a close relationship with any part of the media. 65, i can move on to that. you say the use saw it for the first time in rupert murdoch's relationship with margaret thatcher. can you expand on that relationship? that relationship. >> i witnessed it only at a distance. i think those that were inside would have of better and more objective view of the relationship that i had, but i saw it from or reasonably good vantage point. margaret was probably the most centers leader of the party had had for some time, and i think that appeal to the natural instinct of many proprietors at the time. i think her support was accorded we offered. there were also a number of policies that particularly

appealed to them. there was a clear meeting of minds between proprietors and the then conservative government led by mrs. thatcher. i think there was a similar attitude towards the european union, not exactly the same, because the parity that one often gets with mrs. thatcher's relationship with the european union was much closer than saw at the time. and of course she became pretty iconic, and i think it was the culmination of those that produce the very high level of admiration and support for mrs. thatcher that came from the right of center press. from her term, i think she admired businessman who were prepared to take risks, and that applied to proprietary of newspapers. i think it was the meshing of those particular aspects that produced strong level of

support. when i say inherited, i mean i have not been prime minister. i have not introduce treating and legislation cleanly. it was different. -- trading and legislation clearly. >> you say in paragraph 5 of that you did not engage with the center-left and engage in any relationship with the media. what do you mean by that? we know what that term means, but what do you mean by that? >> of course there is a natural symmetry between the press and politicians. politicians, all of them, would like to have the support of the press. the press have a quite different objective. they need stories, and they wish to sell their newspapers. i was not able to seek to

influence in the ways that others had been, editorial support in particular. i did not do that because i thought it would not go very well, and secondly, i did think it was rather an undignified. i think there is a different role for the press and government. the role for the government and politicians is to, as best they can cover run the country and determine what legislation is correct for it. the role if the press is too will the government to account. they may do that fairly or unfairly, but once you begin to meld those roles, then i take neither the politicians, nor the press are doing their job properly that they are best fitted for. i thought of relative distance between that the press and the government, and to relieve myself, was a good idea. now, it would be easy to

misunderstand that and say that indicated of hostility between me and the press. i was not hostile to the press. indeed, when i first became prime minister, i did beckon "the guardian" from the lobby and appointed a press secretary that i thought would serve the oppressed well beyond controversial, and would be able to speak in a manner that the press would accept as being authoritative. i thought to close of a personal relationship was probably not for me. >> one of your colleagues used the word the meeting in this context. would you associate yourself with that term? >> i prefer undignified. i do not think it is the role of

the prime minister to court the press. i think it is undignified if it is done. it is done, obviously i think there are clear down sides to that at the time. >> you identified in paragraph 6 your lack of close relationship with any part of the media may have been a contributing factor to, and then you list three aspects. the hostile media your government received and mistaken judgments the media made about you in the relationship by your immediate successors. would you agree it is distancing will cause and effect in relationship to those matters? >> it is very difficult to disentangle cause and effect. it was partly my own fault that the relationship with the press was not very close. i just indicated why i thought it not ought to be, and clearly that was not very available to

areas of the press. i have not come here to complain about my press coverage 15-20 years ago. that is long since gone. i do not need to waste my time or yours complaining about that. i think i can explain why it was more of style. i did not inherit the natural close affinity my previous predecessor had earned with the press over a long amount of time. i did not have it. it was self-evidently different. on the human level, i think from the point of view of the press, if they have a prime minister they do not know, and the prime minister who seems to them to be keeping his distance more than they believe he ought to, it is perfectly understandable it is easier to be hot style about people you do not know, then it is about people you know well. i think that is a basic human a motion. i think that was one of the

reasons why they were, in my judgment, less well informed about some of the things we thought and did at that time, and was worsened after 1992, in the early 1990-1992. notiod i certainly would claim the press were to grow a hospital. i would not claim they were supportive, but neither were the hospital. they have the position that i think is probably correct at all times. >> you referred to the disengagement in paragraph 7, but would it be fair to say you were very sensitive about what was written by the press? >> is certainly would be, yes. i did not that -- cannot deny that at all. it is certainly true. i was much too sensitive from time to time about what the press wrote.

you can explain that and how human terms. if you pick up the picture -- the paper every day and read a character of what you believe you're doing and what you believe you are doing, then i guess it is the basic a motion to get a bit rowdy about it. friends who heard that in private were kind unit to carry that out in public as it became more widely known. it is not something i deny your .en if i may put it in context if i may put it in context, i opened the morning paper and learned what i thought that i did nothing. what i said that i have not said. >> i have had that same experience. [laughter] >> it is very interesting. it goes on for quite a long

time. >> i do hope not. i wish you every success. it is a bit wary. a true we confess that i probably overreacted to that. but my over reaction was principle we a human reaction. -- principally human reaction. as prime minister, you do need to know what is written because people believe it. you are likely to be asked about it in the prime minister's questions. those days they have been twice a week, not once. what was in the media generally in the written press particularly, is likely to be stable fodder for questions and the prime minister's questions time. there was a practical need to know what was going on. did i read them too much? yes, i did. was it her fault sometimes? yes, i did.

to read thisasked to you, did you frame mr. mackenzie? >> i did. very bad mistake. d not done so before. >> any of you wish to submit? >> i have bridge -- read the alleged conversation with a degree of wonder in surprise. if the conversation has proceeded, then i do not think i would have forgotten it. neither do i think mr. mackenzie would have been invited to darling st. 12 months later as he was on vacation. perhaps my memory is very faulty indeed, but i certainly do not recollect the same conversation

that has been circulated from time to time. >> i think that might be quite useful if you could give me your recollection. >> my recollection is quite plain as to what the substance was. it was on a day when things had gone terribly wrong. therefore more wis about black wednesday than the creeks ever created. i was very conscious toward the end of that day that it was going to be so. it was suggested to me, and i cannot recall whether it was my press secretary former principal private secretary, that i might phone and editor to see how they had viewed it from the outside, and one of them have suggested the editor of the sound, because they have a mass audience. they were a major newspaper. i found out, and was first to explain to him what lay behind

what had happened, and to secondly see what his perspective was. as to the conversation itself, i cannot recall it in any detail. i would have recalled the mythology. i am sure i would not have forgotten that, but i do not to recall it. i found a lot of people from the majesty her quaint to parliament, and on one and only occasion, mr. mackenzie. i dare say it was not an especially productive call. >> do you feel you were harmed politically by the way that you were. in subsections of the press, or do you think the electorate saw through that? are fed ahe electorate particular image day after day, it sticks. i think that is undoubtedly

true, but because it sticks, it does that necessarily mean that that is the public's owner perception of you. i was always struck when i went away from the chattering circle hall in white minster and how different was the attitude away from that. i must confess, i never found anything but a considerable degree of friendliness, even in difficult times. not invariably, but generally. i think the caricatured did have an effect, as it has done upon other people, but that is not new. there is nothing for to barely knew about that. it has been a part of the press coverage that politicians have to live with for a very long time. >> paragraph 8 now, second

sentence in particular. some parts of the print media applied journalistic standards that falls short of what should be expected. can i ask you to elaborate on that, please. >> the british press had some very good parts of the press, and parts of the press that i am not -- that are not very good at all. i am referring in terms of the parts the fall short of high standards. they do not report the news accurately. they tend to deal in characters. they tend to take a particular point and stretch it beyond what is reasonable. you may remember in the first

film of [inaudible] the worst part of journalism does exactly that. it takes something that has the tiny kernel of truth in it, perhaps, and stretches it beyond where it would naturally honestly go. i think that is very bad journalism. i suppose one message i have had a lot of time to reflect upon in the years is you cannot see the british press as a single entity. nobody should do that. it is not the case that every part of the british press misbehaves. it is the case that some of it misbehaves. what i hope will emerge from this inquiry and thereafter is action that will take -- that will lift the worst of the press to the standards of the best of the press. no one wishes to restrain their

natural freedom of comment. no one wishes to restrain what they should put in their papers, but i think what they put in their papers is grotesque, and i think there is a balance between freedom of the press to print what they like, and the validity of the individual to be protected from things that are untrue, unfair or malicious. >> paragraph 9. the phrase constructive tension captures in your view, the best relationship between the media and senior politicians, and in paragraph 12 you deal with the risks inherent in to close a relationship. can i ask you to develop paragraph 12. >> i can tell you about constructive tension. constructive tension is what i was referring to before, the fact that the press and

politicians have a quite different role, and it is not going to work properly. the press light is great virtue and that they have a daly pit to hold the government and politicians to account. you cannot do that properly or fairly if there is an excessive degree of tidiness between politicians and media -- chattiness between politicians and media. the best journalists are scrupulously honest. we cannot expect every to be among the very best. that is why i reiterate the point that one must draw a distinction between the good, bad, and ugly when one talks about from the wisdom as a whole. in terms of the melding of news and comment, i think it has melded, to a very great extent, and a lot of sympathy in the

press about this. given the nature of modern communications and 24 hour satellite channels and television channels, there is actually a surprisingly small amount of news in a practical sense that it actually comes to the newspapers to launch upon an unsuspecting public. by the time people pick up their newspapers, the news has been absorbed in the early morning breakfast programs and the 24- hour satellite programs, and this presents a problem for the media. they are either reprinting what is stale, or they find a new angle to it. yes, something has happened, but why did that happen? who is responsible? they will take an ankle and stretch it, because that is all they can do, because the news is daly -- the news is still that they have already reported. there is also the melding of

comment as though it were news. ideally, if you would keep that a fact. it seems to me the comment falls in several different layers. if i can restrict myself to political comment, which is clearly what i am most familiar with, some of it on both sides of the fence is excellent. it is very good. you may disagree with it, but it is well thought out and well written and worth reading. there are a handful of columnists better into self- promotion as anything else. i think that is barely worth the name. there is a lot of good comments in the british media, and it melts into news because newspapers have little choice but to let it do so. year after year the level seem to a fallen. that trend is likely to continue

with more people reading newspapers online than actually buying them and the impact of the 24-hour media channels. so i have a good deal of sympathy for the dilemma that they face. >> paragraph 12, the perversion by self-interest context. this is the relationship that comes to close. >> if you have too close a relationship -- let me enter a caveat, there are some genuine relationships between politicians and journalists. i can think of a number of journalists that i would regard as friends and still do. but i think there is a danger with the artificial friendship that is struck up because of the mutuality of interest when the

politician once good coverage, and the press once inside stories. i think you do see too much of that, and you see it manifested with stories in the media that are obviously from within government. obviously -- often they're quite malicious and focus on the denigration of another politician, more often than not in the same party. i think that does damage to politics. when in fact they are the perfectly proper examination of policy between ministers and in terms of reaching a position. it is a fallacy to believe in any political party that there is one strand of thought. in my own party, the conservative party, there are many different strains. we're right-wing, left-wing, center. they are equally conservative, but different sorts of conservatives. and in determining policy, they

will look at different ideas. when someone starts leaking the private determination of policy, there is a disagreement in government between the home secretary and foreign secretary. of course that average cabinet sides is 20 and will have different views. no point in having 20 if not. i think that close relationship whisks the private discussions out in public, and worse, offers opportunity for those seeking favor of the press, offers them pressed to offer it -- to have inside stories at the detriment of colleagues or other political parties. we have seen a lot of that of the pastime in congress -- in politics. >> in related context, aircraft

16, when you referred to the development of party political appointees taking on secretaries of the prime minister elsewhere. you cover that there, and also in paragraph 32 and 33. in essence what you see as the problems inherent in that -- what do you see as the problems inherent in that? >> this was in 1997. the background to it is that the incoming government sought the conservative government 92-97 with the civil servants running the press of forces -- press offices, and they thought there were opportunities to be gained in the presentation of the news reticular jobs were held by people with a particular political opinion. that is the background.

in 1997, political appointments were made to the information service. i think that was a very retrograde step. i disagree with a strongly, and i always have. i think so for several reasons. once you have a political appointee, rather than independent civil servant, the word of the government is no longer unquestioned. within an independent civil service, the press lobby do their record to get or should have got the unvarnished truth without any political gloss or spin. we have had political spin forever. every politician since the dawn of time will put a gloss on something to ensure it is presented in the best possible light. we have all done it, everyone does that. i think there is a distinction between the gloss and deliberate

attempt to deceive in a way in which the news is presented. my concern is once you move towards the political plaza -- political is asian, you did move into a sphere where the news could be perverted rather than accurately and with those big to the media at large. i think you also saw some things that the general as better able to talk about. and presenting the stories with a particular tilt so that when it hit the public news, immediately it had a favorable tilt for the government rather than the neutral and unfavorable to tilt, a whole range of things like that, which i'm sure this inquiry has heard about. in short, i think the straightforward clear-cut certainty of an honest

presentation of policy from the information service that was there when you had civil servants presented on behalf of the government was lost when you moved to a political information service. >> your proposal in relation to that is set out in paragraph 33. the government information service once again put himself in front of civil servants and in private contact. can we be clear what you mean by private contacts. are you intending to cut all social private meetings? >> no, i had in my mind when i wrote that the lunches that take place and the meetings that take place, i was not think of privately-maintained contacts.

