from ohio senator rob portman. he was given an award by the conference. [applause] >> thanks very much. i will proudly display this in my office that will remind me of this day and of the good work you are doing all around the i talked about this this afternoon. the coalition is making a big difference. it has the potential to change the direction of our country. thank you for this. we go way back, back further than either one of us are willing to admit. rose is an amazing woman. he has a couple of titles of his own, at ambassador. since leaving, he has

effectively played a key role in the state of ohio and around the country. he is trying to cause this. i'm one of the benefits series of that. i appreciated. his views are conservative, a consistent and courageous. thank you for all you do. ralph reed has now joined us. his joining this. ralph is a dear friend. i appreciate him coming here today. he is a smart political guy. also for an incredible work this

group has done. you think about and things did not go our way. he turned to some of you and so we need to do something different. translates into some electoral victories. he mentioned some of the titles i have had for 12 years, also representing the senate. it is an honor to do it. a lot of titles. i cannot hold a job. for me, the titles that are much more important to me our husbands and fathers.

those are the ones that i truly cherish. [applause] frankly, public service makes it hard. it is tough on your family. it is practiced with humility. it does put a strain on family. you are making a difference for your family and other people's family. you have to find a balance. your only a strong is your core. for me that his faith and family. one of my favorite passages comes from the book of james. consider your joy when ever you face rows of any kind.

this is what i have a balance. one day someone said one of the 10 assistance from the president is leading. they would like you to take the job at age 35 to be one of 10 assistance. -- assistants. i tell my mom is diagnosed with terminal cancer. i remember like what it was yesterday's walking into his office. summit you have been here. -- some of you have been here. he made a job offer. i wanted to work for the president. i said, i appreciate it. i'm going home.

it is time for me to go home. >> he can be a little cranky. he is sitting there and is there is going straight back. i got a tirade of why any to do that for my country. why am i going home tax i mumbled some things about needing to go back to my private sector life. i said my mom has been diagnosed with cancer. he came up from behind his big test, his eyes were tearing up. he gave me a big bear hug. he said, you need to go home. you need to go home. he was right. my mom was dying of cancer. she lived for to put five more years. those were glorious years. i got to spend more time with

her. before glosser, she also got an invitation to my swearing in as a new member of congress. in her time of trial, her faith it deepened. she started meeting with a prayer group regularly. at the my whole family stayed deepen. she knew she was going to her eternal home. there is no question in her mind. for 16 years until he passed away about a year-and-a-half ago, my father every day could not wait for the opportunity to join my mom in heaven. like them, my faith sustains me. i pray every day. sometimes i prayed for guidance on capitol hill. that is needed. sometimes i am not sure exactly

what message i am getting. i try. i have lots of room to grow. ever feel like the pastor is talking to you? that happened to me on sunday. he action it took from the 34 -- 32nd psalm. in the stressful life we live in, it did not try to do it all yourself. rely on god. he will help you to find peace. it struck a chord with me. i had a two high pressured jobs. one was in arguably the worst job in government. and has been too much time with family. they were tough. one data to run the cabinet.

i realize every single cabinet member lived in washington. none of them lived here. i was flying back and forth trying to do the commute with these jobs. i would spend all weekend on my computer or on the phone. in 2007, i left this to go home with thefull-time to be withi three teenagers and to be with jane. it was thought it time to leave. never a. i started to get the sense that we needed to get help. i saw in 2009 the bottom fall

out of teed of the of family businesses. i saw what it was doing to the economy back home. i saw washington growing by irresponsibly growing the size of government. i saw the spending that was growing out of control. i felt called to undertake this challenge. the first up was with my family. jane is an incredible mama. she was ready if i was. i asked my kids what they thought. i loved being home. i was able to coach my daughter's soccer team. we had the family meeting. my daughter sally spoke up and said "you need to get out of the house a little bit more." with that, i jumped in. they pitched in.

i was able to win that. i came to washington a year and a half ago to write what was wrong to serve our country. -- right what was wrong and to serve our country and to help washington get the country back on track. to help america achieve its promises and to help americans to achieve their god-given potential. it is a tough time for our country. it is the biggest economic depression since the great depression. last week when obama claimed that the private sector was doing just fine, he need to get out more. [laughter] [applause] what concerns me even more was the context in which he made that statement. it was not just that the private sector was doing fine would we have 20 million americans out of work or underemployed. he said the answer was more government. the private sector is doing fine but we need to hire more people in government and that will get the economy moving again. i do not the most people agree with that.

i do not think most economists agree with that. failed leadership has been displayed over the last 3.5 years. i was on a conference call with reporters from back home. the stimulus has worked. how can you say it hasn't? $800 million later? by their own measures, it was supposed to be under six% unemployment. you have to generate economic growth the way we have always done it. it is time on it. it works. we pulled more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of the world. we're helping free enterprise to

help them achieve their god- given potential. we hear about the unemployment number, at 8.2%, closer to 11%. that does that tell the story, does it? it is not tell the heartache. it does not tell the hardships are families are facing. it puts a strain on families. strong families is what is essential to a healthy society. teaching your children right from wrong is hard. it is harder as parents are stretched thin, struggling to get by. it is through those parents and hard to raise a strong children that the next generation will learn the values that made this country great. from our declaration of independence and from our creator. life, liberty, and the pursuit

of happiness. i mean innocent life held sacred from conception until death. [applause] much as i have relied on these values and america has, we also relied on something else. that is prayer and faith to get through the los ardors of trials. as a nation -- through the arduous of trials appeared as a nation, we used it in the civil war that tour as a part in and brought it back together with prayer and faith. through the great depression and the tax of 9/11. our judeo and christian heritage is to we are.

thomas jefferson -- are judeo- christian heritage is who we are. thomas jefferson second the liberties be there? these are a gift of job. look at the memorial. it is there. a place called gettysburg, at lincoln proclaimed that this nation under god shall have a new birth of freedom. lincoln perhaps better than anyone before or since understood the importance of faith in the life of our republic. you see it on the walls of his memorial. almost a century later on june 6 1944, president franklin delano roosevelt chose to share a prayer with a nation rather than a speech on d-day. as our troops are hitting the beaches in france, and we knew there would be great losses, and there were, at this extraordinary prayer brought inspiration to our country during challenging times. my friend chris along in ohio gave me the idea to promote adding this to the national world war ii memorial at the mall.

joe lieberman announced legislation to do this. we read the prayer on the floor of the united states senate. i talked about what a great pleasure it was earlier and what an amazing prayer it is. thank you to all of you in the coalition. gary talked to me about this earlier today. i think we'll get this legislation passed. we appreciate your help. we hope it will serve as a testament to the power of prayer. i was in afghanistan to see our amazing soldiers and marines. they are truly incredible. we are so blessed to have them. [applause] we pray for them. we pray for our brave women and men in uniform in afghanistan.

as president roosevelt parade when he asked god to lead them straight and true, i get straight to their arms, as to their heart, said that this -- straight to their arms, steadfastness in their hearts. most recently it was treated as an after thought that the implementation of the regulations that go as part of the health care bill. despite concerns expressed a religious employers, employers refuse to back down. it pits health-care against the rights of religion. it covers only charities. to think about this. groups like mother teresa would not qualify because the ask people whether they are hungry, whether they need help, whether

they are sick. they did not ask whether they are christians. that is their mission. this is ministration simply does not get it. the protection that asks faith based the groups to abandon their charity is no charity at all. the freedom to live out one state is a fundamental of an american. it is part of our core. we can assure the right of conscience that george washington called the choicest of our blessings. it is a source of inspiration for the world.

our country needs each of you to let your voice is be heard. godspeed in your work. god bless you. >> what a leader, a leader u.s. answer the call. i went like to invite them for our next introduction. miles terry is our south carolina chairman. please join us.

>> i am introducing to use the menu i've looked up for many years. this man has always brought honor and has been our man to represent our state's interest. over the years, one thing has never changed. in the hearts of his south carolina people, he is and and we're proud to call our bomb. we are securing our state in country's future. he quickly established himself as one of the most effective conservative leaders in washington, seeking to enact solutions to improve america for future generations to come. in 2006 he is elected as chairman.

he was ranked as the senate's most conservative member by the national journal and as a number one senator voting for irresponsible tax and spending policies by the national taxpayers union. he understands our country is found in the values and not solely on its government. he has set a bold course and working to what many consider to be a kingmaker to lecture conservatives to the u.s. senate. on the issues americans are concerned with, and jim demint has been a leader and mentor to the younger leaders in my generation coming behind him. as a welcome him right now, please give him a hearty faith in freedom welcome. we would like to present him with an award.

we like to visit me with this awards. it is your voting record on the key issues. >> thank you for that great welcome. thank you for the work you're doing. in my very first campaign, ralph ran the campaign against the. i am not very excited about people who are here. if people get engaged, it they can make a huge difference.

what you're doing to get organized gives us hope that we can turn things around and this election. i am very conscious of all the problems and have as a country. i have to remind ourselves how blessed we are as a nation. we cannot be negative. we cannot be mad. we cannot be angry. we are blessed as a nation. everyone else with like to be here today. this is lot less than the obstacles of those that put their name on the declaration of independence. we should be anxious and ready to go out to take our country back.

this country belongs to the people. this is the election to do it. the other thing we need to remember is that this country is exceptional. if we do not understand what makes us an exceptional, we're going to do something like this president does who thinks our economy is built on government employment. he does not have a clue.

he does not understand that our country is that run from the top down. they are making decisions about all areas of our life. we have millions of people's making their own decisions about what they values and what they wanted to do. we came together as communities in churches and families. we were all entrepreneurs by necessity. we treated this waterfall system that the prosperity not only to us but to people all over the world. it was because we are different. now we have people in washington who are trying to make us more like the other countries where they are taking to washington and try to control

a bit from here. it is worrisome that if the think about all the things in our lives that are federal government controls our education system and our health care system. they're a very few things we have not set our tentacles into. it is not working well because of that. america is so resilient and the people are so hard working and innovative that despite what has been happening here america is doing better than any other country in the world. we need to leave our faith that, we get involved in politics say some people. that is counter to what made this country great. the individuals that built this country, most of them came to this nation to be free to worship. their fate is what gave them that work ethic, that desire to help others. to be faithful to their spouses. that is what gave us freedom.

there are two sides of the freedom claim. there's freedom and date. that is what you see in europe were increasingly the bigger the government gets the more secular you become. those values that make as great no longer work. there are very few examples of a working very well. their fate is what gave them that work ethic, that desire to help others. to be faithful to their spouses. that is what gave us freedom. there are two sides of the freedom claim. there's freedom and date. that is what you see in europe were increasingly the bigger the government gets the more secular you become. those values that make as great no longer work. there are very few examples of a working very well. we're very unique people. we have built a country and like any other. we need to realize we are blessed.

we need to know we are in trouble. we are supposed to be a country of limited government. it limits us to what we can do. the other half of the country we have got to get on our side because we are not acting only for them but we are trying to pull those other folks into the land of opportunity and prosperity here trapping this. this election can change. the reason i believe that is in the last election is that we thought it was a big election. only 29 some of americans even voted.

we know we have done the research that half of the evangelicals that sit in church and not even registered to vote. if we get the people to believe as we do to join us at the polls, we can turn things around not only for the present but hopefully for the senate. i was told he cannot change the senate. that was bad news. the senate has been the black hole for good ideas ever since i came to washington when i was in the house. i embarked on a mission to try to do that. i wish to him by millions of americans who were tired of the status quo in washington. they sent us a lot of the people to the united states senate.

