>> we will publish the schedule. removing the meeting from the fifth of october, 2007, you say that it did not take place. which you say did not take place. looking at this item, rupert murdoch, the witness statement, there was a meeting on the sixth of october. there was also a telephone call on the fourth. that may not be right. he is meeting staff on the sixth of october. nothing since the fourth of october. if we could deal with one. in evidence, it relates to the snap election, if you could call it that, in 2007.

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

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

the grandson of a scottish presbyterian minister. i always found it interesting that his grandfather had gone out to australia, andhe had immediately been put into prison because he defended the church against the state. the same presbyterian interest in the freedom of conscience and, if you like, it was very much a part of what his view of the media was. i understood quite a lot about his scottish background, but the idea that i was influenced in what i did by his views is patently ridiculous. becausemr. murdoch would have, if he had had the chance, persuaded us to leave the european union, not just leave the euro. we probably would have had a civil war with germany. and france. and scotland, of course, which he wants to be independent, withthe idea that i went along with mr. murdoch's views is patently quite ridiculous.

mr. murdoch has very strong views. he is entitled to these views. the idea that i was entitled to them is nonsense. >> mr. murdoch himself described the war relationship that he had -- the warm relationship that he had with you. is that fair? >> our similar background made it interesting. i think that he has been, publicly, a very successful businessman. his ability to build up a newspaper, a media empire, not just in australia, but in two other continents, america and europe, that is something that will not be surpassed easily by any other individual. you need to distinguish, again, between the views that you have about an individual and the red line that i would draw in the sand between that and any support for commercial

interests. >> stating that the relations were closer than was wise made it clear, so i think that his point was in -- was more about deception. -- perception than the reality. on that basis, do you accept that? >> the implication is that i would be influenced by what he was saying over those issues. i mean, i thought that it was wrong to join the euro, talking about some of the issues related to the media later, but i did not agree with him on most of these opposition's. -- and other issues. the idea that mr. murdoch and i had a problem bonded in policy is not correct. mr. murdoch was probably more in the flat tax policy school then the school policy identified with what we reducing, but i do -- with what

we were doing, but i do not detract from the respect that i think he deserves from having built a very strong media empire. >> between 1997 and 2007, were relations closer than was wise? >> i do not think so. know. i rarely met mr. rupert murdoch, to be truthful. i do not think he was in the slightest bit interested in what i was doing. i cannot remember many meetings with him at all. i think that if there is a record of these meetings, they are few and far between. >> i am speaking more generally to the government in which you were part. do you think it was too close them was wise to mr. murdoch? -- than was wise? >> i do not think so, but i do not know. there are not many dealings with news international. they have their own views on issues of policy.

they were not, in many ways they are similar to mine. >> were you according and persuading the media? includingparticularly news international? is that something that you were or that you consented to? >> not to my mind. my efforts was to persuade every media group that our efforts were serious. we were trying to rebuild and improve the education system. get more police on to the street, legislate for freedom of information. we had agendas for civil liberty issues, like gay partnerships. all of these issues, you needed an understanding of the media. you needed to talk to them. as for the -- as for any particular media group, i do not think i was involved in any sort of way where i would feel uncomfortable with any particular media group at all. >> you must have been aware of the cases in "the son," in --

cases in "the sun" paper, in march, adopted over time, without being one of substance. did those meetings not cause you any distaste at the time? >> you are talking about articles around the euro? it is a strange coincidence that i, while supporting the idea of a single currency in principle, was always dubious about its benefits to britain in practice. i found it was no great difficulty to me that people were questioning the euro. i mean, i thinkthis goes to the heart of what happens after 13 years of government. the hero was a huge, huge issue. some people argue that if britain did not join the issue -- the euro, it was an argument that had to be taken seriously. however, i argued that the economics of the euro made it impossible the britain could benefit from jordon -- joining,

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

too small of day -- of a number of people. it has its heart in the lobby system, but it is exclusive for some people within the lobby, people who likely resent what we tried to change after 2007. this openness of culture, which we should have encouraged earlier, still is with us. -- is something that i think still elude us. -- elude us -- elludes us. >> in 1997, did you believe the support of "the sun" newspaper was warranted? >> i was not involved in that particular issue. but if you have been in opposition for 18 years and the newspaper that was previously conservative comes to you or is prepared to come to you, that is something the would welcome, but it is not the be all and end all, and it is not something that dictates the future

politics in your country. but it is an important element for building success. >> 2009, were you not concerned that the rooms, the signs of the sun moving away from new to support -- of "the sun" was moving away from you, towards the tory party? >> i think that happened from the time i became prime minister, to be honest. they had reservations that were expressed in the european campaign. the broken britain campaign, the afghanistan campaign. there was also a new agenda by mr. james murdoch around the future of mediai was not surprised at all and -- i was perhaps surprised -- was perhaps surprised about the way

that he did it, which was a strange thing to do. the act of deciding to go with the conservatives. i think it had been planned over many, many months. >> the account in the book was that the shift in support stunned him, his words, and that it graded on you more and more. is that accurate? >> i do not think so. i had accepted it. i had never complained to "the sun" when they did not give us support. i do not think you should be dependent on people by begging them to support you in this way. perhaps if i and my part if i did not ask them directly, i never complained to them directly when they withdrew support from the labour party.

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

deal of time reading. >> i will wait to interpret your evidence and come to the defense in a moment, but you received this news with relation to "the sun" with complete equanimity? >> it is strange, every time i -- i telephoned the editor of "the sun." every time i did a conference speech or a budget, i used to inform the political editors of the newspapers to ask if they had any questions arising from the speech. some had more than others. if it was an unpopular budget, there were more questions. if less, less so. when it was a conference speech, i will telephone them up. i phoned up the editor of the sun that afternoon -- "the sun," that afternoon. he had a few questions about afghanistan, but he did not mention at all that they were

making this decision that was to be announced in two hours. if you talk to the editor and he does not tell you what is happening, there's not much point after that. so i just left it. >> a convenient moment, yes. mr. brown? a short break. >> thank you very much. all rise. >> can we first look at exhibits gb3, tab four. first of all, what is the source of this list? >> and the call that i would -- any call that i would have made regarding downing street, there was a switchboard that would take calls wherever i was in the world, it was whoever i wanted

to speak to, as well as anyone else on this list, i whenever gone through downing street. it is their list. -- it would have gone through downing street. it is their list. >> does it call in as much as out? >> as much as any call that took place with me or with anyone else, it would include calls through a mobile phone or land line phones. it would include any telephone conversation i had had with someone like mr. murdoch. >> was at practice to call up directly to someone? either from your mobile phone or perhaps from a hotel? >> not someone like mr. murdoch. i would always go through downing street. you would want someone on the phone call. you would want to have record of what was being said and exactly the time you did the call and everything else.

phone call could have been made with out it being in this procedure. >> if for some delivered reason you did not want there to be a record of what was said, that might be a reason for arranging the call to take place without going through downing street? >> i would never have done that. if i was calling a newspaper, or a politically around the world, or calling someone about a policy issue, i would always go through downing street, because i was always wants someone on the call to verify what happened. that is the way that we did things at that time. no call could have been made. there is no call that could have been made without going through downing street in this way. >> did you have his number on your mobile phone?

>> no, i did not have rupert murdoch's number. i did not engage in emailing him or anything like that. one letter was sent through e- mail, but it was sent through downing street. i would not have had one of those proprietors on my mobile phone. they would be mainly personal. >> we can see that there are two recorded phone calls in the years from 2009, march, and one on the 10th of november, 2009, at 12:33 in the afternoon. can you remember what mr. murdoch wanted from new york on that occasion? >> he may have just come back from australia. i do not know where he was. i suspect he may have been in new york. it was what was happening over afghanistan. >> there is other surrounding