it never occurred to me -- i assumed people had a private life as well, and it never occurred to me they may be used an unfavorable way. i make the point that they are palatable only. i think the return of the civil service to run the information service would be a fairly good move. frankly, i think lobbying and press is of some value, but only a limited value. i think that is of limited value, and i say so and by written statement. i think this has some downside, but i think overall those that benefit to good government and honest perception of what government is doing. take >> this is your prescription for

the future. can we go back to paragraph 17, and this section in which it deals with general alexians? the risk to the public interest in paragraph any envy. could i ask you to elaborate on those? -- paragraph a and b. >> i am looking for the personification of the ideal, but there is the difficulty over the long time depress has become more politicized. instinctively we say the newspaper is a live to this or that philosophy. they are lined it to a particular philosophy. if you pick up your daily papers, when i was reading them

daily, you could pick a all whole range of papers and read quite different reports of the same subject. that shows the extent to which newspapers have become politicized, and in a sense, part of the political process themselves. i think when you come to the general election, it is the relationship between the political party, and if it is close, there are some risks to the public interest. it is the media report fairly and accurately reports with the media is saying and what the impact would be on the public. that is what i would like to see. what we do see is where the factual news like, which may be relatively unsexy pushed aside for more newsworthy or dramatic

stunts. how do the politicians get to the public? they get to the public through television or radio. on the radio they are a bit longer, but usually with an adversarial interview. so the press are very important in carrying the message to the public. if the message gets perverted, perverted by the particular editorial stance of the newspaper or perverted because hard news is omitted in favor of stamps and other wild speeches that are newsworthy but not very serious, that the public are given much less than they ought to have in making up their mind in general elections. i have no solution to that. i see political reporting is

colored by the natural instincts of the newspapers in proprietaries and editors. i see also the politicians will use the newspapers that favor them to launch things that are particularly favor -- favorable to them or damaging to their opponents. all of this is part of the game of politics no doubt, but somewhere down the middle, what about the public? the public gets lost. it gets all the stories, but as to get a clear-cut information of what a government proposes and what it would mean to people so they may make up their mind as a general election? i honestly do not think they do any more, and i think that is a loss, because it is a huge and important role that the newspapers could play, should play, and do not play. >> thank you. before we deal with a particular conversation, tonight and i you

to look your exhibit under the fund the we have prepared, which is meetings and hospitality and provided to meet the editors over the time when you were prime minister. it starts on page 0. you divided this of between different proprietors and senior editors. we can see for example, we take a third page random that conrad black was the owner of the telegraph group until 2004, where i think you have five or six meetings with him. is that right? >> six meetings over the seven years, yes. >> rupert murdoch is on the next page. there were only three meetings recorded. first on the 14th of may, 1992

with your press secretary. is that correct? second is february 19, 1997. that is the last one that we will come to in a moment. mr. murdoch does not have much of recollection of his meetings with you. what kind -- what we can you throw on those first two meetings? i have absolutely no recollection of the 1992 meeting. there are two diaries at darling street. there is one diary that lists the meetings the prime minister is scheduled to have, and there is a secondary that list the meetings the prime minister did actually have.

things get canceled. i have compiled or have had this list compiled from the second of the diaries, them meetings the prime minister actually had. i am assuming my meetings with mr. murdoch on the 14th of may did actually go ahead. i have to say, i have absolutely no recollection of that whatsoever. almost immediately there was a briefing note for me to raise with mr. murdoch the nature of the coverage in his newspapers, so it is a meeting i would have thought i would have remembered. i do not have any recollection of it at all, which makes me wonder it went ahead. the diaries that it did at the beginning of august -- i am sorry, may, but i really do not recall it at all. >> the briefing note is under

your exhibit 5. we can see it has stated the 18th of august, 1993, which is the apparent meeting it is prepared by mr. o'donnell. we can see what it says. mr. murdoch, we are particularly keen to see your views on the british economy, given the high level of debt. overall his views are very much anti-union and free pro-markets in exchange rates. i was surprised to learn, given his business that he found the kinsey to keep up-to-date on the british scene. this explains why he frequently explained past views of what happened here.

however, i very much doubt whether he reads them regularly. the you associate yourself with that opinion? to go not entirely. i am sure he read his newspapers, and i would be surprised if he was not aware that more that was outlined of the line taken by his newspapers. from all i understand, he gave a decree more latitude to "the times" than th"the sun." i would be very surprised if he were not more aware of what they were printing than was suggested in the know. we did have important things to discuss. if i can pick up some of the points he raised. on the day i became prime minister in 1990, interest rates were 14%. they went up.

we went into the exchange-rate mechanism. it was in order to bring rates down. interest rates went up during the time we were in the exchange rate mechanism was a myth. in fact, the came down from 40% of the day of became prime minister to 6 percent when i left and came rattling down during the time we were in the exchange rate mechanism, except for that wednesday when they went up and came back again the next day. they came down consistently. the west -- the message i wish to give was the british started recovering, and you can see this very plainly now, actually started recovering in the first quarter of 1992 when we were still in the exchange rate mechanism, and continued their after, and were so secure, i do not think we make the point often enough in 1997 we handed over an extremely good economy.

i cannot think of when an economy was turned over. from 1992-2001, you had growth every single quarter, which is pretty unprecedented. the message i was hoping to give, and may have done if the meeting took place, which is that we are on track to recovery and would accelerate. we were looking at how to leave the exchange rate mechanism, and never saw the exchange rate mechanism of the first up towards a single currency. that must have been evident to everyone. i was not in favor of the single currency. i was in favor of getting inflation down. i was in favor of it, because i remember as a child what it is like when the money runs out before the week runs out, and

that is what inflation did. i was prepared to take a great deal of political pain to keep interest rates in place and get interest rates down. it was painful for people at the other end of the high interest rates, but when we had done it, we had overpaid for low interest rates and solid growth, and that is what it was about. we had seen four generations governments run away with inflation. you have this constant curve of inflation coming up, going down. we wanted to kill it off. that is what the exchange rate mechanism was about. that is what i was hoping to explain with mr. murdoch when we started the recovery, that there was still a long way to go. >> on page 108.9, we do not know

whether this message was communicated, but this was a bar of the climate that mr. o'donnell was inviting you to -- >> he would not deliver it he knew. it would not have been the sort of thing the prime minister should say to a proprietor, and i would not have said it. >> and might have been interpreted as a threat. >> it was. it is. never mind interpreted. if i had said it, that is what it would have been. it would not have been appropriate to say that, and i would not have said it. >> earlier that month -- >> if i had said it, i am sure mr. murdoch would have remembered. to go earlier that month you and

others were infected to a special celebration for launching new sky tv channels. >> oh, yes. >> mr. o'donnell on this occasion says at the end, do you want me to discourage -- discourage other cabinet members from attending the launch? take go whose handwriting is that with the double lines in the yes. -- >> whose handwriting is that with the double lines in the yes? >> that was me. >> can i go now to the conversation that you recall having on the second of

february, 1997 in paragraph 21 of your statement. this was a dinner, which i think your wife was there as well. could you tell us what happened? just before the 1997 election, it was suggested to me that i should make some effort to get closer to the murdoch press. and i agreed that i would invite mr. murdoch to dinner. i did invite him to dinner. i had invited him in february of 1997. the dinner would have contained the little -- the usual amount of political gossip that these locations tend to have. then in the dinner it became apparent in discussion that mr.

murdoch said that he really did not like european policies. this was no surprise to me. that he did not like our european policies, and wished he could change our european policies. if we could not change them, hit pay -- his papers could not and would not support the conservative government. as i recall, he used the word we it when referring to the newspapers. he did not make the usual mob towards editorial independence. hoss there was no question of me changing policies. we have talked about this a great deal because he disagreed with political policies and wished our referendum on leaving the union. i did not pursue that. i did not pursue that matter.

my feeling, and he did not say this, my feeling was that what he was edging towards was a referendum on leaving the european union. that is where i thought he was going, but what he said, we did not actually get there. i made it pretty clear we were not going to change in the european policies. i said i think our policies are right. and we moved on to other matters. >> the version of that conversation in your book is somewhat more [inaudible] you say that in 1997 referring to the dinner, she made no offers, and i asked for none. >> i have not talked about this conversation at any stage of the past 16 years. but i am now under oath.

i was as the question, and i have answered the question. this was a private discussion. there was no one else there except my wife and elizabeth murdock. so i thought of my autobiography it was appropriate to be little more comic. despite how frank i was in the autobiography, there were other areas where i would comment from time to time. >> clearly this has an impact on you, because although you use the word so far as i recall, you just said he did not make the usual nod to it towards independence, so reading between the lines, that is something that struck you at the time, and has remained in your memory. >> it is not likely to be anything you would forget.

>> i understand. >> it is not very often someone sits in front of the prime minister and says, i would like you to change your policy, and if you do not change your policy, my organization cannot support you. people may often think that, they may often react like that, but it is not often that point is put to the prime minister in that fashion, so it is unlikely to be something i would have forgotten. i have been as to raise this in relationship to paragraph 21. you say his title did indeed oppose such a party, and "the sunday times" continue to support the party. >> may i correct the definition of support. if you mean did they write an editorial saying the least of all legal, i think the answer is

probably that they did. if you mean was their news coverage day in and day out, morning after morning of style? then i would say i think it was. i think i would prefer to have less editorial support and more of the epochal news coverage. >> support for labor, might it be said that can be raised as a black widow? >> i do not think there was any surprise about "the sun" supporting. i am surprised they have always been so embarrassed about it. i do not think it was very surprising that they decided to support labor. after all, after all they had written about the conservative party between 1992 and 1997, how could they have said despite all we have written over the past five years, we actually invite you to vote for these people

that we've been telling you are useless for the past five years? that would of been a difficult position to take. i was not surprised they decided they would support labor. neither do i think they need to go to the solution raid -- sure charade on this. it was ludicrous from start to finish. there was a perfectly credible reason for the newspaper to decide not to support them. we have a particular reason to suspect it would automatically support as. they could have said the conservatives have been there 18 years, and it is too long. they could have also have said quite legitimately the labor party had changed. new labor did change. there was the position from where it had been, a much more towards the center in many ways. it was perfectly credible.

i remember joking ones that i had gone swimming and left a close on the river bank. and when i came back, mr. blair was wearing them. [laughter] there was a whole series why they could have perfectly credibly said these people and government are tired and exhausted, and we need a change. i was not surprised when they change. did they change european policy? i do not think so, despite my conversation with mr. barrett. how could they have done it? to go i h i introduced legislation to make sure any government had to have a referendum, which labor had followed, and the labor party position, in 1999 was still that they should go into the gyro, and that was stopped because of

disagreements within the labor party and because of disagreements with the chancellor of the exchequer. they could hardly switch on european policy if mr. murdoch was cool about europe, which i think is a fair description. it was not a sensible jump to move from the prime minister that was opposed to the year rose to a prime minister that would be in favor of the year road. i do not think the change had a great deal of european policy. i think that had a great deal of enforcement and supporting about what they said about us, and may have had something to do with the position we it taken on tell cut, which i think we will come to later, but i do not think in retrospect it can possibly, not logically anyway, had been because of the european policies%. you have in paragraph 23 of

the following clearly of the view, and your stress this in the book, the country view is conservatives were likely to lose the election. your view was otherwise. is that right? >> it always was. i dislike that this sort of politicking that was done from television studios and a radio studios and through the columns of the newspapers that cut you off. you were cut off from the public at large, and it was for that reason that i went out to start holding public meetings again during that particular election. the response was such that i simply could not believe we were going to lose that the together

election. the opinion polls said we were going to lose it. the wise head said we were going to lose it. it had not been done for a very long time. all that suggested we were going to lose it, but it did not feel that way. it did not feel that way to me. it felt that way on the street. the only occasion i wavered in that was when i was flying back from birmingham, but i cannot be certain, with chris patten where the opinion polls had this 7%-8% behind. that is the only time i wave it. only very briefly then, because the next day it was a quite different feel. i may have been at delusional, but i thought all the way through that we were going to win that election. i was as clear cut about that as

i was about knowing we were going to have difficulty in 1997. so i did generally believe we would win. as it happens, we got pretty much the biggest tragedy -- plurality of votes that any party have had for a very long time. we actually got more votes than any political party in history in 1992, but the distribution of the vote, and amal distribution of the constituency boundaries meant we only had a majority of 21, despite a huge lead in boats, in the majority were not everyone was steady on parade. i did think we would win, always. >> what is your impact of "the sun's " assessment?

>> it was over the top. how much did that affect the election? the labor party thought it made a huge difference. i do not actually think so. i think the news coverage in 1992 and 1997 accelerated a trend that existed. i do not think it changed the results of either of those general elections. i think we would have lost in 1992 and 1997. it was a pretty way over the top campaign. if i could say something about him. i did not know him at all until i became leader of the conservative party, and like everyone else i had read what people had said. i found in dealing with him a very different man. he has this fiery oratory, and

that is something people pick up on and attack him for, but the man i knew when i was prime minister and he was leader of the labor party was very honest and straightforward. if i met him privately, it stayed private. if we reached an agreement, it stayed private. i found him very straightforward to deal with, and my judgment, a much more considerable person than he was portrayed as being in the media i have seen before i came to know him. >> going forward now, because we have covered considerable ground are ready, and i want to cover the end. paragraph 49, which is 08449. you say as far is you can

recall, the press made no direct or formal representation of the last government affecting the formulation of policy on the media itself. you say we were however rarely exposed to media views including media through the editorials. as far as it your recollection goes, you can remember expressed lobbying of you on media issues, correct? >> know. no. i honestly did not believe there was. such lobbying would only come from proprietors or editors. the number of meetings with them was relatively innocent over seven-years. i do not recall any lobbying of any sort from them. no improper lobbying.

the respect their views, and we saw that. to the extent it was relevant, it was taken into account. there was no direct lobbying. to go outside media policy through campaigns in editorials, it goes without saying the media did seek to influence policy. >> it is perfectly proper to impose their view. nothing wrong with that. if they were going to be affected by legislation, they have a right to express their view. they may well have expressed that in the consultation time we had. i am sure they did. it is perfectly proper for them to expected in the newspapers. i have no problem with that of all. i think that is what they should do. >> in paragraph 50 you identify an instance where in eight lines down, that paragraph, opposition to the peace process often cross the boundary a fair comment, but where exactly is that boundary?