in the last few years, you have marco. you have a grand paul. you have ron johnson. these do folks would have had to wait 10 years before they made a difference. the five i just mentioned are probably the top leaders in the senate as far as the conservative movement. it is because the people of around this country made up their mind to change things. they got involved. to reason i'm here today is thank you are realizing it is our civic duty and responsibility not only to vote but to help candidates to get others to vote and make sure in this election is one that surely does turn things around. if we can get a conservative majority in the senate, of which can remove this president to is there now and replace him with mitt romney, i am convinced

we have the mandate from the american people to balance our budget, it to stop spending more than we are bringing in, and to restore the freedom that has the values we want. we do not need the government to push our values or our state or our religion. we do need to stop the government from purging and faith from the american way of life. that is what is happening right now. keep working hard. there are a lot of people inside the house and the senate that are really fighting for the same things you are. a lot of people of faith pray every day. we are counting on the people of the united states to get behind us and stand with us to turn this around.

thank you for being there. thank you are having our back. we're glad to keep fighting in working until we get this thing turned around. i appreciate it. [applause] >> said the surge in demand, ladies and gentlemen. we appreciate your -- senator jim demint, and ladies and gentlemen. we appreciate your leadership. help is on the way. you will have a lot more friends very soon in the u.s. senate. i name is ralph. i am the chairman of the faith and freedom coalition. it is my great honor to welcome our keynote speaker.

how many conferences do you get to go to war in the first 45 minutes you get to hear from portman, jim demint, and senator marco rubio? he is one of the most transformational figures. in a very short time. marco rubio is the son of cuban exile whose life is truly a living, breathing embodiment of the american dream. he represents everything he stands for and all that he has done. the fact that america plays a unique and exceptional role in the history of our planet. when he ran for the u.s. senate in 2009 when very few people gave them a chance, his candidacy captured the imagination of the florida electorate. he was putting forward a plan to restore the promise of this nation. his parents came here in 1956. he grew up of florida.

he graduated from the university of florida. you are being introduced by a georgia bulldog i am sorry to tell you. i am the son of florida gators. he graduated from the university of miami law school. he internes. he served on the county commission. he is elected to the florida house in 2000. in 2006 he was elected by his colleagues to be the speaker of the house where he led the passage of education reform and ushered florida's antiquated tax system into the 21st century and reduce property taxes. when he announced he is going to run for the senate and would square off against the incumbent governor at this state, he was out raced $600 million.

he trailed by more than 30 points in the polls. he demonstrated that a man of character and integrity with a compelling message could defeat all the money and all the endorsements in the world. his was truly a harbinger of the landslide that occurred in 2010. he became so strong in that primary that his opponent action left the party. [cheers and applause] he won a three way election by the remarkable margin of 49 serbs appeared today he sits on the senate commerce committee, the senate foreign relations committee, at the senate select committee. he is a man of deep faith, a devoted father, a loving husband to his wife. he is a great champion of faith

in freedom. we are excited at his new book is good to come out next tuesday. he will be signing copies for you immediately after this luncheon. please welcome one of the finest public servants, senator marco rubio. >> thank you. thank you. i appreciated. that is a very kind introduction. i always tell people that the american dream is that your kids can go up to have a better life in you but it is not a guarantee. you've had to phenomenal speakers and a great program.

i hope you enjoyed the book. it to be out tuesday. i will start signing some of the cards now. i'll speak about it. it was a tribute to my parents and grandparents. it is a tribute to our country and the realization that in america things are possible. why is that? i talk about these things not only to inform but to remind. why did i run for office and those 30 points down decks their days i had significant doubt. their days at a not want to this. i have some pondered getting out of the race and figure out an excuse. i was blessed that i did not do it. if you read the book you'll see all the things that made that possible.

i would have gone up for the wrong reasons. i did not want to be a failure or in paris. i am glad i wrote that and i went through that. this is not about us or our personal ambitions. each of us contributes in a different way. it is in your everyday life in the people you expire that even the biggest event for our country. those of us look to our fate. christianity spread not only

because of the preaching because of the way people live. to be a christian was a capital offense in the roman empire. you know of the instances where they used christians as torch's and lined a lot to make examples of them. early christians and toward this with peace and happiness that inspire those around them to inquire what is about them? we are called to be ambassadors of our faith. it is the american example. it is not just our laws are speeches. the sister their children.

they accomplished things that they cannot accomplish elsewhere. it is worth examining why. does god happen to love us more than he lets other people? that was all this children. whenever you are asked we are told that politics you must make a choice between your faith or their freedom, between social conservatism and this book conservatism. in some new ways they're in distinguishable. -- bay are indistinguishable. american freedoms are ingrained in our faith. the declaration of independence

are not really political ones. they did not talk about our rights given to us by government leaders. it talks about our right as given to us by our creator. it is an hour heritage as a nation that those principles took flight. that is where it comes from. they did not just make it up one day. they believed in their hearts because of their faith. it is god our creature that endows every human being on the planet, not people born here, but people everywhere matter who your parents were. the matter how your last name is pronounced. no matter how poor you were when you were born. every human being endowed with certain rights that no government, no leader has the right to deny you. it is one thing to put it in

writing. in the government that denies you these rights is an illegitimate government. it is the basis of their objection. it goes on to finish by saying because of this comment because the government has the right to deny you those things, because in a government that does he deny these things is illegitimate, the only park government to have is the power that you agree to give. other people have constitutions and similar writings. then you have to put those principles into practice. if you live in a society that has no faith and encourages the belief that there is no god, what is the source of your rights.

if there is the greater than what is the source of your liberty? a piece of paper? the writing of people's 230 years ago? it reminds is that you cannot have their freedom with that your fate. the source of your freedom is your faith. what have those principles led to? they lead to a system of government. it becomes a captive the hill watched the debate in washington again frustrate you. -- if you come to capitol hill and watch the debate in washington it can frustrate you. and so many other nations in the world right now we solve issues here in america that most people fight wars over. we do through floor debates that other people do to the exchange of gunfire. we are blessed by that.

as frustrated as we may get and the fact that it is thought only the most efficient, i hope every single day you give thanks to god you live in one. the alternative is not very good. those principles also led to a system of economics. it says that what we should have is a system of economics or anyone can accomplish anything. you're not judged by who your parents are and not by whether you into the bright school or have your last name is pronounced, not by whether your parents came on the mayflower, what matters is not that. what matters is do you have a good idea? if you're willing to work hard, you have a god-given right to pursue that idea and have a god- given right to make it work.

do you know with the system of economics has produced? prosperity. increasing prosperity. it is not perfect. we do have pockets of despair. we have people who have been left behind. we have people that find themselves in very unfortunate circumstances. in a society as fathers, husbands, mothers and members of the community at large, we always will have an obligation. rooted deeply in not just our fate of their patriotism to do everything we can for those less fortunate. the best thing we can do is continue to provide a system of economics or upward mobility is possible and where you are judged by your merits. not by who your parents were. i am literally preaching to the choir.

this is the debate. this is the heart and soul of what we argue about. it is the source of greatness that we have these really good senators who are so smart that they know what is the best for the rest of us. we should listen to them. is the source of our freedom that we have a government that spends its money so wisely that it created jobs and opportunities?

that is what one cited the political equation literally believes. we between the lines. you lot more prosperity? and give us more power to pass laws. you want more prosperity? give us the power to take money away from our fellow americans. they say something more. they say things that are to missive by design.

they tell our fellow americans that the reasons they are worse off is because of the people of doing too well. the way to reject your job is to raise your boss's taxes. -- to protect your job is to raise your boss's taxes. they pit americans against each other for purposes of winning an election. that is never who we have been. that is never who we have inspired to be. that is why your activism is important. it matters because of what our country is going to look like. we all want our children to be better off. it is important that we do not allow misinformation to become fact. oftentimes people who hold their faith dearly though guilty about it. people tell you do not impose your values on others. it is never been about imposing our values. it has never been about that. it has been about the fact we want to live in a country with free them so we can lick our values and our lives -- so we can live our values and our lives. nor had the movement of constitutional conservatism.

it is not about leaving people behind. many of us believe there mandated by our fate to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. [applause] it is not one of anarchy. we're not anti-government. one of the great blessings is that god has given the and nation the blessings in need to keep this republic. we want our water to be clean. we believe government is an important institution. it is not just the most important institution. as a reminder, while our job is very important but what i do matters a lot, what i do at home matters more.

my job as a father and husband in a member of by church as a neighbor matters more than virtually anything i could ever hope to do in the united states. that is not true for me. you'll always find it in her people in the everyday stories of everyday people who are literally changing the lives of others were person at a time. they get an elderly neighbor a ride to the doctor.

they volunteered countless hours at a shelter. they get money to shelter. there are the big brother and a big sister helping people how to read and prosper. they're starting a business that all starts this. number of their right magazine articles about them. their faces never be on the cover of a newspaper. it is there were life has changed. one person, one family. this matters for americans more than anywhere else. we're not just another country. the american example we need to understand that at its core of the source of our greatness is not our intelligence are even our hard work. those things matter a lot. it is our blessing. america is a great lesson. blessed with peace. that's a fight no conflicts.

the liberal collection of go get is from all of the world, people who refuse to accept the limitations of society. they were brought here by their parents whether it was two or five generations ago in search of a better life. another group of americans are the descendants of men and women who overcame the most vicious institution one could imagine. there after the discrimination that follows. they overcame those things to stake their claim. this is literally who we are. this is our dna. we're collection of the world's go getters. are circumstances were limited by who we were born to.

this inspires the world. no matter whether they agree with us are not, ignatius and people look to us and find inspiration. they find the reality. if it is possible here, it can be possible there. why can they not try to do this their dads this is where the american life and example of the world happen. do want to continue to be that? are we prepared to become like

everybody else? that is not a product of choice. this requires us to dubai what gosbee richard requires us to confront those before i -- this requires us to confront those before us. arcade teaches us that much is given a much is expected. at the end of our lives we will all be held to account whether we had one talents or three. we will be asked what we do with these talents for those of us to share the christian faith. and talk about this terrible in my book. i talk about how it applies to me -- i talk about this parable in my book. i talk about how it applies to me. we'll also be accountable and our role in america. all of us we will be held accountable for what we did. one of the blessings we have had is that of america.

the opportunity to live in a free and prosperous society. what did you do with it? did you take it for yourself? the use it to live 81 years of life? was it about more? was it about serving their fellow man and leaving their children with the opportunity to do not have? was it about raising your voice is to confront injustice? was it standing for the cause of liberty and freedom? we know that is not just an american principle. it is a faith-based principle that applies to all mankind. what did you do american? did you think this was just about enjoying your time and having the most fun you could? did you realize that with your blessings commit special obligation to continue through your example to inspire and give hope to the helpless.

there was a way to live a better life. we will be asked about that, too. now we are asked to do what every generation before us had to do, it decide whether we will use these blessings or take them for ourselves. we're not just less. airbus that we can get. the american is as great as they have ever been. there's a reason why that cannot be. the promise of this new century is real. all over the world millions of people who just a decade ago lived in poverty are now part of the middle-class. for america, that is great news. they want to buy the stuff we invent and build.

