our live coverage starts at 11:00 eastern. later in the day as the supreme court prepares to finish work for the term, justice ginsburg will address the american constitution society. british prime minister david cameron was questioned and london. the prime minister was asked about his relationship with the former news corp. executive rebekah brooks and his decision to hire andy coulson. the levenson commission that was created by the prime minister's office is investigating journalism at sex.

-- ethics. >> i swear by almighty god the evidence i give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your full name please. >> to david william donald cameron perry >> you have provided us with a witness statement that extends to 84 pages and possesses two exhibits. is this the formal evidence here are tendering to our inquiry? >> it is. >> i am extremely grateful to the obvious work that you no doubt have put into your

evidence and the material you have provided the inquiry. >> questions about your career before 2001, when you entered parliament. in your dealings with third parties, to what extent did you express an opinion that was not the opinion of your minister without making it clear that it was not? what's that was quite a long time ago. it is hard to remember all the interactions i had it. i would have had contact with businesses, third parties. the job of a special adviser was to sometimes be a sponge in terms of soaking up a lot of people who wanted to see the

minister but the minister did not have time. on occasion i would have made it clear to people my inkling about something. >> on such occasions, do you think he would have made it clear to the third parties you were expecting your own opinions and not the minister's opinion? >> i do not. what do what extent do you think your approach was orthodox or unorthodox? at the research office for a number of years. my job as a special adviser was a political special adviser. a speech writer. i was advising on party policy the political side of the minister's job rather than being an expert adviser. treasury we have some expert advisers who were tax specialists or economists.

i was more a general political adviser. >> thank you. between 1994 and 2001, broadcast communications and not print media specifically, you tell us about how those experiences influenced your thinking. am i right and deducing the it was your media background that in part brought you into contact with journalists and that contact led to the development of french ships? >> there were various parts of my job. was to deal with the regulatory environment that television companies phase, a strict regulatory environment. part of the job was dealing with investors and

shareholders, dealing with them. eight other part was press handling and press relations. i formed some relationships during that period. that was more related to the time i was special adviser because i was dealing with journalists and then and some around today. >> to what extent is your background and in these and french ships provided you -- friendships provided you knowledge in how newspapers function? >> some knowledge. i have never worked in a newsroom. knowledge and understanding but not as much as somebody who has worked there. it probably taught me more about the television industry, how it regulated. maybe we will come onto this. a lot of the views i formed about media policy, media

informative period. i formed a lot of the views then that i still hold today. >> i am going to divide your evidence up into five general headings. the first is general perspectives on the development of a media issues. may we look to paragraph 13 and 14 of your statement, at page 04099. you explain the instrument of the contract between politicians and media is necessary and not inherently and is that right? >> absolutely. direct

forms of communication. leaflets and the like. it is a big part of the way we communicate. the relationships are important. >> in paragraph 13 you had a background discussion. is that to include off the record disrupt -- discussion? >> yes. to abo you. your motivations and your character. your views and why you hold them. these conversations are important. that is what the relationship is important. >> you make a clear a lot depends on individual journalist. easy has that been for you? with the person concerned. sometimes you strike up a strong

relationship, sometimes he struggled. >> you also say the media plays a vital part in interpreting and explaining political events to the public. the i am putting broadcasters to one side, has the press discharge these accusations fairly over the last 11 years? >> i think it has changed a lot. asking politicians whether they with the way the media reports the news is a bit like asking farmers about the weather. we will always complain. a lot of the evidence has been the sessions you have had where people have talked about the growth of the 24 hour news culture, the fact move so fast is that in a difficult position. the news is reported long before they reached their deadlines and

publish papers the next day. newspapers have moved more to find impact, trying to find an ankle on a than what would have been the case before 24 just reporting the day before. been a change. i think that is quite a lot to do with technology and the development of media than anything else. from the politicians. the government, it is sometimes a change for the worse. if there is a big announcement something we think is important, that gets announced on the television. quite understandable by tie newspapers about these next day they have to find something different. i understand why they want to do

that. the perspective of explaining to the country why you are making difficult decisions, why you are reforming the service in this way. sometimes you would love it if more what it is you actually decided to rather than an less analysis or what the motives were. politicians will always this sort of thing. put too much weight on it. spending quite a lot of the this is in my evidence -- quite a lot of focus on broadcasting. that if you through to people television is incredibly medium. as the media markets are broken , newspapers are selling copies and people are looking at internet, the audience has fallen. greater.

thing that lots of people to do at the same time is watch the main news in the evening. to explain why you are doing what you are doing, television is extraordinarily powerful. it must not be left out. >> broadcasters are subject to different -- absolutely. rightly so. >> paragraphs 17 you give examples of the benefits. this relates to campaigns and also you give an example of a journalist from the telegraph accompanying you in august last would the realm of less politically charged issues? >> what is easier? doing interviews, campaigns? the benefits that accrue from

easier and that are less politically charged. i suppose that is the case. >> would you say the same about some of the shriller campaigns seen and sections of the press over the years? >> i would say these campaign -- it is not always just newspapers. some of them are extraordinarily important and powerful. a number of your witnesses have mentioned the daily mail. that was extremely important. reflective of the readers of that paper. them are more about what cares about. i think the politician has to judge and h. case, the campaign

is right and reflective of think if there is something that needs to be answered. it something i am prepared to have a disagreement about. recent example of the disagreement would be the hands campaign. i felt we needed to reform the planning system. we have to have that argument. the saras' lot campaign, some of very controversial. i think it is good these campaigns have put forward. part of the challenge to the politicians, a lot of people care about this. what are you doing about this? i think it is good and right we have that debate. the megaphone turned up very loud. it is difficult to separate the message, would

you agree? >> i am not sure i would. i think generally, the 24 hour has meant they have to turn up the volume on everything. sometimes i feel and newspaper reporting coverage can be -- it feels like you are being shouted at rather than spoken to. i would not particularly say on these campaigns. if a newspaper gets a good going and they tap into a vein of public concern, they important job for our democracy. law campaign, who were condescending, you do not understand it. anybody. public was saying, all parents worry about their children and the dangers to children more than anything. think it is important politicians respond to that rather than trying to push it away.

you explain benefits you have identified, respect and understanding favors. does one foster, in your that necessary view of mutual respect and understanding? >> that is a difficult question. we do not have it at the moment. the relationship while i argue has gotten too close to unhoused the, it is also not a trusting relationship at the moment. a lot of politicians think the press always get it wrong. a lot of the press think politicians are in it for themselves. it has become a bad relationship. how we get it to a better place,

part of it will be about having this greater transparency. having better regulation. distance. be part. respect will have to come from standards in both places. knocked to politicians standing. they have to prove they are worthy of respect. the press has taken a knock from of the appalling things we out through this inquiry. both sides. you prefer having a bit more distance. each what is right and where the boundaries are. are we agreed? the

politician. relates to the 24 news cycle. that are fighting a permanent battle of the issues being thrown at you hour by hour. sources are demanded very quickly. if you are not careful it can of your energy in dealing with that. you spend your doing you will never reform schools, cut deficit, correct economic problems. particularly prime ministers and cabinet ministers have to get the 24 hour news cycle, not try to fight every hour early battle. term issues and be prepared to take a hit on a story that they did not respond to so quickly. -- i tried to do that.

not 24 hour television screen looking at the ticker and worrying about what happening every hour. if you do that you get buried by the daily news agenda. >> a bit more distance could relate to the quantity of engagement but could relate to the quality of individual engagements with journalists. are we agreed? are we also agreed that we need constructive tension or each party or each side having a proper understanding of what is appropriate and what may not be appropriate? >> yes. have been efficient? >> yes, that is part of my that i think

the relationship has been going wrong -- it has never been perfect. been problems. you can point to examples of churchill as a minister. in the last 20 years i think the relationship has not been right. been too close as i explained in my evidence. i think we tried to -- we need to try to get it on a better footing. >> in paragraph 20 refer to excessive regulation. the key principle you identified being transparency. is transparency sufficient? the crux of know, i do not think it is. -- is. risks when this relationship is not right? i tried to enumerate the risks.

one of them is the perception key figures in the media wield too much power. think you do mitigate in part by transparency. if everyone can see who you are meeting, that enables others to draw comment on your meetings. now we have a much better situation of transparency. because there are other risks. other risks need effective think the regulatory moment works. we need to improve it. if we just said transparency -- everybody could see who is home, that is a mistake. ideas in due course. the relationship between press and

the politicians at a wider level? how politicians would struggle to see how regulation could assist. it is a cultural thing it seems to me. >> what i would say is the transparency can help address some of the problems because people can see who you are meeting and when. one of my arguments is that relationship has not because it has been the politicians and the press have not spent enough time sorting out the regulatory system under which the press exists. we need to fix that. is, it is quite difficult for the politician to

sort out on their on the the press faces because we are an interested party. just deemed a head and said, we will regulate you in way, the press would have a legitimate argument to say, you are beneficiaries of this. that is part of what this the best addition is about. >> i understand the point. , it is absolutely critical in parts of our democracy, i understand that. i have said to a number of people, it cannot interfere with beings being friendly to other human beings. to some extent, would you agree that the problem the politician faces, actually the onus is on then. the press will feel

legitimately they ought to push politicians to account to they want to investigate. can get information the better. dynamic needs to be changed. need to draw some boundaries, but that is very difficult to do. politicians do have an interest in not being investigated vigorously. painful for politicians, but it was right that it was revealed. i think it is the free press in this country that is an of our democratic system. factor them inappropriately. we need to have politicians called to account by vigorous press campaigns. relationship right. transparency as part of it.

how we make it work is another. find a way for some independents to be brought to that. politicians can say it may not be perfect in every way but this is a fair set of ideas. of the risks you consult on media coverage, there is a danger they do not consider the wider risks of how media operates. slow media coverage? because the press want access. it politicians want coverage for what they are doing in their

policies and approach. parties focus on that. when things are going wrong, which they clearly were. is the politicians and the press did not disengage and say, hold on. we have a real problem. it. it might mean changes to the law. not happen. i thought tony blair's evidence was quite powerful. i am not quoting, i know that was a problem. it was an enormous challenge. had all the other challenges, so i did not deal with it. >> in relation -- you say at the end of the paragraph you regretted not devoting enough time to scrutinize the

government and hold into account. did you devote any time to the issue? >> i was aware of the issues. as i say here, the government not give enough attention. that is a matter for regret. examining other media issues and 2003, is that intended to be the committee on that occasion? it is a general to things that were not right. when i was looking at evidence, i was trying to reflect on how i generally. i looked back at some of the said, parliament doing its job.

the select commission was doing its job. the party leadership's. >> before the house of commons and close relation, regulation issues be put on the burner. you are attributing cause and the fact. is that something you are comfortable with? i think that is right. the way i put it is politicians were spending their time trying get their message across. when it was necessary to that and discuss regulatory issues, that was not happening. i think that has been happening under governments of parties for some time. >> what was your reaction to mr. blair's speech, in june 2007? a few days before he was

departing. >> i read it again in the past of days. in it. solution. it is a good analysis of the problem of the 24 hour news cycle, turning up the volume on news and comment. there was not a specific solution. i cannot remember what i said at the time. like all these attempts to raise the issue, it probably did not give it much of a backing. >> paragraph 25, you identified risks that could lead to government percept rigid public have too loud a voice. just more of and a

perception that you identified? >> i think it depends on how robust politicians are at up and event -- defending their policies. i think we deal with this by making it transparent. i would argue strongly that my determined by -- by my beliefs and values, not by what a particular editor might want. of where i had a strong disagreements with over at the bbc or the daily telegraph or what have you. mitigated through transparency. a vigorous public debate so people can see politicians are giving in to media pressure that goes against something they

previously said, they can draw their own conclusions. >> the part of the problem may be politicians are guilty in a form of appeasement. to be exercised unhindered. over a generation. >> i do not like the word appeasement. i think that is strong. think what is happening is have a focused on getting a message across. i think there have been some good examples of propositions on both sides facing down very strong campaigns that newspapers or others might have a. i do not think politicians have been guilty of appeasing in that sense. i use the example of identity cards. is

more about not focusing on these regulatory issues when they needed to be focused on. not the size of the voice and power of menaced of -- manifestation. we have allowed to much to accumulate in the hands of a small number of individuals. >> i think this is a difficult question. a lot of the time it is not necessarily the size of the newspaper group, it is the strength of the voice of the paper. the daily mail is an incredibly powerful voice in the nation's politics because it is a strong product that puts its voice powerfully. that is not related to its market power, to the way it pushes its agenda. i do not think it is always about market power. >> although it might not always

be about market power, that is not the sole explanation. is it part of the explanation or part of the problem? >> i am not sure about that. as i say, i think you can have individual papers that are particularly strident, if i can put it that way. you look at the news international group, not always having all the papers in the same direction. some of them shouted a bit louder than others. i think it is the nature of the voice. having said that, you do need effective rules on -- perhaps you will come onto that. >> paragraph 29, this is page 040175. we touched on aspects already. allowing media pressure to

shift and it shaped the political jet -- the political agenda. the heart of the problem as the fuse of news and comment. do you agree with that? >> i do not really. in an ideal world it would be lovely if the front page of the newspaper was all the things that happened in the world yesterday. i think it is quite impractical. i have been thinking about this because of your -- a lot of your witnesses have made this point. so often the headline encapsulates both a fact but also an opinion. i think it is clear it is not meant to be comment, but it happens. >> that closes the. you were making earlier that we're as 50 years ago when there

was little television and therefore people got their news very much from their daily newspaper, they would read the parliamentary debate or they would read of a court case, that was how they learned the facts. it really plays into your point that because of the 24-7 news cycle, newspapers are required to provide their own ankle. -- angle. inevitably, opinion. >> that is correct. i am sure other politicians would take this view. we spend a lot of time with newspapers and arguing newspapers and trying to get our point across. if you talk to any modern political party in britain and ask what you really spend your time on more than anything, it is the 6:00 news, the 10:00

news. the things you still watch. not such a problem. how much time do we with newspaper groups, a big focus, it has been on television. i hope that comes across and what i have said. >> the argument about not being held to account does not really work when you are being held to account by broadcasting journalists all the time. without it being obvious the way they are regulated. >> i think newspaper and television holds politicians a to account in different ways. the newspapers do play a very important role in terms of

accountability because they investigative approaches , they can really go after stores and get to the details. that is a difference. the strength of our democracy did not have those. >> it is not immediately apparent that broadcasters do not hold politicians to account. it seems that they do. certainly broadcasters from home i have heard do not recognize that a probe of properly are notwithstanding the regulatory regime. >> i am sure that is right. there are some things newspapers do because the impartiality guide.