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

only time in government i ever had any letter communication with them. -- with him. >> the 24th of december, 2009, under our tab two, and also under tab 14, this is the exhibit on page 33. >> the famous and writing, yes, -- famous handwriting, yes, which someone said is certainly legible. >> there you have the transcription of it. i am pretty sure i have seen one, somewhere. there is a question we had about 01917. there is another one there, mr. brown. the 26 of april, under tab 14, page 09121 -- >> that is and written. -- the handwritten one, i think. there is only three. one was november. the other two followed. >> one was the fifth of april, the other the 26 of april, and

earlier was december 2009. i think we have covered the three you have mentioned. are you clear, mr. brown, you had no conversation with mr. murdoch shortly after the withdrawal and support of the -- the withdrawal of support from "the sun," in which you threatened to declare war on news international, or something to that effect? >> this is a conversation that mr. murdoch says happened between him and me, where i threatened him, and where i am alleged to have acted in an unbalanced way. this conversation never took place. i am shocked and surprised that it should be suggested, even when there is no evidence, that it should have happened. there was no such conversation. i decided, september, after the 30th is when the conservative party came to "the sun," but i

never asked them to support directly, nor did i complain when they started to support the conservatives. i did not telephone. i did not return calls, did not telephone mr. murdoch, did not talk to his son, did not text or e-mail. i did not contact him. this was a matter that was done. there was no point in further communication at all. i am surprised, first of all, that this is a story where i slammed the phone down or secondly a story from mr. murdoch himself that i threatened him. this did not happen. i have to say to you that it did not happen, and there is no evidence. it did not happen because i did not call him. i had no reason to want to call them. and i did not call him, given

everything i have said to you. >> finally, on this point, sir, absolutely clear, would you say that mr. murdoch might beis it possible that you might language? a subsequent call? >> there is only one further telephone call, and that was in november. if i might say, the sequence that led to that call was on a monday, regarding disrespecting the troops. on the same monday, they said i had written a letter and had been discourteous to a woman for whom i have the utmost sympathy, who was the mother of a deceased soldier, and i could understand that she was upset, but they had claimed that i had done things i had not done. on tuesday, they had taken a phone call. i had wanted to phone this lady to sympathize with her and

explain that we felt a huge amount about his contribution to little -- contribution to the country, and that it was important that she knew how much we valued the service of her son to the country. "the sun" printed part of that. clearly, they had a mechanism for taping which they should not have had. the tape was in their hands. it was very surprising for the prime minister and a member of the public to appear in this distorted way, with these headlines, bloody shameful, and everything else. i had concluded that "the sun," were damaging our efforts in afghanistan, persuading people who supported the war there was no point in the effort. mr. murdoch had always told me that he supported what we were doing in afghanistan. i felt that he should be aware of the facts and how we were losing public support at a difficult time, when we were trying to persuade the americans and the rest of europe to have a collective effort to not just get more troops on the

ground, but more european troops supporting them. -- supporting these afghan troops on the ground. it was a very delicate political move. i telephoned him on that basis, about. there is no reference to threats anything. i am quite surprised. in fact, the conversation ended in quite a different way from what he is saying. because he asked me, given what he said about no personal attacks from "the sun," due to afghanistan, which he supported, he asked me what i thought mrs. brooks -- if i would have a phone call with her, and it wanted to apologize for what happened. i said there was no point. "the sun," was pursuing this course of action and it was for him to talk to her. he then asked for me for a third time to call her, and, i said,

look, out of respect to you, i will contact her. that is how the conversation ended, with me agreeing to contact her. at the same time, there was the letter that explained, as you can see, that it is a target of -- that is entirely about afghanistan. that is what the call was about. the problem is, i can see how they could say now that there was a pre orchestrated campaign against news international, and this has nothing to do with telephone hacking. a political campaign against news international. but this call did not happen. the threat was not made. i could not balance between a call the did not happen and a threat that was not made. i think it is shocking that we came to this situation sometime later when there was no evidence of this call happening at the time he said that happened and needed to be told

under oath -- and you to be told under oath that this was the case. the fact that the continued to back the position, because be thought it was an important issue regarding the press and about responsibility of the press and whether there were people hostile to news international is important. there is absolutely no evidence of this phone call, the threat, or for the judgment and mr. murdoch made -- that mr. murdoch made. the only call was about afghanistan. it was about afghanistan and it was weeks after when people mentioned the call taking place. >> this is the brooks account of the call the two mentioned, attend the vote -- 10th of november, 2009. she was no longer with "the sun,". she was now an executive at news international. she characterized u.s. angry

and -- you were angry and aggressive. is that right, or not? >> i do not think so. i had written a letter about afghanistan and out of respect to him, i was informing her of -- i was telephoning her to hear what she had to say. unfortunately, she wanted to tell me that the -- that "the sun" had gotten a copy of the phone call with mrs. james and the very sad case of a lady whose son had died, and she had a lot of questions to ask about. i was tried to help her. she tried to explain that she had gotten this tape, from this to appear suddenly in the "seinfeld" newspaper. -- in the "sun" newspaper. she said she had gotten it

lawfully and everything was checked. i did not get the sense that there was an apology coming from "the sun and i did not think there was a point continuing a conversation that was ended. but it ended without acrimony. it was a conversation where she tried to tell me that they had gotten this information in totally appropriate ways. >> sounds like you have every reason to be angry and aggressive and decided not to show it. >> it was difficult, because we were going through time when the entire afghanistan line was that -- the effort of afghanistan was being undermined by this idea that we were not caring about our troops. when times are difficult, you try to be calm. as my letters to rupert murdoch show, this was a right way to move forward. i tried to persuade him but argument, not by anything other than the facts. >> i think that if i had been

persuaded to phone someone to listen to an apology and be greeted with the opportunity to investigate further a private conversation -- i think i would be rather -- >> i think that in these circumstances, you are surprised what comes back to you. he gave me the impression that an apology was forthcoming and that someone would remove this personal element of their attacks over afghanistan it is -- i did not discuss this with them. this is where the conversation late. it was how it was going to proceed that was a surprise to me, but i do not think i was aggressive. >> you have thicker skin than i

might have had. >> when you are dealing with these types of issues, you tend to be, -- be calmer. >> the last letter, hand written in the general election campaign, why did you take time to write in this personal hand written letter at all. >> because mr. murdock's replied, and for the first time he had said, which he had never said to me before, that he disagreed with the management of the war effort. they were perfectly civilized and courteous. as you can see, i wished his family well at the end of my letters and everything else. and then suddenly, out of the blue, and he said he disagreed entirely and i thought that that merited a reply. this was the first time he gets it to me personally that this is what he thought. i did not understand what he

meant by the management of the war effort. because we had put extra resources in. equally, there has been debate over the management since. it seemed to me that he was making a political point, and i wanted him to know thathe had never said this before, and i had asked him to reconsider it, and if you look at them he says he is surprised to hear these views personally. i said to him, look. no matter what the sun and the times -- "the sun," and "the times," does, i would rather be an honest one term minister than a dishonest two term minister. what ever happened, i said to him, look. we are pursuing a campaign in afghanistan that i believe is right. if "the sun" is undermining it while saying they are supporting it, i have got to tell you that that is the case. given that this is the first time you have criticized the

management of the war effort as an individual, i would like to know what you were thinking of. when you did so. i did not have a reply to that letter. he did not think it necessary to reply. you do care dee >> what about that it was a personal attack on you and you cared very much about this? >> there were two big issues during the period when i was prime minister. inary action in britain, and i quite believe we led one was a global economic crisis, which we had to deal with. britain. we led the way in. i feel that international leadership is something that is needed. the seconds, -- the second. at the same time, we were trying to prevent taliban control in areas where they are now in charge, i am afraid.

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

about. >> your relationship with missile -- mr. paul baker, now. some have described that as close, though you off and not on the same page politically. is that a fair description? records. mr. dakin >> i did not see him that much. heand i disagree about many things on politics. like me, he believes that this is an ethical basis for a political system and that that is an issue that was not properly addressed in the media. and in our politics. there is common ground on that. he was personally very kind. as rupert murdoch could be personally kind. first child and i had not

forgotten that. to be honest, "the daily mail," was totally against the labor party. i said -- look, you are entering a situation with a party that has a relationship with the murdoch empire and their should be wary of it. i did warn them that that was one of the problems that happened. do you think of that is a fair comment, or not? >> one of the huge dividing

lines over the last 10 years, i was in a minority. about being skeptical of the euro. my colleague, the economic adviser of the time did an enormous amount of work that proved to my satisfaction that it could work. had they sit -- supported the suggestions i have for the euro, i am afraid that every other issue, they wanted to see a conservative government. >> with policies such as casinos and the retreat on 24- hour treaties, was that attached to the daily mail -- "the daily mail," in your view? the change in canada's -- cannabis? >> personally, i have strong opinions about excepted

gambling. i thought that 24-hour licensing was causing a problem. i do not know the effect on soft drugs. we classify the and and then reclassified it back. these are views that i hold personally. i have been convincing people on issues that i was keen on. was the data protection act. there was a time at which you were still chancellor of the exchequer. did you consider raising those at the time, or not?