they want to leave their hard earned dollars at our tourist destination. the one to follow our example of freedom and democracy. -- they want to follow our example of freedom and democracy. why would we ever had the other way? -- head the other way? let me close by saying what you do matters a lot on a daily basis and the lives that you touch. it will matter more. what is truly at stake in 2012 and years to come is not just which party controls washington or which leader lives in the white house. what is at stake is our very identity. there is no reason why the 21st century cannot be an american sentry as well. for more people and more places than ever before. the only thing standing between a new american century and today is our willingness to do what it takes. thank you for the opportunity. thank you. [applause]

>> we continue our coverage tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern. newt gingrich, mitch mcconnell, and gland that are among those scheduled to speak. david cameron testified about his relationship with rupert murdoch's it is corp. tom -- and news corp.. president obama delivers a campaign speech on the economy and an ohio. we will have the president's remarks later.

on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," of the federal reserve has published a report on palling household incomes in the u.s. be will discuss this with an economist. a look at the changing urban population with a member of the census bureau. >> this week, secretary of state henry clinton spoke about the ongoing situation in syria. >> we have confronted the russians about stopping their continued on shipments to syria. they have from time to time said that we should not worry, everything they are shipping is unrelated to their actions

internally. that is patently untrue. we are concerned about the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from russia to syria which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically. >> watch the rest of the discussion on the arab-israeli peace process online at the c- span video library. >> british prime minister david cameron was questioned at an inquiry in london. the prime minister was asked about his relationship with former news corp. executives rebekah brooks and the decision to hire the former news of the world editor andy coulson. the commission, which was raided by the prime minister's office, it is investigating journalism ethics. -- which was created by the

prime minister's office, is investigating journalism ethics. >> truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your full name please. >> david william donald cameron. >> 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 opinions and not the minister's opinion? >> i do not. what do what extent do you think your approach was orthodox or unorthodox? >> i had been working at the conservative research office a number of years. my job as a special adviser was a political special adviser. i was a speech writer. i was advising on party policy an expert adviser.

in the treasury we have some 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

which was quite a strict in another part of the job was dealing with investors and shareholders, dealing with them. eight other part was press that was more related to the because i was dealing with are still 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. some knowledge and understanding but not as much as has worked there. it probably taught me more the television industry,

was regulated. maybe we will come onto this. formed regulation, the bbc, it was a informative period. i formed a lot of the views then that i still hold today. >> i am going to divide your l headings. development of a media issues. 14 of your statement, at page 04099. you explain the instrument of communication, the contract between politicians and media is necessary and not inherently and help the, is that right? >> absolutely. obviously you have some 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. record disrupt -- discussion? >> yes. understand more about you. 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.

been for you? what's it varies with the person concerned. sometimes you strike up a strong relationship, sometimes he struggled. plays a vital part in interpreting explaining political events to the public. the i am putting broadcasters accusations fairly over the last 11 years? >> i think it has changed a lot. asking politicians whether they are happy with the way the reports the news is a bit like asking farmers about the weather.

we will always complain. been put forward in the sessions you have had where people have talked about the growth of the 24 hour news culture, the fact things move so fast is that newspapers have been put in a difficult position. the news is reported long before they reached their deadlines and publish papers the next day. towards trying to find impact, trying to find an ankle on a story rather than what would hour news just reporting the before. there has been a change. development of media than anything else. i think from the politicians. review and the government, it is sometimes a change for the worse. important, that gets announced on the television.

something different. i understand why they want to that. explaining to the country why reforming the service in this way. you could get a cross more what it is you actually decided to do what the motives were. politicians will always of thing. i would not put too much weight on it. spending quite a lot of the focus -- this is in my evidence -- quite a lot of focus on broadcasting. i formed a view that if you really want to get through to people television is incredibly

powerful medium. as the media markets are broken down, newspapers are selling copies and people are looking at a their power is almost greater. of people to do at the same time is evening. are doing what you are doing, extraordinarily important and powerful. it must not be left out. different -- >> absolutely. rightly so. give examples of the benefits. this relates to campaigns and journalist from the telegraph accompanying you in august last year in the context -- you would agree this work is easier in the realm of less politically charged issues?

>> what is easier? doing interviews, campaigns? >> the benefits that accrue from campaigns, it is easier and charged. >> i suppose that is the case. >> would you say the same about some of the shriller campaigns we have seen and sections of the press over the years? >> i would say these campaign newspapers run -- it is not always just newspapers. some of them are extraordinarily important and powerful. mentioned the daily mail. that was extremely important. of the readers of that paper. some of them are more about what the editor cares about.

i think the politician has to judge and h. case, the campaign what people think if there is something that needs to be answered. to have a disagreement about. off our land campaign. planning system. we have to have that argument. you might be referring to the saras' lot campaign, some of them are very controversial. i think it is good these campaigns have put forward. it is part of the challenge to of people care about this. what are you doing about this? i think it is good and right we have that debate. is turned up very loud.

it is difficult to separate the noise from the message, would you agree? >> i am not sure i would. news cycle has meant they have to turn up the volume on everything. reporting coverage can be -- it shouted at rather than spoken to. say that on these campaigns. good campaign going and they tap into for our democracy. with the sara's law campaign, there are a lot of people who were condescending, you do not understand it. we cannot tell anybody.

their children more than anything. that rather than trying to push it away. explain that in order to maintain benefits you have identified, mutual respect and understanding between politicians without favors. how does one foster, in your 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 for

themselves. bad relationship. part of it will be about this greater transparency. having better regulation. having more distance. that will be part. high standards in both places. the scandal was a massive knocked to politicians standing. they have to prove they are worthy of respect. the press has taken a knock from some of the appalling things we have found out through this inquiry. respect has to be earned on both sides. >> you prefer having a bit more distance. i guess that depends on each party having a sense of what is right and where the boundaries are we agreed?

cycle. the difficulty in politics that permanent battle of the issues being thrown at you hour by hour. quickly. if you are not careful it can take all of your energy in dealing with that. reform schools, cut deficit, correct economic problems. particularly prime ministers and cabinet ministers have to get out of the 24 hour news cycle, not try to fight every hour early battle. focus on long-term issues and be prepared to take a hit on a to so quickly.

that. that is what i mean by not sitting under a 24 hour television screen looking at the is 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. >> do you feel they may not have been efficient? >> yes, that is part of my

been perfect. there has always been problems. you can point to examples of churchill as a minister. in the last 20 years i think relationship has not been right. i think it has been too close as i explained in my evidence. 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. -- >>no, i do not think it is. this relationship is not right? i tried to enumerate the risks.

one of them is the perception that media or editors were key figures in the media wield too much power. 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. that is not enough because are other risks. other risks need effective regulation to deal with them. regulatory works. we need to improve it. if we just said transparency -- making home, that is a mistake. in due course. are you talking about the relationship between press and

the politicians at a wider level? in relation to how politicians engaged with the press, i would struggle to see how regulation could assist. it is a cultural thing it seems to me. address some of the problems because meeting and when. because the relationship has not been right, because it has been too close, 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. difficult for the politician to sort out on their on the regulatory system the press faces because we are an

interested party. and this way or that way, the press would have a legitimate argument to say, you are beneficiaries this. the best addition is about. >> i understand the point. it seems to me, it is absolutely critical in parts of our democracy, i understand that. as i have said to a number of people, it cannot interfere with other human beings. you agree that the problem the onus is on then. the press will feel legitimately

account to investigate what they want to investigate. information the better. changed. boundaries, but that is very difficult to do. politicians do have an interest in not being investigated vigorously. that it was revealed. i think it is the free press in this country that is an important part of our democratic system. them inappropriately. we need to have politicians press campaigns. we need to get this right.

transparency as part of it. how we make it work is another. we need to find a way for some independents to be brought to that. can say it may not be perfect in every way but this is a fair set of ideas. you introduced, because politicians there is a danger they do not consider the wider risks of how operates. why does that consequence slow from the focus on media coverage? >> i think because the press want access. it politicians want coverage for what they are doing in their policies and approach. the two parties focus on that. when things are going wrong, which they clearly were.

did not disengage and say, hold on. we have a real problem. we need to deal with it. it might mean changes to the law. that did 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. so i did not deal with it. >> in relation -- you say at 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. did not give enough attention. that is a matter for regret. >> examining other media issues be a reference to going to the committee on that occasion? >> i think it is a general reference to things that were not right. evidence, i was trying to reflect on how felt generally. i looked back at some of the evidence and said, parliament

was doing its job. the select commission was doing its job. the party leadership's. >> before the house of commons overly close relation, regulation issues be put on the back burner. you are attributing cause and the fact. comfortable with? >> i think that is right. politicians were spending their time trying to get their message across.

discuss regulatory issues, that was not happening. i think that has been happening under governments of parties some time. mr. blair's speech, in june 2007? a few days before he was departing. >> i read it again in the past couple of days. there is a lot of good points in it. there is not much of a solution. it is a good analysis of the problem of the 24 hour news the news and comment. 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.

too loud a voice. is it not just more of and a perception that you identified? >> i think it depends on how robust politicians are at standing up and event -- defending their policies. i think we deal with this by making it transparent. i would argue strongly that my policies are determined by -- by my beliefs and values, not by want. idb some examples of where i the daily telegraph or what have you. this is a risk mitigated through transparency. i also go on to say you need a vigorous public debate so people can see politicians are giving in to media pressure that goes

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. that has happened over a generation. >> i do not like the word appeasement. i think that is strong. on getting a message across. on newspapers or others might have a. i do not think politicians have in that sense.

cards. more than appeasement, it is more about not focusing on >> related to that, if not the manifestation of the economic commercial path. 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 therefore sthape political agenda. there are a number of issues here. a number of witnesses have identified the heart of the problem as the fuse of news and comment. do you agree with that? >> i do not really. i think it is quite difficult. 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. opinion. ask what you really spend your time on more than anything, it

is the 6:00 news, the 10:00 it is regulated so it is not spend with newspaper groups, a big focus, it has been on i hope that comes across and >> 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 >> i think newspaper and television holds politicians a to account in different

the newspapers do play a very investigative approaches and the budgets, they can really go after stores and get to the would be weaker if we did not >> 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 asked appropriate questions, notwithstanding the regulatory they do have the impartiality campaigns that are more edgy, if

>> i kindly agree. is your analysis that on the fusion of news and comment, for a solution. or there is a problem but no need for a solution? solvable. -- the answer people come up with that i do not think are >> it would be one of culture, things. you can write all the roles that you like, culture is massively

important. it is important in every aspect >> thank you. we move 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. let's move 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. >> 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 angle or a story. there are responsible ways of handling relations. 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. 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.

let's focus on 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? i think it is fair for them to 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. >> i think that is my point. the conservative government had fallen out of favor. some readers were switching to labour. it was a big blow to conservatives. some readers were coming over to the conservative party, and felt he were very keen for their newspaper to change its staff.

there is no way to guarantee you an election.

maybe to draw his father away

terms of making that decision, you know? avanagh, all country, good for "the sun" we had a chance of winning them back and that's totally sure what role he

acilitate a meeting or advice. he supported various different sides at various different times. >> okay. mrs. brooks, you may clear from the statement was a friend. may not again be possible to identify the date, but would you have counted her, did you counter amongst your good friends, say, by 2008? >> yes, we were -- we got to ow each other. because of, you know, role in india, my role in politics, we struck up a friendship. that friendship grew even though she was at that stage still, he people still supporting gordon brown and she was quite persona supportive of gordon brown. our relationship got stronger en she married charlie brooks whom i've known for sometimes

and is a neighbor. >> she gave some evidence as, if i can put in this way, the quantity -- text messages. ghana ask you this straightforward question? do you agree in general with th gist of her evidence on that matter? [inaudible] spent answer phone calls, i'm not asking you to count them up, but approximate how often did you speak to her by phone and cluding by mobilephone? >> in opposition, perhaps particularly 2006, seven, not a huge amount. i always felt when i did ring her, i felt from if you like i was telephoning her a lot les than gordon brown, which i thought that was interesting. my sense was i was in contact lot less than he was. but i can't put numbers on it,

but certainly in 2006-2007, not necessarily every weekend. >> can we just move afford to 2008-2009? was their contact by phone on a weekly basis?  i think as we get closer t the election and the decision o "the sun," and also, you know the wedding and she's moved int charlie brooks is house, whic is very near where i live, and where we live in constituency, then the level of contact went out. we saw each other socially, more. >> about how frequently? >> what date are we talking about? >> well, 2008-2009, mr. cameron. just to get an idea first of all contact by telephone and then social contact.