>> this is what i mean by tilted reporting. i think most people would agree in retrospect that we have not begun the peace process and that ireland. in the 1990's, and mr. blair had not carried it on after i left office, there would not have been the present peaceful situation that has existed in the last few years in northern ireland. it is very different from the northern ireland that existed in the 1970's and 1980's. when we began the northern ireland peace process, there was a lot of opposition to it for different reasons. some people were opposed to it, because they thought it would be united ireland. other people were publicly opposed because they thought it was a fool's game, and that we would be sucked into something and then be let down and the

government would be made to look very foolish. there were a number of senior level of government who thought that and thought we should not go down because it would damage this. we did go down, and we began to make real progress with the downing street declaration in 1993 with john goodman and irish prime minister and then the framework agreement with john grutin. the framework document was leaked to the times from a very hot style union source. i am pretty sure i know who it is, but not absolutely certain. let me say it came from a source that was very hot style to the northern peace process, and. later in the day, "the times" rang up the peace -- the press

office and said we aren't about to run this story, do you have any comment. they got a hold of the draft. the narrative going along with it is entirely wrong and gives the wrong impression, and it will really feed into a problem that could break up the peace process. it was always proud child. it was all about playing with a multi-faceted rubric crube. i said it could be very damaging if this is printed. we said this story is wrong. secondly, it has come from a biased source. thirdly, if you print it, as you apparently propose to print it, you could do very great harm to please don't do it. and they went ahead and printed it as they planned. they came to us very late for comment, simply saying it wasn't accurate. and it caused, that night, when

the first editions came in, absolute mayhem in the house of commons. i remember a midnight meeting in the house of commons, packed with angry conservative members of parliament who worked instinctively pro-unionist and thought we were selling out the union's. that meeting was saved by several things. there were assurances we gave to the union. back, i may say not just by me, but assurances given to them by patrick mayhew. we were trying to stop people killing each other in northern ireland's. and it helped. and a few days later, they

obtained my personal insurance and they said to the wrong communities that they should continue with the northern ireland process. that is lennon's in my comments. i think it was irresponsible on an issue like this to print a story when the government had flatly said what was generally thought to be untruthful. the government told them, don't do it. this is wrong. >> thank you. moving from the particular to the general again, i want to talk about the point he make on page 0841, sir john, where you

draw a distinction between the media and the public opinion. could you elaborate, please, on the second and third points, in particular the third? >> presenting only one side of the complex arguments, i suppose the most obvious illustration is the reporting of the european union over a long time. river every sort of daft story -- we have heard every sort of that story. there are many things about the european union i do not like. i think that the moment it is in a great message. it was in the interest of the international community. the things that were wrong with

those reports found there ways into news reports day after day after day after day. i am not a europhiliac. it was unbalanced. the easy decisions -- every group of politicians coming into office might find it more difficult and our multifaceted world. i do not have any entry for the people trying to govern now or in the next few years. because it is so complex. and only one side -- when only one side is presented, it takes root in the public mind. over the last 20 years or so,

the diet of negativity that has been served up day after day after day and month after in a month and year after year, as presented only one side of a complex argument. one forgets, for example, the one reason the european union was formed was at the end of the second world war, the european nations were all bankrupt. and they looked around the world and they saw the power of the united states. they foresaw the power of asia and china. and they said to themselves, if we don't act together economically, we're going to be pygmies in the world's economic giants. and things went badly wrong because of overspending. they were beginning to show a good return to that. the other point is, i suppose, 4000 years, the european nations had been at war. they are so closely in mashed now that this generation and the

next generation and our grandchildren need never fear the concept of a war starting in europe. sort oft find that balancing factor anywhere in the scales when people talk about the european union. that's the sort of imbalance that has come about after so many years of negative publicity. >> thank you. in paragraph 52b, he said one specific example press influencing the delivery policy. this is famous back to basics policy -- >> absolutely. >> many of us remember. >> can i read what i actually said about "back to basics"? can i do that? >> please. >> what i said -- and it's in my evidence "we must get back to basics. we want our children to be taught the best. are public service to give the best. are british industry to be the best.

and the conservative party will be the country back to these basic right across the board, sound money, free trade, traditional teaching, respect for the family and the law, and above all, lead a new campaign to defeat the cancer that is crime." that is what bass -- back to basics was. it was in a puritanical moral crusade. if it had a huge amount of support from large parts of the media. and then it became treated as though it was a moral crusade, with a great degree of her to many people, the publicity for whose misdemeanors were accelerated because it was tied to the alleged improper see of a government trying to get back to basics. and it was a totally false position from the start. and anybody who had gone back to the source of what i had said would have known it was faults. -- false.

>> was a did in part, though, the fault of mr. tim collins, who was either special advisor or press officer, who agreed it was a return to old-fashioned morality? some monthsearned ago. and junior press spokesman at central office. not a government minister. i would have thought, if that was the case and if the media thought this was the case, they might have put that point to me at some stage. they didn't. >> ok, may move forward, please, sir john, to paragraph 56, which is page 08453. >> yes. >> this is the point that you wish to develop -- >> yes. >> and i think this brings in

the broadcasting act of 1996. can i ask you to expand on that? >> do you want to do that now? >> we can pause. >> we have a break for the shorthand writer. sir john, so rather than embark upon a complex issue, let's take a break now. thank you. >> certification john, we're on the broadcasting act of 1996, which does deal, as you rightly say, with cross-media ownership. >> and my evidence, i said in paragraph 56 i didn't recall any policy discussions during my time in office concerning cross- media ownership. i should add that most of my evidence was written while traveling in singapore, japan, zambia, and elsewhere.

i had completely forgotten the broadcasting act of 1996. the broadcasting act of 1996 was largely to herald the digital age. we could foresee what was coming. but it incorporated in that some proposals on cross-media ownership, and there was a limitation, if our remember correctly, written into the bill the papers that had over 20% of circulation should be restricted to 20% of terrestrial television, of by which we met at the time itv and channel 5. i should have included that in my evidence, and i did not. >> did anybody lobby against that? to your recollection? i mean, from the media. >> i don't recall so. in terms of expressing there views in the paper, yes. bayh lobby, he me directly to meet?

no. did they make there views known to ministers? i'm sure that they did. there was certainly a good deal written about it and editorials. or click properly. i think there's -- perfectly properly. i think there's no objection to that. but there was no backstage lobbying of which i'm aware. >> and glenn davis the sequence, but in paragraph 57, he set out your current view of these matters and the proposed two prescriptions. can i ask you, please, to deal with those? >> well, i think is very desirable that there should be a plurality of the media. the media is so influential in some anyways, particularly in the way it acts upon public opinion in the democratic system. and so, i do take the view that parliament should set a limit on the percentage of the written

press and the percentage of the electronic media that can be under the ownership of one individual or company. and i think collectively they also need to take a view on the sum total of cross-media ownership, by which i mean media ownership of all the different media outlets. there should be a list -- there should be a limit beyond which, in the interest of plurality, no individual or single company should be permitted to go. is very difficult to set that limits. what one does not want to do is set the limit so low that you actually inhibit the capital necessary to make sure the media continues to develop. and so, my instinct is always been that the cross-media limit should be any 15% to 20% bracket. but i freely confessed that is

an instinct. parliament would need to look at it much closer than that and i think parliament should review, and it may be a quite different view from the one i have set up here, and i would be perfectly happy with that, but i need we do need to have some clear indication of what the limit is to ensure that there are a collective number of voices representing media opinion. >> is your 15 %to 20% related to a or b of paragraph 57, sir john? >> i think it's related to both of them. 20% of the press and 20% collectively. 20% of the larger element. but i put that down as a dipstick sample. i did not put that down as a finely wrought conclusion after a lot of the examination. the media has changed an awful

lot since i was in government. and i freely confess that i may well be out of date with some of the things that are happening within the media. a put that down as an instinct, as an illustration, but i think it's really for parliament to look at and make a judgment in light of modern circumstances. >> thank you. may i move to a different topic now, a paragraph 60 of your statement at the bottom of the 08454. where you deal with the examples of personal intrusion of the year's. can i please ask you to tell about those? i think we can probably take a as read. >> it wouldn't have been very exciting if they gone there. >> but the other examples on that page.

can i ask you to tell us about those? >> yes. on one occasion, my office received a telephone call the purported to be from the accident an emergency department of a hospital. the caller explained that my son's then girlfriend had been involved in an accident and emergency surgery was necessary, but before this could be carried out, it is necessary to know whether or not she is pregnant. we made a pretty routine check pretty quickly, and the girl concerned was working happily in her office at a meeting, and for the record, she was not pregnant. so that was an illustration of what was tried. on another occasion, my son was followed -- then a very young man, was followed repeatedly by individual on a motorbike with a long piece of equipment attached to his motorbike. this was at a time when concern about the ira was a good deal higher than it is now. he, like the children of many senior politicians, had been

given instructions on what to do. sr. was followed repeated late, he veered off his route. he stopped to get petrol. he stopped to have caught the. and every time it happened, he got back in his car and was followed. eventually when he realized this was not a casual accident and was happening regularly, he formed the cambridge fire cambridgeshire armed response unit, who flagged the motorbike and it turned up a motorcycle rider was a photographer from a " news of the world," the equipment was a long range telephoto lens, and the motorcyclist had been instructed to follow my son day and night until he got a story. that is a further illustration. a more mundane one -- >> how old was your son then? >> my son was 20.

he may have been 21. but that sort of age. following the general election of 1997, i went on a private holiday with my wife to relax. after sitting on a rock at the end of a beach, drinking -- i say in my evidence upon what a bottle -- a say in my evidence "bottle," but my wife tells me it was actually a can. there's another correction to be made. a long lens photograph was taken. my wife and the bag were cut out of the photograph. i was left sitting on a rock throwing a can, and it was presented a large double page spread as the former prime minister going back to private life as a litter lout. irritating, but not the sort of thing that should happen, frankly. i should add to the record that

was illustrative, not exhaustive, in terms of the list of things that happen during the years. >> yes. >> in terms of what might be done about this sort of thing, the distortion of the photograph -- >> i think that's very simple. pour that happens, the newspaper ought to be instructed to print the photograph as it originally was alongside the photograph that they printed and explain to the readers why they had done that. i think if that happened once or twice, the newspapers would stop doing it. it doesn't involve have defunds. it doesn't infringe the freedom of the press. but it stops them deceiving there readers and it is as good as an apology to the person who's been affronted. is preclude simple. -- it's perfectly simple. there should be instructed by whatever body replaces the pcc with the same photograph in the

same position with an explanation of why they did it. >> if you passed ever. -- over point b, sir john. >> yes, so i did. we arrived for a family holiday in portugal. when we arrived, we found the made did not speak english, but we learned via a sort of broken conversation with an interpreter that the sun newspaper had arrived before we did and have either talked or bribe there way into the holiday home, a real range the furniture, took photographs, and published a story. they subsequently printed the story with the photographs. my wife, who is fairly tolerant of these things, was not at all tolerant when it comes to dealing with our children and our family life, and she phoned up the editor mr. mackenzie to ask for an explanation.