>> we had to make a judgment and it came back to this very important point that i think we discussed in the beginning about the protections available. the actions that we may have taken may have initially been found unacceptable. there were these public defenses about criminal wrongdoing and threats to the safety of the well. -- of the realm, and another i think is more difficult. one is about deception by an organization being exposed. quite strongly, as i still do, i felt there had to be a public interest defense available in these circumstances. basically, it was my own view about how you must have institutions outside the state. who have got the power to question.

hold them accountable. no matter what we think about the way the media be paved -- were debating. it was about data protection. i could understand the strength on the issue and i was anxious to not overrule them, but that also my own instinct in public interest defense was where they ventured into areas for good public reasons the exposed something that was wrong. >> the government's original position was to introduce such custodial offenses. there was a dinner that you hadn't on the september 10, -- that you had on september 10, 2007, which we have in the 34th

bundle. do you remember the issue being discussed on that occasion? >> i told them as we start with a dinner what my view was. i did not ask them for my view, i am afraid. i said that there should be a defense. therefore, it was not a question of them lobbying meet. i was informing them that michael will's had done a great job on this. they were consulting other people as well. it was about how it could be implemented, but we could not back off entirely. the potential need for this. >> the other account does not quite match that. under tab 34, you give a speech on the ninth of november, 2008.

he says that 80 months ago -- i had dinner with the prime minister, gordon brown. on the agenda was our deep concern that the newspaper industry was facing a number of serious threats to its freedoms. he said the fourth issue that we raised was a truly frightening amendment to the protection act. >> he had the account on his agenda for the meeting. i do not think there is any disagreement in the accounts. this was my view. i did not say i was waiting to hear yours. -- hear his view. i told him my view. i have already made up my mind before i went into the meeting. i had told michael that there should be a public interest defense for the implementation of this clause. at that time, of course, we did not have the information that we now have about the use of data -- the abuse of data by the

media. at that time there was no suggestion that it was anything else. but a rogue hacker. again, my instinct is the same and that there should be a defense. you are balancing two freedoms. i would defend the right for her -- for people to have privacy. i knew that it was right for the media. for the individual to express themselves. and for the media to do this through a freedom of speech, and the ability to investigate things that are wrong. you are balancing of these two freedoms. up with the custodial sentences. an option that was left, let's

look at whether public-interest defenses can be introduced into this legislation. these are difficult issues. i talked about them at the time. i have spoken of them since. i think that we are now on a course where there are certainly custodial defenses for final judgment on this as well. before they make a decision. >> it is important to be careful about this. what the data protection amendment did, they created a public interest defense for data protection defenses. but it was not for a moment between other breaches of criminal law that they create a public interest defense. >> you are absolutely right.

it was related to data protection. asi hope that i am not over- elaborating on the argument. >> you are not suggesting, or are you, suggesting that there should be a public interest defense in relation to any crime? >> i am saying that i think that the press has complaint counsel guidelines suggesting that there is a public interest state in which meetings are an issue and they need to be taken into account when judgments are made. yes, of course. >> entirely right. >> i bore that in mind as well when i was working with the opposition. >> defense to an allegation for breach of the code. >> yes, yes. >> let me just ask you, asking you entirely open.

of course, in relation to any criminal offense, if a journalist is acting in the public interest, or reasonably believes that he or she is acting in the public interest, then that must be an important feature, which is why i asked the director of public prosecutions whether he would be prepared to consider publishing a policy on his approach to the public interest in relation to the prosecution of journalists for a crime where there is no statute, and, as you know, he has done so. >> yes, yes. >> i just want to know whether you would suggest going further. the fact that the defense cannot be made out does not mean that everybody -- there are an

enormous number of variations. a at >> i was conscious that there was public issues that were raised, and it seemed to me this was reasonable. >> there is one account that you were hugely sympathetic, and you would do what you could to help. these gentlemen were allowed to put their case, in you were persuaded by it. >> i remember distinctly this conversation, and i think if you ask him under cross-examination, he would confirm that i said at the very beginning i was interested in the public defense, and i think either before or after made a speech on liberty.

i think i have an extract from it. i felt that the debate in britain had become colored with what we did in relation to terrorism, and we know it was very controversial. i fell in a whole range of other areas where this was an issue, we could do better. we could do better about freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, better about freedom of the press, so i made a speech on liberty. now, these are my views. these are not his views. these were my views. it was an issue that i felt strongly about. i thought america had branded itself to the world as a country of liberty. in fact, the ideas that are behind the british constitution, they had originated in britain, and i wanted to make that clear,

and these are my views, and i think any suggestion that i was under pressure was quite ridiculous. it is my view. >> were you aware that there was already a public interest defense in that section? >> yes. >> the speech he referred to, 2007, under taboret, this postdates the dinner we are referring to. >> yes. >> arguably, if you look at the second page of the speech -- >> which tab is that? >> page 14235. >> i think i remember what i said. >> you are still referring to taking into account -- >> i have got the wrong volume.

a monumental mistake. >> how confusing. but the speech bears the no. 6 on the top right. >> i think it is an extract. >> it is not the first speech. i would not want to bore you in all of its detail. but jack straw is asking about guidance in consultation to make sure we take into account concern of the new rules which allow for a prison sentence of up to two years. at that point, what's your thinking still but the custodial sentence was appropriate? >> i think the issue is whether we would trigger the sentence while leaving it in the legislation. >> that did not come as an idea until march 2008. >> tab 28. >> they would make sure

legitimate investigative journalism is not impede it. so you are very key to protect legitimate investigative journalism, but where that is not triggered, then there should be a sanction to protect individual privacy. >> yes. >> yes, but i say the sanctions provide a strong deterrent, yes, yes. >> is not worthy in the speech that you said no case for statutory regulation, self regulation, that threats should be maintained? is that correct? >> we have no mandate for that. i think tony blair explained in his own evidence that this was not a priority. it was not part of our mandate,

and therefore it was obvious that that was not what we were doing. >> is it your evidence that you did not respond at dinner on september 10, 2007, and notified the existing proposals would take into account -- >> i felt strongly about this myself. i am not sure if other ministers felt as strongly as i did, but i explained the background to my own views. i really did not need persuading by them. or whoever else was there. >> mr. brown, you had a conversation with one man before that september day in 2007 which you communicated that in? >> these things arise from time to time. i do not think there was an informal meeting about it.

>> this evidence is along the lines, owing to time pressures with the criminal justice, before may 7 or 8, 2008. this process started in march 2008. do you recall that? >> i remember conversations with michael and jack straw, who was a minister. i had this view that we could find a way forward. in the end, i think we did. >> canada ask you know, mr. brown, to return to this issue of special advisers? there are some questions about them. mr. campbell in his second witness statement, paragraph 64, suggests that there was a real

problem with a treasury special adviser, and by that, one of your appointments. do you agree with his analysis? >> there was a rumor, gossip. political advisers. there are lots of them round having debates and arguments. the one thing i insisted on, and i think this goes at this point with mr. campbell, our political advisers worked through the head of communications, which was a civil servant, so anything they did through the press, they had to report to and through the civil servant head of communications, and that is how we dealt with these issues. >> were not there two systematic perpetrators? at either your instigation or your knowledge? >> i would not say that at all. i have asked them to operate

under these rules, to work through the head of communications, who is a civil servant, and he would have to report. >> if they did indulge in this behavior, that would be without your knowledge, is that correct? >> it would be without my knowledge and without my sanction. >> ok, we will come back. one woman said in her statement that tony blair and his aides were convinced that gordon brown and his aides had conspired for a resignation. do you agree with that? >> that is certainly not my view, and this is, again, you are relying on second-hand conversations as reported by people who are not participants in the events, so i do not take that as a serious comment. >> where your aides involved in using the media to force or attempt to force the mr. boehner resignation in 2006? >> i think not.

>> but were they involved? >> i think not. >> mr. blair said he did not know whether you or the other gentleman were against him in the media. did you authorize your aides to brief against mr. blair? >> no. >> do you think they may have done so without your explicit approval or without your knowledge? >> the obviously did so. it was without my authorization. >> with your authority? >> no. i made it clear. i am trying to explain why we changed the system when i went to no. 10 and why i thought it was better to have this come up with the development from the 1970's onwards. there are advisers. and they obviously have their own views about what should

happen. i have to find a way of working in the civil service, and my position is political advisers given a job had to work under the auspices, and this is what we tried to, and this is what i told treasury, and this is why when i went to no. 10, i said we could not have a political appointee inside of communications. a traditional, conventional civil servant as the head of communications, and then when he retired and went back to the treasury and went back to prepare a treasury job which he now does for the new government, i appointed the person who had been previously head of communications at buckingham palace, who was not in a sense a career civil servant but one u.s. trust and absolutely for both his discretion and his propriety, so i wanted to send a message that we wanted to work

like this, and political advisers were instructed to behave as that. a terrible incident where mr. mcbride had to resign, then they had to go. >> did you instruct your special advisor is at the treasury and no. 10 to conduct off the record briefings with the press. >> no, but it is the civil service head of communications that informed them that that was the way anything would have to be done in relation to briefings, so there would have to be some communication between him and any advisers. it is unrealistic to think the political advisers are never going to talk to the press, but they had to go through the civil servants. >> 461 states, describing mr. mcbride as your attack dog, he had developed a reputation for briefing against anyone, not only the tory opposition but

there is of the blair persuasion. >> this is what i mean by tit- for-tat. rumor. innuendo. you have got people saying something about someone else. i do not know the truth of all of these things, but what i can say is that the people who worked for me were under specific guidance of what they had to do, and i think that is important. where the rules were, and there were rules, and where they were not observed, the person had to go. >> and they also as a conversation he says he had with you in october 2008 when you invited him back into government, where he specifically raised the issue with you and -- what he thought was a clear understanding about the office as a stepping stone. is this your recollection correct? >> i think peter did notike

mr. mcbride, and i do not think there was any doubt about that. this is the first time i have read this, by the way. this appears to be in his memoir. but i cannot remember. mr. met bride was pushed back and was given a new role. he made a very bad mistake, and he had to go, unfortunately. pushing back to another role. >> october 2008, i am wondering whether you agree or disagree with lord mendelssohn's recollection that in his memoirs -- >> there is no doubt mr. mandelson did not want mr. mcbride, but there was no discussion about cabinet office. we probably talked about how mr. mcbride was moving back from what you call the front line and that he had a different role, but in the end, it was only a

