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

it was raided with lord o'donnell, and -- raised with lord o'donnell and he offered to insure we gotinformation, and i'm grateful to have it. >> "the new york times" piece mr. cameron, refers to september 2010. were you made aware of it at the time or shortly thereafter? >> i can't remember the exact sequence of events that day but, yes, i was made aware of it, and i think the key point is that andy coulson directly denied and a statement was put out on his behalf by number 10 downing street about this accusation. so that, i think is pretty clear. >> although the accusation which we can't go into in any detail for obvious reasons related directly to him, didn't it? >> that's right, yes. but there was an instant and immediate denial. >> but you didn't return to him for any direct assurances, did you? >> i don't recall exactly the conversations that took lace. it was on the day -- that took 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 that day rather than anything around this. but i'm absolutely clear h

general kens or the advice we see from lord o'donnell on the 22nd of december.ress 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 conduc

and you've brought our attention to a letter you wrote to lord o'donnell on the 30th of june, 2008, is that correct? >> yes, i think, i think that was the date. >> starts at 14269 -- >> yes, that's correct. that's correct. >> and in your own words, these, why did you write this letter? >> there had been a number of occasions, two of which i mentioned in this letter, where i think there had been briefing from people close east to the then-chancellor or to the prime minister. that were totally dishonest and untrue and potentially damaging. the first of them was in 2005 when i got off a plane from overseas to find banner headlines saying that norman la not and i were blocking the publications of papers relating to black wednesday. it was utterly and totally untrue. nobody had asked us to release papers on black wednesday, and had we been asked -- since the papers showed a much better situation than many people recorded, we would have been quite in favor of it. it wasn't even a fraction, it was a tiny fraction of that. and so we had no reason to object to the publication of those papers. b

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

you wrote a letter to lord o'donnell. we have got this in hand. >> yes, i remember. >> obviously, the context was a piece in "the new york times" published in september 2010. is that correct? >> yes, and the report being done by the media committee, prompting about whether something had to be done. we did not know, as i said in my speech, about the extent of this phone hacking. only gradually became known to me that it could be considerably more than what had been reported, and that this road hacker or reporter was not a proper defense. as the information became available and as i realized that this was a bigger issue than people had imagined, it seemed to me, we have to look and what needed to be done. the home secretary has looked at whether the police investigation should be extended, or carried out by another body. i had to -- there was the speculation at the time, but there was the case for a judicial inquiry. i asked mr. o'donnell to look at this. he did not look at other evidence. it was probably an unfortunate dec

. >> it is clear from the advice of lord o'donnell gave in july of last year, we can turn it up. it is under attack 65 of this bundle. -- under tab 65 of this bundle. he was advising you on the ministerial code. >> is this in the supplementary set? >> no, it is in the original. >> i don't seem to have 63. >> it is page 05294. >> i have it. >> i don't immediately have it. just bear with me. it's an the other bundle? >> yes. this is from the us of donal -- gus o'donnell to me and this is about how wide to draw the net of people you should be transparent about. >> paragraph 7 and 8 of that advice. it's page 05296 where he addresses these matters. >> i think i mentioned this earlier. my view is if you try and say every time you meet socially eight friends falls into one of these categories or perhaps just below, you have to make a declaration. i think will get yourself into a complete mess and some declarations will not be made. it will come out at 8 met be. -- a met b. it will come out in the system will collapse. i think the right way of dealing with this is to have what we have se

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

you wrote a letter to lord o'donnell. we have got this in hand. >> yes, i remember. >> obviously, the context was a piece in "the new york times" published in september 2010. is that correct? >> yes, and the report being done by the media committee, prompting about whether something had to be done. we did not know, as i said in my speech, about the extent of this phone hacking. only gradually became known to me that it could be considerably more than what had been reported, and that this road hacker or reporter was not a proper defense. as the information became available and as i realized that this was a bigger issue than people had imagined, it seemed to me, we have to look and what needed to be done. the home secretary have looked and whether the police investigation should be extended, or carried out by another body. i had to -- there was the speculation at the time, but there was the case for a judicial inquiry. i asked mr. o'donnell to look at this. he did not look at other evidence. it was probably an unfortunate d