>> it's very difficult, because i don't have a record and i don't want to give you an ansr that isn't right. so sometimes, sometimes quite i suspect would -- we would've been talking to each other quite a, particularly right around perhaps the time of the wedding or when we were both in oxfordshire we would've had mor frequent contact. >> okay. so when you're at your constituency and weekends, did you see her every weekend or most weekends over the very 2008-2000?  not, not every weekend. in 2008-2009, i'd have to check i might give and go back and check but i don't think every weekend. i don't think most weekends but it would depend. >> i don't think it's necessary

to ask you to check this. these questions are designed to be that precise, just to get -- >> definitely we were particularly, once she started going out with charlie brooks living a couple miles down the road, i was definitely singer more often because my sort of friendship with charlie as a neighbor, and you know, charlie and i played tennis together, which answer we will come onto, so that was why i would say more. >> bears one text message -- there's one text message which i would invite you to look at now and get you to say something about. i'm not sure what number it has been given in our system but it is have a 35 as the acting from -- it is tab 35.

i will say something about it. have you got -- >> i've got it. >> i should make it clear before i read about, use use -- news international recently disclosed a number of other text messages between mrs. brooks and mr. cameron pursuant to section 21 request. section 21 request is, in fact, an order, statue, requiring people to disclose what you. october 2009-may 2011, and jun june 2011, and it requires judgment on the other text messages referred to are irrelevant to its terms of reference. this is where we will look at one. and news international through their -- have also explained why text messages and other monthly periods are not available. that will be of course our website. the one we're looking at the seventh of october, 2009, which

i think is during the party conference. >> yes. >> certain with an eight or nine days or so. [inaudible] the first one has been redacted. it's on grounds of relevance. and then she says but seriously, which suggested the first line contained or might contain something of a jocular nature, i do understand the issue with the times. let's discuss over country supper soon. on the party, it was because i had asked a number, i was probably news international, endorsement, and they were disappointed not to see. but as always, was wonderful. [inaudible] i'm so rooting for you tomorrow, not just as a personal friend but professionally. we're definitely in this together.

[inaudible] yes, he can, exclamation mark. e rooting for you to more was you were giving a speech probably at the party conference. >> i think it was my party conference speech. i can't explain this e-mail. the issue at the times, at the party conference i had not been to the times party. the major newspaper groups had  g party at the party conference and they expect part leader, cabinet leaders, shad ministers ago. that would be the normal thing to do. i hadn't gone and i think that was what this was about, and i was apologizing for the. that was explained to her. if that helps. >> just the phrase but because professionally we are definitely in this together. what was your understanding of that? >> i think that is about "the sun" had made this decision to

back conservatives, to part company with the labour. and so "the sun" wanted to make sure it was helping the conservative party put its be foot forward with the policies  are announcing the speech is going to make, and all the rest of it. and i think that's what that means. >> professionally covering, "th sun" and you were bound togethe to some extend? >> i think what it means was at she put it, friends but professionally. me as leader of the conservate party and her in newspapers. we were going to be pushing the same political agenda. >> the country suffers, she refers to, in a forward-looking way. is that the forward-looking direction you often had with her? >> yes. we were neighbors. >> okay. now, move forward in time to

may 2011, mr. cameron, to deal with a point. this relate to the mccants. >> yes. >> were you asked i mrs. brooks to support or indeed cause to take place a review of the mccann case in the metropolitan police? >> i don't recall exact, this whole issue. what our member is that i had meeting with kate and gerry mccann as leader of the opposition, and anyone who is method or read about their story, you can't fail to be included with what happened to them all in all the of for me t try to get matalin back. followed this up as prime minister. but i care member the exact promise of who called who and when and what have you. but i think it was, the police

clearly had played a role in trying to keep investigation going and government help them with that. >> entrance of any interaction between you and mrs. brooks, was a drawn to your attention that mrs. brooks went to see to your special advisors, i think on the 11th of may speak as i don't recall. it might well have been. i don't recall the exact conversations. i do recall because i can see, you, what might lie behind the question which is are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly. d i do remember actually as private consulting about the step that the police were about to take, backed by the government which was to provide some extra funding for investigation. and it was drawn to my attentio that there is a special home office procedure for helping

with particularly complex and expensive investigations that's been used in various cases, a that was going to be is in this case and you satisfied that i had been dealt with properly. so it's an example if you like of the importance of major these things are done properly. and i believe they were. >> where, were you aware that any pressure being put on you directly or indirectly by >> pressure? know. >> well, if it wasn't pressure, being impose? >> clearly, this was a very high because their readers wanted to and, obviously, as a government

the permanent secretary number appropriate response. specific pressure or being put secretary gave evidence on this well. >> might move onto a different topic. it is related to earlier topics but it ties in with the implied deal point. you may or may not have been following mr. gordon brown's evidence, but he made a specific point against you and your party and, therefore, it is right that you the opportunity to deal with it. he put it, to be fair to him, higher than in blind bogey said it was an express deal, which he made with either rupert murdoch or james murdoch two, i

paraphrase, follow the line of max taggart's ofcom tim -- trim back the bbc and exchange for news international supporting your party. so that's the allegation. we will look at the detail, i would ask for you to respond to generally? >> frankly it is absolute nonsense from start to finish. i think where it comes from is obvious the gordon brown was very angry and disappointed t "the sun" had deserted him, and as a result, in my view, he has cooked up an entirely speechless and unjustified conspiracy theory to try, i know just wh is angry. but i've taken the time to look through the individual parts of policy that he points to, and i all almost every case it is complete nonsense just to take  couple of examples, he makes th point about the listing of

sporting events, particularly - it was the labour government, his government that he listed the ashton. he makes a point about produc based on. again it was a labour governm that started the process of changing the rules on product placement, and under his oversight. on the bbc, as i've argued before, my position on the bbc is not the same as james och's decision to i support the bbc. i support the licensee. of the conservative party i think will be submitting a piec by piece response to this because it is completely nonsense. but i'm very happy to go to t individual parts but it was as i id before, there was no deal for supporter or no was was covert do. there were no nods and winks. there was a conservative politician, me, trying to win over newspapers, trying to win over television, trying to win over proprietors not trading policies for that support. and when you look at the deta

of this as i say, it is complete nonsense. >> maywood focused on on two matters, sort of the highlight, a sensible way of -- sensible way to deal with this. may be the easiest way to deal with this is to look at paragraph 105 following in your statement because you raise a you've taken time to refer to relevant part of iterations of your party policy. i think we can look at paragraph 107, first of all, which is a speech, then shadow council or minister gave january '09, our page 04167. it said we were banned from the bbc.&9&9&y&9&9 while we support the licensee, we believe the best way in the

foreseeable future we believe the level of the licensee is at the top in of what is acceptable to the public. so hinting there that the fee may have to be -- >> and that is what we -- m to the anger of james murdoch who i think the chancellor george osborne felt they should have been cut. so we had her own policy on license fee. went other organizations have their budgets cut by nsiderable more. so again, this part of the conspiracy theory i think has absolutely no weight at all. >> some might say you would not go as far as much work but you might meet him partway along  way. >> i think it's quite difficult to argue at a time when you know if you get into government you have to be making spending

reductions, but you are going to see the bbc license fee go up and up and do. and i think ready consistent and long-term argument, very much flow from my own views, that th bbc need to be strong, it needs the backing of the licensee. i do think the bbc had gone int areas it shouldn't have done, and i would mention that in som evidence. but i think this is a fair settlement. certainly not one of james murdoch supported. >> now, in march 2009 it's clear page -- [inaudible] -- you made an announcement which was to the effect, the licensee would be frozen. did that represent your policy been, between march 2009 and th election? >> well, i made that announcement in march 2009. and we have delivered, we

delivered more than that policy in government, yes. just by way, i just caught my eye, paragraph 110. if was this great conspiracy to hand over bbc policy to the murdochs, it would seem to be ite strange to -- in paragrap one of 10, chaired by former bb director general greg dyke. if he wanted a sort of murdoc conspiracy, you would not have prominent labour supporter to carry out the policy for you. just another, another reason wh i think this whole idea is -- >> elizabeth ford was part of the task force, wasn't she? >> that's true. i would argue that is a prett balanced list of people from different parts of broadcasting media and technology. but as i say greg dyke is not shrinking violet and he would not put him in charge if you ha

some secret agenda. >> probably no shrinking violets on this task force will look at all the names. is your position that we have a range of views come across on these individuals? >> yes. i think what we can do is assemble a group of people th included radio, music, new media, itv.  pretty good mix of action. but as i say the person leaking it was a former director gene of the bbc. can look at ofcom? you gave a speech, paragraph 113, page 04132. but you did make some points about ofcom in this paragraph did you? >> i did. i think it's important to str this was a big speech ongoing so it was a sense after 13 ye

of labour government that aimed the state had gotten very big. quango has become very powerful. the people working on were excellent and well paid, and this was a series of speeches that i worked on with people like oliver, to try and come up instead of the normal governmt liticians about this, we're trying to find a set of rules t ply to different claim goes t see whether they need to exist or whether parts of them could be back into government and w said pacers of questions which are in paragraph 113. d then we apply that to a number of thank you. as you say, a big speech about quangos, the ofcom parties ony three paragraphs or so. and one of the reasons i picked off, was because of my own expense and television of remembering what individual -- the idc event, the precursor of ofcom. and also remember -- that's a re in the idc prepared with

ofcom. ofcom was quite a good exampl of a time when they got too big, too expensive and the pay level were pretty access. and i would just make the point ere were at this time of ofcom was being actually wrongly attacked on this basis by itv by the ppc, which always had nothing to come and also by t left of politics, they're all same ofcom seems to have gotten too big. so this was an agenda that was very into my own views, not anywhere proposed or dictated by them. >> the upshot was that ofcom you said would cease to exist as we know to this is at the end of paragraph 113. it will be restricted to his narrow technical important roles and that presume the cover girls under the enterprise act in

relation to reality. plurality. >> what artest was with all the strength you, policymakers should be done but parliament. we're making argument about quangos. t just counting. it was about thing if policy is being made that should be ministers accountable to parliament to get decisions tha have to be impartial which is what ofcom does, where they are concerned they should be carrie out by independent non-governmental bodies for all the reasons people would understand but there was a serious attempt to look at quangos more broadly. >> and to take the story forward as it were, is this right was that the reason this policy was not enacted, the realities of the coalition government, it wa a possible? >> that's right. i wasn't involved in the detal negotiation of the coalition agreement but some policies mad it through. hers didn't.