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

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

mr. mcbride from his original role to a new role. he had been moved into the new role and then we had this instant, and then he had to go. >> did you instruct mr. whelan to -- >> not at all. >> you have seen the extract of mr. darling's memoirs in which he is convinced that you did. >> i think this issue about back from the brink -- which i only read for the first time yesterday, this extract -- is an interview that alastair gave to "the guardian." the issue was see have been quoted as saying that this was the worst crisis for the british economy in 60 years, when he had actually said, this was the worst global crisis in 60 years. he told me he wanted to go out and tell the media that was the case. that was the incident. i do not think there was any in -- disagreement. >> do you remember the conversation that you had with

mr. darling when he told you specifically that you knew where the anonymous briefings were coming from and that they had to stop? >> there may have been a conversation like that. this conversation between government -- everybody worries about who is saying what about whom, so on and so forth. the one thing i can say to you, which is absolutely clear, i'm not sure how relevant this is to your conclusions, but the one thing i can say definitely is that no one in my position would have instructed any briefings against a senior minister. alastair was a friend of mine as well as a colleague. >> it is not clear that these words that he uttered to you about henry ii's and terry beckett. he says he did not order his knights to go and kill beckett but they believe they had his

blessing to do so. is that near the mark or not? >> no, they are not near the mark at all. quite the opposite of what actually happened. on the incident you are referring to, there was an interview given to "the guardian" about the economic crisis. alistair was sure that yet talked about the global economic crisis. they have reported it as being about the british economic crisis. of course, the distinction was important, but there was no tape of the interview. that was the source of the problem, that we could not get to the bottom of it. the treasury had not taken a tape. that was the source of the issue.

>> i have also shown you a letter from mr. john major, who is giving evidence tomorrow, from june 2008. it relates to the withdrawal of the mccarthy knighthood. he makes the specific allegation that you briefed or constructed -- instructed mr. wheeler and or mr. mcbride to brief against john major. is that correct? >> mr. whelan was not working for us at all at that time. mr. mcbride, i'm not sure what you're you are referring to. >> june 2008, so he was working for you. >> i do not know anything about this. despite the fact that my name is mentioned in this letter, we had not talked about this in any detail. i do not know much about this incident. i know that the garvey lost his knighthood. these things happen in politics. people say things and do things, and press, and i do not

recall anything like this at all. >> is the position this? that is sort of mythology has built up around these special advisers, described in certain quarters as paranoid attack dogs or whatever, that there is no evidential basis for it, or were they acting without your reporter for instructions? >> you have special adviser that are part of the government machine. they are a new innovation. they have a role to play in defending the minister and policy. you have competition between special advisers and different

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

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

i, obviously, have to take some of that responsibility. my only defense in that is that i tried to change the rules after 2007. i did not mention this about the future of the lobby. simon lewis, an honorable man, led this. we could find no consensus about the media should have done. i prefer to have open briefings that were given by ministers to inform the press day-by-day. i looked at the white house system, other systems. yes, there needed to be more openness. we inherited a system that was based on, if you like, exclusivity. it was also based on insider is winning over outsiders. so a lot of people were excluded from that system. the political advisers ought to and had to work under specific guidance, and i believe should have worked under civil service leadership. we changed that when they went into number 10 as well. these were the lessons i

learned about what some people call these been culture. i come back to find it assumes a great deal of success in dealing with the media that i do not feel i had. in the 1970's, when i was a student, i read once that the shah of persia had the worst press relations in the business, and the politicians had raised objections. i felt and that had been said in the 1990's, 2010, i would ever is the objection. i did not, unfortunately, have good relations with the press. i used to say it myself. you guys are going to get your message across. i used to call shelley, when he was talking about relatives. he said that ben had lost the part of communication but not speak. i felt like i was in that position before left office. >> did you give any special

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

that might manifest itself? >> i would have thought you move away from the daily briefing, the lobby. this will be unpopular to people in the gallery or in the lobby, that you would have someone briefing with a television camera there, but would be completely open. he would have to allow in press that are not of the lobby system at the moment, including the new internet media that is developing. i think the civil service and politicians have to work out a better relationship. the danger is you have a civil service had that people thing does not speak on behalf of the prime minister or minister because he is not close enough, but the danger is you have it over politicized head that looks like he or she is pushing the civil service in a particular direction. i think you have this dilemma about how you organize the management of information but the openness of it is much to be welcomed. i say to you, we did try to find a resolution, when you made an announcement with comments, it was a new information.

we did not want to return to a situation where you're giving a speech and giving a news for the first time, but the way that these things were given, there were not seen as news unless someone had an exclusive to these stories and thought that was something that was news. this competition between the different media outlets is intensifying, obviously. the 24 hour news is a reality. newspapers are in danger of being left behind because they publish at a certain time, whereas the internet is going all the time. this will only intensify. more open this is an essential element of it, but of course, the trustworthiness of participants is a born as well. >> could i touch on mr. watson right now. you addressed and on page 16. i want to be clear about this evidence. you say you recall telling mr.

watson that the government had been under pressure from news international to sack him. are we back here in 2006 with relation to dethrone mr. blair? >> we're talking about a conversation that you have asked me about, that mr. watson had with me in 2010. mr. watson had phoned me, had asked me what was happening. iris reminded about what happened in the past. i am not giving you information, as far as i'm concerned, about what happened in the past week. you know news international had editorials that they wanted you sacked. but i also did say mr. brooks had made her feelings about mr. watson pretty well known to my wife. that is all the new intermission i think i brought to this. >> there may be a misunderstanding. that is why i try to tease this out.

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

all i reported to him was that news international had made it clear that they did not likened. i think they had editorials saying that often had to go. i do not remember the details. >> can you remember with the text said? >> they are not mine. they are my wife's. this is all i remember, and i have not ask for them to be disclosed, but i think it communicated the feeling of mr. watson. that is it. >> having ask you this other question in relation to mr. watson, in 2006, the media reported that he was at your house in scotland before his resignation. did you discuss any political matters at all with him on that occasion? >> no, our baby had just been born. he was bringing over a paired with his wife and family. we were talking about children. if i had known that he was planning any political initiative, i would told not to do it, but i knew nothing about it. >> the following question was did you discuss mr. watson's subsequently published round robin letter calling for mr.

blair's resignation? >> i think i've already answered that. if i had known that he was planning anything, i would have told them to desist. i told him once i found out about it, but i did not find out from a conversation with him. >> so you say this is entirely a social call to deliver a present to your baby? >> entirely. he had his family with him. they were talking to sarah, talking -- we were all talking about our children. >> mr. brown, you have called for a judicial inquiry in september 2010. you wrote a letter to lord o'donnell. we have got this in hand. >> yes, i remember. >> obviously, the context was a piece in "the new york times"

published in september 2010. is that correct? >> yes, and the report being done by the media committee, prompting about whether something had to be done. we did not know, as i said in my speech, about the extent of this phone hacking. only gradually became known to me that it could be considerably more than what had been reported, and that this road hacker or reporter was not a proper defense. as the information became available and as i realized that this was a bigger issue than people had imagined, it seemed to me, we have to look and what needed to be done. the home secretary has looked at whether the police investigation should be extended, or carried out by another body. i had to -- there was the speculation at the time, but there was the case for a

judicial inquiry. i asked mr. o'donnell to look at this. he did not look at other evidence. it was probably an unfortunate decision. therefore, we had to report back, basically reflected the minimum amount of information that was available to the committee, no further information that was not known in government at the time, including the home secretary's examination of this. >> to be fair, the letter that he rode back to you on september 10 simply stated the review is on the matter by the metropolitan police and subject to an inquiry. >> you are talking about the second letter.

my first request was before i left office. that was a request that he answered with a memo that you have got about today's pros and cons about taking action. it was at that point that we might have looked at the other evidence available within government. that is the point i'm making. when i wrote to him in september 2010, it was because further knowledge was available. >> i am focusing on the september 2010 issue. you say that you look carefully, looking at the march

2010 consideration. we know that mr. miller band was not selected the opposition leader until september. did you discuss these issues with him at any stage? before or after his election? >> this letter was independently done by me. i did not consult anybody. >> i'm not suggesting that you needed to. did you discuss your concerns about the issue with mr. milliband? >> i have expressed my concern to a number of people about what happened, but i cannot remember a specific conversation. perhaps there was, perhaps there was not. i do remember speaking to mr. claytor at one point. >> maybe look to the future now and recommendations? we know what you said in 2007. we have seen the exurbs of that speech, which you can provided us with. your witness statements on page 14212, you set out ideas for the future. on the internal numbering, page