during the conversation she was told by mr. mackenzie that she and i had, i quote, "no right to privacy." >> thank you. paragraph 61, sir john. we were referring there in our requested you to conversations you had with mr. mullin. in one of these on december 5, 2000, your recorded as having said you were provoked by the continual attacks on me by the murdoch press and in the telegraph. you set out in paragraphs 61 your recollection of the conversation, but more important in your view of mr. murdoch generally. can i ask you, please, to address that? >> i don't remember the

conversation. he's a pretty honest guy. what he writes but i said sons very much to me as though i might have said it to him. although he said the other side of the political fence, he was something of a distant friend. i don't mean a friend in the sense that he stayed at my house, but he had a puritanical cast of mind which are rather admired. so i did talk to mr. mullin. i'm sorry you reported it. it was a private conversation. but i think it is probably entirely accurate. as for my view of mr. murdoch, i was not an especially admirer of mr. murdoch's activities as a prop.. i did recognize his enormous skill as a businessman that he had built up sky, that he rescued the times and the sunday times when they possibly face a

very bleak future, that his sky channel offered a very diverse -- a variety of high-quality programs. @ think sports programs and what what programs are very high quality, and so is a good deal of there political coverage. i recognize that. i was not an admirer of many of the things mr. murdoch did, but in my criticism of mr. murdoch should be set against my acknowledgement that in that respect, is saving those newspapers and setting up that alternative to television channel was a very substantial contribution to our national life. >> in terms of the aspects of his activities as a prop. which you did not admire, we can see at least one of them from paragraph 64. refer to an having an excessive influence over editorial lines. we understand that. are there other aspects which you would throw into the mix? >> i think the principal

concern is i do think parts of his press -- and i do not enter this charge against all elements of this press -- i think parts of his media empire have lowered the general quality of the british media. i think that is a loss. i think it is evident which newspaper i'm referring to. i think they have lower the tone. i think the interaction that has been with politicians has done no good either to the press or to the politicians be been i think the sheer scale of the influence he is believed to have, whether he exercises that are not, it is an unattractive facet and british national life. and it does seem to me an oddity that in a nation which prides itself on one-man, one-vote, we

should have one man who can vote with a large collection of newspapers and a large ser -- share of the electronic media outlet. i don't think you could or should, in a sort of the first world in which we live, actually do anything about that, but it does strike me as slightly odd but that is the position. >> thank you. the matters you cover in paragraphs 65 to 71 i think we have already touched on. i'd like to ask you, please, about paragraph 71. this may be relevant to the future. reference inlin's his diaries to your suggestion

that i two-party alliance would be necessary to deal with the influence of mr. murdoch on british politics. putting aside the past now, sir john, is this something which you think is still necessary, looking forward? >> i think it is probably necessary and certainly desirable. i have no idea what this inquiry will recommend, but if that makes recommendations that require actions, then i think it is infinitely more likely that action will be carried into legislation if it has the support of the major parties. if it does not, if one party breaks off and decide it's going to seek future favor -- and decides it's going to seek future favor with powerful proprietors and press barons by opposing it, then it will be very difficult for it to be

carried into law. i think that is very important. i think there is a special responsibility on the leaders of the three major parties. 20-odd years ago, a senior minister said the press were drinking in the last chance saloon. i think on this occasion, it's the politicians who are in the last canceling. if at the end of this inquiry the recommendations that may be made -- and i don't seek to forecast what they may be, but if the recommendations that are made are not enacted and nothing is done, it is difficult to see how this matter could be returned to in any reasonable. time. -- reasonable period of time. and those parts of the press that have been paved badly will continue to behave badly and put at a disadvantage those parts of the press but to not be a badly.

i reiterate -- i think the underlying purpose is to eliminate the bad behavior and bring the bad up to the level of the good. that is just the cancer and one journalistic body. it is indeed journalistic body as a whole. to think it is important that whatever is recommended is taking seriously by parliament and is an infinitely more likely to be enacted if neither of the major parties decides to play partisan short-term party politics with it by seeking to court the favor of an important medium baron -- media baron who may not like what is proposed. o mr. think what i said tp mullin remains the case. >> will come to the future towards the end of your evidence, sir john, but may i deal with a separate chapter, if i can put it in those terms, and

that's the calcutt report issued. can we seek to set the background in this way -- that the first report was dated june 1990, which was four or five months before he became prime minister, and as you say, it is recommended that the press council be replaced by the pcc, but there be an 18-month period to demonstrate that non- statutory and self regulation could be made to work effectively. can i go to paragraph 6 -- 76 -- which is calcutt 2, and the overall assessment was that it is not an effective regulator of

the press. it was a damning assessment of the pcc, with which you agreed. to what extent though, sir john, was this an issue which you left with the responsible secretary of state, who was then the secretary state for national heritage? >> i did not require direct ownership of the issue. it was one of 20 or 300 issues a day across the prime minister's desk. it has to be subcontracted to the britt secretary of state and the appropriate cabinet committee. and that is what happened. i think my view was that the calcutt report was necessary and that was well known and understood and was the subject of correspondence.

it is not nearly as simple as it looks, as we found out, to actually address these particular problems. but it was predominantly in the hands of the secretary of state, although when things were snarled up, they were reported back to me. the reported back to me and i became stuck then, in terms of expressing an opinion and inviting people to go back and look at something again or recognizing it would not work. but largely, it was subcontracted. >> the initial response of the government was to accept the calcutt 2 recommendations in relation to the new criminal offenses and also that further consideration be given to the introduction of a new sort -- new toward of infringements of privacy -- is that right? >> that's correct. >> can i ask you -- paragraph 79. you say although the government

agreed the pcc address itself to be an ineffective regulator the press, is dated from the outset that it was extremely reluctant on grounds of principle to go down to the statutory tribunal without further reflection. or the grounds of principle that were bearing on this issue? >> the grounds of principle we have in mind were freedom of the press to comments. it was a very difficult balance to be kept me that i think have become crystalized between early 1990's and today. there is the extremely important principle of the freedom of the press. government cannot and should not dictate to the press what it should print. that is off the scale, not possible, and certainly not desirable. i don't know of any politician

who would contemplate doing that. is that we're seeing there are counterbalancing requirements. one is the freedom of the press. the other actually is the liberty of the individual who may have been maligned by the press. you invited me a moment ago to set out some of the relatively trivial things that happen to my family over the years. well, there are many others to have given evidence to this inquiry, or have not, who have the ability to cite far worse illustrations and that. and it isn't practical to say they can always go to law against the long pockets of the proprietors. it isn't practical. and in fact, without a privacy law, many of the elements of problems that they face are simply not credible to take to court. so, when we talk of freedom of the press come up with which i agree, we do have to balance it with the rights of the individual, and when we come to

what i propose, that is where i have made an attempt to do so. i think at an early stage, that balance needs to be recognized. freedom of press by all means. freedom of the oppressed must not mean a license for the press to do whatever it wishes without let or hindrance. >> i think the thinking, so john, in 1993 was it was a statutory tribunal roods on grounds of principle might impinge on the freedom of the press and an unacceptable way. >> i think that was the concern, yes. >> do you feel that it was a valid concern then, regardless of the fact that your position now may be different? >> is interesting that you talk to people about freedom of the press. they actually have more than one thing in mind. when some people talk about freedom of the press, that actually have in there minds

that the government would regulate the content of what the press would publish. totally unacceptable. other people take a lesser view of what freedom of the press might mean. i think the press should be free to comment in any way it wishes on whatever it wishes at any time it wishes. but i do think it is then necessary to have a credible mechanism to hold them responsible for what they've printed to ensure that irresponsibility and unfairness does not creep into the reporting with a belief they are immune from responsibility for what they say and do. >> taking the chronology for word in 1993 -- for word -- forward in 1993, in paragraph 80, you remind us that the national heritage select

committee on privacy and the intrusion reported. is recommended legislation to introduce a tort of infringements of privacy and due -- and new criminal offenses. of course, at the stage, we were before the human rights act, which didn't come into force until october 2000. you take the story forward sit 81 and 82. can i ask you particularly about paragraph 82? and the difficulties you saw at the time in relation to the definition of the new tort of privacy? could you tell us about those, please? >> there were a couple of difficulties with the tort of privacy. one of the difficulties was it was very easy to portray a toward up privacy as being a piece of legislation that

favored people who were relatively well off and well organized, but without complete access to legal aid for everyone would not be available to be used by the vast majority of people. it could be portrayed as being a piece of legislation for you and your pals, but not for the public. and that was a real concern, that we were very wary of with the tort of privacy. the other point about the tour of privacy that became apparent in the deliberations of the cabinet subcommittee was there was a very substantial philosophical difference within the conservative party, would then ministers, as to the desirability of a tour of privacy. some thought it would be very difficult to frame and might only be unfairly framed and that

would be unfair on the media. others thought it would provoke such hostility that it would dwarf everything else the government were doing. to that extent, some of them were very wary. others were simply philosophically unsure that it was the right time and place to go down that route. so, people fell into quite different groups about the torch. there were several different reasons why people were opposed to a. -- opposed to it. curiously, some of the lawyers were much more attractive to a tort of privacy than to the criminal offenses. our information was that the press were not relaxed, but not very concerned about the risk of criminal offenses for things like intrusion, but they were very concerned about the torch of privacy, presumably because

it could bring a huge raft of civil actions against him on a regular basis. i asked the then as secretary of state why he felt that the press were very concerned about the criminal clauses, and he said that was what they had told him in discussion. i don't suggest they were enthusiastic. as a just it wasn't a last ditch determination by the media to have fought against that. >> the hostility that you referred to in that answer was unlikely to include, if not be predominated by, hostility and the press itself. is that right? >> yes. >> pc a range of contrary views at page 08415.

this fall of the consultation on the select committee report. >> yes. >> we have a range of contrary views from the independent, the financial times. they expressed themselves somewhat more stringently than the two other papers i mentioned. -- somewhat more trenchantly than the other to the papers i mentioned. they refer to "fighting a law based on a lot." -- based on a lie." >> yes, they did. there is a unit gossett -- i universality of opinion across the press that the tort in particular would be very damaging to investigative journalism.

it is also the view of a number of colleagues and the subcommittee. so although they should not known that and probably did not know that, they did have a number of people took the same view inside subcommittee dealing with the new calcutt recommendations. >> suppress influence was certainly a factor -- >> it wasn't the factor. it is difficult to know what is on at someone's mind. you know what comes out of there mouth, but what the motivating force is is not clear. it may be an instinctive philosophical view of the rhone. and may be influenced by what they have read. i can judge that. -- of there own -- of their own.

i can judge that. >> it does say something, does it not, sir john, about the relationship between politicians and the press that you include within the concerns identified the risk that taking on a policy such as this would toward everything else that you wanted to do as a government? because the somewhat echoes something that mr. blair said a week or so ago that taking on the press would take over at a time when it actually at all other sorts of policies you wish to promote. >> here we were talking about something that directly affected the press. i think there are many occasions where you follow policies that the press don't like." and yes, i think mr. blair was also talking about policies that directly affected the press. >> yes. in that case, i think he and i would be an agreement about that.

it was the universality of opposition that we thought would beyond opposition of that into opposition on wider areas of policy as well. the government would become tainted. i think some colleagues felt that there would be a general opposition to the government, not just an opposition based on a particular piece of legislation. >> the risk is that the balance then gets out of kilter. >> it does push the balance out of kilter. that is exactly what i regarded it as important, if action is taking, -- if action is taken, but there's the two-party consensus at least. the principal reason, at the end of the day -- not the only reason -- that we were able to enact calcutt is that we could

not have got it through the house of commons. if you cannot get something through the house of commons, you're powerless. that is the difference. in the 1998's, we had a small majority and it shrank to a majority of 1. it makes you very dependent upon the whims and fancies of a handful of members of parliament in your own party, quite apart from the opposition that you expect from parties other than your own. and so, it isn't something -- in the real world of politics, the political position and whether you can carry something isn't likely -- isn't something you can lightly brush aside. if you a dancer and doing it, the government then just looks weak. it is, in the literal sense, week, because it does not have the votes.

and that is the problem with no majority. and at the time, we had no workable majority. >> and paragraph 85, sir john, you tell us the government through two conclusions from the process of consultation. this, i think, would of been at the summer of 1993. first, it did not believe there was a sufficient public consensus on which to base statutory intervention. secondly, is strongly prefer the principle of self regulation. >> self regulation was tried again and again. what i'm referring to there is not having a statue story -- statutory press complaints body. and are referring to the fact that it wouldn't have been desirable to and at the toward privacy if we could. we were able to do so. >> the hope was, and this you

deal with and paragraph 86 -- you address the considerations of the cabinet subcommittee. "considered were the possibility of the enactment of the three new criminal offenses and with the possibility of a new statutory toward a privacy as well as the application of pressure on the pcc to strengthen self regulation." was that an aspiration horror -- -- was that an aspiration or -- >> barry. very aspirational. >> and events -- and in events this happened, we know that the new statutory sort of privacy in the new criminal offenses were not introduced, were they? >> bair not. there were not introduced. at the end of the day, there was concern among the lawyers and

government as to the drafting of those particular clauses, and they were not introduced ultimately because they simply could not have been certain of getting it through the house of commons. there was sufficient opposition within cabinet to be certain there would be a larger degree of opposition within the parliamentary party. and since there is no credible way i could rely on the opposition parties to pass legislation like that, i simply did not have a majority to do it, so it could be done. >> can i ask you about the appointment of lord wakeham, which was on january 1, 1995, paragraph 91 of your statement. >> yes. >> overall, to you think that that was a positive step in terms of what he was able to do over the time he was the chair? >> i think if he wanted someone

who could guide the pcc to a better code of behavior, it would'fficult to find anyone better or more capable of being able to do it. certainly, he made some efforts to do it. but i think at the end john would conceded there was more perhaps needed to be done than he was able to do. but it was perfectly credible to believe he would achieve more than almost anyone in doing at. >> you tell us the byproduct of this, last sentence of paragraph 91, was the appointment made it even less likely the conservative members of parliament would support statutory regulation. >> silda evidently. i mean, those who were at all queasy about it would say, "look, here is one of our own, a very respected former cabinet minister who was actually sharing -- chairing the pcc."