i suspect this is one we didn't get agreement on. but we have tried to restrict them. >> you have denied any implied deal, and that i tried to look at in this way. do you feel, looking back at this, that there is nonetheless a perception that we have the coincidence of two things, at least in terms of time, a shift in support and policies which don't precisely match what we see in the mactaggart lecture to but are not a million miles from them. and people think welcome there some sort of link between the two, there's a perception and it flows from the relationship. do you accept at least that much? >> i think anyone reasonably looking at the conservative policies and where they came

from and why they existed would see that they were driven by  values and our approach and als by personal history. so no, i don't really accept that. if i can tell you, if the are you goes there was no coup, maybe there was no overview. but nontheless, it all looks like there was a nod and wink. we do start to get into sort of witchcraft trials. how do you possibly prove you are innocent? so i don't, as i said, the best i can do is point to all of these policies, explained by th came from. i think there is good evidence. i think where you're getting th the bbc license fee, o product placement, whether on the ash issue, there's a very good conservative explanations for the positions that we are on. >> the matters and 50 and the

public inquiry, it either happened or didn't happen. the problem is if you don't have a public inquiry, that perception -- >> the inquiry is -- [inaudible] it's very important alongside the appalling things that happe to entirely innocent people. a huge problem we have in terms of police relations with me, 's right we get to the bottom of the political media relationship and how to put o firmer footing. what i'm saying is not only was there no covert do, there was n overt deal and there were no no and wink to the policy that i produce came from our beliefs, values, my history, my beliefs and they were not dictated by anybody else. >> i think i've probably covered that point. let's move onto another point. [laughter] the third area of evidence is

specific narrative examples, and the first one is mr. and do -- mr. andy coulson. you start that in paragraph 219. which is page 04168. >> right. >> in terms of your wish list in early 2007, mr. cameron, were tabloid experienced? media pressure something that others wouldn't. so, there wasn't a

right person skills. spent because without generalizing too much about tabloid editors, we are tending to look at people who are tough >> i think that's right. know, a typical weekend you might have a policy down over there. you need someone

meone who order and improved the things we did.dgdedgdg >> tdeo what extent were youpgpg looking at the example ofpgpgpgg alastairpg campbell being -- thg temperament qgand robustness? >> not, not necessarily. i don't think, you know, alastair campbell, he was much more political than andy coulson, and i think in all sorts of ways there were occasions when clearly you have overstepped the role of what he should've been doing. >> now, we have heard, mr. osborne, that a number of names were considered. aside from the one broadcaster who is being mentioned, can you

remember approximately how many names were considered? >> there were two or three others. don't want to hurt their careers by naming them. there were two or three other people we were looking at, and one or two that i had met with. but as i say we decided on andy coulson. >> of the two or three others, were it any -- [inaudible] >> yes. >> and mr. coulson, was he the only one from news international, or not? >> know. i mean, this is difficult, although there was, there was someone from the tabloid newspaper i think i talked to earlier in the process, but i can't remember exact date. but at the time at which made the andy coulson appointment, ink i'm right that he was the only tabloid editor available.

>> now, the initial interviews, if that's a correct description, were carried out by others as we know, but how many did you see as part of this process? how many individual? >> how many people did i see? know, dick or who -- harry, who's been out of, edited have conversations with them. there was someone senior from a newspaper. there was someone else very see at bbc. there was his tabloid journa journalist. this is a guessing game going th a friend in me. there were four people. there may have been other suggested. i think the situation was w a very effective communicator,

clearly we wanted though to strengthen the operation. people are being suggested and propose all time. of those four i can were mr. cameron, you explain that assurances were obtained from mr. coulson in a meeting with ed llewelyn, is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> can we be clear, was that something that was communicated to you in about march 2007? namely, that they have specifically asked for assurances? >> yes. ed llewelyn is my chief of staff, was my chief of staff. when you are trying to hire someone like this, you have t ep matters very tight. you don't want it to lead. it didn't leak eventually. so i would talk to edward about his interview, yes.

>> and mr. osborne's evidence obtained assurances. doubt. issue. thing. >> how important it was mr. osborne's advice in relation to this process? were you reliance on in? >> it was important. george and i worked very closel together. he thought this was a goo t as the state department a elsewhere, this was my decision. i take full responsibility for it. and no, i don't try and shue off in responsibilities to anybody else. >> in paragraph 237 of your statement, mr. chairman, -- mr. cameron, you say you are

sure that you would have discussed his appointment. that's mr. coulson's appointed, with rebekah wade. to be clear, by this time, may 2007, we have accounted, catheter, pardon me, as much of your friend? >> yes, i think it would. as i say in evidence, i can't recall when i discussed it with there. whether it was before, during o after, but i'm sure i would hav at some stage had a conversation with her about it. >> can you remember how many conversations?  no. spink might it have been more than one or not? >> i don't think so. the process was, george, we both met him before. i met andy coulson when he was editor of "news of the world." we both got the impression he was very effective, very

effective individual. george mason after he had resigned as editor of the "news of the world." i made the decision to employ him. i asked for these assurances, just be clear, in my evidence. >> in your discussions with mrs. brooks, were you seeking some sort of reference from her or was it far more informal? >> i wasn't seeking a reference i mean, when you're employing some, like this within an edito of a newspaper, you can't seek sort of formal references. i'm sure i would have asked, yo know, how effective he would be. but it may well have been, this conversation may well have ta place after i made the decision. i can't recall exactly when the conversation took place, but in e end it was my decision. i was satisfied this was the

right thing to have a former tabloid editor to help us with our media and communications. and it was my decision. >> sometimes discussions of these natures go into people's integrity. do you think you have as a discussion among those lines th mrs. brooks of mr. coulson >> i'm afraid i don't, i don't call. i think the most important thing i would've wanted to know is, with the the, you know, good at the job. i was convinced he would be because as i said, the massive pressures you face, you need someone with those sorts of skills. so i'm sure that's what i would xdve been thinking of.xd >> i'm sure effective is goingxd to be a key adjective, but character and integrity might also be relevant, might and its? >> of course. you are going to be working wit this person incredibly close. you have to have a relationshf of trust with him.pfpfpfpfpdpfpd >> what, if anything, waspfpfpff mrs. brooks reaction to the ide

that mr. coulson be engaged? was she very favorable? >> as far as i remember, you know, she thought it was a good pfcision because she thought hef was an effective operator. >> your evidence is that there was a meeting, we think it was probably in march 2007. if one ties that out with mr. coulson's evidence, he places the meeting as being in your office in the leader of the opposition building, might i be correct? >> my recollection is that the meeting took place in my office d for me, that was a key abou deciding whether or not to employ him. i have been back over the diaries and records, and it's fficult to piece together, bu that's my recollection, that it úds that sort of a key meeting.d

>> and his evidence is also,hdhd that there was a laterpdhdhddddd discussion, this time byúdúdúd telephoneúd --ed >> yes.údúdadadad >> in latead may 2007.eeadadadad paragraph 81 of his statement.ed it was on that second occasion that you raised the issue of]dmd recollection? the issue of phone hacking and brains. evidence. page 04168, you state that in

particular in 2007, in the months after he resigned, various people, and you, separately had conversations conversation if we match up with mr. coulson's evidence, took place in your offices in the south building. than the further conversation is paragraph 227 which must be in the phone conversation in late may. and it is on that occasion where assurances. do you see that? about his involvement in the face-to-face meeting. >> he has been the other way specifically his account.

my recollection is that he was on holiday inn cornwall, and you spoke by phone. bear with me on this. >> which paragraph is a, do you know? >> just. paragraph 29th of page 02412.qn he said after the meeting with mr. osborne, which is taking place inqg march 2007, he says that he believes that you called him later that night and you would like to me. we did so some point soon after his parliamentary office in

norman sure south building and witty discussion about the joe. i link that went up with paragraph two to three of your witness statement. and then there was a call because -- paragraph 31 at page completed and a conversation background security check have been made, talk about the clive goodman? no, and that sums up with your paragraph 227. so if that all is correct, it is during the second conversation focal. i remember the conversation with ed llewellyn with how important

i remember very clearly seeking assurance. am certain i have assurances, i got them, and that him. >> to be fair to him, we need to be fair to everyone, but paragraph 227, dates the assurance or makes the assurance to the further conversation, doesn't it, mr. cameron? if that was your recollection when this was prepared, was in its? >> yes. but as i say, my recollection i that assurance was at this face-to-face meeting. >> mr. coulson seems to think

american further conversations with you. if you go back to paragraph 30 of his statement, he says conversations during the election for toward the end of may, they were after further conversations with mr. cameron. ed llewellyn, others. i was offered a job. [inaudible] >> there may well have been mor conversation. there are lots of different way  describing a director of kin occasions, who are the managing i think quite a lot of differen potential, all similar role b slightly different potential as he could've fulfilled.  i don't see any fundamental inconsistency. we both agree i asked for assurances and got them. but the exact timing, i inclu him in my because i remember th conversation with ed will but remember the importance of the interview, but that is my collection.

>> when you accepted a assurances, did you have a sense there would be any risk? >> what i possessed was that this was clearly a controversia appointment. and controversial for two reasons. one was that things that happen at the "news of the world" whe he was editor, and he had -- he left his last job after resig because of things that happen. sounds obvious, obvious, as i said, i was giving him a second chance. the second reason there was controversy is this was a tabloid editor. and you know, there are some people who would say, yeah, g d have a tabloid editor, to which my answer would be, it's  very tough job getting with the press for a major political party. you need someone who has got th skills, who's got the knowledge you can really help you through

what can be an absolute storm. and so i thought it was the right thing to do. just make one other point, whic is as i recognize this is a controversial appointment, has come back to haunt both him and me, and i said what i said about 20/20 hindsight. but in doing the job as directo  king occasions for the conservative party, and the director of communications in downing street, 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' the case, then i think would have been even stronger arguing to say well, you took a risk, look what happened to he did  job very well and i think thaté8 is important point to make.d:d:: >> may i ask you about the risks associated with his being al>d>> tabloid editor?t>t>d>d> could you be more precise about what those things were?

tabloid editors might not be th most scrupulous people. >> there wasn't so much of that. i think it was, some people j didn't approve of what the "new of the world" have done, or wha tabloid, what tabloid do. i think it was more that spen: which aspects of what tabloid's< do was in focus your?d

necessary to have someone tough and robust. -in my dealings with him that actually he did his job very well. a taxi he was someone who h think a good code of behavior and how he did his job.d to say they are, some would say> associate with some of the wors: aspects of thed: cultural practe and ethics of the press.d>d>d>d some might say that was the ris you are taking. spent as i say, the risks are e ones i've set out. those are what i considered and i made my decision.d

>> i asked for the undertaking were accepted by the police. perjury trial. the police and dcms select

the spirit and, of course, we're reasons, mr. cameron. it was others had had an undertaking.

