost for publication on the internet. i could become a publisher overnight almost at zero cost. we have all these things that are happening. that is putting pressure on the quality of ordinary journalism because the advertising and business model of today's newspapers, to print media, is being shot through as

advertising. the question arises, who will sponsor? who will pay for? who will be the person underpins quality journalism? i believe we have to look at mechanisms by which we can enhance and identify. i think there's a huge debate to be had. you cannot ignore the fact that the whole of the coverage of news now is intimately related to the development of the internet. the standards are not there on the internet. the issue is a new one, and it is one we have to deal with

with the transformation of the technology that is now available to us in the information that is just absolutely massive for an ordinary member of the public. >> you refer to the conflation of news. how, in practical terms, would you want us to segregate so that they fall into clear compartments? >> we have come to the practice as editorializing outside the ordinary editorial. we used to talk about the editorial as a chance for the newspaper to reflect its view. perhaps i could illustrate this best by giving you an example of what happens during the period of governments. perhaps i could take one example that is controversial.

the coverage of afghanistan. we had incredibly difficult decisions to make. 135 troops at maximum. you have nothing like the coverage that you've got where you have 150 people in there. very complex circumstances in a country that has never been subject to effective law and order and at a time when an army of occupation that started in the army of liberation and you are making very difficult and complex decisions about how you deal with these problems and so we increase the number of troops. we increase the amount of money sentiment in afghanistan. the chief of the defense staff said these are most effective

defense forces we have ever had, given the sources we were putting into them. you can have an honest debate about whether we make policy mistakes. you can have a very effective debate. what i think was decided, it did not want to take on the difficult issues, so it reduced their opinion and we were doing something wrong to a view that we simply did not care. the whole right of coverage was not what we had done, whether we had done the right thing, but was what i personally did not care about our troops in afghanistan. that is when you conflate back to afghanistan.

you make it not an issue about honest mistakes or judgment, but about the intentions. you can laugh about it now and i do laugh about it sometimes. if you pick up a newspaper, that is an example about how he does not care about our troops in afghanistan. the story was not true and that is at the conclusion that should have been drawn. you have a story before that when you are praying and bowing your head. one decides this is an example of falling asleep and is dishonoring our troops and again you do not care. you have been told that you have 25 misprints and it says this shows a lack of empathy. it goes on and on and on. that is the idea. here is a difficult issue that the press really counts in the interest of the british public, has to treat seriously. all the reporting in these newspapers has been done.

the issue is not the facts of what is happening. or even an anonymous disagreement. the issue is reduced to, this person does not care. that is where i find -- if the media had a political view and said we are conservatives, you could accept that as editorial and that is part of freedom of speech. to use the political view to them to conflate back to opinion, that is the opposite of press rules, and at the same time to sensationalize and trivialize. trust -- a license to deceive. i think that is where the danger arises.

it is too easy. when you have right-wing and left-wing bloggers on the internet, then to sensationalize to distort fact and mix them together. an issue of legal practice. i think that is where the press has held our country. i could give you examples, but this conflation of fact and opinion and the way it is done is very damaging to the reputation of the media. i think it is done differently in other countries. >> blair's speech on june 2007, do you agree with the sentiments he expressed in that speech? >> i think tony was saying exactly what i am saying. an issue of fact conflating with opinion.

i never used these words and nor would i use these words -- i think the importance of the press have been expressed. we should try to defend and uphold the best standards of the free press. i think the remarks are exactly what i am saying. if you set out to editorialize beyond your editorial column, if you conflate fact and opinion and print it on the front page of your newspaper, if you sensationalize it by alleging the opinion is not about the policy that you are supposed to be discussing but about the person that you are now

attacking, then that is not a healthy sign for a democracy. i do note in afghanistan that -- and this is what makes me very sad -- i am afraid that half of the country is falling into the hands of the taliban. i am afraid as we reduce troops, but the very newspaper that wanted to make the issue of whether we are doing enough for our troops had been virtually silent since the day of the general election of 2010, and i have to conclude that these were not campaigns that were related to objective journalism exposing the fact. these, unfortunately, were campaigns designed to cause discomfort to people who were politically unacceptable. >> what is your analysis? >> tony gave good evidence a few days ago. he rightly said a decision was made that there be no manifesto commitment to reform the media. when i came in in 2007, we had no mandate in our manifesto to