6. statutory backstop. could you elaborate on that? differentiate between that and state regulation of the press. >> could i say, by way of introduction, i would make a distinction between two roles that this inquiry might have and, indeed, the way further regulation may go. i think there is the issue of dealing with wrongs that have to be righted, addressed for individuals who have a complaint to make. i have said clearly in my evidence that i do not think the present system, as much as it may be the better part of complaints, dealing with complaints is satisfactory.

the second aspect that i would urge you to look at is not just how we can deter the bad, but how we can incentivize the good. if i am right, there is a problem developing in this and every developed country in the world about the quality of journalism and the commercial basis on which it can proceed. in the 19th century you had the proprietors, 20th-century, you had advertising at managed to finance quality journalism. there is a big issue now about what can it incentivize or give support to quality journalism in the future. i just want to make by way of introduction, yes, we can look at a better complete system, and you have served on the website very good guidelines on how we might proceed in sorting that issue out. i believe that what we all

produce, there is all party support, but we have to look at the second issue of the quality and standards of journalism and how that can be improved, and what we can do to help good journalists actually be able to survive based on their ability to sell their content across the media, not just newspapers. that may demand radical thinking about how we incentivize this for the future, including what happens to the bbc license fee, spectrum auctions, the proceeds that come from that. these are all issues -- there will be a real problem in the next 20 years about how quality journalism can flourish. >> when you made that comment at the beginning of your evidence, i wrote in the margin, how? if you can answer that question, even with some ideas, i would be very interested to

hear them. >> i have tried to give some thought to this, but when the bbc was set up in the 1920's, developed its license fee, it was clear there was a market failure. in other words, the finance that was available for support and quality broadcast journalism, quality content, was simply not there. there was a market failure, so it had to be done with -- despite what rupert murdoch says -- that it needed action. the action was popular for some time, the creation of a license fee. that was to support quality journalism. of course, the argument was that there were great externalities, great benefits from high-quality debt -- journalists, from getting trusted information, and it was a public good to be supportive but thought the market would not support it in broadcasting. then there were for the benefits because wednesday put it on a broadcast network, the

marginal cost of development -- delivering it to millions of people was minimal. some of these arguments, in my opinion, now applied to the internet. there is a problem about the lack of quality journalism. most internet journalists to not have the resources, if you like, to be trusted with information. newspapers' advertising model has collapsed and they are finding it more difficult. every week i see a new local newspaper going under. there are journalists sitting here today who are unemployed, but the quality journalism that we need, and that they represent for the future, will have to find new ways of financing it. is the bbc model of any use to us? we should look at that. it certainly does with this issue that there is a public good that the market simply cannot supply, and assert that deals with the issue of how you might deal with this on the internet, as well as to broadcasting. there is 0 cost to get to 1 million people want to get the first 1000. if we are genuine in trying to take out the bad but also trying to encourage the good, i think we have to say something about

how quality journalism in this country can be supported and sponsored in the future. this is a problem that is even greater in america and there's a huge debate now about how quality journalism can survive, and there are some very good people joining the debate. forgive me for doing so, but you can do with this issue about what i feel was a terrible injustice done to the baker family, who have their rights trampled over. we need a complete system that deals with that. we need proper penalties and

fines to deal with this. we also need to look and how we do not discourage the bad, but encourage the good. that is not making a judgment about what is good and bad in journalism, but you will need trained journalists and you need internet to be able to support that in the future. >> one need not just look at the journal or the national newspapers. you have commented, and it has been the subject of evidence, that local journalism is very much suffering from a lack of advertising, and the constant is, local issues therefore are not reported as they once were. as more newspapers find it difficult to survive, the loss of local information will be a very serious blow to the development of local politics, local holdings, health boards, because there will be no one else to report it. >> this is why i defend the freedom of the press, the right of the press. without shining a light on

potential corruption or maladministration, abuse of power, which is true that the local level and national level, people get away with doing things in an unaccountable manner. that is why you need a local press. there was a study done in america about what happens to a town when they are faced with a flooding or something. because there was no local journalism in place, because the information could not flow properly, citizens were being deprived of the means by which they could do with this particular difficulty. this will continue to happen. >> one of the witnesses has given evidence that has brought my attention to the development

of the concept of local authorities, newspapers, which then deprive the independent journalists an opportunity to develop their product. >> more of a debate about whether the bbc should be in local radio or whether it should simply be commercial radio, and how the integration of local radio and broadcasting and all that should happen. it is clear to me, however, without some underpinning -- it may be financial -- and there is a market failure here. there is not enough resources now to support the quality journalism you are talking about. my own a local newspaper just had its editorial staff merged

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

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

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

i know this is a problem you have faced. what do you do when you have the press complaints commission that is actually not able to deal with these big issues? in ireland, australia, new zealand, they have found a way to do -- in one case, they called it statutory underpinning. that is recognized in legislation but not decreed by legislation. i think we have got less to fear from the proposals you are talking about, about a statutory underpinning that people think. certainly, there are members of the press who are not prepared to join, your case is strengthened. but i share your view that this has to be independent of politicians, but it also has to be independent of news editors. it has to be independent of

both. fair and balanced investigative judgments. >> that is all a question that i have. >> mr. brown, thank you very much. it is all much easier to say and much more difficult to achieve. >> i do not envy your job, but i know you are doing a great job. >> one moment, mr. brown. >> [inaudible] there was evidence given about that. mr. brown has not addressed that. i think he ought to be given the opportunity -- at least we would like to know what he thinks about it. >> have you got what lord mendelssohn said in hand? >> let mr. brown respond. the position is, mr. brown, the system permits for participants to put questions through counsel. mr. jay has said several times,

i have been asked to ask this question. if he declines to put the question, then core participants are in touch to ask me for permission to ask the question. i think i know what is coming, but i do not think -- >> i do not know what is coming but i'm happy to question. >> my name is robert davis, i appear for news international. i think you're probably familiar with the spirit is behind tab 8 of your bundle. that is a transcript of the evidence that lord mendelssohn gave. >> what day is that referring to? >> day 74. >> what day is mr. mandelson referring to?

>> he was asked about whether or not there was a call between mr. murdoch and you shortly after the sun had announced that it was no longer going to support the labor party on the 30th of september 2009. this is day 74. in the afternoon. >> i find this very difficult to read because of the light type. perhaps you can read the section that is relevant. >> the allegation is, rather, the appellate -- evidence was for mr. murdoch that mr. brown of the words declare war on news international, or words to

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

mr. brown what he said and i have no way of knowing. but i know what he said to me about rupert murdoch's reaction, which was to say basically, i do not like how it is being done and i think it is a bad day to do it, and would not have done this when myself, but that is life, and we have to get on with it. question -- mr. murdoch's reaction to what? answer -- the decision of "the sun" to switch from the labor party to the conservative party. if i remember correctly, it was james and rebecca's response. >> there was only one call with mr. murdoch on november 10. that was a call related to afghanistan. you have cut five letters that

are affidavits from people who were on that call, four on the call, one that had to report to the press what happened after. they made it absolutely clear that call was about afghanistan. what ever you are weeding out, whether you are referring to that call or not, i do not know. the november 10 call is the only call i had in the year with mr. murdoch. i do not know if your in the position to confirm that is the case on behalf of news international or not. as for what happened lots of timber 30, when the conservative party was given -- there was no discussion. there was no text, there was no conversation of mr. murdoch. i do not know -- i notice questions are coming from participants and the suggestion is that there was somehow a mobile call that had not been registered in downing street. i think news international is

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

at the time, who was also on the call. >> thank you very much, mr. brown. >> right, thank you, mr. brown. >> on tuesday, the inquiry from former british prime minister john major and ed miliband. >> thursday, the committee will hear from mr. cameron. in a few moments, a defence department briefing on operations in afghanistan. in a half-hour, "the age of unsatisfying wars."

after that, changes to the tax code. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. holder. general eric also at 10:00 on c-span 3, national security and the federal budget. senator levin and general cartwright. >> to no one's surprise, the occupation of afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with no victors.

documents countless acts of terror perpetrated against afghan people. >> 25 years later, former speaker was honored on the house floor by republan and democratic leaders. watch those on-line at the c- span video library. >> the international force commander in afghanistan told reporters today that allied supply lines and pakistan is not affecting military operations. this briefing is a half-hour. >> good morning everybody and good evening. i would like to welcome you all.

deputy commander of u.s. forcesthis will also be his last. change in command tomorrow when he will turn it over to duties in afghanistan. he joins us today from ijc term over. completing his term over. hoti ask you to please identify yourselves and who you are with having 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 youthful general. >> thank you for the put

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. 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 afghanistan? of of 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 gazni 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? guidance, allen's 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 operational scheme of

things. we do have other ways of handling that and we will make sure that our soldiers have what they need.

. .