newspaper he was editing. and so i felt given the second chance. his news international important, but the most conservative party? some really good who's the pressure that we were under election campaign. that was a key consideration. >> i'm sure that the most important consideration are the ones you identified, but i think

the question was slightly more straight. news international background the calculation was who is going >> paragraph 231, you talk about

you? things that would that would change, then that don't make decisions with 20/20 i've set out the reasons i've run away from it. made it. >> i move forward in time, please, to july 2009 -- >> just before you do, could i ask a question? you made a point about mr. coulson that he had been responsible for a particular headline using words you have never uttered, hug-a-hoodie. 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 goes back -- the speech i made was, you know, quite a radical thing for a concert lead to say we need to understand why young people can go off the rails, and we need t recognize that it's not just unique tough punishment but als you need strong families picking me to respect and i said you need love. and to talk about love in the context, some right wing commentators thought, you know, at's soft and whatever. i think that's nonsense. i think it's incredible important for young people. so it is frustrating that they came up with this headline to link three words i hadn't actually were. and i put my hand on my heart and seems 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 would say. but anyway, one very good headline writer wouldn't be writing any more headlines. >> all right. >> july 2009 now, mr. cameron. we're moving forward to "thef:&: guardian" piece, paragraph 254 f: your statement.v:v:v:v:f:f:f: i think it's clear that you were, you were unaware "the guardian" asked of the times, i that correct to? >> yes. i think the. think is probably more aw of this culture, media and spor at are for in paragraph 257, because that was obviously an event that's going to effect  running of my office and everything that was happening. the two were linked really.ñ:ñ:: >> so the gist of what "theñ:ñ:2

guardian" obtained was drawn to ur attention one way or the other, was that? >> i'm sure it was, yes. i can't, i'm sure it was.í:í:: >> and what was your reaction a8 the time to that which was contained in "the guardian" article? >> throughout this process, t sort of test i said was, is there new information that sh that the undertakings i was given were wrong? and i didn't see evidence that the undertakings i was given were wrong. and at this time andy coulson went in front of the culture, media and sport select committee d gave assurance all over again that i never condone the use of phone hacking or don't have any recollection of anything am where phone hacking took place.l>l>l>l>l>l>l>l> >> you also said in paragraphl> 257 that nevertheless in thel:l: light of the stories i askedl>l>

andy coulson to give assurances.  you must have been concerned >> yes. my memory of this, he was going to make that appearance, and i had a conversation with him about well, when you make this appearance, presumably to g the undertakings they can educate me. that was the nature of the conversation, as i recall it.= >> was there an inkling of doubt in your mind, or not? >> well, given the assurances at i was given and that they were repeated to the select committee, and that the select mmittee found that there wasn't evidence that he knew, i thought it was right that he carried on working.b?b?b? >> i'm not seeking to -- you were relying on his word and thing much else were, were used to i don't really accept i

because i was relied on his were. i was also rely on the fact tha the pcc, had accepted his wer the select committee had accepted his were. the police had accepted his were. the crime prosecution had selected his were. so this was not just me accepting and assurance and blocking out anything that happened out subsequently. it was a whole series of institutions of taking that view. and as i said, the test, bee u got to try to get on with it, the job at hand. look, if so give 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 site didn't take say that paragraph 257 of your statement was not directly -- to mr.

>> absolutely. people that worked for him and way. repetition of insurance, was it by phone call or some other we? recollection it's the impending select committee hearing. embarrassment there was that he committee hearing what he was

>> call him into your office? medications you see him every day. have a break now. very good. >> any addition you want to make to one small aspect this morning? >>hank 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 we

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 operate 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 wer 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 sai this was a controversial appointment i have head in some of these books about a number of people who made theseoints. 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'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 offic the letter from the cabinet office is not very specific, but it says with respect to director of communication 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,hy 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 haveone 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'teally 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 vil 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 orot? >> 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 revelatio

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 a let go on to aeparate 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, vy 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 >> i think my sense was that the european union had rules that sky was already controlled by news corporation, and certainly, from my experience at carlton, when we were competing with sky, you certainly felt that sky was pretty much controlled by news corporation. issue, it was what does this mean for media plurality, what does it mean for news, what does it mean for those considerations. it was very important they were properly gone through, and that, in the end, is what happened. >> do you recall having discussions with mr. osborne about these matters? >> obviously we discussed it on

the day that these remarks were made public, so there was a discussion of what we were going to do as a government to deal with that. in terms of other discussions, i don't recall any, but we discussed lots of things, so i wouldn't be surprised if we hadn't talked about it in passing. >> are you sure in your mind that the date of the formal announcement of the bid, which we know was the 15th of june, 2010, was the first you heard of it? >> that's my recollection. as i say, i can see there's some advances, but i don't recall any discussions about it or any knowledge about it in advance. >> as for the culture secretary, this is pair depraff 176 of your statement, you say you don't remember specific conversations with him, but you

also understand it would be possible in general policy terms this matter would be discussed with him. >> well, i don't recall discussing it. he did send me some notes about it. but i don't recall specific conversations. >> the next thing you refer to, the one from the 18th of june, pair 181 at the bottom of the page, and you tested it on the next page, 04152. >> that's right. it's not particularly revealing. he said i steered clear on commenting the plan to buy out the 61% of sky on the fwrounds that there was a competition issue for regulators and not for ministers. that, of course, was right, although there were, of course, additional plurality issues. it's the memorandum of the

19th, 2010. >> just to move on from that, i haven't really spotted this and it might be worth picking up. one thing in this, it goes back to the issue about whether your view about the b2b changed in opposition to government. this follows signals publicly and privately that our rhetoric will be more generous to b2b than it was in opposition. that suggests that there have been discussions about that general topic, part of the coalition discussions. >> yes, i think that's probably correct. although what we actually achieved in government is a long-term license fee freeze, and actually the rhetoric about b2b salaries, particularly the director generals that have been very high, i think we've kept that up, because i think that's important. i would say that it was a

personal note to me, it's interesting that he said he steered clear of competition issue not for ministers, but he was demonstrating the difficulties and dangers of dealing with this. >> that stage, of course, the bid not with ccms. from the 19th november, 2010, that is still the state of affairs much the private memorandum, which he sent to you, we've looked at very carefully already with two other witnesses, but is it the position that it was received on your email system, recently they remember reading it? >> no, it wasn't seen on my email system. really, the notes i get all go into my box.

the issue here is i don't particularly remember this note, and crucially, i didn't recall its significance on the day of the 21st of december when we were making this decision. and i say that frankly. obviously if i had recalled it, i would have fed it into the system. but i'm sure we'll come on to, it's pretty clear from the legal advise we have that wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome. >> i mean, moving forward to the 21 it's of december, we're going to look at that day in more detail in relation to this note, but how recalled the note? is it your evidence, mr. cameron, that you would have brought it to a lawyer's attention? >> yes, because what happened on the day of the 21st was obviously, i was presented with a situation i didn't want. i had the secretary, who had been recorded saying something that was, you know, not quasi judicial

position, to say he declared war on one of the participants in this deal, and so i had a problem, which i had to deal with, which is, what do you do? i had a relatively short period of time in which to deal with this issue. and as we went through the process of trying to work out the correct answer, someone raised the issue of what was said publicly because of what he said publicly, and we went and checked his public statement. of course, at that moment, if i had recalled the private note, we could have put the private note into play as well. but my contention is what's in the private note is not really different from what he said publicly. indeed, what he said publicly is more effusive, and i think it is noteworthy we've now got this witness statement from paul jenkins, the government lawyer, who says very clearly, i'm quite clear my advice would

not have been any different had i seen the note at the time. generally it appears to have been providing his within in respect of the bid. i do think -- i know this has been an area of great controversy, but my argument is we reached the decision to transfer that cable to jeremy hunt. it was suggested by the permanent secretary on downing street, it was recommended by the cabinet secretary, and it was cleared by the legal advice received by the cabinet secretary that's now been clarified even further. so i accept there is controversy, but i think the backing of two permanent secretaries and lawyers is quite a strong state of affairs. >> we'll come back to the events of that day, but the reason why you don't remember the note of the 19th of november is you said said nothing remarkable. in other words, it said mr. hunt was in favor of the bid, is that a possible explanation?

not particularly, no. i mean, i think it's unremarkable in that the job of the sports secretary, which he wasn't adjudicating bids, was to stand up for his sector, reflect the views of his sector, and that's exactly what he's doing in this note, but he's adding into it, it would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue, which has to put it on its own. even in this personal note, and understanding of the libber tation. >> but he's also expressing key support for the bid on policy, isn't he? >> well, he's reflecting the views of a large british media company. as i say, i think that is part of the job of the culture media and sport department is, you know, to speak up for the b2b, to -- to speak up for bbbc, and

this is a big british company, a large employer, and part of the job as foreign secretary is to understand the players, as it were, in that sector and to reflect and understand their views. but i think he was doing it actually in a responsible way, adding the point about it's wrong for the government to get involved in the competition issue. >> not saying it was in a private nature for you to express strong support for the bskyb, but that's what he was doing, wasn't he? >> yes, the note is there for everybody to see. he's expressing his concern. >> i think my point was simply, well, this would not necessarily have resonated with you, such that you remember it, because it's after all the sort of thing when you knew anyway in relation to mr. hunt, is that a fair observation? >> well, i don't know i did know particularly what -- he

discovered what his policy was -- , and we can also see from the he was suggesting, notwithstanding the announcement was totally wrong for the government to get involved in the competition issue, he was suggesting a meeting between the four of you to discuss the policy issue. >> that's true, but that meeting never took place, which i think they're trying to understand and reflect the t some of the policy implications that flow from that. >> it does raise a question, because i anticipate mr. jay might return to it, as to the desirability of putting a

minister responsible for this kind of decision in the position of mr. hunt, who had his own views, who developed his own policy, who would obviously have all sorts of in the position of having to and that raises the question. >> it does. i think the difficulty -- of course, all of this was a set of circumstances i didn't want to come about. i was very happy with adjudicating on this decision. that became literally impossible with what he had said, and so he had to make a decision, and we had to decide, well, what is the best answer to that, and the answer reached on the advice of permanent secretaries and the rest, transferring that part of this to jeremy hunt was a sensible

thing to do. i don't think it's the case that you can't -- you take planning, for instance, probably more expert in it than i am, but the secretary of state for communities and local government have pretty strong views about planning, nonetheless, to step outside his views about planning in general and adjudicate sometimes on issues in particular, and that's, i think, what jeremy hunt is 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 a perfectly sensible judicial decision. i'm not sure in this context that there's a difference between quasi and judicial. of course, if it's in your constituency and you're going to be involved, then you would recuse yourself and somebody else will do it. but the point is that everybody , and it's abundantly clear from all the politicians who

have given evidence, have very strong views indeed about this. made the point and everyone has a view, and that is the difficulty. >> and that's the concern. was this just one off, and i was told it shouldn't be assumed that it was one off, because the situation, and therefore, given the terms of reference, which i have no apology for blaming you, it is it may be a case for taking politicians, and i've mentioned this, taking politicians out of the decision altogether, and you had evidence both ways. >> correct. >> my point is what i decided

to do is a perfectly sensible, straight forward, and rational thing to do, given the circumstances, and i did it on the advice, as i say, of the agreement of the cabinet secretary with a legal backing of the secretary's lawyer. i think it was a perfectly rational decision. i'm sorry. >> everybody has a view one way or the other. >> well, i think that's probably right. >> are you saying that going back to the technology of your statement, saying 04146, you're confident that you have a conversation on this subject, including with republican he can abrooks and/or james murdoch in december 2010, but to me, start off by taking away