so, his appointment did have a material effect on parliament. >> in terms of the development of the towards, or rather the explanation was given to it, maybe if we can just look at four documents quite briefly. the first is under attack 22, which is a minute that was written to you by the secretary of state's on march 2, 1995. 03949. page do you have that to hand? >> on struggling to find it. i will find it in a second, i'm sure. i haven't. >> -- i have it. i have it. >> the package you was

proposing, the second bullet point -- a " white paper should announce that the government has no plans to introduce the tort of invasion of privacy. i am not attracted to seeking -- by presenting the tour as a continuing threat -- to retain there rhetoric of the last chance saloon. we shall not convince. we shall simply appear indecisive." by saying "we shall not convince" who was referring to it would not be convinced? >> parliament, the media, the court of public opinion. i don't think it would have convinced ourselves. >> elaborate on mats on the next page. he refers to a " fierce resistance to the introduction of a new george." and that would include resistance within the press itself. and in the absence of legal aid

to, it would be seen as a measure which protected the rich and powerful. >> it was a point we were aware of all the time. it would have applied if there had been the capacity to offer legal aid to everybody. >> and why should you have legal aid for this if you did no legal way for other things? all sorts of issues. >> all sorts of problems. and the lord chancellor, though he was amenable to some form a legal aid in limited circumstances, threw up all those problems and realized it was impractical to make it widespread. >> the secretary of state also makes it clear that he engaged in detailed discussions with lord wakeham on this issue. we can see in the middle of the page -- "john is very conscious

of the need to persuade the public the self regulation has teeth." possibly somewhat forlorn aspiration as well, wasn't it? >> in retrospect, yes. i mean, there were some things done. it had to be said on behalf of the pcc that it made some changes. they were relatively trivial changes, but there were changes. and they also, if i remember correctly, appointed a privacy commissioner from there numbers. so, the hope was that john wakeham would be able to persuade the media, the press go a good deal further than they had already done. >> on march 20, 1995, tab 23,

you'll see a further confidential policy minute to you. it's on our page 03964. there is reference there to input from the lawyers in your cabinet. >> yes. >> including the lord chancellor. mr. howard, i think, was the secretary of state for the home department? >> he was so home secretary and nicholas lyell was the solicitor general. james mackay was lord chancellor. >> yes. the secretary of state says "the toward would be the wrong thing at the wrong time. most importantly, it would mean a major route with the press -- row with the press."

so, concerns about press reaction were part of the mix, weren't they? >> yes, they were. and more so than they normally would have been because it actually related to the press. this was a policy that was very germane to that natural self interest, and i think that is why stephen dorrell has written as he had. that was a factor, but i do not believe in most people's minds it was the factor which determine does not to be able to proceed. >> on the next page, we can see thinking.ll's "we must not exhaust all our armory once. more given john wakeham's

robust approach, a future breakdown of press so regulation comparable with the one precipitated by the mirror papers cannot be ruled out. with the tort enacted, we shall be left with only the nuclear threat of statutory regulation to encourage improvements." so i suppose he sang there rigby the intermediate step before the final nuclear option. >> that is what he has written. >> -a jury regulation in this context means full blown statutory regulation? >> i do not think that is what he had in mind. i think it's a slap use of the phrase. i think he's thinking of a statutory body, but i don't think he was thinking of a statutory code of conduct. >> finally, sir john, if i can move forward to tap 25, umr.

dorrell again to you, april 24, 9995 -- he's thinking now, how does one prison the so- called do nothing option? on the next page under the heading "press reaction," the issue of criminal offenses does not seem to be troubling the press so much. they say "on the contrary the press are increasingly fearful that some of the tabloids are dragging them toward something far worse, statutory regulation of some sort." then on the final paragraph of the section -- "on press reactions to a statutory toward the mother should be no illusion.

the proposal would give rise to a major storm and in my view would fail in parliament." so business managers are nervous about trying to legislate for criminal offenses in this parliament. the argument applies in spades to trying to legislate the towards. and the end, the do nothing option seemed to believe that it -- seem to be the least bad choice. we see that towards the bottom of 03976. or rather, it wasn't quite the do nothing option, to be fair. i think those are your tax or marx? >> they are. -- i think those are your ticks or marks? >> they are.

>> i think that clearly -- >> the core of it was we could not carry any think through parliament's. and at the time, i think we have a majority -- i think a majority had fallen to single figures by then. it was arguably the most contentious piece of legislation and anyone would have seen for quite a long time. said the business managers or robust and there view that we couldn't carry the legislation and that actually at the end of the day and that is the end of the argument. it may not win the moral argument. it doesn't. but it's a very practical argument. if you can do it, if you don't have the votes, you can do it. >> i think that takes the story as far as it need be taken. at paragraph 95, you do say quite frankly, that you feel that this did represent a missed opportunity. is that right?

>> well, i do. i do feel that. i think many of the things that happened subsequently that have led to this inquiry may not have happened if we had been able to enact, and i think in the interest of the good majority of the press, the press would not have fallen into disrepute in which the criminal activities have laid it. if these changes had been made, i don't think many of the things that subsequently happened would have happened. so in that sense it was a missed opportunity. but it was a missed opportunity that was unavoidable. it wasn't a missed opportunity just because we shirked it. it was a missed opportunity because we couldn't do it. is the votes point again pending -- it is devoid -- it is the votes point again. in addition to that, of course, there were the general philosophical differences and

the problems of drafting. so it was a missed opportunity, but it was not one, in the event, that could have been taken. >> could i ask a slightly different question, and it may be very difficult now for you to remember. i've tried to think about it myself, but this wasn't an area of the law in which i was particularly interested. what was the public mood to this issue? at the moment, i can reach some conclusions about the public reaction to what's happened over the last eight months, but i simply have no recollection of the position in the 1990's. >> it shifted. the public mood at the time culcutt 2 was published, saying self regulation had not worked and needed to change it, the public mood at the time, so far as i recall, it was very

supportive. indeed, i remember even a couple years later getting memos from my press secretary saying if we were robust, there's a big public opinion out there that would support as. so i think public opinion was supportive. by the time we went out to >> the responses to the document put out by the secretary of state on the torque produced a response that was so mixed, yet you would have thought that the tort was of most interest to the public at large. and yet they split three ways in terms of being in favor of it. whether that was that press now practice was not at the forefront of their minds at the time or that by then they were reading in the press the evils of what the government propose to do, or whether they sit down and reflected and thought that this is not a route down which we should go, i cannot now.

the public mood had changed between 1992 and 19905-set -- 1995-1996 to a much more equitable position. >> so, reading between those lines, maintaining the dynamic inquiries is itself an important objective? >> indeed. >> sir john, do regret having not gotten more involved yourself on this issue? >> i invite whoever asked that question to observe -- if you at -- it would have been impossible. >> your party, when you were

leaving it, d.c. similar objections -- and do you see similar objections arising now? >> i think one has to be very careful about how one defines it. will there be people who say that the freedom of the press is sacrosanct? yes, there will certainly be people who say that. then there is the second question -- is a tolerable the people should have their homes broken into, the prissy broken into, their bank accounts broken into -- that is not acceptable. there is a divergence. the public wants two apparently contrasting things. they want freedom of the press and also one protection against those sorts of activities.

that is the difficult balance that needs to be capped in terms of how one goes about dealing with these problems. i think you err on the side of the minimum amount of direction and control, but i do not think it is credible any longer for the freedom of the press and their integrity as though it were a license to do anything. i think we need protection to the liberty of the individual. the balancing trickle be to find that exactly what can be done and a way in which we can frame that which is not harm legitimate investigative reporting. i do not pretend for one second that it is clear cut or easy to find a way through that.

>> before we come to your thoughts in paragraphs 41 and falling, i wanted to look at your second statement, under tat 12. i want to bring your attention to something you raised on the 30th of june, 2008. >> yes, that was the day. >> 14269. >> that is correct. >> why did you write this letter? >> there have been a number of occasions where i think people close to the chancellor or prime minister were totally dishonest

and untrue and potentially damaging. the first of them was in 2005, when i got off the plane from overseas to find headlands saying norman lamont and i were blocking the publication of papers related to black wednesday. it was utterly untrue. the papers showed a much better situation than many people had reported. people said we lost 16 billion on that wednesday. in fact it was a tiny fraction of that. we had no reason to object to the publication of the papers. people had briefed the press the that is what we were doing. we were very angry. we complained at that time to

the cabinet secretary. then there were stories that the reason mr. mugabe had not had his knighthood withdrawn was because of representations from a, and that i had intervened in a row with david cameron about it. completely and utterly untrue. on this occasion, we were given -- my office was given by a reporter the name of the person who had spread that particular story. it was one of the advisers. it was on that occasion that i wrote to the prime minister making it absolutely clear to him that if anything of the sort happened again in the future i would go public immediately and would name the adviser concerned.

that is the letter that you have from me dated the 30th of june. regarding the behavior of norman lamont and i -- they were absolutely dishonest and dishonorable. but this was happening to lots of other people as well. i thought it was time that there should be no doubt the prime minister knew about it. i asked the cabinet secretary and suggested to him that he show my letter to the prime minister so that he could take the necessary action to ensure it did not happen again. >> did you get a reply? >> i spoke to the cabinet secretary. i did not give a written reply. >> is anything you remember from that conversation?

actually, i am reading the letter. my office learned from two entirely different independent sources the identity of the spokesman who spread the rumor, which could cause confusion in his office. it caused a considerable amount of confusion in my office. it was a fiction, palo for whatever reason, i could not make a judgment as to the reason. >> thank you. let's hit back to paragraph 41 of your statement. it is on page 08446.

the start by saying that the pcc is not any longer a critical regulation body. it does not demand confidence. >> i think the second reports on up -- a sum it up very eloquently and dismissively. >> paragraph 43, you already made the point in paragraph 42. you recommend five options. it could take us through them? >> it is not to be punitive to the press, but to stop a

practice, that is the purpose. if they produce an article that is blatantly wrong and a independent body turns is wrong -- determines it is wrong, a response with equal prominence to the original article would be appropriate. secondly, there might be occasions, but i do not favor that compensation, provided a credible apology is offered in a credible position in a newspaper. thirdly, i think that if there are repeated abuses in a particular newspaper, i think the regulatory body should have the power to impose sanctions, by which i mean either finds on the newspaper or, in various

examples, perhaps the loss of their credentials, though there are obvious legal problems with doing that. >> there may be even in super bowl legal problems. >> -- insuperable problems. people have been seriously maltreated. finds may be appropriate levied on the offender. or perhaps on the individual rather than the offending newspaper. it would put peer pressure on the single newspaper from the rest of the newspapers. these all options. the other option is worth considering. it is making editors personally liable for the contents of what appears in their titles.

that may appear severe, but i would like to make a general point about that. we only had this inquiry because editors have not instructed their reporters to behave in a way which might -- 99% of our public would require a stopper. if mr. murdoch had said at one stage, you will not have fun -- hack phones, you not use long- range cameras -- if they had said you shall not do that, we would have no need whatsoever for this inquiry and no need for any discussion about sanctions. -- let alone statutory bodies. the only reason we have this discussion on this inquiry is because proprietors and editors have handed that responsibility

down to the reporters. the reporters operate within a culture, it seems to me, where they have to provide stories. i find it very difficult to except that editors and writers do not know how the reporters obtain stories. i find it very difficult to accept that when they have cash expenses of a significant size, that they do not ask what that is from. it defies credibility the that they do not know what is happening. i think that the "i had no idea what was going on below the" argument -- i find it very difficult to accept. that they could simply by sending an instruction out to

the reporters encouraging them to do that -- the prospect of making them liable for the content of the record and -- reporting is something that might encourage better behavior. the perfect defense to that would be clear, written instructions from the proprietor or the editor as to the things that are on savory that the reporters should not do. -- unsavory that the reporters should not do. in any legislation, that should be a classic defense on the part of the proprietor. i returned to the central point. this whole inquiry has only come about because those who could have ensured proper behavior have not done so. they could do so. and they still could do so. >> i am not sure that written

instructions would be sufficient. i think you'll find that all the press -- in large numbers of cases, it is in the contract of journalists that they follow the code in their contracts. i think the culture behind the need to obtain stories -- >> i am trying to find a way not to be unfair or unduly punitive to proprietors and editors. i do think they have the power to stop malpractice and i was looking for a way in which they would have the defense if one of their reporters went roby and did not do what they instructed them to do. i think we need to look at that

sort of option. >> i am merely trying to put one of the propositions which has indeed been events, where i have been giving comprehensive employment which make it abundantly clear that journalists must behave in this this wayhat's where -- if i or that way. >> if one or two journalists lost their jobs -- it is in the hands of the employer to make sure things are proper, as in every other business. it can be done. people at the top cannot just wash their hands in paunches ntius pilate us pilot

fashion. the culture needs to be looked at and needs to be changed. it can be changed by people at the top. whether my prescriptions are right or wrong -- i am willing to admit they may be wholly misguided and wrong. it lies in hands of those who own a and run these papers to insure that they do not infringe on the individual liberties of citizens. one has to find a balance between legitimate journalism and the sort of malpractice that this inquiry is looking at. not easy, but i think, necessary. >> you save the state cannot regulate the contents of the press. but i do not see why it cannot

trade a lot to hold the media to account. are you saying that the underpinnings of this would not impinge on the idea that the state cannot control contents of the press? >> i am saying there ought to be a statutory mechanism rather than a voluntary self-regulating mechanism. the practice that would call the statutory mechanism into being ought to be agreed upon with the press. i would like a body that has a responsibility of enforcement to agree with the press what is proper and what is not. it may not achieve all we would like, but it is better to do that on a voluntary basis than to have to do it in a statutory fashion, which i would be disinclined to do. but once that has happened, the statutory body should have the

power for enforcement of the voluntarily agreed code. it should not be in the hands of editors and writers. it should be entirely independent. they should have the power to impose this sort of sanctions i talked of earlier. i am looking for a voluntary code with a statutory capacity to enforce sanctions if the code is in french. -- infringed. >> thank you. the final point, if i may. paragraph 48, we deal with the issue of concentration of power. "power without hindrance is bound to be poor the exercise.