more edgy, if you did not have that -- i kindly agree. analysis that on the is no problem or no need solution. or there is a problem but no for a solution? >> there can be a problem in some cases. think it is solvable. some answer people come up with that i do not think are particularly credible. it would be one of culture, would you agree? yes, i think with all these things. write all the roles that

is massively important. it is important in every aspect of life. >> thank you. can we moved forward to the point you make in paragraph 131? dealing with the issue of campaigns. you say in the last sentence you never traded or offered a position on policy and support of any media outlet. do you believe that others have? >> i cannot think of any particular example. >> ok. you identified about lobbying

-- we will come back to that later on if we may. back to paragraph 47 of your statement. this is the recent history showing the relationship. i want you to try to identify when approximately you believe that started to arise. >> this is difficult. i would argue it is partly the growth of the 24 hour days agenda. i think that had an impact because politicians have a wanted to try to get their message across with the newspapers taking a more aggressive stance. i think there is also a history, which you heard a lot of.

they did have an absolutely wretched, a terrible time. labor understandably thought if we get in, we have to be better organized. we have to be more efficient at communicating. i think like all things in life, the pendulum swung too far the other way. there was too much in a culture of daily news fighting. we needed the pendulum to swing back a bit while still being professional and able to communicate. you have to get your message across. i think it has been a developing story. have the conservative government that knew there was a problem, had this process that came to nothing. then you had the new labor and i think the combination of that with the 24 our agenda is what

lies behind some of the problem. >> the pendulum was swinging in the wrong direction as it were from 1994, 1995 and was possibly in the wrong place until july 2011. does that sound about right? what's there have been various attempts along the way to grab hold of the pendulum and do something about it. that speech did mention a whole set of things the last government did in terms of putting records -- briefings on the record, the liaison committee. i would argue new rules for special advisers reintroduced greater transparency. there have been steps. why are we all here? we are here because of the dreadful things that happened to ordinary members of the public

whose lives have been turned upside-down when they have already suffered through losing their children. this is a cathartic moment where press, politicians, police, all the relationships that have not been right, we have a chance to reset them. that is what we must do. >> what do you see as the harm to the public interest? how would you define it from this relationship of undue approximately? >> the way i put it is, the closeness which i have talked about leads potentially to these risks. i have enumerated the risks. clearly they have the potential to do the public harm unless they are properly dealt with. i think this is achievable and it needs to be done. crux is it possible to describe

one of the risks and this way, the relationship has become transactional. although there may not be expressed, they are implied because each party knows what the other ones? >> i do not accept that. on this idea that somehow conservative party and news international got together and said, you give us your support and we will wave a through this merger, that we did not even know about at that stage. i think the idea is nonsense and you have heard that from lots of people. i also do not believe in the theory of a nod and a wink and a covert agreement. i wanted to win over newspapers and other journalists, broadcasters, i worked hard at that because i wanted to communicate what the conservative party could bring to the country. i did not do it on the basis of

saying, either overly 0 corporately, your support will mean i will give you a better support on this policy or that policy. there are plenty of examples that the people backing me did not believe in. >> there is also risk of overly close relationships have allowed judgments to be clouded. >> i think obviously you have to take care would have personal friendships. i think that can be done. i like to think i have done that. >> ok. i am still on the general perspectives. i would like you to comment on the manipulation of the media by politicians favoritism and

anonymous briefings. have you seen evidence of these devices in your own party? >> yes, these things do happen. it is deeply regrettable. as long as there has been a press and politicians, these things happen. it makes running a political party more difficult. running a government is more difficult. it is deeply destructive. i think there are degrees of this. some politicians have journalists that they have a good relationship with. they think they will understand a speech or idea better than others. and in this world where the newspapers are not reporting yesterday's news because that has been reported, newspapers are looking for something special. they are looking for an ankle or a story. there are responsible ways of handling relations.

-- looking for an angle or a story. there are dreadful things done on both sides in recent years. >> what is the solution to these devices-- vices? >> i think there has been a problem in terms of some individuals and some special advisers. i think we now have a better special advisers code. one of the things i wrote into the code is that special advisers work for the whole government, not just individual ministers. it is a mixture of rules and culture. clucks john major made the point that they are responsible in their organization. it is in their power -- is the

same argument applies to politicians? >> i think it is. it is very important. if you find out these things have been happening, you need to condemn them properly. i think that is the case. >> can i ask you to address mr. brown's. . reporting is hyperbolic. he said politicians do not make a good judgments. their motives are always put into question. >> i think there are occasions when that can happen. as i said, it links back to this thing about newspapers being under pressure to find something special and different and go for impact. sometimes that can mean questioning motives.

i do not want to make this sound like politicians complaining about -- we should have a vigorous press and they should give us a going over. they do. but, you know, there is bound to be a certain amount of that. the volume knob has sometimes been turned really high in our press. i am not sure that does anybody any favors. >> the volume knob is turned to high. motive is always impugned. if you turn it down lower and examine human nature as it is, judgment mistakes are made are not some fallen motives. >> there have been politicians with bad motives. they had -- the press should not hold off on making that point.

i think that is all fear for the press to challenge that. sometimes -- i think that is all unfair for the press to challenge that. >> can i move on to the second area. you can start on paragraph 73 of your witness statement. can you explain the nature of your contacts. formal interviews and background discussions. that is the same as everyone else? >> yes. >> paragraph 24, you believe in a majority of cases contact would be initiated by your staff. >> the leaders of the

conservative party at the end of 2005, we had a program of wanting to get our message and policies and approach across. that meant a pro active campaign of talking to journalists. whether it was regional, national newspapers, television stations. i hope in the exhibit -- it goes on for five years of meetings. i cannot promise it is 100% accurate. we are going back to paper based batteries. it is a pretty big risk. >> do you have a strategy at the beginning of each year where you mapped out who you should be seeing over the course of the year or is it more advantageous? your staff decides on a monthly basis who you might see? there is not a strategy that news international is 36% of the

market, you should be seeing them 36% of the time? >> strategy mapped out at the beginning of the year are things you want to achieve or policies you want to get across. after that, how do we do that? what is the mixture of television and newspapers and direct campaigns that we want to do. following that we are looking at, where are we going to have impact? i would like to see -- i would like to think that we spend a huge amount of time with all newspapers. you are thinking with all respect to the daily mirror, there is only a certain amount i will get from meeting with the daily mirror. although with other newspapers that might back a conservative cause are going to be better grounds for me. >> the main touchstone is the impact as you likely say.

on who may or may not be on your side. >> i will just repeat again that the television cannot be on your side because there are rules of impartiality. a huge amount of time when i became leader of the party was saying how can i get us on the television. i think that is the most meaningful medium of information. >> we can see if there was a lengthy list, it would be counterproductive. what about what we discussed with transparency. would you favor that or not? >> i think there are improvements we can make. i think the idea some suggested of a written interaction with

every broadcaster, most of the meetings are pretty similar. you are explaining why you are in the favor of a free schools and academies. why the policy is a good idea. you are explaining something that you have already published. we're i think there is the most potential for improvement is and two areas. if it is obvious this is a meeting where the proprietor or the broadcasting business or what have you has got some commercial issues they want to raise, i think it does make sense that a note is taken. or if in a meeting that is really about your approach, there is a discussion about commercial interests, then i think again in government, it is under the ministerial code, the minister or politician should

make a reference to that. a good example of this, i do not want to give a kick to an industry, regional newspapers, we have lots of meeting with regional newspapers. you are explaining why the government is helping whatever it is. often they will say quite fairly, we are being hammered by these three newspapers put out by local authorities. they are taking out advertising. it is not fair. what are you going to do about it? them toit is fair for raise that point. that is a media organization raising a policy. rather than an exchange about policies. in some ways that needs to be registered. the more rules and codes we create, the more difficult it is

to make sure in every instance people abide by them. i do not want to create a system that does not work that is broken. i think some modest additions to the ministerial code to deal with these points i have made, i think that is something we could look at. >> paragraph 79, you identify a small number of journalists who are close friends to yours, you name them there. it is inevitable that friendships would arise. is that right? >> that is right. the reason for putting that in is it does to the last point i made. the more we write these rules the more danger it is he will forget you bump into so and so. then it comes out you did not reveal that and the public puts -- the public loses all confidence they had.

that is the purpose. i will never remember to tell my office everytime i see them. >> the main risk here i suppose, i will ask you to comment on it, you provided these journalists with scoops or stories or -- in sites they can employ. is that fair? >> some of that you have known 20 or 30 years. some you get to know because in some cases they are neighbors. i think one of the things that all ministers are meant to do, and perhaps we need to remind people because i have done this, you sit down with your -- i went through my address book

and said, that is what everyone of my friends did it. if they had any business interactions that might bump up, at least have that conversation with your secretary so if any form of conflict does arise in the future, at least it is not something that has been buried it. it is difficult stuff to get right. >> in paragraph 91-92, you are addressing the question to what extent political is discussed. paragraph 92 in particular, the issue of political support is not addressed but under lines any of your discussions. >> i think that is probably right. there have been occasions where you are keen -- most of the time you try to explain, these are my

policies. this is what the labor party has the wrong. there are times when you are keen for the newspaper to do more to support you. whether that is editorially for the coverage they give you. i have had these conversations. >> how often do you think you have had a conversation of that nature? but not often. predominantly it is about what i was trying to do with the conservative party, what the policies were we cared about, what the government was getting wrong. it was all these arguments that obviously on occasion you did say, we would love a bit more support from your paper. >> we've got some evidence, on his account he made it clear -- rupert murdoch could not support

the conservative party. have you had a similar conversation with him? >> not of that nature. >> have you had conversations with editors which they made it crystal clear which of your policies they favor and which they do not? >> of course. a lot of these people have strong views so you have robust debates. >> that point may not have been explicitly made. was it obvious to you what the conditions for their support amounted to? >> i think in the end a lot of these newspapers followed their readers' views. i was trying to win back to the conservative cause newspapers that had been conservative and had been won over by tony blair. i was asking you to sign up to a whole set of views they thought were ridiculous. i was trying to get them to return to the right cause as it

were. you have a very robust conversations where you do not agree. cracks in the example you have given, the son was won over by mr. blair. the preponderant of their reader's views was with new labor. >> ithe conservative governmente fallen nasa played out of favor. some reasons were switching -- had fallen in reasonably out of favor. some reasons for switching. under my leadership steadily some readers were coming over. i felt that a lot of journalists working for the papers to change asap because they were out of tune with the readers.

no way does winning this newspaper or that newspaper guarantee you anything getting smaller. >> the importance is being over exaggerated. tibet is some degree of significance. how want to go back to 2005 where you started this. tos your stratgeegy then treat distance between yourself and mr. murdoch it haag? ? -i would not put it like that. i think i won the leadership the

what i said during the party conference. it helped me get my message across. i wanted us to have a good relationship. i know we needed to win overall support. there were some that were very keen to do this. i would say i was more cautious about thinking we wanted it to work very hard on television. we should do what we did on the newspapers. i think that is the way it was. it was thought one set of circumstances. >> mr. eustace has said we pursued a strategy of raising the status of real journalism. is that a fair analysis of? >> parts of it are right.

the route everything labor had done. look at the meetings i to to win people over. think it's totally squares up. i think there is nothing more between the two. >> be made a point that you would not have a flown halfway around the world to speak at the annual conference. is that an accurate assessment? saw. i saw what he wrote.

is winning support of including actually flying off to meet the owners of the telegraph. think i would characterize it as one approach and then a different approach. i think there is more similarity between the two. at the beginning of my leadership, a lot of what i was do was make changes to the conservative party, the policies of the party. not all of these are very popular. i have a difficulty in trying to make changes of trying to convince them out is doing the right thing. >> some have identified be changed around 2007. you did not have widespread support in the medium. >> the said they did not have

widespread support. it is very difficult. if you are running a political party and you're trying to win over the public and create momentum, it is difficult if you the different bits conservative family behind you. you need remembers. getting behind you. written to of getting

much backing -- where i was i getting much backing from them. was struggling to get the message across. i put a lot of work in. corrects you have three of this bundle. a complex together with the meetings you have. this sunday. the meetings you have. what it is worth, over four equates to 27 per month. there have been fewer.

when i was elected, i did try to do less than this. spending your time governing, not talking about governing. i did try to create some more distance. it is different because of these daily battles you find. de think it is a problem with the difference between opposition and governments of? e may be aware that they made the point that he thought the labor made a mistake.

not everybody has agreed to its. i am interested in knowing if you think there is a difference. it is quite difficult if it is not recognized as appropriate. making real decisions rather than policy ideas. it is more important that what do is done properly. that is why i have special codes. i do think perhaps when our leader of the opposition, and i did the job for five years, it is only in the last year that you get them started to talk to you. having earlier

between the cabinet secretary with a new leader of make them aware of some of the practices that might assist them in any conflicts. something perhaps we can write to your inquiry about. >> that is very much along the lines that i was thinking about. it practices developed that are not appropriate for government, it might be better. if the practice can be developed while in opposition will flow naturally, but if an opposition party is developing ideas without the experience of having been in government it becomes much more difficult. sure that is right.

that may be of value to deal apart. to those away with leadership? i do not think they were so not have the other things. huge policy commissions. huge number of direct meetings. this takes up a lot of time. there are moments when you think he will not get back. if you are a politician and you want to win people over, you need to get your message across.

in government, you have a fuller day job. do you feel the engagement less than it has been in opposition explained the 24 hour news agenda. arrived, at thought was geared toward 24 hour news. the newsroom. press department should be like. private office and a set of arrangements take and prepare for decisions properly, structure your days a you are in a news mode.

>> this extends over a number. we poured over it in an attempt to deliver this. they come to the conclusion that this would be misleading. you with these analyses. identified rupert injuries. that cover all social interaction? short answer is it might not.

we have missed anything out. found some that did not ask. reconcile as much as possible. every government is different. office, you have a diary of what you are meant to do that day and what actually happens. the government one is in the office. was our best attempt. >> we're going to leave it to it two others.

to leave it there. we're going to leave it to over exaggerate the importance or accuracy of these documents. these are never intended to provide a his starkly accurate account of what you were doing. you create a picture. it seems it is sufficient. week we precedes received a dinner here. of it?

have the date of the visit. if we cross checked, i am sure that out. it looks like it was. rupert murdoch was not at the dinner. t correct? >> i do not think that is right. spotted an error. i am very sorry. deal with it in my evidence.

is that this was strings and a dinner. drinks and a dinner. >> we have a break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> was look at some individual injuries. of december -- let look at some individual entries. the 16th of december. >> matthew i must have known for

some 20 years. he married someone out of the university with. i'm trying to find the page. i think it was a social occasion. >> how long have you known him? >> i think since they first got married. i cannot put a date on it. >> your first meeting with rupert murdoch is in january 2006. your witness stand made it clear there was one before you were the leader. do you think this was a one on one? were there people there that >> i do not remember. it was a long time ago.

i most were probably a one on one and drink, occasionally a lunch. there have been some with a range of journalists. >> this is page 0425. by the time the commission report came out, i understand it is difficult to search want regulation. do you recall that report might ta? >> i can remember where the dinner was. i cannot remember where it was let alone what we talked about.