propose reforms to 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 is called the lobby system and what really has led to these allegations of spin. spin assumes you have success of getting your message across, even if it is superficial. i tried to move away from that. we moved from having a political chief of communications to have a civil servant. that was to send a message that we were not trying to politicize government information. we were trying to give the information that was necessary for the public to understand

what was happening. we then tried to move back to a system where announcements were made in parliament and they were not debriefed, they were made in parliament. there were a selective group of people who previously could expect to get early access to people who previously could expect to get early access to information. i think that has been a problem with the way the media system has worked. i am afraid it was unsuccessful. the current government has moved back to having a political appointee. the lobby system remains intact. it is not the lobby system that is the problem. it is a small group of insiders who get the benefits of that early access to information. i think that is one of the problems that prevents the greatest that we have to see. the changes that we eventually try to make, we did not make

successfully because there was a huge resistance to them. if you had announced something in parliament, it was not reported. unless it had been given as an exclusive to a newspaper, but it would be on page six rather than page one. >> the political world did not exist to take on. >> i think that is completely wrong impression of what was happening. i do not see it as having supported "the sun." when i started off as prime minister, the first thing it did was watch a huge campaign that i was selling britain down the

river and demanding european referendum and demanding and supported. at no point in these three years that i was prime minister did i ever fear -- field that. i have to be honest, when the international decided that their commercial interests came first, and i have to be absolutely clear about that, the point in 2008 and 2009, the speech at the lecture when he set out and examined the which was quite breast taken in its arrogance, it was a whole series of aims. -- breathtaking in its arrogance. their commercial activities were to be reduced, the listing

of sporting occasions was to benefit news international, product placement was to be allowed. it should be like fox news and not sky news. the remarkable thing about this. in government, and i say this with a great deal of sadness, is that we could not go along with that sort of agenda. nor could we see a case of the bbc being taken out of much of

its work on the internet, because that is a valuable media service for the future a wobbly resisted that, we were not supported. -- future. but while we resisted that, we were not supported. you suggested that some of our relations with the sun newspaper broke down because he decided that he wanted to support this it -- the conservative party. i want to suggest to you that the commercial interests of news international were very clear long before that and had support from the conservative party.

>> the general comments, onto your own experience. can i go back to 2006, and the story in relation to your youngest son and "the sun" newspaper? do you know the newspaper's source story? >> this is very difficult for me because i never wanted my son or my son and my daughter to ever be across the media. i hope you will address this about the rights of children to be free from unfair coverage in media publications.

because this issue became an issue for me, i have had to look at what actually happened at the time. it is only in a sense latterly that the facts are necessary to a fair examination that has become available. >> let me make it clear. i do not want to cause you and your family any distress unnecessarily. but i hope you will see the value of the example in the same way that i apologize to those that complained about press intrusion. i do think that is an important part of the story. >> i am very grateful to you. i have never sought to bring my children into public domain. but i do think if we do not learn lessons, we will continue to make mistakes. in 2006, "the sun" claimed they had a story about a man industry to happen to be the

father of someone who suffered from fibrosis. i never consider that to be correct. we did not know one effort -- when my son was first alive. it was at that time that medical experts told us that there was no other diagnoses they could give them that this was the case. only a few people knew. i submitted a letter that makes it clear that we have apologized. they now believe they -- it is highly likely that the authorize information given by a working member that allowed the

middle man to publish the story. whether medical information should never be handed out without the authorization of the parent is one issue that i think is addressed. i know the press complaints commission port is very clear that there are only exceptional circumstances when it is to be broadcast and i do not believe this is one of them. it is 2012 and members of the news international staff are coming to this inquiry and being told fiction that a story was obtained through me or my wife and it was obtained another way. i think we cannot learn the lesson of what has happened in the media unless there is some

