Skip to main content

tv   British Phone Hacking Investigation  CSPAN  May 14, 2012 12:40am-5:19am EDT

12:40 am
keeping a personal diary with relatives of sense -- with relative eents? is that correct? >> no. >> you have had to rely on memories. are there other documents you have had access to that might have existed? >> there are some notes. >> these are manuscripts or computer records the amount >> notebooks -- fees are manuscripts or computer records the amount >> notebooks. >> you have been arrested with connections, so i will not be asking questions on those matters. can i ask you some background statements? it is clear you were best
12:41 am
friends with rebecca brooks. is that true? >> yes, we have not spoken in a long time. >> can i ask about your relationship? how often did you speak to her? >> i think the social meetings we had, but we would talk now and then. i would not say we spoke every week. there were times when we did not speak for quite some time. i would say over the time regularly is the word i would use. >> did you communicate by text message? >> occasionally. >> i e-mailed? >> occasionally. >> wouldn't be fair to say you knew what each others' respective political standpoint where? >> it was pretty clear. as for her, she was supportive of the labour party. she was chief executive when the sun change its allegiance to
12:42 am
the conservative party. as to her personal views, how she voted, i have no idea. >> wouldn't be fair to say you knew what each others' respective political standpoint where? >> it her, she was supportive of the labour party. she was chief executive when the sun change its allegiance to the conservative party. as to her personal views, how she voted, i have no idea. >> the you have any insight? >> beyond the odd conversation, i guess the question how she would vote, i have no idea.
12:43 am
>> was she someone you felt was close to politicians? >> i think through the course of her work she was close to politicians. >> i will come to the. when you took over in 2003, which aspect did you want to change? >> i do not remember wanting to change in the cultural aspects. the main change are instigated was a cosmetic one. i wanted to redesign triggered strikes -- i wanted to redesign. >> are there any differences in culture? >> the pace is very different. the atmosphere is different on different days of the week. if you try to find a comparison
12:44 am
between news of the world and the sun, it is a saturday, because that is the day you are producing the newspaper. >> you are dealing with rupert murdoch as editor, so we are looking at 2003 until 2007. about how often would you speak to him? but i cannot put the number on it, but he would call on a saturday night, and sometimes it would be a couple times a month. i think i would describe that as a regular -- irregular, and always a saturday night phone call. aside from the occasional news international meeting when he was in london for when i would go to new york for the budget discussions. >> end of the content, what was
12:45 am
he interested in? >> in terms of specific content i do not remember any conversations about a particular part of the paper. we did talk about sports pages. the company made of a big investment about expanding the size of sports coverage, and that was a fundamentally important part about the mix to the paper, so i am sure we discussed that, and we discuss politics in general, and he would give his view on whatever was in the news at the time. >> he tried to buy but i did not succeed. wasn't he interested in scoops? >> i might tell him if we have a good story when we were planning on running that night, but not
12:46 am
always. >> wasn't he interested in stories but might impact success of the newspaper? >> sport is a good example. in terms of driving the news of the world, the sport was crucial, and it had an impact on physical production, so i remember having that conversation. "news of the world" invested in new presses, and i was concerned about the impact on sports coverage. i remember discussing that. >> you are bringing the conversation around to neutral subjects, such as sport. did she ask you questions
12:47 am
directly about circulation figures? and during sporadic telephone calls, from new york presumably, on a saturday, did he intend to ask you, "how is the circulation going? >> not always, no. >> but often? >> i remember occasions when he did. but i would not characterize it as the main purpose of the call. quite often, he would not mention it. >> both you and he were aware of the factors which might impinge on the circulation of the paper, correct? >> my job as editor was to produce a successful newspaper. >> would you said you discussed the political issues of the day, were these general discussions about political issues, such as european referendums, or whatever it might be? >> yes. europe was not as big an issue
12:48 am
for "news of the world" as for a daily paper, but yes. >> and did he discuss how politicians were doing? >> on occasion, yes. >> did you have a sense he wanted to find out how political opinion in this country was moving? >> i do not recall a specific conversation in that way. >> but in general, mr. coulson. i am not asking for a specific conversation. but did you have that sense? >> i might, in the course of a conversation, offer a view, but normally related to a particular issue rather than the longer- termed picture. >> during 2003-2007, were you particularly interested in politics or not? >> yes. >> and although your paper may not have adopted a position, your personal physician
12:49 am
throughout has been pro- conservative, was it not? >> was supported labor under my editorship of "news of the world." >> but your own personal -- >> how i voted? >> i would not ask you something so personal as how did you vote. but what was your general perspective on things? was it generally speaking conservative? >> i think that is fair to say. >> do you feel as part of your job as editor, in any event, to assess the mood of the country and how the country would vote in the next general election? >> my job as editor was, as best i could, establish where the leadership was in terms of politics and certain issues. >> to leave or to follow? >> i think to try to reflect, sir.