when it concerns the rights of others or information. especially when it is allied to the forming of opinion about our democratic process. it is important that such great power is not abused." is there anything you would add to that? >> i think i talked around eight. it was something i wish to address. i reemphasize that responsibility to the press must lie at the top. i think it lies in the hands of every proprietor as well. it is often said that they have editorial independence. i am sure that is true. but editors know their proprietors minds. of course they know them. they sit down with them. the proprietor may say do this,

do that. i recall a number of publications to gravely went against what were seen to be the view of the proprietor. i admire them for it. the ultimate point is that the proprietor should accept the responsibility for the climate that they themselves set. >> are there any point we have failed to cover that you would like to address? >> yes there are. i cannot immediately think what they are at the moment. and then made the point earlier -- if i did not make it earlier, but if i repeat myself i apologize. i do think that the end of this inquiry, it is important that we put this subject to bed. we must put it to bed by having a system that is acceptable. if nothing happens at the end of

this inquiry, if we are unable to reach a conclusion and nothing happens, then i'm not entirely sure of the signal that that sense. i do not know how fair that is to the honorable and honest majority of the press. i think we to curb the worst to protect the best. that is what i hope will be the outcome of this inquiry. >> could i does pick up one of the points to lead? -- just pick up one of the points you lay? one example that you made concerns the way in which the framework agreements in "the times" -- you are understandably critical of the way in which it should be presented in "the

times," given the concern that you expressed and the risks run into the peace process. i understand that. but i am not quite sure how one would think some mechanism -- fit some mechanism for redress into that while entirely respective of the ultimate freedom of the press. this may include a behavior -- a freedom to behave irresponsibly. >> at that end of the day, when it actually infringes the rights of individuals -- on something like that, you rely on the personal standards of the editor and newspaper concern. sometimes they will take a

different judgment from you, as they did on this occasion. i think it was wholly wrong. they probably think they were wholly right. i have seen in a very direct fashion what happened as a result -- there be no successful peace process in terms of those being killed on a regular basis. i would not suggest -- it weighs on the judgment and standards of the individual newspaper. >> i thought i wanted to give you the opportunity to leverage your thinking on that. the second, if there is something else you want to say, please do not hesitated -- hesitate to put into writing. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> more from london in a moment, with testimony from labor party leader ed miliband. willie back tomorrow with leveson more on the -- more committee.eveson it starts wednesday at 5:00 a.m. eastern. and, tomorrow, the first of several interviews with jpmorgan chase president and ceo jimmy diamond. we will have coverage of that here on c-span, 10:00 a.m. on c- span. he will also be on c-span3 next tuesday. tomorrow, leon panetta and general martin dempsey testify before the senate appropriations subcommittee about the 2013 budget request for the defense apartment.

the house appropriations committee passed their bill last month providing three bob -- $3 billion more than president obama's budget request. we will have that at 10:30 eastern on c-span3. back to london for testimony from the british leader of the opposition, ed miliband. he talked about discussions with rupert murdoch and rebecca brooks over discussions to take over british broadcasting. this is one hour and 40 minutes. >> will be seychelles be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. thank you, mr. miliband. you have kindly provided a statement. are you happy to confirm that

this is your formal evidence? >> yes i am. >> since september 2010, you have been leader of the opposition. tell me about your overarching thoughts on the first page of your statements -- but before you do, could i get a word in edgewise? thank you for the evidence you have provided. >> thank you, sir. >i want to briefly develop those points. what i want to make is that we have an outstanding press in this country. we have fantastic traditions and the press.

the rigor and dedication of this press -- is very important that the recommendation that come out of this inquiry uphold that freedom of the press. secondly, the compelling evidence we put into this inquiry -- there is clearly something that has gone very wrong with individuals -- i hope that can be put right by some of the recommendations. thirdly, the failure of the ideas earlier is a collective failure of the establishment. the press, the police who did not investigate -- those who were at least aware of what was going on. thirdly -- is a lot to say at

the outset that those acting had huge power. people were reticent about speaking out about some of the practices. there came a moment when i felt it would be possible --- impossible not to speak out. the final thing i want to say is that no politician will come before you can give you a blank check for evidence. but i think there's a huge responsibility on politicians to make sure that your recommendations to not end up on a dusty shelf somewhere. i think we have a huge

responsibility. i want to echo something that was set at the beginning of this week. the process of this will be very difficult. i want to say that i will do everything i can to ensure that your recommendations provide a framework for us in the future. >> i am very grateful for that. i have spoken lightly of the second shelf, but actually there is a serious quote. this is not area of the law i have been particularly familiar with in my practice, but i have been very disturbed to read that there have been repeated attempts to seek to address this issue, all of which, in the end,

have just foundered. i would be very disappointed if our efforts -- not just public money, but intellectual efforts from all these people, from all those who have given evidence -- you have obviously thought about the issues. but if we did not achieve something -- i am not entirely reassured by the repeated comment that the very fact of the inquiry has already made a difference -- i think the effort requires a rather greater repayment. >> can i move on to question two?

lapage 06817. -- page 06817. you say in the last sentence that you think the public interest is best served by equal dealings with each other. how you promote that state of affairs? >> i have spent a lot of time thinking about evidence. my primary interest in this inquiry was to protect the innocent people affected by this. i think it is very important. having said that, i think that we should be thinking in a democracy about a relationship

of mutual respect. that. what i mean by respect from politicians for a free, fair, and full press. and respect for individual politicians and the press -- not deference. that would be the ideal we would be seeking. i think that there is a sort of mutual culture of contempt out there. in the press, you see politicians very badly. from politicians, -- believe me, this is important. it adds context to what i describe in my statement about why sometimes the politicians seek the closeness -- sometimes

it is because it is the way of getting a good hearing. i think the ideal -- we are a long way away from it -- i think the biggest injustice that needs to put right by the inquiry is the relationship. i think would be a great thing if the work of this inquiry could help to improve the relationship. that would improve our democracy, frankly. >> thank you. can i move on to what you say under question 11? you deal with the issue of the media's impact on plot -- politicians today.

a number of witnesses have spoken about the conflation or fusion of media. do think that is a problem? >> this is perhaps one of the trickier issues. i think this first arose in the issue of peter manderson. the code is very radical on this point. it said there's a separation of fact and comment. my honest you about this is that i think it is not something that is necessarily going to lend itself to a regulatory position or redress solution in quite the same way as if he took other things that appear in the code

around privacy or harassment or accuracy. there are quite distinct from the blurring of fact and comment. i think it is very difficult to see how you can self-regulate for fact and comment. i'm not in favor of the sacha regulation for content -- a statutory regulation in terms of content. i hope that one outcome might be that if we have a new body charged with looking at these issues, upholding the code, that they can at least raise -- witnesses have suggested an annual report on these issues. inaccuracies a problem -- in

accuracy is a problem. if we would accept that. >> the next paragraph under question 11 -- you make it clear that there is a public interest in editors. you believe that editor should have no greater influence than the content of their argument. are you able to differentiate between the message and the messenger? >> i think there is no question that the press has a significant influence on the paralysis of public debate in this country. it would be incredibly nice if

not to ignore us that -- not leave -- naive not to acknowledge that. we should be clear that some of the things bodies might dislike -- a big shake people's views. that is inevitable. we have a center press in this country. more center-right and center- left. if anybody -- anybody who said they did not have an influence on total public debate would be wrong. i think it is much less about deals. it is more about influencing the terms of public debate. we may go into the question of whether or not politicians spoke

out about some abuses of the press. that is the way i see it. >> thank you. if i can go back to the earlier point in your statement, paragraph three -- the top of page 06818. that is whether you detect any difference is between politicians in government and politicians in opposition. inre particularly interested politicians in opposition at the moment. do you think the same standards should apply? >> i had experience of this because, as an advisor, i was an

advisor to the opposition. i made opposition -- observation that there is no question that it makes you more cautious about the way you do things. how you make big multi-billion pound decisions. your help and support bair secretaries and private office -- by your secretaries and private office. i think experience in government is useful. in terms of coming into opposition -- i say broadly that similar standards should apply.

they should apply if your in opposition. -- you are in opposition. >> we had it the other way around for mr. blair. mr. campbell said, having been in opposition for 18 years and having to get the message across, they are very much more proactive. the labor party carried into government attitudes and approaches -- it was a mistake, that was how he put it. you said the other way around. >> there is a greater degree of informality is how i would put it. i think that there's a great degree of informality in opposition. having been in government, one is more wary about what might be

right and what might be wrong. certainly the approach i have tried to take as leader of the labor party. >> question 5, in reference to the recent history of relations -- you have four points. i'm putting them all together now. you say that politicians are too slow in condemning comments by the media involving the phone hacking abuses. the first reason is that politicians were wary of being seen to be curtailing freedoms of the press. the question is, in which way is rightly? >> there are two factors at work here.

there is a factor that politicians were, in my view, wary of taking up the issue of redress, the way all that worked, for a variety of reasons. then there is the single reason -- we were concerned about the impact it would have on political parties. it distracted attention from the health service reform. we had a similar idea. it was the 900-pound gorilla. >> the second part of it is, though, which, if you like, is the correct motive -- it refers to the opening remarks i made. we are held to account by the

press. the press has got to hold us to account. that is a very important job that the press has. part of that is that doubt or worry in the minds of politicians -- are we seeking to curtail the people who were regulating us by regulating them? i think having two different motives -- they are both the play. briefly, the third motive that a number of you have talked about -- would it be seen as a labor vendetta for the past, 1992 and all of that? >> you give weight to the chilling affect argument, the

unintended consequences of regulation. >> could you explain what you are seeking from the question? >> sorry, the chilling effect. >> i think that is something -- we must look very carefully. i know it's bears heavily on remarks you made about dilemmas been faced in this inquiry. i do not fear -- i do not think the fear of a chilling affect the region -- -- reason for inaction. we have to be sure that we progress -- retain what is good in progress of journalism. there is no reason why we should not chill unjustifiable patience -- invasions.

>> the second point to make under this heading, page 9819, is that you been ineffective in complying with the media. how you address this point -- why is the criminal law not an effective and efficient remedy for all of this? >> without personalizing the exchanges had on the stand about the nature of the crime committed, if there was a crime committed it should be dealt with. take a saying -- i

slightly different view. when i look through the mechanics of it -- absolutely chilling. the nature of the grievances that have been done to them. when i look at the code, i think, number one, accuracy, intrusion into free for shock, reporting of crime, clandestine devices and subterfuge. most of those things are illegal. they're a matter for police. we do not want the police policing and number of these issues. but in no way does it make up, remove, or lessen the harm and grief that they found. therefore, i do think it is a

matter of getting the police to do their job. it would be -- it is not the fault of the person driving. it is the fault of the police the police will inevitably -- the police will inevitably protest crime. hacking is undeniably an odious, but it does not kill people. >> if i may, that is an additional issue.

it is important -- even with the police having all the resources in the world to press illegality, which do not want, there remains a whole range of people who have come reformer -- before you, cases i have not known about you know the list -- you novelist better than i do. they or not necessarily based in illegality. >> collecting them together -- >> the third point you make here is the concentration of media ownership in a small number of hands, which increases the importance of those -- it increases the conflict between

politicians and the public interest, with politicians beating to remain on good terms with the powerful media. do think that ownership relies -- lies at the heart of this problem? >> i think it is part of the problem and part of the solution. i think that part of these sense of power' without responsibility came from the fact that they controlled 37% of the newspaper market before the closure of "news of the world." these questions of ownership or the concentration of power -- i do not think we can a divorce those questions from the behavior of some parts of the press. i would add in the the sky platform, that whole issue

around bskyb, that is a big concentration of media power. the word i might use came from -- >> your fourth point, which may be flows from your earlier points, involves relationships between members of the media and politicians. the state of affairs where we now find ourselves -- >> yes. i think that is right. i think that is right. i've tried to explain, it has complicated this. the nature of what politicians

sought overly close relationships -- what is good about the transparency that has been introduced in politics is of ait does -- it is sorte test. if you are not wanted to appear in newspapers, do not engage in that relationship. that is in my view a good thing. >> as you say, the recommendations which to begin to advance in the middle of this page, if that is all right -- i would look at your answer to question seven. i would like an ax -- look at a list of your meetings with editors starting in 2010.

is that right? >> that is correct. a quick scrutiny of the last -- list, you see a whole range of editors, not just newspapers you might be expected -- who might be expected to support you. we can see, for example, that at the labour party conference, you saw mr. wallace and mr. harding. on the next page, this is a page06581, there is one phone call with rebekah brooks. on the third of march, two dozen

11, there is a phone call with james murdoch. can you recall what that is about? >> he rank me on the day something was being published by news crop. he rang me on what these undertakings were. >> or you surprised to receive his call? >> not overly surprised. i had not had any meetings with james murdock during my time as leader of the labour party. it was a courtesy call to brief me. the opposition is well- established on the referral that we think needs to be taken place -- taking place. >> thank you. on at the seventh of july,

2011, you have a phone call with editor of "the daily mail." i think i would be right to say there have not been any previous interactions with him. again, we can see from the day that the phone hacking scandal erupted. can you remember the subject matter? >> isa was giving a speech the next day that said that the pcc needed to be put out of its misery. he had an interest in these issues. i think the rank him. the editor of "the independent," also, just to give them an advance sense of what i was saying about these issues. >> can you remember what his reaction was to of what you told him? >> he told me he could not agree

with me. he told me -- -- >> fair enough. there are further occasions. on the first of december, 2011, this is page 06586. the first appears to be a phone call, the second is a meeting. >> the first of november and the first of december. yes. >> it is difficult to remember what may have been discussed in a particular occasion. >> on the first of november, i was pitching an article to "the daily mail" following up a speech i made about what i call responsible capitalism and how we can change the way our economy is run. we had a brief chat about that. i do not think the article ended

up appearing. the other was a more general chat about the issues and where labour stands,. >> have you had discussions with editors about the issues that are concerning this inquiry? >> yes. >> those discussions may be private and confidential, in which case we will not hear about them. but does a general message to emerge from what they say that could help us? >> i think you'll be hearing from ms. harmon later on. she has undertaken a whole series of conversations, structured conversations, with editors. over the last few months -- conversations i had would have been at the time of last summer, really. i think there was a lunch query may have admitted that we

discussed the toothless poodle question, to put it that way. the 25th of july. we would have discussed issues of how the press would go forward at that event. ask ms.i'll remember to harmon questions on that theme. it appears from a cursory scrutiny of this, if one were to count up contacts with news international employees between 2010 and 2011, there are 15, including phone calls. after that, there is only one. that is with mr. harding, one social interaction with mr. milo, and two funerals.

i do not know if we can draw any conclusions from that or not. >> i think it is fair to say that i did not have good relations with news international newspapers before phone hacking, in particular the sun -- "the sun." i do not think it improved post- phone hacking. i think my interactions to be much more limited. i think the labour party may have gotten in this position two decades back. i am engaged in relationships, as you expect me toand indeed t. >> thank you. >> question 8.