honesty about what actually happened and whether payment was made and whether this was a practice that could continue. if we do not retire this kind of practice, i do not think we can sensibly say we have dealt with some of the abuses that are problematic. i would say this about every child. i cannot say any 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 and your wife were told that "the sun" had the story? >> this is something that i believe you have been given information in this inquiry that is not strictly correct. our press office was formed by a journalist from "the sun" that said they had some information

about our son's condition and they were going to publish it. i was contacted. i was engaged in the report. i informed my wife. we had to make a decision. if this was going to be published, what should happen? we wanted to minimize the damage, to limit the impact of this. we said that if this story was to be published, then we wanted a statement that went to everyone and there would be no further statements and no days and days and days of talking about it. unfortunately, this was unacceptable to the "the sun" newspaper and got a letter to the editor that this was not the way to go about this. they said they would not give us any information on any other story they would do if we did this. it was at that time that my

wife, having accepted that this was a plea, there was no fault that the press complaints commission could help us on this. we were in a different world then. nobody ever expected that the press commission would act to give us any help on this. we were presented with the fate, i am afraid. there was no question of implicit or an explicit permission. any mother or any father presented with a choice as to whether a four-month-old son's medical condition, your child's medical condition, should be broadcast on the front page of the tabloid newspaper, and you had a choice in the matter, i do not think there's any parent in the land that would make the choice that we were told we made, that we gave permission for that to happen.

if my son were to read on the internet that his mother or i had given permission that all his medical information to be broadcast in a newspaper, he would be shocked. i cannot accept as a parent that we would ever put ourselves in a position where we would 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. we were very aware this was a problem. when you are presented with this, there is nothing you can do other than try to limit the damage. we had to tell them about a hereditary condition.

you could never imagine the situation. if people were to say that they had permission when they had not, when there is no evidence, this practice will go on and on and children's information and information about people will go into the public arena with this idea that you can claim afterwards that you had explicit permission for something you never had permission for. i think this is important because we have to learn lessons from this. i think there are more general lessons to be learned. surely, the rights of children must come first. >> thank you, mr. brown. i have to put questions to you. i might just run through them.

there was -- it was taken on that "the sun" had consent to run the story. if no consent was given, you and your wife must have been extremely upset and angry. if so, why was no complaint made by either yourself or your wife until june 2011? >> that is not correct at all. i think the trivialization of this is very unfortunate. when we found out that this happened, and we have had our previous experience with information, medical information about our daughter had been made public before she died, we thought the only way to deal with it was to get the press complaints commission through the editors of a major newspapers to reach an agreement that they would not publish information or

photograph our children. before i was prime minister, we would ask the editors of all newspapers -- we felt this was a structural problem, not one newspaper -- we wanted them to agree that our children would not be covered while they were in school and primary school. they're very young. we did not want our children to grow up thinking they were somehow minor celebrities. we have seen the effect of this in our country. we wanted our children to grow up just as ordinary young kids that went to school with everybody else and were treated like everybody else. it was important to us that we had this agreement. that is how we went about changing the way things had been dealt with. to be fair with the media, and i say this in my written evidence, we did have only two

incidents where this was breached. it was possible after this to hold to an agreement. the idea we did nothing is quite wrong. it is offensive. we took action to try to deal with it in the best way we could without any noise. to get an agreement the children would not be covered in this way. i hope it is a help to others in similar situations. >> why did you and your wife remain friends with brooks? attending her birthday party in 2008, and mrs. brooks' wedding. >> my wife is one of the most forgiving people i know and she finds the good in everyone.