>> then the stentorian a visit -- and i understand whose idea was that? matt the freud's idea. idea.thew freud's >> did he have a discussion with rebecca weighed about it? -- wade about it? >> from my point did you it was opportunity to try to rupert murdoch better. me it was an opportunity to deal with that relationship. it was a good opportunity. >> presumably there was an earlier conversation with mr. freud as to the possibility of

having this source and meeting. >> my memory is a came together quite quickly. i was on summer tour de around the country. off to georgia. them at the time of the invasion. it seemed like a possible to link up. we got together at the last minute. >> we know that rebecca wade was there. if you have a conversation n?fore the inde >> i do not remember. >> 2009 you have lunch with james murdoch. to you think it is possible that

you discuss regulatory issues? was discussed. i am sure over the years i discussed some of those issues with james murdoch. we both have very strong issues and they're not the same. i am sure we would have had discussions about it. recall the specifics. this is a few months before late august 2009. think these would have been here. most of these are really about to promote conservative policies.

the issues. i am sure we would have discussed them. >> one can see the intensity of his feeling. himself quite strongly. a bbc. did they do have an important role. both have an important role. september 2009, which is page 04228, you have lunch with the first of september 2009. the issue for you

and your party was discussed? argument that some more for conservatives. the specifics of that conversation. so we see the overall picture. there are references to robinson on this page. can i go to the 10th of september 2009? are we so on 229? yes. evidence was that he saw

that the sun was the conservative party. i do remember saying that. i remember the conversation. not but together they long. it is a drink and a catch up. he wanted to tell me that the sun is going to support the conservatives. he told me it to happen around the time of the labor conference. i am pleased that the conservative party would get to some support. conversation about other policy issues at the time. that is my memory of it. >> he gave me some inkling? >> i think so. that is my memory. so probably debating. remember it to be

sometime in the conference. the focuses on the economy. discussing issues, yes. >> to do you recall any mention by james murdoch of your the bbc? >> i do not recall. think it unlikely.

he was very keen to tell me directly that the sun was going to support the conservatives felt on the economic about what we needed. the government had the run arguments. that is what the copulation was about. about another policy issues. >> these are about defense. at last count. enthusiasm. all these events. and as some say they would support the conservative party. i think he gave me a hint of the timing. about the picture. issue of the day. have an interest

before the 10th of september 2009? >> no. >> had the gist been given to your attention? i did remember the whole at the time. had an important wrong. >> and they are there. he put himself very forcibly in a lecture. it is more than plausible that the occasion. happen?

>> i do not think so. for a son this was a big change. >-- "the sun" this was a big change. >> can you remember anything about the regulatory issues? >> i do not are to go the call what was discussed then. >> support for it this was likely to have been mentioned. >> i'm trying to remember the exact dates of the labor conference. >> it is the 28th of september. >> i suspect that what had been discussed.

i remember the drink. i remember what he said about "the sun." i do not articulate remember the dinner. >> this was discussed on vacation. would you agree? >> i recall the drink. i do not recall the dinner. >> the evening of the 28th of september but the point to master. there are a series of interactions.

>> there is also dinner with "the telegraph" and scottish television. this was an incredibly busy media week. i was missing all sorts of people from all sorts of different media organizations. i just want to make that point. including the whole team at the murdoch, etc., etc.. >> can i move forward to the 16th of december 2009?

this seems to be the first meeting he had with rupert murdoch after a report had changed. if you remember a thing about that conversation? >> not particularly. in most of my bunches with rupert murdoch has been primarily about economic issues, it geopolitical issues. he was very interested and what was happening in afghanistan and local markets. all businesses have their interests. in my dealings with rupert murdoch, most of the conversation has been about big international political issues. >> the only other point on the schedule -- we see you on the 28th of january 2010.

>> this is the bottom up 4322. this was in davos. everyis a dinner i've held year i have been going. >> you are aware of his role? >> in relation to your schedule

minister,rime ministeyou were e what we see is a lesser degree is about 50%. the same sort of picture in terms of the individuals you meet. that meetings with a lot of different newspaper groups.

>> moving away from this to wear something else, we have heard some evidence from mr. barclay and a chance to look at the transcripts. the reaper to the fact that he had -- he referred to the fact that he had quite frequent text messages with you. we know from one text message at 25.

. the campaign has not yet been launched. >> i think the daily call was

between the conservative party and tony gallagher. i think this was me wanting to make sure that the telegraph new this was what was about. >> this liquidity was much will later on may 2011. they allow banks to implement basel 3. other banks would not go along with it anyway. you do reply to that.

huge in a different way. >> we have met various times. do not think there is anything improper about that. >> could you add in a particular weight to the view? >> this with the view of him. his strong views about the financial situation. >> i get a lot of exposure on

the sort of points. >> are we to understand that you are almost bombarded? people of chilly trying to get you to look to things. of contacts with a lot of different people. these are my official papers. >> we go back to the issue now.

>> this is where it goes. a strategy as to how over? not put it like that. we will try to explain the approaches we believe in. of them will try to spread that could. when you're talking to "the sun" you want to talk about the policies that would particularly sun" readers.

thought the tax was part of important. that is something people feel . >> you had him on board since may urging. you are aware that mr. report murdoch had a relationship with brown were you? >> yes. >> did they explain to you that it was likely to be an impediment to "the sun" shifting sides? rupert murdoch had a strong

relationship. could be made by rupert murdoch or at the very least be made about his consent? >> i did not know. i assumed he would have a big say in it. show moving in a conservative direction we would a good chance of winning their support.

>> did he give you advise as to to proceed? >> of course. use by a director can allocations. was my director. that t -- union that he was -- you knew that he was familiar with rebekah brooks? she was friendly with tony blair. i remember some strong arguments. she would be standing up pretty for gordon brown.

>> when did you sense that mrs. brooks would be disposed to supporting you? growing picture of disenchantment. was getting its act together. who thought the government was getting it wrong. >> approximately when did you

think mrs. burks was on the side about six months before the shift of support? -- on the side? about six months before this it does support? i do not know. >> not even a sense of when it attacked was it ? was it months of? was it weeks? was it years? it was certainly not weeks. it was more than that. i cannot give you any more than that. >> were you given any surprise importance of james murdoch that he would have this over his father? i think they're all important.

not understand how the decision would be made. they were all important interest in making that decision. >> how important were they and all of this ta/ >> the politics and not quite sure about. i am not totally sure what role he plays.

>> it may not be possible to identify. would you have counted this amount your good friends by 20008? -- would you have counted them among your good friends by 2008 that's correct yes. -- 2008 ? >> yes. [unintelligible] >> she gave us some evidence as to the quantity and tone of text

messages. can i ask you this straightforward question. do you agree with the gist of for evident? >> i do. >> as for her phone calls, approximately how often did you speak to her by phone? >> in opposition, particularly 2006 or 2007, not a huge amount. i always felt when i did during her i always felt like i was telephoning a lot less than gordon brown. which is very interesting. i was in contact a lot less.

>> looked for it to 20082009. -- 2008 or 2009. were it they contacted by phone on a weekly basis? >> as you get closer to the election in the decision of "the sun" and the wedding and she has houseinto charlie burkrook's then the level of contact went up. we saw each other socially. not have a record.

that did not want to give you an answer that is not right. -- i do not want to give you an answer that is not right. sometimes he would have been talking to each other quite a bit perhaps around the time of the wedding or when we were both there. we would have had more frequent contact. >> when you are at your consistency on weekends, did you see her every weekend or most weekends deck? >> not every weekend. >> i would have to check. i did not think every weekend. i do not think most weekends. i do not think it is necessary to ask you to check.

>> lenses are to going out, -- once we going out, i was seeing her most often because of her friendship with charlie and as a neighbor. charlie and i play tennis together. >> there is one text message. >> i am not sure what number is being given. 35 is the addendum. then i will read it out.

i should make it clear "news of gave otherional" text messages. that is an order under the statute requiring people to disclose information. they are irrelevant to the terms of reference. "news international" has text messages tax months and other mines are not available.

it is on grounds of relevance. then she says the first line might contain something of a joking that nature. over country supper soon. it asked them to pose the endorsement.

you bring giving a speech at the conference. >> i think it was a party conference speech. i cannot explain the e-mails. the issue at the time was i had not been to the times party. the major newspaper groups tend to have big parties. they expect people to go. i was apologizing for that. >> we were definitely in this together. what was your understanding of that? >> there was a decision to that the conservatives. "the sun" wanted to make sure is

helping the conservative party put its best foot forward. >> they were bound together to some extent. >> we are friends. professionally, we're going to be pushing the same political agenda. >> the country suffers. there are looking at this sort of interaction. >> this relates to the

mechanicmccanns. were you asked by mrs. brooks to support or cause to take place a mccann case?he but i do not remember the exact providence. anyone who has met them all at the story. the can that help so incredibly minutes on what has happened to them. i cannot member the exact providence of to call to end when. the police played a role in trying to keep the investigation

going. >i do not recall the exact conversations. i can see my life behind the question. are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly. they are consulting about this. it was drawn to my attention that there is a professional office procedure.

i believe it was done properly. >> are you aware of any pressure being put on you directly or to cause this to take place? >> pressured? no. >> was their influence imposed? >> this is a very high-profile case. it is the case a number of newspapers wanted to champion. obviously, you have to think are we helping with this because there is media pressure or is a genuine public pressure ?

are we treating them fairly? i think we've made inappropriate response. >> i'm going to move to a different topic related to earlier topics. it's sort of ties in to the implied point. the mayor may not be doing this. he made a specific point against you and your party's. you have the opportunity to deal with it. he said it was an express deal. he made it with either rupert are james murdoch.

is strange.trang we will look at the details. i will ask you to respond to a generally. >> it is absolutely nonsense. gordon brown was very angry and disappointed that "the sun" has thipoint disappointed him. he is cooking up a conspiracy theory. i have taken the time to look through the individual parts of policy that he points to. and almost every case it is complete nonsense. he makes the point about these sporting events. it is actually his government

that delisted it. he talks about product placement. it on the bcc, my position is not the same as the james murdock's. the conservative party will be submitting a piece by piece response to this because it is complete nonsense. there was no overt deal for support, there was no covert deal, there was no and nods and winks. trying to win over a television, but not trading policy for that support. it is complete nonsense.

>> may we focus on two matters? the highlights -- the bbc issue. the easiest way to deal with this is to look at paragraph 105. you have taken time to refer to relevant parts of iterations of your policies. i think we can look at paragraph 107, first of all. this is -- we were fans of the bbc. on the next page, "we believe the level of the license fee is

at the top end of what is acceptable to the public." hinting that the fee may have to be frozen. >> that is what we did, we froze the license fee, much to the anger of james murdoch. we had our own policy. trying to be fair and reasonable to the bbc. again, this part of the conspiracy theory has absolutely no weight at all. >> some might say you were not prepared to go as far as mr. murdoch to cut the fee, but you were prepared to meet him along the way. >> it is difficult to argue at a time when you get into government, you will have to be making spending reductions. you were going to see the license fee go up and up and up. we had a long-term argument, the

bbc needed to be strong. i do think the bbc had gone into areas it should not have done. i mention that in some of my evidence, but i think it was a fair settlement. not one that james murdock supported. >> in march 2009, you made an announcement which was to the effect that a license fee would be frozen. did that represent your policy? between march 2009 and the election? >> it i made that announcement in march 2009. we have delivered more than that policy and in government, yes.

i just caught paragraph 110. if there was this great conspiracy to hand over the bbc policy to the murdoch's, it would be a strange point -- a strange choice. if you wanted a sort of murdoch conspiracy, you would not ask a prominent labor supporter to carry out the policy for you. another reason why this whole idea -- >> that is true. that is a pretty balanced list of people from different parts of broadcasting, media, and technology. he is hardly a shrinking violet. >> if you have some secret agenda.

>> no shrinking violet from this task force. is it your position that you would have a range of views coming from these individuals? >> we're trying to assemble a group of people that included radio, music, new media, itv, a pretty good mix. >> you gave a speech, it is paragraph 113. you did make some points. >> i think it is important to stress this was a big speech. there was a sense that after 13 years of the labor government, they have become very powerful.

the people have become extraordinarily well paid. this was a serious speech that i worked on with people to try to come up with, instead of a normal decision, we are trying to find a set of rules to apply to -- to see whether they needed to exist or parts of them could be folded back into government. the series of questions are in paragraph 113. one of their reasons i picked it was because of my own experience in television of remembering what the independent television commission had done. remembering the levels of pay that there were ain the itc.

the pay levels were pretty excess of. -- excessive. at this time, it was being randomly attacked by the bbc. and also by commentators on the left. this was an agenda that was very linked -- not in any way proposed or dictated by others. >> the upshot was that it would cease to exist as we know it. this is the end of paragraph 113. that covered roles under the enterprise act. it would no longer play a role in making policy. >> policy-making should be done

by departments and be accountable to parliament. it was not just about cutting costs, it was about accountability. policy's being made that should be accountable to parliament. decisions that have to be impartial, where they are concerned, they should be carried out by non-governmental bodies. it was a serious attempt to look at the more broadly. >> at the more broadly. >> to take the story forward, the reason this policy was not enacted was the pragmatic reaction of the coalition government, it was not possible. >> i was not involved in the details of the coalition agreement. some policies made it through, and some did not.

we have taken action on pay levels and we have tried to restrict them. >> you have denied that there was -- they feel, looking back at this, there is a perception. we have the coincidence of two things. policies which do not match what we seek in a lecture, but not a million miles from them. the public thinks there is some link between the two. that is the perception. q. except that much? >> -- do you accept that much?