>> could i ask a slightly different question? in grateful to you for compiling this? do you think it is a good idea that this sort of record is kept and then made public? or is it just window dressing? >> it's definitely a good idea, sir. because i think it access a check in a way, politicians do in the engagement that they have, and the transparency is a good thing in this respect, and it means that you make a judgment, not just about the invitation that you receive, but the wisdom of accepting it. i hope i would make those judgments in any case. but i think it's quite a good reinforcement. i think there's a question about whether -- your list, i think, includes contacts with political editors. i think the list that the prime

minister and i published and the deputy prime minister -- i think you have to make disproportionate because if you make it every single conversation with any journalist, you're going to get into very deep bureaucratic waters. >> and unnecessarily because that there is the relationship between a politician and journalist must follow because it's important for politicians to get the message across. the reason i asked the question is because some conscious of the policy and the way it's now working out. i just wonder whether you fear there is a risk it might become subterranean in the sense that is no longer you me the editor, but one of your staff that needs a rather more junior representative of a journal or press, and how you deal with that other than by cultural change.

>> i think those kinds of contacts go on, have gone on, will continue to go on as we speak. i think that's inevitable and actually not a bad thing, as you imply in your question. it's a good thing. i want people to know about your views, my views. the good thing about this is it if i take rider on a week's holiday with me -- and i'm not going to do that and i don't think they except, but it's a good backstop. it's a good backstop of transparency. i think that's the way i would put it. >> that -- the point that i would make, that is in reality its limit. it is an intellectual check and therefore requires the record of understanding what lies behind it. that it isn't just a piece of paper and this is therefore exactly the same message that

your staff would understand. of course, they must have contacted the message across. but equally, being balanced, for hate -- behaving proportionately goes into the message. is that a fair reflection of what this sort of thing does? what i'm really asking. >> very well. >> on the theme of transparency, you say in answer to question eight -- "is perhaps the best and only way to minimize this risk." so transparency is both necessary and sufficient. >> just bear with me a second to remind myself of this. yes. yes, but, i hope when me, and to recommendations for the future i

can indicate what i think on media policy i have a somewhat subtle position on this. i believe we should not take politicians out of media policy completely, but there should be a higher bar in relation to politicians done against the competition authority's decision. so i suppose transparency is important. >> thank you. question 9 now, this is the influence of policy and operational issues directly affecting the media. use a particular need to avoid either the reality or the perception of undue influence being exercised by interested

parties -- moving on to the next paragraph -- "i accept that labour at times did become too close to it news international." argues saying that this remains in the realm of perception of undue influence, or did it ever passed into reality? >> i've obviously read a lot of the evidence you had and bought a lot about this. i think the way i specifically via this, i believe the thing i'm looking for was just after the phone hacking scandal broke, because i said in that interview we were to close in the sense that when there were abuses by the press, we did not speak out. that is my version of to close. no different people -- different

people use different phrases for that word. tony blair said "on healthy." there's our range of other additives that have been used. a suspect they may be more accurate in ways of thinking about this issue that it was a sense of fear, i suppose, in some sense, or unwillingness or worry, anxiety about speaking out on these issues, issues where i think if it had been any other organization in another walk of life that had been perpetrating some of what happened, action would have been taken earlier. inyes, it's at pages 06610 the section of your interview with mr. marr. then he followed that up and

said "do you believe mr. murdoch was too powerful?" >> that was his question, and mr. miliband says "indeed, because you're making a judgment about how you win support and also that we can and can do the rest of a thing that's changed. >> do you feel that even at that stage that labour was too close to news international not? >> i think what i mean by to close is really that we didn't speak out on these issues where there was increasing evidence of news international's behavior.

and i'm right in saying rebekah brooks and andy coulson went to the select committee in 2002, 2003, where this issue of payment to the police was raised. look, the whole question of abuses by the press was, if you like, a kind of compartmentalized part of the political debate. it was certainly something people knew about and have a sense of. partly, i think it relates to what you said at the beginning, which is there was a history of looking into this area without success. >> so even as late as 2008 to 2010, part of the thinking which may have to underline what mr.

blair said and which you have cited, was that carried through into the brown government, in your view? >> well, i mean, the brown government did -- gordon talked yesterday about some of the things he did it change the lobby system and so on. i don't think that is really getting at the main issue. >> i've been asked to put to you a couple of questions, really, in relation to the brown period by another court participant. the first question is this -- were you aware of off the record briefings against tony blair and other government ministers by, in particular, ed balls, charlie whelan, and damian mcbride.

>> ed balls, no. charlie whelan left the government in 1999. one of the things he did was he briefed. and then mcbride, when i was a cabinet minister i did it raised a concern i have with mr. brown, a believe in september 2008 about some of his activities. i think ias far as need to take that point. did you feel, looking at this time, but the government, perhaps in particular mr. brown, was assessed with the news in the press it or not? -- was obsessed with the news in the press or not? >> i think the late philip gould

coined the phrase "the permanent campaign. i think it was his phrase. the modern politics is the permanent campaign. 247 media -- 24/7 media, i think in a way, makes the permanent campaign part of the dna. >> moving forward into the time when you were in the opposition. the pc en "the new york times," which has attracted a lot of attention in this inquiry came not on september 1, 2010, 25 days before he became the leader of the opposition. >> yes. >> were you aware that mr. brown had written to the cabinet secretary seeking an inquiry following the publication of that piece? >> this was after he stopped

being the prime minister? >> yes. >> i think -- i must have been aware of it. >> i knew after the election -- and he sent me something in the bundle about this -- but i was pretty sure after the election that mr. brown had made a public inquiry after the election. i certainly cannot recall conversations with him about it before the election. i remember his speech in the house of commons. but that was july. i do not know if it was public at the time. was it public at the time? >> it wasn't public at the time the bank of the consideration given to a public inquiry before the election took place in march 2010. the treasury solicitor was involved --

>> which election are talking about? the general election? >> the general election. >> i think he was talking about his election. >> then there was a further request mr. brown made in september. i think it was september 7, 2010, which you may or may not have known about? >> i do not think i did know about it. >> going back to the new york times piece, of course, it was in the middle of a very full on. for you, but did that piece come across your radar at the time or not? >> >> yes. in fact, i have an article from the guardian on september 3 come up which has words from me in it about the allegations, and perhaps not surprisingly, because of the nature of the --

allegations, my words were about the prime minister and coulson and what the implications were for him. i do not think i read the piece. i think i read the guardian follow-up. i must have been on a campaign tour. indefinitely clocked the sort of andy coulson part this. >> it didn't cause you to ask for public inquiry or anything similar at that stage? >> no. >> moving forward to the next year, a participant has asked me to put to you the news corp. summer party on june 16, 2011 argument rupert murdoch -- where you met rupert murdoch. the question is, did you raise the issue of phone hacking with him or any other senior news corp. or news international executive? >> i think i say in answer to

question 15, actually, i explain this. i say a recall a relatively short conversation with rupert murdoch. i should have raised the issue of phone hacking with him. i didn't. which is something i think i said last summer. why do i say i should have raised it with him? because i think in retrospect -- and it's easy to have hand side -- hindsight -- i called for an inquiry or radio. but i think it was too much business as usual. things would, of course, change very soon after. >> can you remember approximately how long you stated that party? >> i can remember. i really can remember. -- i can't remember. i really can't remember.

>> those of the questions i've been asked to put to you on that. is one final question. is the same corporate dissident. he draws to our attention a text message which mr. adam smith sent to mr. michel -- sorry, is the other way around. you can bring this up on the screen. this is page 12761 any -- in the mod3 file. it will come up in a moment. there we go. it says "i did tell the labour leader what the core of our thinking was -- " >> perhaps you should tell us

where we are in the chronology. this is february 2. what is happening at this time? >> the bid has not been referred to the competition commission. i think it was public knowledge at that stage the undertakings were being considered, but undertakings were not being formally announced to parliament until march 3, 2011, if that helps. it may be that you have no recollection at all. it may be that you do recall. >> i think it would have been the case -- he was definitely having meetings. ivan lewis was meeting proponents of the bid. >> one has to be careful, because sometimes mr. michel referred to people as recipients of the information or providers

of information, when actually he means a member of that person's staff. >> we simply do not know in this case. i was asked to bring that to your attention and you have addressed that's. said that deals with those items. -- soap, that deals with those items. man move forward in your statement to question 13 -- the question is about mr. tom baldwin. he was recruited by you in december 2010 as one of your two communications advisers. is that correct? >> correct. can you tell us, please, about the recruitment process in a nutshell? who was primarily responsible for it and how was it undertaken? >> it was my chief of staff,

myself. we were looking for people who could assist us with the media. what we looking for? we were looking for people who have a knowledge of the political lobby. that's very important, i think. someone who understands the rhythm of the lobby. someone who can project stories and people who can project stories. it is not just a technocratic job. i believe this was from the daily mirror. it must have taken us a couple of months. >> he, as we know, worked at the times for 11 years between 1999 and 2010.

to what extent was that his 3 relevance to his merits, as it were? >> it wasn't particularly relevant. i mean, it was relevant he had been a political reporter. that was relevant. had a wasn't somebody who particularly close relationships with executives of news international. >> in a book called "dirty times, dirty politics," which was published in 2005 didn't, i think, make any specific allegations against mr. baldwin, although suggested he might have been involved in some way >> is

complicated. when i hired mr. baldwin, ulord ashcroft had not made the allegation he made later. that was an allegation he made the following july once the situation arose. when he did make the allegation, i did, of course, ask tom baldwin about it. he denied it. my chief of staff spoke to the former editor of the times. the person who had been his boss, who said he also believe the allegation was untrue. >> so at the time you hired mr. baldwin in december, can you remember specifically what questions you asked? >> i would have asked him if he

did anything to bring the party into disrepute, in relation to the specific job that i might be asking him to do. >> ok, and we've covered what happened consequently. can i ask you to place on a slightly different issue at tab 10 an hour bundle, there's an e- mail which mr. baldwin had a hand in, which was leaked january 2011, making it clear that the issues in relation to the b sky b been, which one might call the plurality issues and the phone tapping issue it should not be linked. was that something which matched your own assessment at the time?