the additive inappropriate and just say whether there are any conversations at all on this subject. >> i can't remember every conversation i had, but i knew this was controversial. i wasn't involved in making the decision anyway, but i had gone even further from that and i put it here, recused myself from the decision altogether. i even said that i didn't want to know when particular decisions were going to be made. and that was proved. one morning i woke up and heard on the radio the decision it was undertaking or whatever, and so i was completely out of the decision making. i can't remember every conversation i've ever had with everybody, nobody can, but i'm clear with one conversation i did with james murdoch on the 23rd of december. >> and the gist of that conversation was what, to your recollection? >> well, it just was, as i

explained, what vince cable had said or bid privately, but made publicly, was very embarrassing for the government. and i wanted to make clear, i think appropriately, that this shouldn't happen, that it was wrong, and that this issue would now be dealt with in public, and i thought that was quite an important point to make. >> now, one of our significance came in here late, you're able to deal with it in another way, and the question is therefore, why did downing street repeatedly decline to confirm the fact of this encounter, namely the 23rd of december, 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 off about any social engagement or private engagement, they

wouldn't normally answer those questions, and i think that's what happened on this occasion, so they said we don't comment on social engagements, i think the issue is pressed in the end, i can't remember if it was me or someone else suggested, there's nothing to hide here, just ask the question. but we're now in a different world, where all these sorts of leaders will be declared in the normal way, but at that stage, we weren't routinely giving out indications. >> now, boxing day, i think it was a picnic, everybody wanted to know about that as well, but it's relevant to our inquiry, so what was our conversation about, the bskyb, on that day? >> i don't think -- it was my memory that boxing day was actually charlie brooks' sister's house, there was a party, i think rebekah was there briefly. i don't think -- certainly i can't recall a conversation about bskyb. i'm not sure there was much of a conversation at all, in my

recollection. >> the 21st of december, we heard from mr. clegg yesterday that there was a joint press conference at downing street, i think, mr. cameron, and it was leading the margins of that conference, you then took the remarks on a blog or something similar. >> 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 that you've got to see these remarks that have come out of that, what vince cable said, and it was quite an important moment, because these were, you know, these were important and significant remarks.

>> we can focus on these highlights of what happened over the following few hours. we know from paragraph 161 of your statement, you had a meeting and this was after his meeting dr. clegg gave him, which would obviously be appropriate. the only thing to write is after that meeting. >> i think what happened, 3:00 press conference concluded, the news then hit the wires, i then had a series of meetings with the deputy prime minister, with my chief of staff, with other members of staff, including the permanent secretary at number 10 downing street, and we had a series of conversations about what are we going to do about this, because obviously vince cable could not continue adjudicate -- adjudicating this bid, but there was a broad question of the damage this would do to the government, the damage it would do to our reputation as dealing fairly with business and all the rest of it, and there was a conversation involving all of

these people, and then also involving the chancellor, who would have been coming over to the 4:00 meeting at number 10 about what steps to take, and there was a pretty wide-ranging debate. jeremy haywoode made the suggestion about moving it across, and that, i thought, was the new straight forward way of dealing with this issue. >> but was he the originator of that idea to the best of your recollection? >> to the best of my recollection, yes, it is my memory. >> so it wasn't a politician, it was a civil servant? >> no, it was a civil servant. >> and did that idea immediately attract you? >> i thought it was attractive because, as i say, i was facing a difficult situation. vince cable is a leading member of the democrats, we're in a coalition. i want the government tobacco heernt and to work well together. he's the second most sort of important and significant

liberal democrat. i didn't want to lose him as a scleeg, but i had a problem. so i was a prime minister in search of a solution, and this seemed to me a relatively neat and straight forward solution. as i say, i think we did consider the issues around it. >> and according to text message, which we've seen from mr. osborne, the solution, as he put it, around 16:58 that afternoon, so the subject, of course, was legal advice, which will come to it. the decision was made rather quickly. >> i read this in some of the evidence that was perhaps in your line of questioning. the haste was that it was 3:00 in the afternoon, the business secretary said something that couldn't stand, and this was a major problem for the government, and in this 24-hour

news environment in which we live, you cannot just spend hours or half days working out what you're going to do next. you need to come up relatively rapidly, not overhastily, but relatively quickly with a good answer, and we took a good two hours, i think, in discussing the issue, and then i met with vince cable, and we made the announcement. but i don't think it was particularly rushed. i think we had to make a decision 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 would -- this sort of decision would have been made maybe the following afternoon, but after meeting the

politicians, 24-hour news cycle, your thoughts to jump in the deep end with this sort of decision not instantaneously, but within a couple of hours, in an area which is on anybody's views, sensitive. is that a fair observation? fair observation, but, you know, i can probably give you examples where governments have been slow to take important decisions like this, where it really affects the wider reputation of the government. >> the legal advice, i think, was sought after the solution in comments, which mr. osborne referred to, had been decided on, is that right? my understanding. my recollection is that we were having this solution, the solution was suggested. i was attracted to the solution

because vince cable had got himself into trouble by what had been reported publicly. someone, i can't remember who, said we must check the statement of jeremy hunt, and there was an eagle view expressed before the decision. i definitely asked the cabinet secretary's view, and my memory is he sought legal advice, but we now have even more legal advice, as it were, which is this witness statement from paul jenkins. >> we get some sense of when it started to be contained from tab 52, which is page 08108. an email from the legal find that 1724 on the

21st of december was then forwarded to your chief of staff at 1730, which, of course, is after the time mr. osborne texts, and it's pretty clear looking at it that this 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 sheet of the day, i had a meeting 5:00 to 5:00 with the cabinet secretary. and i think it was at that point he said he thought this was a good solution, that he wanted to seek legal advice. i think he then did that and, of course, the announcement was

then made at 1745, 5:45. my recollection is there was time to look at the legal advice. as i said, i think this is all slightly academic, as we now have a much fuller position of the government's legal advice. >> you look at mr. jenkins' advice, and he assists himself, because it was annual leave on the 21st of december that he it was 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. from a number of officials, including the guests. so the advice he was giving was said a little bit on holiday and in a rush.

isn't that fair? >> well, i think he says, and he's now gotten this evidence from paul jenkins, and he says, my telephone record show i was in contact by telephone from approximately 4:30 to 5:30 with a number of senior owe dealing with the issues arising from the publication of dr. cable's. he then goes on, paragraph nine, i was provided with the gist of the comments made by jeremy hunt. and for the reason subsequent noted by the prime minister, i advised that the comments that i was made aware of did not, in my view, constitute a legal impediment to jeremy hunt discharging the enterprise act in relation to the bid in a proper manner. so that would support what i'm saying, which is i met with the cabinet secretary. he said he thought this was a

good solution to transfer the responsibilities of that part of the department to jeremy hunt, and his suggestion, legal advice was sought. the legal advice was sought, albeit by telephone, one of the golt's legal advisors. that legal advisor said it was perfectly acceptable for jeremy hunt to carry out his role and is now being confirmed in a long piece of legal advice that everybody can now see. it seems to me, yes, we had to make the decision relatively rapidly, but it was not some rushed, botched, political decision. it was a suggestion confirmed by senior official, confirmed by another senior official, confirmed by that senior official's legal advice. >> but along the legal advice, mr. jenkins' witness statement, which isn't complete itself, the only legal ad violation he gave is by telephone on the day

and it related only to the piece in the "financial times," didn't it? >> well, it was related to, as i understand it, the public statements of jeremy hunt, and the point is paul jenkins has now had time to think about the legal advice he was asked for, the public statements that mr. hunt made, and he's now able to contain them, and he's very clear that, as he says, i reviewed the relevant sections of this note, and i will comment on whether my advice would have been different had i known about it, and he said i'm quite clear my advice would not have been any different had i seen this at the time. >> well, that's his view of what his advice would have been. >> he is the government -- i mean -- >> you're entitled to make the point so that actually two very

senior civil servants have taken the view. they've gone to the treasury solicitor, the most senior lawyer in the government, and he expressed a view and that was subsequently reduced into writing. that's in the memorandum that sir gus later wrote and nothing that's happened or nothing that there after has happened, so it seems it caused mr. jenkins to change his mind. >> i suppose i'll make the additional point, if anyone had told me that jeremy hunt couldn't do the job, i wouldn't have given him the job. >> well, we don't have mr. general jenkins on the text message, which mr. hunt said to mr. murdoch about congratulations. paragraph 70 of your statement

-- >> it's mr. jenkins' statement on the system. >> i believe it is. able i believe it's on the screen. >> i can see it, but by the system. i want to make sure that it's in the public doe mission, because it wouldn't normally be in the public domain until it was either formally read in the record, but it should go, that everybody can see the whole context in which mr. jenkins has spoken. just wanted to make one point on 1706 your witness statement, which is 04149. you say the key point is four lines down, not whether jeremy hunt expressed a personal opinion about a bid privately or publicly in the past, but rather how he would conduct himself in the future. that, of my understanding, was

not in fact the advice of mr. general kens or the advice we see from lord o'donnell on the 22nd of december. how do you express an opinion which disclosed actual or apparent bias. do you follow that? >> i do, but what i'm putting in my evidence is what the cabinet secretary's advice was, and that key point was the point that he made, and i wanted -- i mean, it's not directly relevant to this question. i would argue, backed up by what the deputy prime minister said yesterday, when you look at how jeremy hunt did conduct the bskyb merger, that he did deal with it properly by taking independent advice and publishing independent advice at every important juncture. >> but lord o'donnell's advice, or rather a reflection of legal advice which he received on the 22nd of december, on count 25

of the addendum bundle, having taken advice and satisfied that no previous comments in which we are aware constitutes a prejudgment of the case in question or therefore disqualifying him from taking the statutory decision in that case. so the issue is looking at what he said, which might disqualify him, not how he might conduct himself in the future. would you agree with that? >> i would agree to that. as i say, mr. paragraph 170 was written based on what the cabinet secretary said, but i'm also very happy with what the cabinet secretary says, as you say, in tab -- >> 25, i think. >> tab 25. i'm happy with either version. >> would you agree that if we went forward in time to july 2011, with everything you are, but for political reasons, you

were very keen to derail the bskyb bid to avoid a vote on it. >> i wouldn't quite put it like that. the point was, with all that was emerging in terms of the dreadful news about the hacking, was that the public was rightly very angry about what had happened. and while there was quite rightly a quasi judicial procedure taking place, there was the broad 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've looked back over the statements i made and what i tried to do, i was in afghanistan when the story about the phone being hacked, both what i said there and what

i said to the house of commons was to try and say, look, we have to follow these processes and procedures that are set out, but i think the way i put it was, if i was running this company, i wouldn't be considering a corporate move, but cleaning up the mess that there is, and i thought that was just about consistent with there being a quasi judicial process. but the house of commons can vote on these issues, and rightly so. >> mr. hunt, of course, was still acting quasi judicially in a funny sort of way, but probably everybody was trying to move towards the position where the wheels would fall off the bid for political reasons. >> as i say, i think there are emails that show 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,

and i think that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. >> ok, my move up to the fourth section of new evidence now, mr. cameron, and this is the area of any lessons to be learned for politicians. first of all, would you agree with mr. miliband's views the events of july of last year were liberating, to use his word, in a sense, that mr. murdoch's power has already been substantially weakened. >> i think i put it in a slightly different way, that i think because of all the issues that it has raised in terms of press conduct 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. i think that's not enough to say lessons are being learned as we go along, we need to do better than that, but it's a start. >> i think the words that some politicians were operating under a self-imposed constraint, that they weren't there to speak out against international, the chains have come off, and now everybody feels that they can. i'm maybe putting words in his mouth. i can recall the sentiment he was looking to impart. but have i quoted accurately, would you agree with that? >> i would put it any way, the debate that needs to take place about how we regulate the press, including news international and all these titles, that is now properly being had.