>> i do not. if the argument goes, there is no evidence of that. nonetheless, it looks like there was a nod and a wink. how do you possibly prove that you are innocent? the best i can do is point to all of these policies, explain where they came from. there is really good evidence they were born out of proper conservative thinking about the media. whether or not -- there is very good explanations for the positions that we hold. >> the matter is investigated at a public inquiry. it either happened or it did not happened.

if you do not have a public inquiry, that perception -- >> absolutely. it is very important. the appalling things that happen to entirely innocent people. the huge problem we have in terms of police related to the media. exactly right that we get to the bottom of the relationship. there was no covert deal, there was no overt deal. policies that i produce that i am very proud of came from my history, my beliefs, and they were not dictated by anybody else. >> i think i have covered it. let's move onto another point. [laughter] the third area of evidence is specific inherited examples. the first one is andy coulson.

you start that in your witness statement at paragraph 219. right. in terms of your wish list in early 2007, mr. cameron, were you looking for someone with tabloid experience? >> not necessarily, but i was looking for someone who was a big hitter. i was looking for someone who could really cope with the huge pressure that we are under. executives do have, they bring something that others would not. there was not a particular wish list, but it was trying to get the right person with the right

skills. >> without generalizing too much, and tending to look at people -- intending to look at people who are not going to blink under pressure. >> i think that is right and there is a reason for that. political party, the media pressures, in a typical weekend, you might have a policy problem over here, mp scandal over there, and marriage breakdown over there, some chancellor enmeshed in some scandal, it comes in on on top of your head. it is very fast and very furious. you need someone who is good at handling it. that, to me, was one of the key qualifications. someone in about him, i wanted someone who would be able to materially

improve the way we did things. >> to what extent were you looking at to the example of alistair campbell? in terms of temperament. >> alistair campbell, she was much more political and then -- he was much more political than andy coulson. there were occasions when he overstepped the role of what he should have been doing. >> we have heard from a number of names were considered. aside from the ones broadcast, can you remember how many names were considered? >> there were two or three

others. i do not want to delight their careers by naming them. -- blight their careers by naming them. clocks were any from a broadsheet -- >> were any from a broadsheet? >> yes. >> was andy coulson the only one from news international? >> there was someone from a tabloid i talked to earlier in the process. i cannot remember the exact date. at the time in which we made the appointment, i think he was the only tabloid editor available. >> the initial interviews, if

that is a correct description, work carried out by others -- were carried out by others. how many did you see? >>, many people did i see? i did have conversations with him. there was summoned senior from a broadsheet newspaper. there was someone very senior and the bbc. there was this tabloid journalist. a guessing game going on with our friends in the media. i think there were four people. there may have been others suggested. we had a very effective communicator. clearly, we wanted to strengthen the operation. people were being proposed all

the time, but those for i can remember talking to personally. >> you explain that assurances were obtained for mr. andy coulson, is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> was that something that was communicated to you in about march 2007? they had specifically asked for assurances? >> he was my chief of staff. he was trying to hire someone, you have to keep matters very tight. you do not want a leak. >> mr. osborn's evidence was that he also obtained

assurances. breyer aware of that? >> i do not -- were you aware of that? >> i do not recall. i suspect george did the same thing. >> how important was mr. osborn's advice in relation to this process? were you reliant on him? >> it was important. george and i worked for a closely together. he thought this was a good idea. but this was my decision. i take full responsibility. >> in paragraph 237 of your statement, mr. cameron, you say that you are sure that -- his

appointment with rebecca wade. would you have accounted -- counted her as a months your friends? >> yes, i think i would. i cannot recall when i disgusted with her. -- when i discussed it with her. >> can you remember how many conversations? >> no. >> more than one? >> i do not think so. we both met him before. we both formed the impression that he was effective. george met him after he had

resigned as editor of "the news of the world." i made the decision to employ him. >> in your discussions with mrs. brooks, were you taking some sort of reference from her? >> i was not seeking a reference. when you are employing someone like this, you cannot seek formal references. i am sure i would have passed how effective he would be. this conversation may well have taken place after making the decision. i cannot recall exactly when the conversation took place. in the end, it was my decision. i was satisfied that this was the right thing to have a formal -- former tabloid editor

to help us with our media and communications. it was my decision. >> sometimes the discussions going to people's integrity. did you had any discussions along those lines about andy coulson? >> i do not recall. the most important thing i would have wanted to know, would he be good at the job? i was convinced he would be because the massive pressures you face, you need someone with those sorts of skills. >> its effectiveness is gone to be a key attribute, character and integrity might also be relevant? >> you are going to be working with this person and credibly closely. you have to have a relationship of trust. >> what was mrs. brooks's reaction to andy coulson? >> she thought it was a good

decision because she thought he was an effective operator. >> your evidence is that there was a meeting -- probably in march 2007. andy coulson places the meeting as being in your office, that is paragraph 29. might that be correct? >> my recollection is that the meeting took place in my office. for me, that was the key meeting about deciding whether or not to employ him. i lived in back over the records and has been difficult to piece together -- i have been back over the records and it has been difficult to piece together, but that is my recollection. >> there was a later discussion,

this time by telephone, in late may of 2007, paragraph 31. on that second occasion, you raised the issue of phone hacking. >> my recollection is that i raise the issue a phone hacking and saw the assurance in the face to face meeting we had in my office. that is my recollection. i vaguely remember the telephone call. my recollection is that i knew it was very important that i needed to ask him that question. >> in your witness statement, paragraph 223, you state that in particular in 2007, in a month

after he resigned, various people separately had conversations with them. -- with him. it is that the conversation -- the further conversation is paragraph 227, which must have been the phone conversation in late may. it is on that occasion where you stayed you ask him for assurances. do you see that? >> a further conversation with andy coulson. that is what i remember. >> he has then the other way round. maybe we should see his account. my recollection is that he was

on holiday and that you spoke by phone. bear with me on this. it is tab 58 of the second bundle. which paragraph is it? >> it is paragraph 29. after the meeting with mr. osborn, march 2007, he says he believes that you called him later that night and would like to meet. we had a discussion about the job. i have linked that one up with

paragraph 223. paragraph 31, a hiring process was completed on the phone conversation with mr. cameron all i was on holiday. i believe he told me the background security checks would be made. that links up with your paragraph 227. it was only during the second conversation that the issue was raised. >> that is not my recollection. my recollection is that the assurances were in a face-to- face meeting. it may be that there was a specific question i needed to ask. i remember very clearly seeking that assurance and getting that assurance.

be some differences, but they may well be compatible. i am certain i saw the assurances. the assurances. that was the basis on which i employed him. >> to be fair to him, and we need to be fair to everyone, paragraph 227 links the assurance to the further conversation. that was your recollection in your written statement, wasn't it? >> yes, my recollection is that assurance was at this face to face meeting. >> there may have been further conversations with you. if you go back to paragraph 30,

he says discussions towards the end of may, they were restarted after further conversations with mr. cameron. i was offered the job, the hiring process was completed in a phone conversation. >> there were lots of different ways of describing a director of communications. quite a lot of different potential, they are all similar. i do not see any fundamental inconsistency. we both agreed that i asked for assurances and got them. the exact timing, i am clear in my mind i remember the conversation. i remember the importance of the interview. >> when you accepted the assurances, the u.s.s.r. -- did you assess their to be any risk?

>> this was clearly a controversial appointment. controversial for two reasons. bad thing had -- that things had happened at the news of the world fall he was editor, and he resigned. i was giving him a second chance. the second reason is this was a tabloid editor. some people would say, you know, i do not have a tabloid editor. it is a very tough job dealing with the press for a major political party. you need someone who has the skills, has the knowledge, and can help you do what can be an absolute storm. i thought it was the right thing

to do. this is a controversial appointment, this has come back to haunt both in and made. in doing the as director of communications for the party, he did the job very effectively. there weren't any complaints about how he conducted himself. he ran a very effective team. he behaved in a very proper way. and, of course, if that wasn't the case, then you would have a stronger argument of saying you took a risk, employed this person and look at what happened. he did his job very well and that is an important point to make. >> let me can you about the risks associated of being a tabloid editor. what did those risks were, pnd people might be thinking that

tabloid editors might not be the most scrupulous people? >> it wasn't so much that. people didn't approve of what "the news of the world" had done or what tabloids do. i think it was more that. >> which aspects of what tabloids do was within focus here? >> well, toublely, quite aggressive articles sometimes. you had and george was here shall the story about him. andy came up with those destructive headline about me which anyone has managed which three words i never uttered which is hug a hoodie. the point was there was some people in the conservative party that don't have a tabloid editor. my idea was it was necessary to have someone tough and robust. i found in my dealings with him

that actually he did his job very well and actually he was someone who had, i think a good code of behavior in how he did his job. >> well, this inquiry has been looking at the culture of practices and ethics of the press and tabloids are, of course, featured in there. they are some would say associated with some of the worst aspects, that might be said that was the risk you were taking, might it? >> the risks of the ones i set out, those were what i considered and i made my decision. >> on the first aspect, you're talking about the controversial aspects of this, of course, he resigned in january of 2007, did you assess at all that there was a risk, that the matter might go further than mr. goodman or not?

>> i asked for the undertaking about what he knew and he said that he had resigned because he did not know. and while obviously i have to be careful what i say, these were undertakings that were given to the dcms committee, they were accepted by the police, the press complaints commission that would give them to a court in a perjury trial. they were undertaking that were strong enough for gordon brown and shortly after he resigned and wish him well with his future. yes, i accepted these many other people and organizations who did try to get to the bottom of this issue. as i said in parliament, if i had been lied to, then so has the c.p.s., the police, the committee and all of the rest. >> and of course we're not making a judgment one way or the other.

>> i got to be careful how i put the questions, mr. cameron. there was no independent verification of the undertaking that he gave you, was there? >> no, but as i say, this issue had been investigated by others, so it was not just that i had an undertaking, it was others had had an undertaking. look at the period, i'm sure welcoming up, it was an assurance that was then given dcms select committee and they found and the police found that there wasn't the evidence that he knew what was happening. >> why did you feel that he deserved a second chance? at the time honorable thing. something very bad had happened at the newspaper that he was

editing and he resigned. i felt given the assurance these gave me that it was legitimate to give him a second chance. >> is it your evidence that his news international background as it were? >> well, obviously, his knowledge of the industry, his contacts, his work as an editor were all important, but the most important thing was is this person going to be good add managing the communications for the press and scompevert party. i wanted someone really good who was going to be able to we were under and would face a run up to the election campaign. that was the absolutely key consideration. >> i'm sure that the most important considerations were the ones you have identified, otherwise you would be completely mad to employ him. i think the question was slight more nuances.

it is your evidence that his news international background was irrelevant? >> it wasn't irrelevant clearly. as i said, his contacts, his knowledge, his work at a newspaper, all of that mattered. if what lies behind the question, were you after a news international executive because this was going to make it easier to win over the "news of the world" or whatever, no, that wasn't the calculation. the calculation was who is going to be good enough, tough enough to deal with what is a very difficult job. as i said, it's something he did extremely well. >> and you talk about 20/20 hindsight. may i ask you this day that do you now believe that you have made an error of judgment in particular, your judgment may have been clouded by the fact that he was close to news international and his recruitment was made to you? >> i didn't know. what i said then was if i knew

then all of the things that would happen and all of the consequences, then that would change, that's 20/20 hindsight. i'll say it again today, you don't make decisions with 20/20 heighten site. i will made the decision that i made. i set out the decisions why i made it. i'm not trying to run away from it. i'm trying to explain why i made it. >> let me forward to july 2009 -- >> before you do, could i ask the question, you made a point about mr. goldson that he had been responsible for a particular headline using words you never uttered. how could he? i just wonder whether you felt that it was a concern that he could -- was prepared to misrepresent the policy that you were concerned about?

>> i think it comes back to the news and comment, i suppose. the speech i made was quite a radical departure for a conservative leader to say that we needed to understand why young people can go off the rails and we need to recognize that it's not just you need tough punishment, but also you need strong families, you need respect in your community and i said you need love. and to talk about love in that context, some right-wing commentators thought that is soft and moderate. that is nonsense. i think it's incredibly important for young people. it was frustrating that he had come up with this headline that linked three words i hadn't actually used, but can i put my hand on my heart and say it was completely unfair and wrong? that's what newspapers do. they make a point. they have a go. if you're worried about headlines, don't make speeches about love. i suppose that's what i'm

saying. one very good headline writer wouldn't be making headlines, he would be working for me. >> all right. >> july 2009, mr. cameron, we're moving forward to "the guardian" piece. i think that you're aware of "the guardian" article at the time, is that correct? >> yes, i think so. i was probably more way of this select committee that i refer to in paragraph 257. that was obviously an event that was going to affect the running of my office and everything that was happening and that i think was the most relevant. obviously, the two were linked, really. >> the gist of what "the gladan" article contained was

brought to your information? >> i'm sure it was. >> what was your reaction at the time to that which was contained in "the guardian" article? >> throughout this process, the sort of test i set was is there new information that shows that the undertaking i was given was we're wrong and and i didn't see evidence that the undertakings i was given were wrong and at that time and of course went in front of the committee and gave the assurance all over again that, as it says here, i never condone the use of phone hacking for do i recollect instances where phone hacking took place. >> you also say in paragraph 257 that nevertheless in light of these stories, i asked andy to repeat that you must have been sufficiently concern to do that? >> yes, absolutely.

i think it was also linked to the dcms appearance. my memory of this is that he was going to make that appearance and i had a conversation with him about, well, when you make the appearance, presumably you will give the undertakings that you gave to me. that's the nature of the conversation as i recall it. >> with that inkling of doubt in your mind at that stage or not? >> given the assurances that i was given and that they were repeated to the select committees and the select committee found that there wasn't evidence that he knew, i thought it was right that he carried on working for me. >> i'm not seeking to impugn in any way his assurances, but you relied on his word and nothing much else, were you? >> i don't accept that, i was relying on his word. but i say that i was also relying on the fact that the p.c.c., were the complaint

commission had accepted his word, the select committee had accepted his word. the police had accepted his word. the crime prosecution had accepted his word. it was just not me accepting the assurance and blocking anything that happened subsequently. it was a whole series of institutions taking that view. the test i set because you got to try and get on with the job in hand. someone gives me evidence that he knew about phone hacking, i wouldn't have employed him and i would have fired him. but i didn't get that information so i didn't take >> would it be fair i should say that paragraph 257 of your statement was not directly put my me, therefore no inferences should be drawn from that part 2009 he had been in post for at least two years and

you presumably felt that he had been an effective operator in your cause, is that correct? >> absolutely. and not just that, but he had done that job, not only in an effective way, but he had done it in a way where he was trusted by the people that worked with him and he had done the job in a proper way. >> and then to be clear, the repetition of the assurance, was it in a face-to-face meeting or phone call or by some other means? >> to the best of my recollection, it's very difficult to do the specifics to the best administrative recollection, it was because of the impending select committee hearing and i think obviously the embarrassment there was that he was being taken through a select committee hearing while he was working for me. it was in that context that i think we had this discussion. >> i'm sure it was in that context, the means of communication, you call him into your office, phone call? >> i don't recall. when your director of

communications, you see him every day, you're working hand in glove -- >> likely a face-to-face? >> likely. >> let's move on in time about nine months now so maybe we can break right now. >> nine months seems a sufficient break to allow us to have a break now. very good. >> any addition you want to make to one small aspect this morning? >> thank you, mr. j. there was one answer i gave very vague answer about this issue of social contact between myself and my wife and charlie brooks. mrs. cameron keeps a better weekend diary record than i do. she points out that we were only in the constituency 23 weekends in 2008, 23 weekends

in 2009 and i think 15 in 2010. she reckons we didn't see them more on average every six weeks. that is a better answer than what i was able to give you. >> according to her diary. >> in 2008 and 2009, we were doing alternate weekends in london and the house in the constituency for all sorts of reasons. i cooperate recall that when you asked me that question. seeing that, i can think once every six weeks, perhaps a little bit more is probably about right. >> great value of wives, prime minister. >> indeed. >> if i may move forward, please, in time, paragraph 235 of your statement, mr. cameron. you're now in downing street and there is a conversation. how strongly were the opinions

expressed? >> i don't remember it being particularly strong. he did raise the question and i had worked with andy now for a good period of time. i thought he would do the job well. i had no reservation in recommending him. that's how i remember the conversation going. >> what was the basis of any -- for his concerns as he expressed them to you? >> as far as i recall, it was just, you know, there has been controversy about this. are you convinced he is the right man for the job? >> did he elaborate on the controversy or not? >> i don't remember. i don't remember the conversation in any great detail. i think it was just he wanted to register the point. >> was it part of a wider conversation about other matters or was this conversation devoted to this one issue?