>> yes. it was a position that i agreed with our relevant people on this issue. why do i say this and why did we take the position that we did? it was because we felt we had two robust positions. a robust position on phone hacking, and a robust position on any -- on the bskyb bid. at that point, mr. jeremy hawkins was pursuing the undertakings in living -- in lieu. we felt we had a robust position. this is essentially what we call a line to take for people.

at that point, we did not believe the issues were links. >> but your view changed in july 2011. is that correct? >> yes, it did. >> in relation to what happened in 2011, we perhaps should and start in july. wishes start in april. you collect together the key events under paragraph 14 of your statement, but we can probably confine ourselves to the highlights in the indexes themselves, which are under tab 3 in this bundle. its annex 3, but is it? >> its tab 3. it starts with an x -- annex b1. you asked for a review.

what sort of a review were you thinking not at that stage? >> i don't think i was entirely sure. at that stage -- i felt i felt the allegations about hacking -- i can remember what had been exactly had transpired in the time previous to that, but the welter of allegations around hacking meant that simply saying let's leave it to the police was inadequate, and i thought it was right to speak out on this. i thought that things were getting to a stage where more needed to be said about what would happen after this. and that is why i said what i did. >> but they would naturally have

to wait. it was your thinking at least, until the police inquiries and prosecutions had been completed? can i ask you -- at the bottom of this page, he said that you're clear view was the self regulation continues to be the right thing. but were you arguing there in effect for maintenance of the status quo? >> i would not use that phrase now. i think i would much prefer -- i would much prefer the phrase which the prime minister used in parliament -- independent regulation. >> yes. one has to read these two sentences together. isthe point you're making you're talking about a bayh nouri option. >> exactly. >> either is the government or

itself. actually, i think you're right. i think the language as move dawn, and correctly so. >> thank you. i think what i was worried about was looking like a was saying that the outcome of this should be government regulation of the press, you know, in a way that could be misconstrued. >> certainly. on july 5, 2011, you did call for public inquiry. this is page 06593, towards the end of that interview. which was with chris gibson of itv. it's in the middle page. i hope you have the same pagination? >> i have, thank you. >> you say, "yes, there should be a public inquiry. i think it probably will have to take place after the police inquiries are complete." so that was your first call for

what, in the end, has become this inquiry. there was an interview with kristy wark for bbc newsnight that starts at 06599. i just ask you to deal with one. she raced to you. at 06600, level with the upper hole punch, she suggests that you were slow off the mark -- "i mean, on monday night's news side, tom watson said your is guilty as clegg and cameron on not only letting the dowler family down, but simply not pushing hard enough on this whole issue. you were running to catch up."

you obviously give an answer then. is your answer the same now? >> yes. i was too slow to speak out. at think is worth saying, if i can take this opportunity, but that moment -- what was significant about that moment, i knew at that moment is a said in my opening remarks, we were crossing the rubicon, because this would be seen by news international is pretty much an act of war. so, i think in retrospect, i would have preferred if i had said more earlier. of those talked about the inquiry that i called for in april and what i did in july. >> she also asked you about the hayman island trip. "what i say to you is this -- that i learned lessons from that episode." what lessons, precisely, are to be learned from that episode, if any? >> i think transparency as part

of the answer. is not about who you have dinner with, but it's important to speak out without fear or favor, and i think that's the most important lesson. there should be no interest to powerful in this country, whether it's banking or the press or anywhere that politicians don't speak out if they think there is wrongdoing. not to muzzle the press, because you know, that is the job of democracy, to speak out. that is the most important lesson that i learned from all this. >> thank you. by july 8 in your speech, you were coming out with some ideas putting the pcc out of this misery. this is your toothless poodle speech. you still use the terminology " of form of self regulation,"

page 06607, but when we look at what the new body should possess by way of attributes, you're looking for far greater independence, proper investigative powers -- i know you deal with all this and the recommendation section of your statement, but are we moving there in your of all been thinking towards that sort of position you are at now? >> yes, and in a way at this moment we are probably three or four days after the initial hacking revelations about milly dowler. me speaking now, the game having dramatically changed in my view. i felt it was important to start to give some interpretations to where this was all going to go. i thought it was important to put a marker down.

that every dogen and, -- dot and comma of the proposal is necessarily right, but i do think the broad picture is similar to where i would be at the moment. >> thank you. there was a longer interview with mr. andrew marr. there is one point i would like to deal with. at the bottom of 06609, mr. marr's question suggested that he may have been warned off the line you're taking by colleagues within the labour party. i wasn't quite sure what your answer was to that's question. were you warned privately this was something you should not be doing? >> no, that is that really my

recollection. certainly, is the case that what i did was controversial. as it happened, i gave the interview and then i went to the shadow cabinet. it was pretty clear, i would say there's almost universal support of the shadow cabinet that this was at this stage where the opposition really needed to be significantly strengthened and hardened up. i think there was broad support for what i was doing. >> mr. miliband, we have a break for the shorthand writer. will just take back. >> i owe you an apology. i mentioned before and that

would raise this at the start of your evidence, but then i admitted to. as many have already correctly observed, your wife is a member of the set of chambers or in joint head. we have not, however, previously met outside the circumstances of this inquiry. >> correct. >> i ought to make it clear that i've known that for some time. >> yes. misunderstanding about a. we are, of course, a self- employed and independent practice. we're not partners. >> she and i were partners at one point, but were now married, actually. [laughter] >> page 06830. you pick up a number points, most of which we've already covered. >> i'm sorry -- would you mind -- >> surry. this is page 06830.

where we ask you to address specific meetings and interactions with the two murdoch's. one question though, in relation to the next page. you said you had a conversation with rebekah brooks about the bskyb bid. can you remember what she said and what you said in reply? >> i obviously don't have a number or anything, so i think she requested a conversation with me. i believe that -- early that day. i think the conversation took place later on the evening. i was quite surprised to be

called by her because we did not have a particular kind of relationship like that. she was very annoyed about vince cable and what he'd done. i basically said we also believe that he should no longer have responsibility for this. would call for him to resign earlier on that day, because we thought it was just question of appropriateness, i think was the phrase that the shuttle business secretary used -- shadow business secretary used. it was a relatively short conversation. and i think i talked to her again at the news international party, maybe one other event. >> at that stage, we know she was and the editor of the sun. she was the ceo of news international. >> bashar. >> it may not be possible for you to stay, but could you

define or discern what the intention was behind her wanting to speak to you? >> if i'm honest, i was a very clear about it. she rang, very annoyed about what was happening. i was in clear there was greater purpose to the call. the next day, by the way, i think it was, we've been called into question whether jeremy hunt was a proper person to be in charge of the bid, reflecting our view of what fair dealing mint. >> in reality, she is trying to obtain political muscle for the argument she wanted to develop, presumably, and trying to get the opposition onside to do whatever was a britt. -- whatever was appropriate. >> sure. >> the future now, mr. miliband.

you've seen, i hope, the draft criteria for regulatory solution, collected under tab 7 of the bundle. these outline some general principles of application for what should provide an effective and credible system, and this, as it were, under pens or forms any recommendations the inquiry might make. against that backdrop, i come to section 5 of your statement from paid 06819, at the point where we really left off, a slap in the middle of the page. you tong to invite elaborate each of these points as you see fit, mr. miliband. >> thank you, mr. jay.

i think your draft criteria are definitely a good basis. i have not done a big textual analysis, but it seems to me there in completely the right direction. will be trying to simplify and my layman's terms peeping i think what we need to redress is something which is independent of the press, of politicians, something which is comprehensive, covering all newspapers, and indeed magazines and there's a question about internet organizations, and not your sort of individual self-employed twitterer. thirdly, something which is accessible. accessible, providing fast track

justice or redress for individuals. ithink they're the main -- going to investigative powers in my evidence, but they are the main area. they are the main thing. a way forward. >> is a your conception of the system that it should be voluntary or contractual, or would you include within contemplation the architectural underpinnings? >> i read lord hunt's evidence to you and thought a lot about .t my anxiety about his approach is whether it can achieve

comprehensiveness and independence. i think it's admirable what he has tried to do, because i think he's moved it fairly short order to try and develop a better system for the future. so, where does that take me to do? it takes me to the following position. i'm not for statutory regulation of content. i think there's a pretty strong case -- i have not seen a way forward to get those principles outlined without some kind of statutory support -- there's no other way of putting an statutory support. i think it would be very important to make sure -- is very simple, really. your setting up an independent body -- you are setting up an

independent body. i think it would be very important to insert in any bill constitutional safeguards on the freedom of the press. very, very important. >> example i have given to the number people is the way in which the constitutional reform act and section 3 -- in section 3 (1), i think -- it's difficult to see how anybody could judicially review a decision on the basis that it didn't comply with the statutory exposition, but equally, the purpose of it seems to me to be to enshrine the recognition of the importance of the free press, to assuage the concerns that have been expressed that any statute

can be very, very simply amended and so suddenly becomes the zimbabwe, is how some people put it -- perhaps not using that country as an example, although it has been used. does that reflect -- >> yes, it does. i think this is a very legitimate fear that lord hunt has expressed and the members of the press have expressed. there's two possible objections on the pro -- on the approach i outlined. on the merits objections, which we can discuss, and if you like, a slippery slope argument. what i thought was interesting about his evidence was -- i don't want to miss characterize him -- to be more inclined to the slippery slope argument. >> he said in terms there were members of both houses who would want to use the opportunity to

curtail the freedom of the press and other ways. >> i think as leader of the labour party, i'd set out my very clear position about the limits of what i would want to see. i would not countenance is becoming a license for some massive bureaucratic assault on the press. i would make the point also that there will be a communications act. this could also lend themselves to people putting forward ideas which could be problematic. but the idea is people like lord need reassurance from people like myself that we recognize and are acutely conscious of the limits of any

statutory -- i think recognition is another word that is used. and i'm very conscious of it. >> your second main theme, towards the bottom of the page, is the issue of media ownership matters, including cross-media ownership rules. may i invite you to leverage those issues, please? >> yes. the proceeds from my very simple observation that part of news international's power and lack of accountability and arrogance came from its share of the newspaper market. i do not believe one person should continue to control 37% -- though it is now 34% of the newspaper market. my strong instinct is that's too much. and i would like to see i

submit, i would like to see the inquiry looking at the question of whether we should set lower limits. i should say we should have no worries about someone on the up to 20% of the newspaper market. i think there's a question of between 30 -- between 20% and 30%. or reduce settlement? i think is good for our democracy to have a plurality in the market. i think there's a secondary issue about what we do about cross-media ownership. just to paraphrase a well-worn phrase, i think we look at the communications act of 2003, and now looks like an analog act and it digital age, and i think it will need to be updated anyway. i think there's a question of an overall limit of, to control any organization has over the

market. my team is plurality and a sense that there is -- that one organization does not exercise overweening power. >> can i ask you to reflect upon your answer in this way, mr. miliband. you are the first of a very few people who i can legitimately claim, if that's the river, for the breadth of the terms of reference for this inquiry. i have to get on with it, and i am, but i am concerned about the extent to which is appropriate for me to start to opine about

percentage market share is, because that involves all sorts of competition issues which would require themselves quite detailed analysis -- >> of course. >> both in fact and in law. i said earlier today but i wasn't either in the bar on the bench, a media lawyer, although a picking up and have done some during my career. i'm certainly not a competition lawyer. i wonder what he would say -- and have not reached of view about it, but just for you to comment -- if the limit of my

aspirations in this area was to set out the concerns that various witnesses have expressed, and the counterbalancing arguments, and suggest that appropriate authorities examine the position -- i'm not trying to shed my responsibility, but neither am i trying to buy off -- bite off more than i could or should legitimately take on. >> i would totally understand your instincts on this. >> the terms of reference -- i can get them for you now. one moment. there's no doubt they do include cross-media ownership. one moment.

its to enquire into the culture, practice, and ethics of the press, including contacts and relationships between national newspapers and politicians and the concept that each of them, contacts and the relationship between the press and the police and the conduct of each, the extent to which current policy and regulatory framework has failed, including the related issue of data protection, and the extent to which there is a failure to act on previous warnings and media misconduct. so one would have to think about what is meant about policy there. but then it is certainly "to make recommendations for a new and more effective policy and

regulatory regime which supports the integrity of the media and its independence from government while encouraging the highest ethical standards." and here's one that bites of -- for how future concerns about press behavior, media policy, and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all relevant authorities. so on a proper construction, and required to make recommendations for how concerns should be addressed. and the trying to construe these terms of reference -- well i am, actually. but i want to provide something that is meaningful and helpful.

i will have to think about this quite a lot. would be enough to keep the ball in the air. >> i understand your caution about the complexity of some of these issues. part of this arose of discussions we had it is something that mr. cameron graciously offered. i can speak for them, but i think it was the collective view that it was important -- >> i know. i was on the receiving end of

different versions of this. they grew like a mushroom cloud. on the third point he make -- it relates to whether decisions made about competition and plurality issues should be left to politicians or go to regulators. you have a view about that, i think. >> yes. i think this is the biggest -- the clearest dilemma. on the one hand, i think we are reading the accounts of how these decisions are made and anybody would read them and go

"it is easier to just get the politicians out of this." if i think of myself as aspiring to be prime minister, i think, do really what this headache of these decisions being made and the people thinking as the right decision in may? but my answer to that is the right course can be followed. i think there's a public interest in keeping the politicians in. in the end, we are elected to represent the public interest. regulators have a very important role. i have a concrete suggestion on the us. my suggestion on this -- i believe there is a case for saying if a politician must depart from the recommendations of the competition commission or what ever it is, that decision should be challenger will --

challengable by appeal. d and i take ange different view to say it simply wasn't a reasonable decision come up on the merits. that's the best i can come up with -- to give politicians a role, because i think it's important that role is maintained, but provide, if you like, some sort of constraints, a greater constraint or higher bar. giving theactually decision to the regulators. >> ultimately. >> another way of doing the same thing would be to say if there

is to be such an issue, and i will come on because i want to share with you some concerns about this, then policy considerations could be set out in writing by the minister -- publicly available. and then it is appealed and the normal way. which actually, broadly, it is the exactly same thing as a right to app eal on the mrits. i don't ask you to commit

yourself. but i understand the point that he mate. the concern that got -- that i have got is this. i have sat on many cases of judicial review in areas where i have a perfectly understandable personal reaction. it doesn't matter what it is. when farms, nuclear energy, whatever. sales was another 1. i am able to ignore my personal views and decide the issues that have to decide according to the a lot. best the oath i took and i've not found it difficult to do that. but i am not affected by it or likely to be affected by a decision i'm make -- that i

make. so, if someone wanted to create a wind farm next to my house, i would recuse myself. equally, if you were the minister for a constituency where some issue arose, and your the minister, then you would say a look, i can deal with this. i'm involved." and i understand that. we can all follow that. what concerns me is what more than one person is said about such an issue as one involving the press, that actually, you all have views. they may be pro, they may be anti, but they impact on you all the time. and therefore for those

questions, it becomes difficult to step outside the day to day views that you hold and which might impact on you in a way that isn't difficult. necessarily articulated that very clearly. the appeal understand. >> for the first point, let me make two points. i think it's worth saying that i think it's worth saying that it's more