12:50 am
>> sold in that sense, to follow? >> more follow that lead, i would say. -- follow than lead, i would say. there were some causes, as an editor, you would want to champion. generally speaking, a successful newspaper is one that is in tune with its readership. >> some things you cannot get them to do, but there are some things you could get them to do, if the cause was right? >> them as in politicians or the readers? >> readers. >> i do not think you can get the reader's to do anything other than try to buy the paper. >> you have to have an understanding of where they are so that when you decide that you do want to promote a particular cause, to go into leadership mode, that it is sufficiently in
12:51 am
tune with where you know they are that it does not cause you trouble. >> you want the two to be aligned as much as possible. >> of course, the exercise tends to be unscientific, because you have a large readership and a range of opinions within that readership. >> that is right. >> to you take opinion polls on a rudimentary basis of your readership? >> pretty rudimentary. there was some market research i would occasionally get access to. >> would you describe your relationship with mr. murdoch as being more more something different? >> i was an employee. i thoroughly enjoyed my time working for him. in the sort of interactions i had with him, he was warm and supportive. >> warm toward you, and vice
12:52 am
versa? >> of was not particularly close to him in that regard. i would not want to overstate it. he was supportive to me as an editor. i enjoyed working in his company. >> there are rumors that you turned down the editorship of "the daily mirror" from the resignation of mr. morgan. if you did, that might reflect on your loyalty to mr. murdoch, but did you? >> there were conversations toward the possibility of me becoming the editor of "the daily mirror," and i chose not to do so. >> the 1 general election which came in your watch was the 2005 election. in the end, you decided to continue the paper path support of tony blair, but why in the end -- to continue the paper's support of tony blair, byut why
12:53 am
"in the end"? >> there were a number of conferences. my team and i decided to support tony blair. >> did you feel he would probably win that election? >> it was not the key factor in the decision. the key factor in the decision, as i touched on earlier, was that i felt "news of the world" best interests would be served by tony blair. if you read the lead up at the time, i do not think it was wildly enthusiastic. i think on balance we felt that was the best way to go. >> you say you reflected the mood of the country at the time, i suppose. >> possibly. >> were you surprised who might win that election?
12:54 am
from their political editor, for example? >> in terms of advice, some pretty detailed conversations about it. that would certainly have involved the political staff. i was keen also to involve members of staff who did not work in politics, who did not understand westminster, who were not immersed in the world, people who worked in different departments. >> did you have discussions with rebekah wade about it? >> i do not think so. in terms of the editorship of " the sun" and the editorship of "news of the world," there were different papers, and there was a clear line between the two. there was a rivalry between them. i certainly do not remember any conversations with rebekah about that issue. endorsement would
12:55 am
be a surprise? >> i did not have any conversations about it. >> did you have a conversation with rupert murdoch about it? >> i might have after the event. i do not know. i do not remember any more. >> wouldn't you want to find out whether what you were doing was contrary to his viewpoint? >> i did not have a conversation with him. i do not remember one. i do not think it happened about the 2005 election. i followed my own path. i do not feel, sitting here now, that i was pushed, in courage, or told to go a certain way. i remember the process quite well. i was determined we would spend a reasonable amount of time with politicians from both parties, and we would make up our own minds. >> a move forward to october
12:56 am
2005, a conservative party conference. there were candidates standing for the leadership. you testified in your statement that you met mr. david cameron there, at a dinner. do you recall? >> yes. >> was he your preferred candidate for the leadership? >> certainly at the last stage. i have taken the time to look back at some "news of the world" editions around that period, and i do not think "news of the world" ever explicitly supported mr. cameron, or explicitly supported anyone. we did employee mr. william hague, and he expressed a preference. he went to work for him later. >> from a personal perspective, was he your preferred candidate
12:57 am
for the leadership? >> i do not think i formed at that stage a clear view. i found a leader from "news of the world" where we suggested it was his to win. i have up on anything to the contrary. i think that is as far as it went. >> between december 2005 and january 2007, was the news of the world clearly moving toward endorsing the conservative party at the next election? >> i do not think so. "news of the world," under my editorship, came up with the line "hug a hoodie." i do not think that is the case. >> paragraph 34 of your statement, you talk about the agenda for your meetings with
12:58 am
politicians at around this time. you make it clear at no point in any of these conversations was the potential support of "news of the world" discussed, or any commercial interest. you mean news international, do you? >> yes. >> you said this could impact on the press and more generally. there are conditional agreements, sentencing, those sorts of issues. >> i do not recall doing so. >> human rights acts. was that a frequent topic of conversation? >> that may have come up in conversation. it is possible. >> in the context of the human rights, were you in the camps
12:59 am
that freedom of the press would protect the privacy of individuals? >> i believe in freedom of the press. >> if there were conversations about the human rights act, it is clear what your position would have been in those conversations, is it not? >> i certainly believe in the freedom of the press. that much is true. >> in the same period, as regards your dealings with politicians, would it be fair to say it was a clear subtext to your dealings with senior politicians of all three main parties that they were keen to know whether the news of the world would support them? >> no. the explicit issue of "will you support us" was never asked of me during that time. directly, no. >> subtext is the way i put it.