>> i don't recall that. i think it was i think a specific conversation. it may have been bound up in us wanting to make sure that people as it were sort of coalition friendly. so that may have been an additional concern. >> were similar concerns expressed to you directly by anybody else to your recollection? concerns. exactly who and when, but as i said, this was a controversial appointment i have head in some of these books about a number of people who made these points. i don't recall many specifics, but clearly some people did have concerns, yes. expressed within your own party? >> i think there might have or two.

might have been a specific tyree. not what i recall directly but pointed out to me. have expressed concerns to me. >> the quantity, approximately how much people fall into this group of expressing concerns to you? >> i couldn't put a number on it. would be. >> did you have any private conversations with rupert murdoch in 2008 and 2010 about this issue? no. with andy's work and i had been planning on the basis that if he would street. i don't recall any rupert murdoch about it. >> and dealing with the issue of security clearance and procedures, paragraph 240 of your statement, and there is

also a letter which is in the addendum that we prepared for you under tab 34. it's from the cabinet office. the letter from the cabinet office is not very specific, but it says with respect to director of communications and p.m. official spokesman, between january 1996 and may 2010, three previous holders of the post civil servants already had c.b. granted by the previous department on checking post. two others, one special visor, one civil servant had d.b. granted three months after taking up points, one had it granted just after seven months up post.

andy wasn't a civil servant, he d.v.'s obviously, so he fell within the special visor category, that's the category here, right? right. his letter shows that it wasn't in any way unique that he d.v.ed and i looked at this quite closely. i mean i wasn't involved. vetted to what level is for the civil service, not the prime minister. the decision was by the secretary, not by me. looked at all this, i'm convinced this was a complete red herring, the it wasn't abnormal as we find from this letter. pretty rationale and simple one, when we had the needed more

communications job, specifically andy, to have highest level security clearance so they could help us people are looking for some abnormality, i think there is none. there is a clear inquiry. >> we can short circuit in terms of this. the clearance has nothing to do everything to do secretary, correct? >> yes. also, there was nothing inappropriate about somebody that had not undertaken or undergone developed vetting from having occasional access to top secret material? i think that is important that the low level, the s.c., lounges long-term frequent access to secret material or

occasional top -- access to top secret material. >> i'm grateful, it was raised with the gentleman. we got the information and i'm grateful to have it. >> the "new york times" piece, mr. cameron, were you made aware of it at the time or thereafter? i can't remember the exact events that day, but, yes, i was made aware of point is that andy directly denied and a statement was put out on his behalf by number 10 downing this accusation. that i think is pretty clear. >> though, the accusation which we can't go into detail for obvious reasons related directly to him, didn't it? >> yes. and immediate

denial. him for any direct assurances, did you? place. it was on the day i moved into number 10 downing street after the birth of our daughter, so that's the memory i have from around this. he made an outright denial and that was that. >> were you aware that in another court participant, john yates the nature of the metropolitan police service response to the "new york times"? me aware of as he responded and responded quite properly this appropriate.

accepted that explanation. i think that's pretty clear. >> so we understand it, why was it not appropriate? >> well, i think because there was the potential of an following this investigation in the "new york times" article. the perception that there would a briefing by the metropolitan police, i think that would be inappropriate. i'm sure metro police wouldn't have done anything inappropriate, but it would have given the appearance of being at least inappropriate. ed declined the request. i think defensible, i think he said and gus the cabinet secretary looked into this and he said that ed responded absolutely correctly to this. >> did you have any further

conversations with him -- >> i'm sorry, john yates said properly and understandably rejected, those were the words that he used. i think he understood while it can be appropriate to brief ministers on operational issues, it wouldn't have been on this occasion, sorry. further conversations with him about these matters before his resignation or not? number of conversations with him about his impending resignation and "new york times" article because i have looked at is the police then had an initial look to see if they should investigate again and said they shouldn't. they had another look and again concluded that they shouldn't crown prosecution service on december 10 said going to take it further.

assurances me, as it were. there were others that took this view. was the start of was becoming clear that, as he put it, when the spokesman needs a spokesman, it's time to move on. he found his job was impossible obviously had a number of with him about his departure. >> mrs. brooks told us in she had a conversation with you about phone hacking, not about andy, in 2010. do you remember anything about that? >> i don't really remember the specifics. i saw in the evidence that there was perhaps something to cases happening. i suspect it could have been that. i mean, this was an issue that was obviously being discussed. it was a controversial issue

with all of the civil cases and about that. specifics. >> without dealing with specific individuals, we heard that the whole hacking saga was establishment. is that a view which you share or not? >> i think it's, there are lots of fractures involved. there was the failure of the newspaper to prevent it in the first place. there was the failure of the it. men and the like to get to the if you which revelations that happened before the whole thing really got opened up in

the way that it should have microcosm of namely, overcloseness between and the press? >> it's difficult there because parliament, it did hold an investigation. the select committee looked at this, but for whatever reason, neither the select committee for the police for the commission got to the bottom of it. to ask, well, why not? >> probably right to say that started to roll rather faster when the police and the c.p.s. decided that they were going to reopen the entire case

and so operations, that got the overcame the initial momentum. of course, the revelations of july created the mushroom that it has become, i agree. but it's probably fair to say to the police that actually had started before that >> that is absolutely right and let go on to a separate matter. 158 of your 0145. >> yep. about your own personality tude to the bid. not? about of things is in a free market enterprise

takeovers, acquisitions to go ahead unless ahead. i can quite understand why news corporation would want to make this acquisition, but there competition processes, plurality processes, and the rest of it. so that was my view. it is very important that that happened. from a policy perspective, you broadly on side? would that be a fair characterization? >> well, i wouldn't put it like that. think he should stand in the way of sensible corporate moves unless there's a public interest against it. from a political point of view, was a hot potato. we had half of the conservative other half in favor, and whoever was going to adjudicate on this had a very, very difficult job to

do. >> fermier media background, it was the sort of issue with which should be familiar. we are of the school of thought, already owned 39.1%, if it raises any issue, it's the competition issue, but it doesn't on the face of it raise plurality issue? >> i think my sense was that the ruled that to purposes sky was already controlled by news corp., and certainly from my experience at crofton, when we skype, it was news corp.. that was not so much the issue, it was what does it mean of news and those considerations. it's very important they were properly gone into, and that in the end is what happened. >> do you recall having conversations with mr. osborne about these matters? >> obviously we discussed it on that vince cable's

public, and so -- do as a government to deal with that. in terms of other discussions, i but we i would not be all surprised if we had not talked about it in passing. >> are you sure in your mind that the date of the formal announcement of the bid, which was june 15, 2010, was the first you heard of it? >> that is my recollection. as i say, i can see there was some press speculation in advance of this, but i don't recall any discussions about it or knowledge about it in advance. >> as for the culture secretary, this is paragraph 176 of your statement, you say you don't remember any specific conversations with him, but are we to understand by that that is possible that in general policy

terms the merits of the bid might have been discussed with him? >> i don't recall discussing it with him, but he did send me some notes about it. but i don't recall specific conversations. >> the notes he referred to, there is one of the 18th of june at the bottom of the page and you kindly set out the text of it on the next page. >> that's right. >> it's not particularly revealing. he said i steered clear of commenting on news corp's plans to buy out the 61% of sky they do not own on the grounds it was a competition issue for regulators and not for ministers. the memorandum of november 19,

2010 -- >> just before you move on from that, it might be worth picking up, one of the things mr. hunt says those back to the issue about whether your view about the bbc changed in opposition to government. our rhetoric will be more generous to the bbc that it was in opposition. that suggests that there had been discussion about that general topic, it presumably as part of the coalition discussions. >> yes, i think that's probably correct, although what we actually achieved in government was quite a long-term license deepfreeze, and actually the rhetoric about bbc salaries, we have kept that up because i think that's important. i would say that the note, even if it was a personal note to me,

it is interesting and he says he steered clear of commenting, not for ministers. he was demonstrating the difficulties and dangers of being a minister in dealing with this. >> at that stage, of course, the bid late with dr. cable and not with the cms. the private memorandum which he sent you would look at very carefully already with two other witnesses. is it the position that it was received on your e-mail system but you simply don't remember it, or what? no, it was not received on my e-mail system. the notes i get all go into my box. the issue here is i don't remember this note,

and crucially, i did not recall on the day of the of december when we were making this decision, and i say that frankly. obviously if i had recalled a, i would have faded into the system, as it were, but as i am sure will come onto, it's pretty clear from the legal abies we have that that wouldn't have actually made any difference to the outcome. >> moving forward to the 21st of december, were going to look at the events of that day in more . but had to recall the note, is would have drawn into a lawyer's attention? on the 21st, i was presented with the situation i did not want. the business secretary who saying that something was not acceptable in to

on one of the participants in this deal, and so i had a problem with deal, which was, what do you do? i had a relatively short time in which to deal with this issue. as we went through the process out the answer, someone raised jeremy gaunt had said publicly because of what vince cable had said publicly, and we went and checked his public statements. of course at that moment if i had recalled the private notes, private well, but my that what's in the private note is not very to what he said publicly. what he said publicly is more effusive. and i think it is noteworthy got this witness' statement from paul the government lawyer, he says very clearly and quite clear that my advice would not

have been any different had i seen the note at the time. -- i know this has area of great controversy, but my argument is that we reached a decision to of this cable was determined to jeremy hunt. suggested by the permanent secretary at no. 10 was recommended by the cabinet secretary, and it was cleared by the legal device received by the secretary that's now been clarified even further. but i accept ere is a controversy, but i think the backing of two permanent secretaries and a lawyer is quite a strong state affairs. >> it may be said the reason you of 19th that it said nothing remarkable. that which you knew anyway, which was of

the bid. is that a possible explanation? >> not particularly, no. i think the remarkable in that the job of the culture, media, sports secretary, when he was not adjudicating bids, was to stand up for his sector and sector, and that's exactly what he is doing in this note. note, he clear and understanding of the limitations of what a sponsoring department should do. >> but he's also expressing keen support for the bid on policy grounds, isn't he? of a large british media company. i think that is part of the job of the culture, media, and sports department, to speak up speak up for , and the a big

british company, and part of the job of the secretaries to in that sector and to reflect and understand their views. actually irresponsible way, adding the point about it would the government to get involved in a competition issue. was inappropriate in a private note to express strong support for bskyb, but that's what he was doing, wasn't it? >> yes. the notice there for everybody to see. expressing his concern. which you knew anyway in to mr. hundt. is that a fair observation? >> i don't know i did know, particularly, i discovered on the 21st of december what his , but this was

list of issues. seeks that he was suggesting, not withstanding the penultimate sentence totally wrong for the government to get involved in the competition issue, he was suggesting a the four of you to discuss the policy issues, wasn't he? true, but that meeting never took place, which is important to note. there's the minister for the part that covers the media trying to understand and reflect the views of businesses in that sector and the policy implications that flow from that. desirability of putting a minister responsible for this type of decision in the

who had his own views, who developed his own policy, who obviously would have all sorts of extrinsic in the having to step outside all of that, and that question. >> it does. all of this was a set of circumstances i did not want to come about. was very happy with vince cable adjudicating on this decision. that became literally impossible what he had said, and so we had to make a decision and we had to decide, what is the best answer to that? transferring that part of vince cable,'s was a

sensible thing to do. planning, for instance, and you are probably it than i am, but the secretary of state for communities and local who has some pretty strong views about planning, nonetheless has to step outside planning in general and adjudicate sometimes on issues in particular and what jerry hunt was being asked to do. >> i understand that, but the point is slightly different where it concerns the media, because you might have a planning policy and then be able to make a perfectly sensible decision. sure in this context there is a difference between , without difficulty. course if it's in your constituency and you are going to be involved, then you would else do it. but the point is that everybody else -- that everybody has very

-- the point in the asking fans about manchester united. view, and that is the difficulty. >> that is the concern. i raised the question yesterday, just one off? and i was told it should not be one of situations, given the terms of reference, it is something that to think about. >> there may be a case for taking politicians out of these , and you have had evidence both ways on that. what i do was a perfectly sensible, straight forward and

rational thing to do, given the circumstances, and i did it on the advice of the permanent secretary at no. 10, with the the cabinet secretary lawyer. was a perfectly rational decision. not directed all. we can see mr. hunt's overall the minute. manchesterc like united, where everybody has to be one way or the other, isn't it? >> largely speaking, i think that's probably right. >> going back to your chronology, you are confident you had no inappropriate conversations on this subject, including with rebekah brooks and/or a james murdoch in november or december 2010.

can we start off by taking away the adjective inappropriate and just say whether there were any conversations at all on the subject? >> as i say, i cannot remember ever conversation i've ever had, but the point i am making is that partly because i knew this was controversial, i don't even further and recused myself from the decision altogether. i did not want to know what particular decisions were going to be made, and that was proved. all was completely out of the decision making. i cannot remember every conversation i've ever had with everybody, nobody can, but i am clear about this conversation i had with james murdock on the 23rd of december. >> and the gist of that conversation was what, to the best of your recollection? >> as i explain, what bins cable

had said, albeit privately but made publicly, was very embarrassing for the government, and i wanted to make clear, i think appropriately, that this should not have happened, that it was wrong, and that this issue would now be dealt with entirely properly. i think that was quite an important point to make. >> one of our core participants wants me to put this question. if you are able to deal with it, fine, if not will find another way. why did downing street repeatedly declined to confirm the fact of this encounter, namely supper on the december 23, 2010? >> i think what would have happened here is that before we became totally transparent about all these meetings, if downing street press office was asked about any social or private engagement that would not normally answer those questions.

i think that's what happened on this occasion. they said we don't comment on the prime minister's private or social engagements. the issue was pressed in the end, i can remember if it was me or someone else, suggested there's nothing to hide here, just answer the question. we were not routinely giving out private and social engagements. >> on boxing day, everybody wants to know about that as well, but only insofar as it's relevant to our inquiry. so was their conversation about the bskyb bid on that day? >> i don't think there was. my memory is that boxing date was actually charlie brooks sister's house, there was a party. adult think there was much of a conversation at all, but that's my recollection.