we had to accept this happened and had to get on with the job of doing what people expected a politician to do -- to run a government. my wife had done a massive amount of charity work she was engaged in. if i am being accurate, i think it was when mr. murdoch's wife joined a campaign to cut internal mortality campaign, which is incredibly successful in cutting mortality by 30%, and i think it was a 40th birthday party. my wife's charity work was something she was engaged in quite separately from my political work. as far as i was concerned, i cannot allow what had 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 personal notes in 2006 and 2010 in which she expressed her gratitude to the support given to her? >> i think my wife is one of the most forgiving people and would be kind to people regardless of what happened. i do not think that is evidence that we gave explicit permission. >> the last question that concerns you. the records show there are 30 meetings you or your wife after mrs. brooks. why did you have those meetings? >> i am not sure there were that many. i didn't -- we had regular meetings. what is the role of a politician, particularly someone who is prime minister?

he has a duty to explain. you have to engage with the media. they are a medium by which the concerns of the nation are expressed. we were a country in war in afghanistan and before that in iraq. we were a country that faced a great economic crisis. i would have been failing in my duty if i had not tried. i listed all of my meetings. partly people that actually did a huge amount. i believe that had a duty to reach a consensus in this country about how to approach a difficult problem, and how we approach an economic crisis. i think i would be criticized if i had failed to talk to the media and talk and engage with them. i must say to you that there

was a red line in everything i ever did. there was a line in the sand across which i could never cross. if there was any question, i could have nothing to do with that. you have to have a clear dividing line between what you do in politics. for me, there was ever a point where we have issues related to -- we had every news media concerned about different things. at no point would i have ever allowed a commercial interest to override the public interest. i looked at all the records of what happened.

we would never allow the public interest to be subjugated to the commercial of invested interest. >> do you sense in your dealings with news international that they were trying to persuade you to pursue media policies which were favorable to them? >> news international had a public agenda. what is remarkable about what happened in 2009 and 2010 is news international moved from being -- to having an aggressive public agenda. they wanted to change the nature of the bbc. they wanted to change the media rules. they wanted to change the way we dealt with advertising so that there was more rights for the media company to advertise as they wanted, to open up sporting events.

they were purposely entitled to this agenda. what became a problem for us is that when every one of these single issues -- the conservative policy went along with this. we were trying to defend the public interest. >> the agenda was public and not private? >> i think the agenda was public. >> part of the reason few continuing to have meetings with mrs. brooks. have it do -- wouldn't been a dancer interest?

jig against interest? >> i do not think i had a conversation with her in the last nine months of my government. it became very clear in the summer of 2009, when mr. murdoch jr. gave a lecture that news international had a highly politicized agenda for changes that were in the media policy of this country, and there seems to be very little point in talking to them about it. >> we are going to note, you identify a number of breaches of your privacy, assaults.

we have heard evidence in relation to a lot of them already. >> politicians must expect scrutiny. i have no doubt that the level of certainty that will happen in the modern technology age will be very great. i think the question is whether we can justify what you might call fishing expeditions that are based on nothing other than a political desire to embarrass someone. the evidence i give you is in relation to fishing expeditions where newspapers precipitating everything that is personal about your life, your medical records, your tax affairs, your lawyer and his legal records, your accountant, in every era

during the period i was prime minister, there was a break-in or a breach of these records. in most cases, that happened because of an intrusion by the media. i have been the first to say that there is a public interest defense if people are looking for information where they feel there is a crime being committed and the police or someone else are not investigating it for there is a security issue that is vital to the safety of the country and is not being properly looked into. i look in these instances and i give you one as an example. i was accused of buying a flat. i got it at a knockdown price.

they would not accept that the starting point of any investigation was something we would not knowledge. that is very flat that i was supposed to have balked had been advertised in "the sunday times" itself. the reporters are talking to each other about how they are going to use these unlawful techniques and tactics. but there is no public justification for this. even now, i am afraid the editor of the sunday times has come to new inquiry and said he had evidence of something he was never able to prove, and there was no justification for the breaking into the records.

a huge amount has got to be tolerated in the interest of politics, but i don't think the newspaper would resort to these tactics and then hold the story that they know patently is wrong. if you can laugh at it now, claiming something that was advertised in their own paper was not correct. we have a few lessons to learn from that as well. irresponsibly is the way that freedom is exercised, it cast doubt on the motives. >> a list of your meetings with the media between 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 murdochs, 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. they gave me originally.