>> the trance parns a, i think it's clear you believe it's necessary, but not sufficient, but can we be clear now what else we would add to the mix to create a sufficient situation? >> well, i think there are really 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. it's many of the things we want to see, but it just hasn't delivered, so we need to find a way, and i know you're spending a huge amount of time on this to deliver the sorts of things that actually are in the press code that aren't delivered today. that seems to be one part, and the second part is i think i was talking about this earlier is in terms of how governments deal with quasi judicial

processes, their own special advisors, the contacts that we have with the press when commercial issues are raised. i think there's a set of things that we can do to improve the handling of those issues. so i think those are the two areas i would identify. >> i've got down three. >> well, one is about the regulatory -- >> the big question, what's the future for self regulation? how do we make sure it's independent, make it work, robust, andulls a, make sure the public has confidence in it, all consistent with the three vibrant, rigorous, challenging press we want to see in our country. that's issue number one. and i think issues number two, some of the processes and procedures where, you know, for code doesn't

mention procedures. well, it needs to. i think there's a set of procedural changes, as it were, on quasi judicial proceedings and the like, where we can make some improvements in the procedures we have. so there's two sets of procedures, but with some subsets. >> we're really on the second set of issues, which i'm putting under the heading of lessons be learned to politicians. we can come back to the section of your evidence. in regard to quasi judicial process, you mention possible changes to the minimum serial code. has any thought been given to that already? >> well, the first thing that my asking the cabinet secretary has written to departments to remind them of some of the sail weren't points, but as i say, people are not properly dealt with, and perhaps we can write to the inquiry with some suggestions.

i want to consult about that to try to make sure we get it right, and i think also the role of special advisors in quasi judicial proceedings, i think we need to get that right too. >> what are the weaknesses, the floors which may have been detected already regarding the role of special advisors. >> well, i think there needs to be adequate training so that people are properly prepared for what these decisions do and don't involve, and that i think is the main improvement, and i think that both applies to make sure that ministers, who may have these decisions to make in their department have proper briefing about them and also special advisors as well. >> and what about adequate supervision of special advisors when they are acting on behalf of their minister in a quasi

judicial process? important. management of special advisors, we made some steps forward by making sure they're clear under the code of the whole government. we're also looking at the better management of special advisors, both centrally through my chief of staff and number 10 downing street, but also make sure they are properly managed by the advises of the secretary. >> is there some to reside with the minister, with no one else. ultimately it revidse with me. they're all, in the end, they're at my appointment. >> certainly. i think the relevant special advisor's code says it lies, yes, with you. obviously you're not going to supervise these people on a day-to-day basis.

it has not an issue arisen, if i can put it in that way, and in regards to the supervision of special advisors acting where there is an underlying quasi judicial process. >> yes, i think there has. i mean, i think in this specific case, as you've heard all the evidence, i've looked at all the evidence, as i see it, the permanent secretary was aware and content of the role the special advisor was playing. but in the event, the top 11 we sent to contact was inappropriate, and that's why he resigned. so i think there are lessons to learn from that, yes. >> the question, i ought to say generally about this whole move from now on as mr. jay discusses these issues and the late issues, i'm very conscious that it might be thought by some to be a bit rich for you to have asked me to make recommendations and then for me

dilemma, but that's not to say, provided your content, that you shouldn't be labeled to identify areas that concern you , solutions that could likely be sketched out. i'm not trying to create a difference between the ultimate view you take and the recommendations i make. i have no doubt my recommendations will be better informed with -- a word we've learned the great deal the last months -- appropriate input. i'm not trying to make you state it, and i'm certainly not going to try to -- >> i understand that. what i'd like to do is -- i made a number of suggestions on the interaction between

politicians and the media, which we discussed earlier, on how we make sure that there's adequate training and how we make sure that special advisors are properly briefed and prepared for their role. what i'd like to do is consult with alex allen, my advisor on the minimum serial code on those, and then perhaps write to you with some sort of combined advice from the cabinet secretary about -- >> i think they're not enormous changes, because i think some of this is, as we talked about earlier, is culture and the rest of it, but if there are specifics we make -- >> i'm very content to adopt a procedure you find is most likely to help me, but i want to make the general point, the specific point in special advisors, which i'll share with slight

concern that these comparatively young men and women, obviously highly intelligent, devoted to the work they're doing, abundantly unlike civil servants who have all sorts of mentoring and monitoring and appraisal, it seems that there doesn't seem to be anything in place that really helps, and not just for a quasi judicial question, because it might turn into a different problem in a different context. so i share that concern with you, or if you were to say, thank you very much, i'm not terribly positive -- >> no, i've made two points. first of all, when i was special advisor, there was, as far as i know, no annual appraisal at all, and certainly not by your ultimate appointed

person, which is the prime minister and his office. >> and we have introduced annual appraisals, and there is a role for my chief of staff to make sure the special advisors are work nag coordinated fashion for the whole government, and we're look to we can approve that. but the second point i make, which is slightly from the other side, i do think there is a value in having special advisors. they undertake a lot of political work for ministers. they actually make sure the civil servants can go on being impartial. there are certain things you can have a special advisor to do on a political front that you wouldn't want to ask officials because you might be compromising their impartiality. i hate that we killed off the idea of good special advisors helping their minister and helping to keep separation of politics. >> no, take the point entirely,

because what you've done is to identify why there is a difference, why there is special advisors and there are civil servants. they do different things. and i'm want saying that the sort of assistance or monitoring or mentoring that i'm suggesting should necessarily come from civil servants. it may be that the party from which they came has to see whether it has some role in providing some support for these bright people who want to do the right thing, who obviously they have very, very close links with the ministers, which we may not want to trouble them, because their whole idea is they are a buffer. just to provide some check. now, this is -- you may say, uninformed, blue sky thought.

>> well, i think you got t. the those two things, keep the role of special advisors for the good work they do and they help prevent the politicization, but to make sure there's a bit more structure and appraisal, to make sure they're all pointing in the same direction, which is obviously in my interest, but to make sure when comes to things like quasi judicial prords, they have the necessary training to know what they should and shouldn't do. >> and support to check if there are problems. >> yes. >> could there be a suggestion, maybe some sort of a prior objection here, that airing to the good political work that special advisors do, and they are adept, some of them at least, working as an effective back channel, that those very attributes make them inherently unsuited for operating in a quasi judicial domain. do you see the force with that? >> i can see the point, but i think that -- i don't see why,

if they're following a proper set of procedures and the rest of it, why they can't soak up a bit of the pressure and information they would otherwise be bombarded by. i think they can play a role. >> but that would require them to require the same quasi judicial attributes as, say, the minister. the minister could hardly be expected to do so without a great deal of experience. they need to do something they're not really suited to do. is that not a reasonable point? >> well, i'm not sure, because part of his role is simply to soak up information from -- if little a planning dispute or merger or takeover, it's to listen to the arguments that come from both sides, so that

they feel they've had a say, and i think you can play that role. >> you also mentioned about 10 minutes ago the issue of lobbying of the press. >> yes. lobbying of or lobbying by the press? >> i think it's by the press, particularly in areas where they have a commercial interest . and they had particularly loud voice. are there any ideas you can share with us in that respect? >> i think this is difficult, because if you have a note taker at every single meeting, every time a politician meets with an editor, i think it would be very overbureaucratic response. the point, i think i mentioned this this morning, i think if it's clear that a media business is coming to talk to you about media business issues, that it's appropriate there to take a note.

if they're coming for a chat about policy and general approach that they throw in a commercial point, then perhaps that's something they should happen already, the minister should mention to the private secretary. i gave an example this morning of regional newspapers and the lobbying they do. i mean, the bbc can be quite an aggressive lobbyist on issues like license fee or charter renewal and what have you, and they make sure this is treated properly. >> the social and professional boundaries and the context where journalists become friends of politicians which will actually deter, but how do those friendships impinge, if at all, on the duty to hold politicians to account? >> it's on the press' duty to hold -- they might go soft on you because they're your hands?

one possibility, yes. >> i think this is just people having to police the boundaries between friendship and professional relations. i mean, it's something that happens in lots of walks of life. i'm sure it happens within the laws. you've got friends slugging it out in one of these courtrooms, i guess. >> it's clear from the advice that was given last year, we can turn it up, actually, it's under tab 65 of this bundle, advising you on the code. >> is this in the original -- >> i think we got 63. >> you better look for a tab.

>> i've got it, i've got it. >> they're facing the other bundle. >> this is a memo from -- >> and this is where -- this is how wide to draw the net of people you should be transparent about. >> so 05296 where he addresses these matters. >> yes, i think i mentioned this earlier, my view is if you try and say every time you meet socially, a friend who -- a really good friend who falls into one of these categories or perhaps just delay, you have to make a declaration. i think we got ourselves into a complete mess, and some reparations won't be made, it will then come out that a net b, that will be splashed all

over the newspaper, and the public's confidence in the system will collapse. i think the right way of dealing with this is to to have what we've set out, transparency about meetings, which is far above anything the government has done in the past, but then to have -- to make sure ministers have a proper conversation with their permanent secretaries about friends and friendships and jobbeds that people do -- and jobs that people do so they are effectively covered if it then subsequently, you know, comes out in some conflict. i think that helps with this issue. >> i think it was purely social interactions need not be recorded, but if any overlap with an official role, it would seem unreasonable to -- pardon me, but where there could be any overlap in an official role, we should advise and recall the interaction. so that would cover, i suppose,

the 23rd of december, 2010, conversation you had with mr. james murdoch, which we refer to -- >> absolutely. he would be covered by this. he would definitely be covered by this, absolutely, newspaper, owners, chairman, senior editors. i think i was making a slightly different point, which relates to the question you asked me earlier about sort of old personal friends who are somewhere around that level or just below. >> is that convenient? >> certainly for the afternoon. >> president obama laid out his priorities in a speech yesterday. his remarks are next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal," we'll discuss our report this week by the federal

reserve on the net wealth of u.s. families. we'll also look at the changing demographics of u.s. cities. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern. mitt romney kicks off the campaign bus tour today in new hampshire. he's calling it the believe in america, every town counts press tour, which will also travel through pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, iowa, and michigan. our live coverage starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern. and later in the day, as the supreme court prepares to finish work for the term, justice ruth bader ginsburg will address the american constitution society. live coverage at 6:00 eastern here on c-span. >> one of the quotes, that was

really exceptionally inspiring, once you realize the magnitude of difference you can make in public life, everything else will pal nay comparison. >> and so i think it was best put this week when someone from the white house came and said, he said a quote and said who think they're crazy enough to change the world are the ones that actually do. >> mr. bryan is the same man that christopher was talking about, 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 the top priority. >> every year, the u.s. senate youth program brings students to washington for a week of government and leadership education. this year, brian kamoie made an impact. he's a senior director on the white house national security staff. >> so i started with a mindset of, what is it like to be them? now that i'm in this role, what could i share with them that either i wish i had known along the way or that they will remember when they leave

washington week, which, as you mentioned, is a very intense, rapid-fire experience. so if you leave a few key, encouraging messages at a time when you know it's very easy to be cynical about politics, it's a good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more with brian kamoie sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> president obama held a rally at a community college in cleveland. this is about an hour. >> thank you! [applause] thank you, everybody. thank you, everybody.