>> so we want the tape back just a little bit to the 21st of december. we heard from mr. clegg yesterday that it was a joint press conference at downing street, and it was leaving the margins of that conference that you learned of dr. cables remarks through a block or something similar. is that your recollection? >> that is absolutely my recollection. i remember walking down the stairs from the first floor of downing street and we had just done this press conference and someone telling me, you've got to see these remarks that have come out about what been its cable said. it was quite an important moment is the were important and significant remarks. >> so if we can focus on the highlights of what happened over the following few hours.

we know from paragraph 161 of your statement that you had a meeting with dr. cable. mr. clay told us that this was after his meeting with dr. cable, which would obviously be appropriate. is there anything material which arises out of that meeting? >> 3:00, the press conference concluded. then hit the wires. then had a series of meetings the deputy prime minister, with my chief of staff, with other members of staff, including the permanent secretary at no. 10 downing street, jeremy k. wood, and we had a series of conversations about what we were going to do about this. obviously, convince cable could not continue adjudicating this bid. there was a broader question of would do to the government, to our reputation of and all the rest of it. so there's a conversation people and

that also involving the who would have been coming over to the 4:00 meeting at no. 10 about what steps to take. a pretty wide ranging debate. jeremy haywood made the moving the part of the department across to jeremy hunt and i thought that was the most rate for a way of dealing with this issue. >> was he the originator of that idea? >> to the best of my recollection, yes. it was a civil servant. >> did that idea immediately attract you? >> i thought it was attractive because, as i say, i was facing a difficult situation. vince cable was an extremely good business secretary, mary leading member of the liberal democrats. we are in a coalition. of what the government to be coherent and work well together. i did not want to lose him as a

colleague, but i had a problem, so i was a prime minister in search of a solution, and this seemed to be a relatively neat and straightforward solution. i think we did consider the issues around it. >> according to a text message which we've seen for mr. osborne, the solution, as he put by . it is as if the decision was made rather quickly. for the haste? >> i read this in some of the evidence. the haste was that it was 3:00 business something that could not stand. this was a major problem for the government, and in this 24-hour

news environment in which we live, you cannot just been hours working out what you are going to do next. you need to come up relatively rapidly with a good answer. good two hours, i think, in discussing the issue, with vince cable and we made the announcement. but i don't think it was particularly rushed. i think we had to make a relatively rapidly. this was a very important issue and our reputation for competence, for not dithering, and for dealing fairly with business was at risk. >> in a bygone age, perhaps, this sort of decision would have reflective manner, perhaps by the following morning or the following afternoon, but almost where the victim of the relationship between media and the politicians.

you are forced to jump in the deep end with this -- with this sort of decision within a couple hours in an area which is sensitive. >> i think that is a fair observation, but i can perhaps be examples where governments have been slow to take important decisions like this, where it really affects a wide reputation of the government. was saw after the solution which mr. osborne referred to had been decided on. is that right? . we were discussion, the solution was suggested, was attracted to the solution. because vince cable had got himself into trouble by what had

, we must public statements of jeremy hunt. that took place and there was a legal view expressed before the decision. but i will check that. i definitely ask the cabinet secretary's view, and my memory he saw legal a vice. but we now have even more legal device, as it were, which is this witness' statement from paul jenkins. >> we get some sense of when illegally by started to be obtained from tab 52 in these files. from the legal the 21st of

december. then forwarded to your staff at 17:30, which is after the time of mr. osborne's text. is mr. hunt's public statement which is recorded in the financial times interview. do you see that? >> yes. i do see that. but looking again at the time day, i had a with the cabinet , and i think it was at that point he said that he thought this was a good solution, but he wanted to seek rapid legal a vice. he then did that, and of course the announcement was then at 5:45.

so my recollection is there was look at the legal a vice. is all slightly academic as we now have a much fuller position of the government's legal device. >> if you look at mr. dinkins the treasury himself, paragraph five. on annual leave on the 21st of december but he was frequently called on to provide advice and assistance when on leave. and he recollects that he was in contact by telephone from approximately 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 from a number of senior officials. so he was on holiday and in the rush, isn't that fair?

>> i am not sure that is particularly fair. we now have this evidence from paul jenkins, and he says my telephone records show i was in contact by telephone from possibly for:30 to 5:30 with a number of senior officials including serve us dealing with the issues arising from the publication of dr. cable's comments. he then goes on in paragraph 9. for the reason subsequently stated by serb us to the prime minister on the 22nd of december iodized that the comments that i was made aware of did not in my view constitute a legal impediment to jeremy hunt discharging in the enterprise at 2000 functions in relation to the bid and a proper manner. the that would support what i am saying, which is i met with gusts o'donnell, the cabinet secretary.

at his suggestion, legal abies was sold, albeit by telephone, to one of the government's single -- senior legal advisor. that legal advisor was played back, which is to say that it was perfectly except a will for jeremy not to carry out this role, and it's now been confirmed in a long piece of legal device that everybody can now see. so we had to make the decision relatively rapidly, for the reasons we discussed, but it was not some rushed, botched political decision. it was a suggestion by one senior official and backed by that senior official as legal abies. >> belong peaceably gullett vice is mr. dinkins witness' statement, which is not his legal device itself. the only legally buy seagate was only by telephone on that day

and a related only to the peace in the financial times, didn't it? >> it was related to the public statements of jeremy hunt. the point is, i would argue that paul jenkins has now had time to think about the legal advisor was asked for, the public statements of jeremy hunt that were made, and he's now been able tohe is very clear that hes reviewed the relative sections. the advice would have been different. >> this is his retrospective. >> you are entitled to make the point that civil servants have taken a view.

this is the most senior lawyer. they made this mistake. and cutting up the memorandum. nothing seems fund this statement to cause this to change. >> if anyone tell me he cannot have done the job, i would not have done him the job. given him the job. >> we do not have mr. jenkins with the text message. they all together for that effect. >> paragraph 72 is here. >> it is on our screens now.

>> i want to make sure it is in the public domain. it would not normally be in the public domain until it was formally read into the record. identify it should go there so that everybody can see the whole context in which she has spoken. >> i just wanted to make one point. it expressed eight small opinion about the bid. whether how he would conduct himself in the future. that was not the advice of mr. dinkins or the and buys padvicee

see. >> i am putting but the advice was. that was what he made. >> i would argue when you look at how he did handle the sk bsky b merger that he did it properly. >> be advised that he received on the 22nd of december that no

previous comments to which we were aware constitutes a pre justification question are disqualifies them from taking the decision in that case. not how my seas he conducts himself in the future. would you agree with that? >> i would agree with that. as i say, my paragraph 170 was written based on what the cabinet secretary said. i am also very happy with what he said in at 25. i am happy with either version. >> would you agree that if we go forward in time now to july 2011 when everything blew up that for political reasons you were very keen to derail the bskyb bid.

>> i would not quite put it like that. the point was with all but was emerging in terms of the dreadful news about milly dowler's phone, that the public was very angry about what happens. while there was a quasi-judicial procedure taking place, if there was a broader issue of the views of the house of commons, the views of the country, and the need to reflect those. and this obviously was difficult. i have looked back over the statement i made and what i tried to do. i was in afghanistan with the story about milly dowler's phone being hacked to broke. but what i said then and what i said when i returned was tried to say we have to follow these

procedures that are set out. if i was running this company, i would not be considering a corporate move. i would be cleaning up the mess that there is. i thought that was consistent with there being a quasi-- judicial process. you should not try and befetter that. >> mr. hunt was still acting quasi--judicially. everybody was trying to move to a position where the wheels would fall off the bid for political reasons. is that not fair? >> i think there are e-mails that showed this. i think everyone was asking the question what are the options that exist that are consistent with maintaining the proper procedures and legal processes? i think that it's perfectly reasonable question to ask.

>> ok. may i move off bskyb to the fourth section of your evidence. this is the area of any lessons to be learned for politicians. first of all, would you agree with mr. milleiband's view that the event last year were liberating. >> by 8 think i'd put it in a slightly different way -- i think i would put it in a slightly different way. i think because of all the issues that it has raised in terms of press and police conduct and the relationship between politicians and the media, that some of the distance and better processes that are required are already being put in place.

as i think we're justice leveson said, we need to do better than that. it is a start. >> before some politicians were operating under a self-imposed constraints. they were not prepared to speak out against news international. the chains have come off. now everybody feels that they can. i may be putting words in his mouth. if i have caught it accurately, would you agree with that? >> i would say the debate that needs to take place about how we regulate the press is properly being had. >> the transparency which everybody agrees is a creep principal -- key principle, i think it is clear from your

evidence that you believe it necessary but not sufficient. can we be clear what else we would add to the mix to create a sufficient situation? >> i think there are two areas here. one is we need to get right the regulatory structure. i think the current self- regulatory structure hasn't delivered. when you read the press code, it's a great document. its many of the things we would want to see. we need to find a way. i know you're spending a huge amount of time on this to deliver these sorts of things that are in the press code but not delivered today. that seems to be one part. in terms of how governments deal with quasi-and judicial processes, the world a special

advisor is, the contacts we have with the press when commercial issues are raised, i think there is a set of things that we can do to improve the handling of those issues. i think those are the two areas i would identify. down three. -- >> one is about the regulatory system. future for self regulation? how does it work? how do we make it robust? make it compulsory? all consistent with the free, a vibrant challenging press the want to see in our country. set of issues number two is about some of the procedures where for instance the ministerial code to start really mention quasi-judicial . it need to.

we need to improve that. there are a set of procedural changes on special advisor is on procedures and some the procedures we have. you have two set of issues. >> we are really on the second which i am putting under the heading of be learned for politicians. we will come back to the first set of issues. with regard to a quasi judicial aspect, you mentioned a possible changes to the ministerial code. to that already? >> the secretary has written around to departments to remind the salient points. my understanding is that it's with in the code and perhaps we can write to inquiry with some suggestions. i want to consult about that to try. make sure we get right.

i think the role the special advisor is in quasi--judicial proceedings, i think we need to get that right. >> what are the weaknesses, and the flaws, which may have been detected regarding the role a quasi--judicial process? >> i think there needs to be adequate training so that people properly prepared for what decisions to do and do not involve. think that is the main make. that both applies to make sure that ministers who may have their departments have the proper reading about them and also as well. >> what about adequate supervision of special advisors when they are acting on behalf their minister in a quasi- judicial process? that is important. in terms of the management a

made steps forward by making sure advisers are clear under the code they work for the whole government, not just a minister. we are also looking at the better management of a special advisor is both essentially through my chief of staff and a number 10 downing street, but sure they are properly managed by the minister the eyes of the permanent secretary. there are some improvements we can make. responsibility for the divisors the minister can no one else. it reside with me. >> i think development specialist visor's code places the responsibility with the minister. you are not going to supervise all these people on a day-to-day basis. has not an issue of prison, if i

can put it in that way, in regard to the supervision of special advisers acting with their it's an underlying cause i judicial process -- quasi- judicial process? >> i think there has. i think in this specific case, you have heard all the evidence. i have looked at all the it the permit aware and content with the role the advisor was playing. the level of contact and extent was inappropriate. resigned. there are lessons to learn. >> ought to say generally about this whole from now on these issues. i am very conscious that might be thought by some to be a bit rich for you to have asked me to recommendations and then you what the answer is.

dilemma. say, provided content, that you shouldn't identify areas that solutions that could likely be sketched out. i'm not trying to create a difference between the all to you take and the recommendations i make. i have no doubt my be better word we use a last few months, appropriate input. to ask you to straight jacket me. certainly not going to try and do the same. >> i understand that. what i would like to do is i'd made a number of suggestions on interaction between politicians in the media.

that training on quasi- proceedings and how we that special of pfizer's are properly briefed in their role. what i would like to do is on those and then write to you with some sort of combined it . i think they are not enormous changes. this is about culture and the rest of it. but if there are specific alterations, we should make them. >> and very content to adopt whatever procedure you find is most likely to help me. i want to make the general point. the specific point is in relation to a special advisor is. that young men , highly intelligent

the work they are , unlike servants of an equivalent drink to have all sorts of mentoring and monitoring and appraisal, it seems that there anything in really helps. a quasi- judicial question. it might turn into a different problem in a different context. i share the concern with you for you to think about or for you to to me "thank you very much, i am not terribly bothered about that." >> when i was a special advisor there was no annual appraisal at not by your appointed person, which is the prime minister and his office.

we have introduced annual appraisals. my chief the advisers are working in a the whole government. are going to look at whether improve that. the second point i would make is think there is a value in . especial and pfizer's have undertaken a lot of political work for ministers appeared they make sure the civil service can go on being impartial. there's certain things you can get them to do. their impartiality. l of this week killed off the idea of good special advisor is helping their minister and helping to separation of politics. >> i take the point entirely. what you have done is to identify whether is a difference, why there are

special advisers. they do different things. i am not saying that the sort of assistance for monitoring are venturing out that i am suggesting should necessarily come from civil servants. it may be that the party from which they came as to think about whether it has some role in providing some support for these bright people who want to do the right thing, who obviously have very close links with the ministers for whom they who may not, but may wh lead to trouble them because of the whole idea is they are a buffer. just to provide some check. this he may say is uninformed, this you uninformed, a boost

guy thought. think you got it. there is a combination of these things. prevent politicization of civil service. we make sure they're all pointing in the same direction and to make sure that when it things like quasi- procedures they have the necessary training to know what they should ensure that do. >> and the support check if they are bothered. >> yes. >> could it be suggested that sort of that owing to the the political worked as special advisers to, and they are adept, some of them at least, as working as an effective back channel, that those attributes make them inherently unsuited a quasi- judicial domain that do you see the force of that? >> i can see the point. i do not see why it they are following a proper set of

procedures and the rest of it, why they cannot soak up a bit of the pressure and information a minister would otherwise be bombarded by. i think they can play a role. >> that would require them to acquire the same quasi-judicial attitudes as the minister. the minister could are you delete just about the expected to do so. nobody expects someone quite jr. to do something they're not really suited were trained to do. is that not a reasonable point that >? >> i am not sure. part of the role is to simply set up information. whether it is a planning dispute or a merger or takeover. it is to listen to the arguments that come from both sides so that the participants feel they have had a say.

i think that they can play that role. >> you also mentioned about 10 minutes ago the issue of lobbying of the press. >> lobbying by the press. >> particularly in areas where they have a commercial interest. they are particularly parti pri with loud voices. >> i think this is difficult. if you have a note taken of every single meeting, i think it would be over bureaucratic of a response. the point is i think it it's clear that the media business is coming to talk to you about media business issues that is appropriate a private secretary is there to take a note. if they're coming to have a chat about policy and your general

approach but they throw in a nakedly commercial point, the perhaps there's something under the ministerial code are you delete it to happen already --, arguably it should happen already. the bbc can be quite an aggressive lobbyist on issues like license fee or charge a renewal. we make sure this is treated properly. >> the social/professional boundary and the context were journalists become friends of politicians which will naturally occur, how do those friendships presses duty to all politicians to account? >> how do they impinge on the presses duty to hold? people microsoft your friend? that is one possibility.

think this is just people o police the boundaries french and professional relations. this is something that happens in lots of walks of life. i'm sure it happens in the law. you've got friends who your out with the one of these courtrooms. >> it is clear from the advice of lord o'donnell gave in july of last year, we can turn it up. it is under attack 65 of this bundle. -- under tab 65 of this bundle. he was advising you on the ministerial code. >> is this in the supplementary set? >> no, it is in the original. >> i don't seem to have 63. >> it is page 05294. >> i have it.