>> our guests include ramesh ponnuru. on whether to hold eric holder in contempt of congress. the author discusses his book "our divided political heart." and gary will take your questions about your role of his agency. washington journalists every day on 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> several events to tell me about this morning. eric colder testifies before the senate judiciary committee. also at 10:00, the forum look set national security in the federal budget. speakers include the chairman's of the armed services committee, and retired general

james car right. -- cartwright. now, a hearing on u.s.-cuban relations and human rights abuses in cuba. robert menendez says he was outraged that castro's daughter was issued a visa to visit while alan gross is serving a 15 year sentence there. this part of the hearing is 45 minutes. >> welcome to our hearing. supporting civil society in

cuba. a title that is more than a mere designation of why we're here but a statement of what we must do for the people of cuba and how we can get there. i want to thank our panelists for coming today. i look forward to hearing their analysis and ideas on how we move down the path to freedom. i want to acknowledge the wife of alan gross who is here with us today and we are in solidarity with her and her husband and believe that he should have never been incarcerated and that he should be free to come home to his family. in addition to the assistant secretary for the western hemisphere, and former political brazil there hernandez, we will have the unusual privilege of being joined by three individuals who have time and

again a risk to their personal freedoms to advocate for basic civil rights for their fellow cubans. this morning, they will, simply because of their willingness to express their opinions of this hearing put their personal freedom at risk by telling the truth about conditions in cuba and providing testimony before this committee on digital video conferencing. their participation is so sensitive that we were not able to include their names on the hearing notice and only have, this morning, following confirmation of their arrival in havana, issued a new hearing notice. we are grateful for their courage and their commitment to come forward to speak about the realities of life within cuba. and for their advocacy for freedom of the cuban people. jose and jorge antunez.

let me take this opportunity to thank the committee and the state department for their assistance in facilitating the technical aspects of this hearing in d.c. and havana and for providing interpretation services as well. let me begin by providing some context for the hearing. i am a both encouraged and discouraged by conditions inside of cuba. i am encouraged by the tremendous growth of civil society and thousands of cubans who everyday stand their ground despite harassment, the loss of jobs and rations as retribution. and their ultimate freedom. and for those who speak their minds despite recurrent physical abuse and arbitrary arrests and detentions. at the same time, those arrests

this year are now more than 2000 four hundred. that includes 1158 documented arrest in the month of march. in level not seen as an see 1960's. the tremendous interest -- increase in actions against the cuban people reveals the growing level in cuba and the ability of the regime to grow -- to control this growing movement. the growth of civil society in cuba is extraordinary, particularly if you consider the constraint faced by activist living on an island who are subject to continuous observation, continuous harassment, and frequented detentions by cuban security forces. and with limited means among communicating, the island has virtually no free internet capacity and the internal intranet is heavily monitored

and controlled by the regime. it is more impressive if you consider the roots of today's movement began to form inside cuban prisons only in the late 1980's and early 1990's as the soviet union collapsed and the regime was weakened by the lack of soviet subsidization. the cuban committee for human rights lamented the first seeds of civil discourse cent. -- discontent. it declared its "determination to struggle for a peaceful transition to democratic state of law, rejecting hatred, violence, and embracing all cubans everywhere." the effort to halt the movement blocked plans for meeting in 1996 and arrested the participants. in that moment, the regime won

the battle but lost the war. the brave actions become legendary and their actions inspired others to stand up and faced the regime. a diverse collection of liberation groups and freedom fighter sprang to life, including women's groups, independent lawyers and journalists, and librarians. again and again, this pattern was repeated when it sought to crush the supporters of another project calling for a vote in favor of freedom of the press, free elections, a right to operate private businesses and other activists on march 18, 2003. q. but arrested 75 activists including normando gonzalez and jose garcia who recalling on the phone. he was exiled to spain after

serving as a political prisoner. jose served eight years before being provided conditional release. those arrests emboldened the opposition movement, leading to the creation of the national symbol for a unified command for freedom from repression and tyranny. if past is prologue, this current wave " of repression will embolden the movement and eventually leads to the freedom of the cuban people. the purpose of the hearing is to call attention to the way of repression taking place inside of cuba and at the same time, it is a celebration of the courage of thousands living inside of the island. causes of cubans who stand against the regime and put their personal freedom at risk for the freedom of their countrymen in nation. let me close with a few facts we

have distributed to the audience. according to the 2011 state department report, "the principle of abuses in cuba or the right to change our government, threats, intimidation, harassment and the attention to prevent from assembly peacefully, an increase in the number of short-term arrests in 30 years, most abuses were official acts committed at the direction of the government, and the perpetrators enjoy impunity for their actions." according to freedom house, a cuba is ranked 190 at of 197 countries and in terms of press freedom, between syria and iran. during the month of march, there were 1158 documented political arrests by the castro regime, this represents "the highest

monthly number in five decades." cube has also is seen its share of martyrs after a hunger strike and a beating by security officials. among the most recent lopez who was arrested march 2 on charges of public disorder. alvarez arrested during a wave of arrests leading up to the visit of pope benedict and 16. jorge was arrested as he stepped out of his home in hopes of traveling to havana. an activist with the patriotic group in cuba who was arrested,

prosecutors are seeking a two- year prison sentence against him. a man who was sentenced to 18 months after he was arrested in february for wearing a shirt is denouncing the castro regime for the deaths of political prisoners. and 10 political prisoners are on hunger strike demanding cuba followed international standards for prisons. they are -- their courage and sacrifice is what we can never forget when

dealing with an impressive version that has ruled cuba with an iron hand since the middle of the last century. 23 years after the fall of the berlin wall, cuba is cut off from the advances of the world, the presses and fearful of the saying something that will land them in prison. we urge every american to remember all of the victims of fidel castro and his brother. just as we remember all those around the world who have suffered and died under other dictatorships. in cambodia, in iran, in iraq under saddam hussein, bosnia, and the brutal genocide in carrefour. -- darfur. the cuban people are no less deserving than the millions who were lost to their families in soviet gulags for nothing more than a single expression of

dissent. i am compelled to ask as i have before, why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to cuba? wire the gulags of cuba different from the old soviet union? why are we willing to tighten sanctions against iran but loosen them when it comes to unequally oppressive regime? why are we so willing to throw up our hands and say, it is time to forget. it is not time for it to forget -- time to forget. not in iran, cuba, not anywhere. it is clear the repression continues unabated, notwithstanding all of the calls to ease travel restrictions, sanctions, millions of visitors from across the globe, notwithstanding greater resources the regime has now in terms of currency. notwithstanding calls to let

bygones be bygones. that has not stopped the repression. the repression, the beatings, the torture still continues. in good conscience, i cannot do that. i will not step back from that. as long as we have a voice in the senate, that voice will be for the freedom of the cuban people. but we recognize the distinguished ranking member senator rubio. >> thank you for your service to our country. thank you for holding these hearings. in the interest of time, i will limit my remarks. i doubt i can do it more eloquently you how party done. i want to add a few things. this hearing is also important because it allows this to illustrate what is happening 90 miles from our shores. for many americans, as we look around the world, we have come to think that the dictatorship,

the human rights abuses are something that happened somewhere else. they have been in our own hemisphere, within 90 miles of this country. they happen in cuba and a half for a long time. what exists in cuba is not a cold war relic of interest. it is three things. it is an extremely repressive regime. as her repressive as any in the entire world. one that divides families against each other, manipulates people who travel, that minimum delay its u.s. policy to their advantage. it is a one-way street. even our best intentions are manipulated. they know they can allow half of the family to come here so they can send remittances back to the island. in a cynical effort to divide the cuban people and cuban families. the one thing we cannot forget, despite the evil that exists, it

also happens to be an economically incompetent one. they're good at repressing people and keeping people in jail on the island but they are not good a running the country. they are incompetent leaders. they have no idea how to run an economy, create conditions for jobs, and that is the reason why the cubs -- cuban people suffer because their leaders do not know what they are doing. our goal here in the united states is that the people of cuba have freedom, the freedom to choose any economic model they want. the freedom to choose their leaders. one direction, that belongs to the cuban people. what is for us to stand for is democracy and the right of them to determine their own future. that is what we stand for. in the united states, there is no debate on that topic.

there is debate about the tactics by which we accomplished this. i have been on record as a question in this administration not because of their motives, because i think the tax -- is the tactics are naive. the notion that by flooding cuba we're going to somehow change the cuban government is naive. it manipulates our policy to their advantage. it is a one-way street. i do not think the united states is doing it out of that intention but i do not think they fully grasp what we're dealing with. even among some of my colleagues, who fly to cuba with the notion they're going to set things straight, and they are going to talk some sense into these folks, many of them return shaking their heads because they have come face to face with how manipulative this repressive regime has become. i hope we will be able to talk

about some new tactics. i would love to see figuring out way to give the people of cuba access to the internet, free and clear of any fluid -- interference. i believe if the people had access to the internet and to communicate, they could follow each other on the quarter and facebook can get news from the outside world. free to choose any news they want access to. i do not believe the castro regime could survive that very long. i hope we will explore options and to do that. i close with a message to the people who work for the government, those involved in the repression. they may even have some people in the audience here. let me give you a message. if you are involved in beating people, if you are being used in abusing human rights, your name is being recorded. you're part of a government

that is not sustainable. the government to work for cannot survive. fidel castro is halfway gone and his brother will be gone too. the system cannot survive but your name is going to be recorded. you will be brought before justice. if you're a police officer, a military officials, your name is being written down and you will have to answer for those crimes before a cuban court or in international one. you need to think about that before you cooperate with some of the things other happening. because you are part of a system that cannot survive. hong after illus leaders are gone, you will be left behind picking up the pieces of what you're doing right now. how will be more than happy to deliver it in spanish after the hearing.