>> i don't immediately have it. just bear with me. it's an the other bundle? >> yes. this is from the us of donal -- gus o'donnell to me and this is about how wide to draw the net of people you should be transparent about. >> paragraph 7 and 8 of that advice. it's page 05296 where he addresses these matters. >> i think i mentioned this earlier. my view is if you try and say every time you meet socially eight friends falls into one of these categories or perhaps just below, you have to make a declaration. i think will get yourself into a complete mess and some declarations will not be made. it will come out at 8 met be. -- a met b.

it will come out in the system will collapse. i think the right way of dealing with this is to have what we have set out, transparency about meetings, which is far and it fans of anything our government has done in the past. but then to make sure our ministers have a proper conversation about friends and french ships and jobs people do so they are effectively covered if it then subsequently comes out that there has been some conflict. i think that helps with this issue. >> i think lord a dawdleo'donne advice is that purely personal interactions with friend needed be recorded but if any overlap with an official role, it would seem unreasonable to reach a pardon me, "but where they could be any overlap with their official role i think we should buy some to record the interaction."

that would cover the december 23, 2010 conversation you had with james murdoch. >> he would be covered by this. he would definitely be covered by this, absolutely. newspaper owners, a chairman, a senior editors. i think i was making is slightly different point which relates to the question as me earlier about all personal friends who are somewhere around that level or just below. >> is back ? >> certainly. will take the afternoon break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the story behind the star spangled banner, the invasion of burning of washington, d.c. this marks the bicentennial of the war of 1812 from fort mchenry, what friends is that he would seek from the rockets' red

glare. by saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. more from our series on key political figures that ran for president and lost that change political history. "the contenders" this week with william jennings bryan. american history television this weekend on c-span3. >> president obama gave an economic speech today in ohio. that is coming up in a moment on c-span. then from the faith and freedom coalition conference, we will hear from bob portman, chin demint, and marco rubio. mitt romney kicks off a bus tour tomorrow. his calling it the believe in america bus tour which will travel through pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, and michigan. our live coverage begins at

11:00 a.m. eastern. later, as the supreme court prepares to finish, through the bitter ginsburg will address the american constitution society. >> president obama held a speech at the committee college in cleveland. this is about one hour. >> thank you! [applause] thank you, everybody. good afternoon, everybody. [applause]

it is great to be back in cleveland. [applause] it is great to be back here at cuyahoga community college. [applause] i want to, first of all, thank angela for her introduction and sharing her story. i know her daughter is very proud of her -- i know her daughter is here today. so give her a big round of applause. [applause] i want to thank your president, dr. jerry-sue thornton. [applause] and i want to thank some members of congress who made the trip today -- representative marcia fudge, representative betty sutton, and representative marcy kaptur. [applause] now, those of you who have a seat, feel free to sit down.

>> we love you! [applause] >> thank you. >> four more years! four more years! four more years! four more years! >> thank you. so, ohio, over the next five months, this election will take many twists and many turns. polls will go up and polls will go down. there will be no shortage of gaffes and controversies that keep both campaigns busy and give the press something to

write about. you may have heard i recently made my own unique contribution to that process. [laughter] it wasn't the first time; it won't be the last. and in the coming weeks, governor romney and i will spend time debating our records and our experience -- as we should. but though we will have many differences over the course of this campaign, there's one place where i stand in complete agreement with my opponent -- this election is about our economic future. [applause] yes, foreign policy matters. social issues matter. but more than anything else, this election presents a choice

between two fundamentally different visions of how to create strong, sustained growth; how to pay down our long-term debt; and most of all, how to generate good, middle- class jobs so people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. [applause] now, this isn't some abstract debate. this is not another trivial washington argument. i have said that this is the defining issue of our time -- and i mean it. i said that this is a make-or- break moment for america's middle class -- and i believe it. the decisions we make in the next few years on everything from debt and taxes to energy and education will have an enormous impact on this country

and on the country we pass on to our children. now, these challenges are not new. we've been wrestling with these issues for a long time. the problems we're facing right now have been more than a decade in the making. and what is holding us back is not a lack of big ideas. it isn't a matter of finding the right technical solution. both parties have laid out their policies on the table for all to see. what's holding us back is a stalemate in washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction america should take. and this election is your chance to break that stalemate. [applause]

at stake is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two paths for our country. and while there are many things to discuss in this campaign, nothing is more important than an honest debate about where these two paths would lead us. now, that debate starts with an understanding of where we are and how we got here. long before the economic crisis of 2008, the basic bargain at the heart of this country had begun to erode. for more than a decade, it had become harder to find a job that paid the bills -- harder to save, harder to retire; harder to keep up with rising costs of gas and health care and

college tuitions. you know that; you lived it. [applause] during that decade, there was a specific theory in washington about how to meet this challenge. we were told that huge tax cuts -- especially for the wealthiest americans -- would lead to faster job growth. we were told that fewer regulations -- especially for big financial institutions and corporations -- would bring about widespread prosperity. we were told that it was okay to put two wars on the nation's credit card; that tax cuts would create enough growth to pay for themselves. that's what we were told. so how did this economic theory work out? >> terrible. [laughter] >> for the wealthiest

americans, it worked out pretty well. over the last few decades, the income of the top 1 percent grew by more than 275 percent -- to an average of $1.3 million a year. big financial institutions, corporations saw their profits soar. but prosperity never trickled down to the middle class. from 2001 to 2008, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. the typical family saw their incomes fall. the failure to pay for the tax cuts and the wars took us from record surpluses under president bill clinton to record deficits. and it left us unprepared to deal with the retirement of an aging population that's placing a greater strain on programs like medicare and social security. without strong enough

regulations, families were enticed, and sometimes tricked, into buying homes they couldn't afford. banks and investors were allowed to package and sell risky mortgages. huge, reckless bets were made with other people's money on the line. and too many from wall street to washington simply looked the other way. for a while, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the reality of this new economy -- people borrowed money to keep up. but the growth that took place during this time period turned out to be a house of cards. and in the fall of 2008, it all came tumbling down -- with a financial crisis that plunged the world into the worst economic crisis since the great depression. here in america, families' wealth declined at a rate nearly seven times faster than when the market crashed in 1929.

millions of homes were foreclosed. our deficit soared. and nine million of our citizens lost their jobs -- 9 million hardworking americans who had met their responsibilities, but were forced to pay for the irresponsibility of others. in other words, this was not your normal recession. throughout history, it has typically taken countries up to 10 years to recover from financial crises of this magnitude. today, the economies of many european countries still aren't growing. and their unemployment rate averages around 11 percent. but here in the united states, americans showed their grit and showed their determination. we acted fast.

our economy started growing again six months after i took office and it has continued to grow for the last three years. [applause] our businesses have gone back to basics and created over 4 million jobs in the last 27 months -- more private sector jobs than were created during the entire seven years before this crisis -- in a little over two years. [applause] manufacturers have started investing in america again -- including right here in ohio. [applause] and across america, we've seen them create almost 500,000 jobs in the last 27 months -- the strongest period of manufacturing job growth since

1995. [applause] and when my opponent and others were arguing that we should let detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on american workers and the ingenuity of american companies -- and today our auto industry is back on top of the world. [applause] but let's be clear -- not only are we digging out of a hole that is 9 million jobs deep, we're digging out from an entire decade where 6 million manufacturing jobs left our shores; where costs rose but incomes and wages didn't; and where the middle class fell

further and further behind. so recovering from the crisis of 2008 has always been the first and most urgent order of business -- but it's not enough. our economy won't be truly healthy until we reverse that much longer and profound erosion of middle-class jobs and middle-class incomes. so the debate in this election is not about whether we need to grow faster, or whether we need to create more jobs, or whether we need to pay down our debt. of course the economy isn't where it needs to be. of course we have a lot more work to do. everybody knows that. the debate in this election is about how we grow faster, and how we create more jobs, and how we pay down our debt. [applause] that's the question facing the american voter.

and in this election, you have two very different visions to choose from. >> no, we don't! [laughter] >> obama! [applause] >> governor romney and his allies in congress believe deeply in the theory that we tried during the last decade -- the theory that the best way to grow the economy is from the top down. so they maintain that if we eliminate most regulations, if we cut taxes by trillions of dollars, if we strip down government to national security and a few other basic functions, then the power of businesses to create jobs and prosperity will be unleashed, and that will automatically

benefit us all. that's what they believe. this is their economic plan. it has been placed before congress. governor romney has given speeches about it, and it's on his website. so if they win the election, their agenda will be simple and straightforward. they have spelled it out -- they promise to roll back regulations on banks and polluters, on insurance companies and oil companies. they'll roll back regulations designed to protect consumers and workers. they promise to not only keep all of the bush tax cuts in place, but add another $5 trillion in tax cuts on top of that. now, an independent study says that about 70 percent of this new, $5 trillion tax cut would go to folks making over $200,000

a year. and folks making over a million dollars a year would get an average tax cut of about 25 percent. now, this is not my opinion. this is not political spin. this is precisely what they have proposed. now, your next question may be, how do you spend $5 trillion on a tax cut and still bring down the deficit? well, they tell us they'll start by cutting nearly a trillion dollars from the part of our budget that includes everything from education and job training to medical research and clean energy. >> booo -- >> now, i want to be very fair here. i want to be clear. they haven't specified exactly where the knife would fall.

but here's some of what would happen if that cut that they've proposed was spread evenly across the budget -- 10 million college students would lose an average of $1,000 each in financial aid; 200,000 children would lose the chance to get an early education in the head start program. there would be 1,600 fewer medical research grants for things like alzheimer's and cancer and aids; 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students and teachers. now, again, they have not specified which of these cuts they choose from. but if they want to make smaller cuts to areas like science or medical research, then they'd have to cut things like financial aid or education even further.

but either way, the cuts to this part of the budget would be deeper than anything we've ever seen in modern times. not only does their plan eliminate health insurance for 33 million americans by repealing the affordable care act -- >> booo -- >> -- according to the independent kaiser family foundation, it would also take away coverage from another 19 million americans who rely on medicaid -- including millions of nursing home patients, and families who have children with autism and other disabilities. and they proposed turning medicare into a voucher program, which will shift more costs to seniors and eventually end the program as we know it. but it doesn't stop there. even if you make all the cuts that they've proposed, the math still doesn't allow you to pay for a new, $5 trillion tax cut and bring down the deficit at

the same time. so mr. romney and his allies have told us we can get the rest of the way there by reforming the tax code and taking away certain tax breaks and deductions that, again, they haven't specified. they haven't named them, but they said we can do it. but here's the problem -- the only tax breaks and deductions that get you anywhere close to $5 trillion are those that help middle-class families afford health care and college and retirement and homeownership. without those tax benefits, tens of millions of middle-class families will end up paying higher taxes. many of you would end up paying higher taxes to pay for this other tax cut. and keep in mind that all of this is just to pay for their new $5 trillion tax cut. if you want to close the deficit left by the bush tax cuts, we'd have to make deeper cuts or raise middle-class taxes

even more. this is not spin. this is not my opinion. these are facts. this is what they're presenting as their plan. this is their vision. there is nothing new -- just what bill clinton has called the same ideas they've tried before, except on steroids. [laughter] now, i understand i've got a lot of supporters here, but i want to speak to everybody who's watching who may not be a supporter -- may be undecided, or thinking about voting the other way. if you agree with the approach i just described, if you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for mr. romney. >> booo -- >> now, like i said, i know

i've got supporters here. no, no, you should vote for his allies in congress. >> no! >> you should take them at their word, and they will take america down this path. and mr. romney is qualified to deliver on that plan. no, he is. [applause] i'm giving you an honest presentation of what he's proposing. now, i'm looking forward to the press following up and making sure that you know i'm not exaggerating. [applause] i believe their approach is wrong. and i'm not alone. i have not seen a single independent analysis that says

my opponent's economic plan would actually reduce the deficit. not one. even analysts who may agree with parts of his economic theory don't believe that his plan would create more jobs in the short term. they don't claim his plan would help folks looking for work right now. in fact, just the other week, one economist from moody's said the following about mr. romney's plan -- and i'm quoting here -- "on net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term. if we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower." that's not my spin. that's not my opinion. that's what independent economic anasis says.

as for the long term, remember that the economic vision of mr. romney and his allies in congress was tested just a few years ago. we tried this. their policies did not grow the economy. they did not grow the middle class. they did not reduce our debt. why would we think that they would work better this time? [applause] we can't afford to jeopardize our future by repeating the mistakes of the past -- not now, not when there's so much at stake. i've got a different vision for america. [applause] i believe that you can't bring down the debt without a strong and growing economy. ad i believe you can't have strong and growing economy

without a strong and growing middle class. this has to be our north star -- an economy that's built not from the top down, but from a growing middle class, that provides ladders of opportunity for folks who aren't yet in the middle class. you see, we'll never be able to compete with some countries when it comes to paying workers lower wages or letting companies do more polluting. that's a race to the bottom that we should not want to win. [applause] because those countries don't have a strong middle class; they don't have our standard of living. [applause] the race i want us to win -- the race i know we can win -- is a race to the top. i see an america with the best- educated, best-trained workers in the world; an america with a commitment to research and development that is second to none, especially when it comes

to new sources of energy and high-tech manufacturing. i see a country that offers businesses the fastest, most reliable transportation and communication systems of anywhere on earth. [applause] i see a future where we pay down our deficit in a way that is balanced -- not by placing the entire burden on the middle class and the poor, but by cutting out programs we can't afford, and asking the wealthiest americans to contribute their fair share. [applause] that's my vision for america -- education. energy. innovation. infrastructure. and a tax code focused on american job creation and balanced deficit reduction. [applause] this is the vision behind the jobs plan i sent congress back

in september -- a bill filled with bipartisan ideas that, according to independent economists, would create up to 1 million additional jobs if passed today. this is the vision behind the deficit plan i sent to congress back in september -- a detailed proposal that would reduce our deficit by $4 trillion through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. this is the vision i intend to pursue in my second term as president -- because i believe if we do these things -- if we do these

things, more companies will start here, and stay here, and hire here; and more americans will be able to find jobs that support a middle-class lifestyle. understand, despite what you hear from my opponent, this has never been a vision about how government creates jobs or has the answers to all our problems. over the last three years, i've cut taxes for the typical working family by $3,600. [applause] smallut taxes for businesses 18 times. [applause] i have approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my republican predecessor did in his. and i'm implementing over 500

reforms to fix regulations that were costing folks too much for no reason. i've asked congress for the authority to reorganize the federal government that was built for the last century -- i want to make it work for the 21st century. [applause] a federal government that is leaner and more efficient, and more responsive to the american people. i've signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2 trillion. my own deficit plan would strengthen medicare and medicaid for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs -- not shifting them to seniors and vulnerable families. [applause] and my plan would reduce our yearly domestic spending to its lowest level as a share of the

economy in nearly 60 years. so, no, i don't believe the government is the answer to all our problems. i don't believe every regulation is smart, or that every tax dollar is spent wisely. i don't believe that we should be in the business of helping people who refuse to help themselves. [applause] but i do share the belief of our first republican president, from my home state -- abraham lincoln -- that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. that's how we built this country -- together. we constructed railroads and highways, the hoover dam and the golden gate bridge. we did those things together. we sent my grandfather's generation to college on the gi bill -- together. [applause] we instituted a minimum ge and rules that protected people's bank deposits --

together. [applause] together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination. ashaven't done these things democrats or republicans. we've done them as americans. [applause] as much as we might associate the gi bill with franklin roosevelt, or medicare with lyndon johnson, it was a republican -- lincoln -- who launched the transcontinental railroad, the national academy of sciences, land-grant colleges. it was a republican -- eisenhower -- who launched the interstate highway system and a new era of scientific research. it was nixon who created the environmental protection

agency; reagan who worked with democrats to save social security, -- and who, by the way, raised taxes to help pay down an exploding deficit. [applause] yes, there have been fierce arguments throughout our history between both parties about the exact size and role of government -- some honest disagreements. but in the decades after world war ii, there was a general consensus that the market couldn't solve all of our problems on its own; that we needed certain investments to give hardworking americans skills they needed to get a good job, and entrepreneurs the platforms they needed to create good jobs; that we needed consumer protections that made american products safe and american markets sound. in the last century, this consensus -- this shared vision -- led to the strongest

economic growth and the largest middle class that the world has ever known. it led to a shared prosperity. it is this vision that has guided all my economic policies during my first term as president -- whether in the design of a health care law that relies on private insurance, or an approach to wall street reform that encourages financial innovation but guards against reckless risk-taking. democratsvision that and republicans used to share that mr. romney and the current republican congress have rejected -- in favor of a "no holds barred," "government is the enemy," "market is everything" approach. and it is this shared vision that i intend to carry forward in this century as president -- because it is a vision that has worked for the american middle class and everybody who's striving to get into the middle class.

[applause] let me be more specific. think about it. in an age where we know good jobs depend on high skills, now is not the time to scale back our commitment to education. [applause] now is the time to move forward and make sure we have the best- educated, best-trained workers in the world. [applause] my plan for education doesn't just rely on more money, or more dictates from washington. we're challenging every state and school district to come up with their own innovative plans to raise student achievement. and they're doing just that. i want to give schools more flexibility so that they don't have to teach to the test, and so they can remove teachers who just aren't helping our kids learn. [applause]

but, look, if we want our country to be a magnet for middle-class jobs in the 21st century, we also have to invest more in education and training. i want to recruit an army of new teachers, and pay teachers better -- and train more of them in areas like math and science. [applause] i have a plan to give 2 million more americans the chance to go to community colleges just like this one and learn the skills that businesses are looking for right now. [applause] i have a plan to make it easier for people to afford a higher education that's essential in today's economy. and if we truly want to make this country a destination for talent and ingenuity from all over the world, we won't deport hardworking, responsible young immigrants who have grown up here or received advanced

degrees here. [applause] we'll let them earn the chance to become american citizens so they can grow our economy and start new businesses right here instead of someplace else. [applause] now is not the time to go back to a greater reliance on fossil fuels from foreign countries. now is the time to invest more in the clean energy that we can make right here in america. [applause] my plan for energy doesn't ignore the vast resources we already have in this country. we're producing more oil than we have in over a decade. but if we truly want to gain control of our energy future, we've got to recognize that pumping more oil isn't enough. we have to encourage the unprecedented boom in american natural gas. we have to provide safe nuclear

energy and the technology to help coal burn cleaner than before. we have to become the global leader in renewable energy -- wind and solar, and the next generation of biofuels, in electric cars and energy- efficient buildings. [applause] so my plan would end the government subsidies to oil companies that have rarely been more profitable -- let's double down on a clean energy industry that has never been more promising. [applause] and i want to put in place a new clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation -- an approach that would make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for every business in america. with growing competition from countries like china and india, now is not the time for america to walk away from research and development. now is the time to invest even more -- so that the great innovations of this century take

place in the united states of america. so that the next thomas edison, the next wright brothers is happening here, in ohio, or michigan, or california. [applause] my plan to encourage innovation isn't about throwing money at just any project or new idea. it's about supporting the work of our most promising scientists, our most promising researchers and entrepreneurs. my plan would make the r&d tax credit permanent. but the private sector can't do it alone, especially when it comes to basic research. it's not always profitable in the short term. and in the last century, research that we funded together through our tax dollars helped lay the foundation for the internet and gps and google, and the countless companies and jobs that followed. the private sector came in and

created these incredible companies, but we, together, made the initial investment to make it possible. it's given rise to miraculous cures that have reduced suffering and saved lives. this has always been america's biggest economic advantage -- our science and our innovation. why would we reverse that commitment right now when it's never been more important? at a time when we have so much deferred maintenance on our nation's infrastructure -- schools that are crumbling, roads that are broken, bridges that are buckling -- now is not the time to saddle american businesses with crumbling roads and bridges. now is the time to rebuild america. so my plan would take half the money we're no longer spending on war -- let's use it to do

some nation-building here at home. let's put some folks to work right here at home. [applause] my plan would get rid of pet projects and government boondoggles and bridges to nowhere. [laughter] but if we want businesses to come here and to hire here, we have to provide the highways and the runways and the ports and the broadband access, all of which move goods and products and information across the globe. my plan sets up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans for new construction projects based on two criteria -- how badly are they needed, and how much good will they do for the economy. [applause]

and finally, i think it's time we took on our fiscal problems in an honest, balanced, responsible way. everybody agrees that our deficits and debt are an issue that we've got to tackle. my plan to reform the tax code recognizes that government can't bring back every job that's been outsourced or every factory that's closed its doors. but we sure can stop giving tax breaks to businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in the united states of america -- in ohio, in cleveland, in pennsylvania. [applause] and if we want to get the deficit under control -- really,

not just pretending to during election time -- not just saying you really care about it when somebody else is in charge, and then you don't care where you're in charge. [applause] if you want to really do something about it, if you really want to get the deficit under control without sacrificing all the investments that i've talked about, our tax code has to ask the wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more -- just like they did when bill clinton was president; just like they did when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history, and a lot of millionaires to boot. -- here's the good news there are plenty of patriotic, very successful americans who'd be willing to make this contribution again. [applause]

look, we have no choice about whether we pay down our deficit. but we do have a choice about how we pay down our deficit. we do have a choice about what we can do without, and where our priorities lie. i don't believe that giving someone like me a $250,000 tax cut is more valuable to our future than hiring transformative teachers, or providing financial aid to the children of a middle-class family. [applause] i don't believe that tax cut is more likely to create jobs than providing loans to new entrepreneurs or tax credits to small business owners who hire veterans. i don't believe it's more likely to spur economic growth than investments in clean energy technology and medical research, or in new roads and bridges and runways.

i don't believe that giving someone like mr. romney another huge tax cut is worth ending the guarantee of basic security we've always provided the elderly, and the sick, and those who are actively looking for work. [applause] those things don't make our economy weak. what makes our economy weak is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell. [applause] businesses don't have customers if folks are having such a hard time. what drags us all down is an economy in which there's an ever-widening gap between a few folks who are doing extraordinarily well and a growing number of people who, no matter how hard they work, can barely make ends meet. [applause]

so, governor romney disagrees with my vision. his allies in congress disagree with my vision. neither of them will endorse any policy that asks the wealthiest americans to pay even a nickel more in taxes. it's the reason we haven't reached a grand bargain to bring down our deficit -- not with my plan, not with the bowles-simpson plan, not with the so-called gang of six plan. despite the fact that taxes are lower than they've been in decades, they won't work with us on any plan that would increase taxes on our wealthiest americans. it's the reason a jobs bill that would put 1 million people back to work has been voted down

time and time again. it's the biggest source of gridlock in washington today. and the only thing that can break the stalemate is you. [applause] you see, in our democracy, this remarkable system of government, you, the people, have the final say. this november is your chance to render a verdict on the debate over how to grow the economy, how to create good jobs, how to

pay down our deficit. your vote will finally determine the path that we take as a nation -- not just tomorrow, but for years to come. [applause] when you strip everything else away, that's really what this election is about. that's what is at stake right now. everything else is just noise. everything else is just a distraction. from now until then, both sides will spend tons of money on tv ads. the other side will spend over a billion dollars on ads that tell you the economy is bad, that it's all my fault -- that i can't fix it because i think

government is always the answer, or because i didn't make a lot of money in the private sector and don't understand it, or because i'm in over my head, or because i think everything and everybody is doing just fine. [laughter] int's what the scary voice the ads will say. [laughter] that's what mr. romney will say. that's what the republicans in congress will say. well, that may be their plan to win the election, but it's not a plan to create jobs. [applause] it's not a plan to grow the economy. it's not a plan to pay down the debt. and it's sure not a plan to revive the middle class and secure our future. i think you deserve better than that. [applause]

at a moment this big -- a moment when so many people are still struggling -- i think you deserve a real debate about the economic plans we're proposing. governor romney and the republicans who run congress believe that if you simply take away regulations and cut taxes by trillions of dollars, the market will solve all of our problems on its own. if you agree with that, you should vote for them. and i promise you they will take us in that direction. i believe we need a plan for better education and training -- and for energy independence, and for new research and innovation; for rebuilding our infrastructure; for a tax code that creates jobs in america and pays down our debt in a way that's balanced. i have that plan. they don't. and if you agree with me -- if you believe this economy grows best when everybody gets a fair

shot, and everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules -- then i ask you to stand with me for a second term as president. [applause] in fact, i'll take it a step further. i ask, you vote for anyone else -- whether they're democrats, independents, or republicans -- who share your view about how america should grow. [applause] i will work with anyone of any party who believes that we're in this together -- who

believes that we rise or fall as one nation and as one people. [applause] because i'm convinced that there are actually a lot of republicans out there who may not agree with every one of my policies, but who still believe in a balanced, responsible approach to economic growth, and who remember the lessons of our history, and who don't like the direction their leaders are taking them. and let me leave you with one last thought. as you consider your choice in november -- don't let anybody tell you that the challenges we face right now are beyond our ability to solve. it's hard not to get cynical when times are tough. and i'm reminded every day of just how tough things are for too many americans.

every day i hear from folks who are out of work or have lost their home. across this country, i meet people who are struggling to pay their bills, or older workers worried about retirement, or young people who are underemployed and burdened with debt. i hear their voices when i wake up in the morning, and those voices ring in my head when i lay down to sleep. and in those voices, i hear the echo of my own family's struggles as i was growing up, and michelle's family's struggles when she was growing up, and the fears and the dashed hopes that our parents and grandparents had to confront. but you know what, in those voices i also hear a stubborn hope, and a fierce pride, and a determination to overcome whatever challenges we face.

[applause] and in you, the american people, i'm reminded of all the things that tilt the future in our favor. we remain the wealthiest nation on earth. we have the best workers and entrepreneurs, the best scientists and researchers, the best colleges and universities. we are a young country with the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity drawn from every corner of the globe. so, yes, reforming our schools, rebuilding our infrastructure will take time. yes, paying down our debt will require some tough choices and shared sacrifice. but it can be done. and we'll be stronger for it. and what's lacking is not the capacity to meet our challenges. what is lacking is our politics. and that's something entirely

within your power to solve. so this november, you can remind the world how a strong economy is built -- not from the top down, but from a growing, thriving middle class. [applause] this november, you can remind the world how it is that we've traveled this far as a country -- not by telling everybody to fend for themselves, but by coming together as one american family, all of us pitching in, all of us pulling our own weight. this november, you can provide a mandate for the change we need right now. you can move this nation forward. and you can remind the world once again why the united states of america is still the greatest nation on earth. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you. [cheers and applause]

♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪ >> mitt romney kicks off a campaign bus tour to amar in new hampshire. he is calling it the believe in america, every town counts muster. it will travel through ohio, pennsylvania, and michigan. live coverage starts at 11:00

a.m. eastern. justice ruth bader ginsberg will address the american constitution society. live coverage at 6:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> one of the quotes was exceptionally inspiring. once you realize the magnitude of different chicken in public life, everything else will pale in comparison. -- the magnitude of difference you can make in public life. >> those who think they are crazy enough to change the world are the ones that actually do. >> choose carefully and execute relentlessly. that meant a lot to me because too many times we find ourselves taking too many things on and not really focusing on that one thing that should be a top priority. >> every year the u.s. senate youth program bring students to washington for a week of government and leadership education picked this year by

briankamoie made an impact. >> i started with the mindset of what is it like to be them, and now that i am in this role, what can i share with them that either i wish i had known along the way, or that they will remember when they leave washington, which is a very intense, rapid-fire experience. if you leave a few key, encouraging messages at a time when you know it is very easy to be cynical about politics, it is good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more on sunday at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> ralph reed's stake in freedom coalition is holding a conference in washington this week on faith in public life. coming up, we will hear from republican senators. republican senators. we will