she served as the deputy assistant for canada, mexico and was debt city -- deputy chief in lima, peru. she has a long and distinguished record in the western hemisphere and we're pleased to have for where with us today. i would ask you to summarize your testimony in about five minutes. your full statement will be entered into the record. we're pleased to have you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am delighted for the opportunity to be here today and i appreciate the engagement in the western hemisphere in your commitment to shared democratic values, human rights, and expanding opportunity in the americas. in most countries, we see governments working to provide a greater economic opportunities

for citizens. that is why supporting human rights, governments, and greater prosperity remains a fundamental objective throughout the hemisphere but especially in cuba. in cuba, the obama administration's priority to determine their future, the most effective tool we have for doing that is building connections between the cuban and american people to give them the support and tools they need to move forward independent of their government. citizens engaging in purposeful travel are the best ambassadors for our democratic ideals. the hundreds of thousands who have sent remittances and it traveled are an essential part of a strategy to ensure the cubans tried to have these opportunities. policies also recognize the importance of in gauging with human rights activists, some of whom you will speak today who are in working for years to expand the political and civil

rights of all cubans. a it provides humanitarian assistance to political prisoners and their families, supports the documentations of abuses, and promotes the free flow of information within the island. secretary clinton recognized a cuban blooger -- blogger with an award. in 2010, the cuban government released dozens of political prisoners, most on conditions of exile. we welcome the release of these prisoners, including the last of the 75 peaceful activists who were arrested in 2003. unfortunately, this did not reflect a change on human rights. the government has continued to use repeated short term detentions to provide citizens -- prevent citizens from

expressing their opinions. it continues to limit fundamental freedoms. it has continued to harass peaceful human rights defenders, including -- and that is why we will support a and independent civil society to determine their own future for governmental policy and the facilitation of non-governmental engagement. despite the intolerance of political dissent, organizations have gained latitude to provide social services to marginalized humans. did ministration supports religious groups in cuba by authorizing u.s. religious organizations to sponsored travel and allow remittances to support religious activities. against this, we also highlight the case of alan gross who has been imprisoned since december of 2009 and i would like to crete j -- greet judy gross at

this hearing. enhancing access to communications technology will facilitate political change. our intersection in heaven and that provides free internet access, it teaches basic skills and provides training to journalists. to cuba and other governments, our message is clear. nonviolent dissent is not criminal behavior. opposition to the government is not criminal behavior. exercise of free speech is not criminal behavior. it is a right that must be defended. i know the subcommittee is committed to ensuring free respect for freedom of expression and the americas. we have seen new tactics used by governments and other actors determined to silence those the challenge them, including threats and violence against journalists and critics. wherever it occurs, we need to

confront these measures to limit freedom of expression. let me emphasize that we will be the first to cheer when the government resumes its fall to anticipation in the american system. this is a trailblazer in democratic principles to be shared benefit of the people of america. these remain relevant in the hemisphere to its challenges and future as we underscored in the general assembly in bolivia. i look forward to working with you to promote greater freedom in cuba and throughout the hemisphere. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> let me start off in trying to understand, which i find it difficult to understand, some of the administration's views as it relates to strengthening civil

society inside cuba. strengthening the information flow that the senator rubio talked about. i am outraged with the decision to authorize visas for a stream of version officials to visit the united states, starting with the cuban director for note american affairs in april, whose husband was kicked out of the u.n. mission in new york. and the approval for visas for a castro and her friends to attend a conference. i do not understand when the castro regime holds an american hostage for over two and a half years, and when we have the highest monthly number of

documented arrests in five decades, that we permit mariella castro to be in the united states on a publicity tour, proclaiming herself a dissidente. i want to know under what authority did she and other officials get visas to enter the united states? did the department exercise its waiver authority under executive order? how do you justify giving those when you have this incredible repression inside of cuba and an american citizen languishing for two and half years for nothing more than helping the jewish community tried to be able to communicate with each other? >> and want to start off by

saying that no one has been more outraged at his detention. we will continue to do everything we can to see that he is home with his family, as he should be, with his mother and his family. >> that would include sending the regime in message you cannot keep american imprisoned and have all of your people operate here. to me that is an oxymoron. >> under the regulations for visas, and we look at every time we have applications from any citizen, but certain the cuban citizens, we look at the full range of national security, a foreign-policy, immigration regulations including reviewing proclamation 5377. in the case of mariella castro, they did not fall under the

exception requirement of proclamation 53 as it was implemented since 1999. those cubans were allowed to come to the united states to speak openly because in our country they are able to do so despite my not agreeing at all with the statements of mariella castro. in the case of -- she had applied as for that of the senate to do work with intersection in washington. we applied to go to havana to work with our own intersection. we felt it was appropriate to allow her to come into this country and work with the intersection under that

principle of reciprocity, recognizing that we want to be able to meet with and talk to the widest range of people in cuba that we possibly can and recognizing the cuban government does not always allow us that. >> the reality is, are you suggesting that she is not a communist party official? >> i am not suggesting she may not be a member of the communist party but as the proclamation was interpreted in 1999, she was not a senior party official. >> united states denies it visas to all types of people all across the world. it has a broad jurisdiction in doing so. you exercise your discretion in giving a visa to these individuals who are part of a repressive system inside of cuba and has an american in jail.

you have the authority to say no. you talk about reciprocity, every time i talk to the head of our intersection, and that is not ultimately -- they are restricted and cited -- inside of cuba. we are giving a one-way street and sending the wrong message. those who fight for freedom inside of cuba everyday, they languished there and yet those who oppress them come to the united states and do their propaganda. i understand the beauty of our freedom but there is also a public policy decision to seay - i guess we would allow serious dictatorships to come here and express their views. last i saw we expel their diplomats from the united states. the bottom line is, we make choices of the time in terms of

promoting the security of the united states. not to allow those who were pressing to promote their propaganda. but we turn to another set of circumstances i do not understand which is the people to people travel to cuba. since the administration eased restrictions on travels in april 2009, the castro regime has doubled its hard currency reserves in foreign banks. banks reported held 5.7 $6 billion in cuban deposits as of march 2011. those are the dates we have figures for, compared with four $0.2 billion at the close of

2009 and 2.8 billion at the close of 2008. it is very clear, nothing else has changed inside of the island in terms of revenue source, it is very clear we are bankrolling the regime and the stashing its hard currency abroad. i say to myself, looked at the travel. in the time we have permitted this, we have seen a visit to hemingway's marina, a cigar factories, performances of the cuban national ballet, and my all-time favorite, part of inside cuba was a trip, the opportunity to visit the chair memorial where the revolutionary was laid to rest where you meet with a historian to ultimately understand his legacy. this is a tremendous way to help

civil society inside of cuba, promote democracy and human rights. andantes same time increase castor's regina's ability to have resources to oppress its people as we see the highest amount has been seen in five decades. tell me how the policy is working. >> there are other reasons, as difficult as it is to ascertain statistics, there are other things we believe -- >> you do not dispute that? >> we have certainly seen those reports of the increase in reserves. there have also been increases in prices for nickel, and recovery from the 2008 hurricanes, and an increase, because of their imports of --

firms are required to increase cash and reserves because of cuba's bad credit risk. we believe there are many reasons their reserves may have increased. we do not believe there is a single reason. >> do you dispute that the largest increase in reserves is a combination of remittances and travel money that is going inside of cuba? >> i do not know that is the reason for the increase. >> nickel has increased so much it has created an increase of 8 $2 billion more money? >> i know there are multiple reasons they may have increased their reserves and i know there are increased funds from remittances and travel.

>> talk to me how the memorial helps to create civil society. >> there are abuses that are committed in the regulations were promulgated. >> you created regulations that permit abuses to take place. >> there are also positive things happening in the interactions between americans, humanitarian groups, human rights average, that are occurring under this program. >> those successes ultimately can be justified in the context of record numbers of imprisonments and? >> we think the benefits over time of the increased contacts to the cuban people and there abolished -- their ability to change this will outweigh the negatives. certainly, as i have stated, we

do not in any way condone or tolerate the increased detention and harassment of cubans inside the island. >> it is hard to understand how you have this dramatic increase -- the one thing that is changed, there is unlimited flow of remittances and unlimited visits because all of these tours to the che memorial where you do not interact with average cubans, you do not engage average cubans, yourself reporting, that is why the abuses are allowed because you create a general license in which anyone can go and you have no real reporting of travel, itineraries, and engagements. smoking a cuban cigar made by those who are not free, that is

not the way in which we the bridge the cuban people. given the regime more money, which in the face of all of these benefits, have only dramatically increased the number of arrests, have not created a more open opportunities for the civil, peaceful society. it is not my idea of success. i do not know how many people have to be arrested, how many americans have to languish in jail before we send a different message to the regime. >> before we leave the visa topic, i want to use an example. maybe a decade and a half ago, the united states conducted operation to capture a gentleman responsible for the murder of an american agent.

ticket and a half later, he has been indicted for that operation betti united states -- operation inside the united states. his grandchildren, and his daughter and her husband, were murdered in honduras four months ago. he has three grandchildren who have applied to enter the united states and visit their grandfather and were treated rudely yesterday at the consulate. but a test for's daughter is operating through the streets of the united states. i hope that a denial will be reconsidered. i know you did not make that decision. my point is that i do not get it. i do not understand how three children who want to visit their grandfather are denied the

tourist visa but this same government gave one to marco rubio -- mariela castro. to come to the united states and call dissidents despicable parasites. i hope we can have a further conversation. i want to touch on two other things, the internet. you talked about free internet access at intersection. that is a good thing. i have spoken about this. i am interested and i would like to work with you and the state department. the possibility of providing internet access through satellite into cuba. there are existing commercial satellites that beam signals throughout the world. if you have a receiver, you could receive satellite signals from any number of satellites that are out there now.

you have to be able to pay for this service. if we could figure out a way for the government to do that, we could potentially provide a vehicle whereby the people of cuba would have access to the computer equipment that would allow them to access the internet. it is feasible for the united states to be involved in sponsoring internet access on the island of cuba, which if they had an opportunity, sometimes you cannot even see her own tweets. facebook, they were able to quickly post on the youtube about the abuses that are happening. i think that is one of the single greatest contributions for the events in a freedom. i hope we can work with your

office to put something together which would be a cost- effective way to further the cause of freedom and liberty. the last thing is a mechanism by which we can create a registry where dissidents and others on the island could register the names of human rights abusers so that the world can no other names. these are part of these flash mobs on the street. they wear uniforms but are thugs and they beat people and they torture people and they are fully cooperating with his government. i think their names need to be recorded. some of them wind up in the united states. a few years later they decide we do not like what is going on and then they're walking around the streets. i would like to know their names as well. i know that dissidents keep

track of these individuals and there is going to be a free cuba soon. they need to be held accountable. i hope we will consider some sort of registry where we can publicize the names of these folks and what they're conducting so they are there when it comes time for them to be held to justice. >> i look forward to working with you on these issues and as you know, we think it is critical of the greater information be given to the people. that is why so much of our efforts are focused on that, whether into the intersection or our system program. some reports say there are double the number of cell phones in cuba now than there were a short number of years ago when they were first permitted. this is a trend we want to engage with you on encouraging. >> one last question, on that

note, one of the challenges is to try to chill the essence of what our democracy programs are. after his arrest, grantees were told to refrain on activities care about creating the free flow of information for cubans to communicate with each other inside of their country. my question is, i hear you say that we support that and i am very interested in a senator rubio's idea. the question is, have you not chilled all o fthose -- all of

those grantees? >> i do not inquiry have. clearly the regime is trying to send us a message about the ability to get information around cuba and connect cubans to each other. i think we have to continue to try to ensure that in the environment that our democracy programs operate, we do them as safely for the participants and as effectively as we possibly can. that is the intention of our conversations and our review of all of our grant programs. >> of the spoken to many of the grantees past and present? it seems to me we're sending a different message. we have never permitted our democracy programs worldwide to be in a pinched upon.

-- in pinched -- impinged upon. i look forward to having a sit- down and how they are not necessarily accomplishing more than we want. finally, i heard you refer to mr. gross before and i want to know, what is the present status? obviously he is in jail. the question is, has the regime made any offers or suggestions about his freedom to the state department? >> they have not responded to any of our entreaties, demands, requests, that he be allowed to become -- to come home with his family. with any acceptable response,

which would be, yes, and now. there has been no response from the cuban government in our conversations with them or their public statements that they are willing to do that. certainly most recently we have focused on his mother, who is gravely ill and is 90 years old. the fact that he should be released on humanitarian grounds to be able to see her. we have pressed that and we have not gotten a satisfactory answer at all. >> did you not permit one of the individuals who had been released after his custody to go back to cuba and promote a humanitarian ability? >> in that case, the justices to spar -- department objected to his return to cuba on that

visit but the court allowed him to go back to cuba. the courts, having done so, we thought that was a perfect opportunity for the cuban government to take a humanitarian gesture. they did not. >> they did not. that is the cost of a one-way street. thank you for your testimony. there may be questions that come to you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and a few moments, and discussion of the republican party. and washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. our guest is an author, and the chairman of a trading commission. several events to tell you about this morning, eric holder testifies on c-span at 10 am

eastern. also at hancock on c-span 3, a form of looking at national security and the federal budget. speakers include the chairman of the armed services committee, senator carl levin, and retired general james cartwright. >> he traveled the globe to research's new book, barack obama, the story, examining the president's family tree. but tv will give you a preview. including our trip to kenya with the author in january 2010. jonas on sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern -- join us on sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> now, a debate on the republican party. from the american enterprise

institute, this is about an hour. good afternoon. i am a senior fellow and i would like to welcome all of new to this american enterprise debate. "is the republican party too exteme/" one of the first things i learned to was the institute's mission statement, simple words -- a competition of ideas is fundamental to a free society. the president did not mean we value competition among various institutions in washington, though of course we do. he was equally at home with and he championed as his successors

have done, debates within the aei family. to name a few, are scholars have differed strongly over antitrust policy and the wisdom of the microsoft case, those of a more conservative bent disagreed over many issues including a marriage and even euthanasia. they have differed on the wisdom of organ or nation. scholars have sparred over the merits of a carbon tax. there were disagreements about iraq war and about democracy. in the fall, we will publish a beer, on china's rise. scholars have-- a book on china's rise. scholars have always been civil. our debate tonight is in keeping with that history. i would like to acknowledge the work daniel henson and lori who

have worked to make this a success. our speakers are well known to you and the biographical material is available to you. his columns are must reads on capitol hill. steve is the fellow at aei, a biographer, and day -- and a blogger on politics. he is -- an invaluable newsletter covering presidential campaigns. he writes about this twice a week for roll call, always with an even-handed town. perfect for our moderator. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be here for this debate.

i feel like i am the -- of intellectuals. you have to look that up. try wikipedia. i am here to give you the rules and then i will leave the stage to these gentlemen and be back for the q&a. pretty simple. we begin with 8 minute opening statements by each of our combatants, followed by 5 minute rebuttals by each, a 27 minute, i do not know who figured this out, 27 minutes of q&a. followed by five minutes closing statements by each tournament. we will be taking questions via email and twitter. for those of you so inclined, the handle is #aeidebates.

email is aeidebates@aei.org. at the end of the trauma, there will be a buzzer or a bell which will signal the end of the round and i will be back in a bit too moderate questions. now, eight minutes each followed by five minutes rebuttals. gentlemen, began. norm? >> i will start. ok. thank you for coming. this debate was precipitated by a washington post piece that my co-authored and i did, which makes a great holiday gifts. i want to start by thanking my

friend and opponent prayer also want to give thanks to jeb bush who said that ronald reagan and his father would have a difficult time getting nominated by today's ultraconservative republican party, and commenting on he did on an orthodoxy that does not allow for finding common ground. thank you for your impeccable timing. i want to also thank alan west, richard murdock, ted nugent, herman cain, donald trump, michele bachmann, the house republicans and those who are assigned the pledge and to many more to name for making my task easier. serving this audience, no. on to the debate topic. is the republican party too

extreme? i'm going to talk quickly because i have a lot of things to say and eight minutes is not a lot. let me emphasize what i will not say. i will not say what party is good and the other is evil. there are no angels here. sharp partisanship sharis norma. i will not say that all republicans are extreme. many, including strong conservatives, want to solve problems and find common ground and i will not say it is conservatism that is extreme. ronald reagan, bob bennett, chuck geico, mitch daniels, to name a few, a are plenty conservative and not extreme. looking at the -- a party can be

extreme in three ways. tactics, ideology, and rhetoric. i should emphasize that tactics depends on context. the gop has adopted a set of parliamentary tactics and in on parliamentary system in a way that is unlike any we have seen before. underscoring some of his points, a obstructionist problem solving, defining and adversary as an enemy, often because of who is supporting them, because of what is in them. the first of a discount from the filibuster, let me put up a chart, which is now being applied in a fashion on seen in all previous history. i do not have time to go over the history of the filibuster. much of it is in the book. it makes a great holiday gift. and let me say that in the past, filibusters were used rarely for

issues of a great national moments by a minority willing to stop everything and throw themselves into making their point. now it is used routinely as a weapon of obstruction. motions were two a month in the 1970's, three in the 1980's, and now there are two or more a week. the morning -- a minority has a point. many motions are filed prematurely. they're designed to shut off the ability to debate an issue. that is true and it is a chicken and a question. it does not explain multiple filibusters a partner unanimous or near unanimous support. some examples, the homeowner act, two filibuster's up past but it took four weeks ended seven days of floor time. the credit card holders bill of the credit card holders bill of rights als