1:00 am
>> i think politicians from both sides, in those conversations, were seeking to get their message across and hope it would be received by us in a positive light. >> usually, in human interactions, one knows what the other person wants out of one. it is subtext, in your conversation with politicians. >> the agenda for me was to work out, in the course of a conversation, whether or not the party or the politician would best serve the interest of "news of the world" readers. i had some ideas of what constituted that. >> de you think the politicians you spoke to knew that you were the conservative party supporter?
1:01 am
>> i do not know. >> you had a conversation with mr. brown in 2006 at the labor conference in manchester. you describe that in paragraph 36. >> yes. >> the labor conference in manchester that year, we knew, because it was announced, that mr. blair would be leaving within the year, and in all probability mr. brown would be the next prime minister. would you agree? >> i think that was a given, yes. >> he said to you -- you say, "i remember that meeting well. mr. brown told me he had it on very good authority mr. murdoch would appoint me as the editor of "the sun" when rebekah was promoted." do you see that? >> yes. >> he was telling you it was already rupert murdoch's decision that rebekah wade would be promoted and you would be the
1:02 am
next editor of "the sun." >> i did not believe rupert murdoch would have had that conversation with him. >> why not? he was close to mr. brown, was he not? >> my understanding of how news international works, in terms of appointment of editors, is that it would not have involved the conversation at that stage. it was sometime after that rebekah was promoted, quite some time. i did not believe it. i believed it was an attempt by mr. brown to sort of impress on me his closeness to mr. murdoch. quite frankly, i did not believe it. >> but it was certainly an attempt by mr. brown to impress on you his proximity to mr. murdoch. that is clear. that is the strong message he was transmitting to you. but his predictions were right,
1:03 am
were they not? >> i did become the editor of "the sun." >> if certain events had occurred, it might have. but rebecca-- rebekah was promoted. >> at some time, yes. >> you refer to mr. osborn. you said you met with him in 2005. did you get on well with him? >> i got along fine. we did not spend a lot of time together, but i remember having a cup of coffee with him at that conference. >> you deal intergroup 38 specifically with a story which was published in -- you deal in paragraph 38 specifically with a story that was published in "news of the world" in 2005. can we understand the context? did "the sunday mirror"
1:04 am
published the same story? >> i am not sure when i was aware there would publish the same story. >> on the same sunday? >> yes. >> and you could anticipate that "the sunday mirror" would be hostile to mr. osborn, did you not? >> i knew they were publishing it, so i did not give it any thought. i think it is a given that "the sunday mirror" is a more left- leading newspaper, and as a consequence might be more critical. >> you knew "the sunday mirror" had the story. you knew they could only publish it on sunday. on the event they published it the same sunday as "news of the world," it was pointing to the same date, was it not? >> i am not sure at what point i knew they had the story. >> the story, stripped down to its bare essentials, was capable
1:05 am
of being harmful to the interests of mr. osborn, self evidently. >> it certainly was not helpful. >> your editorial stance on the story was fibril to mr. osborn, was it not? on page 20395. october 18, 2005, splashed over three pages. it contains all sorts of detail. i do not think it is necessary for us to go into now, but it is there if anybody wants to read it. you were effectively saying that mr. osborn should be given another chance, were you not? >> i think the leader was saying that here is the
1:06 am
information, here is what he says about it, make up your own mind. i think if i were to try to distill the message of the leader, "the tories fate is in your hands," i would say that is the leader column of "news of the world." as much as i would love to say the leaders i wrote for the most-read part of "news of the world," they were not. the first page "with a hooker" could not be described as career-enhancing for george osborne. the idea that we went easy on him is ridiculous. >> did you personally write this editorial? >> i would have contributed to it. quite often, i would have a conversation with another member of staff, they would write it,
1:07 am
and i would offer a view. sometimes, i would write them myself. >> was there an underlying evidential basis for the story? that is not the basis of my question. you say in the fifth line of the editorial that mr. osborn was a young man when he found himself caught up in this smoky world. you say a bit later on, "last week, we said the tory leadership is cameron's for the taking. nothing since then has made us change our mind." mr. osborn was then to be mr. cameron's number 2. so this was putting a favorable gloss on quite a murky world, was it not? >> mr. osborn -- i do not think we should necessarily go into the details of the story.
1:08 am
but mr. osborn was not admitting to anything. these were the claims of a friend of a friend, as i seem to remember. that was the view form. i think probably as a result of a discussion with my team. that is where we ended up. i have taken the time to look at "the sunday mirror" leader. it does not call for mr. osborn to be fired. it is fair to say it is more critical, as you might expect. but it certainly does not suggest that it would be the end of his political career, by any measure. >> wasn't it a classical example? let me put it in these terms. "news of the world" could not resist the scoop of a great story. but then they lost it in the editorial, and put perhaps the
1:09 am
most favorable interpretation that could be put on the story. >> i do not think it is. if you are looking for an example of "news of the world" being helpful to the conservative party, this is a pretty poor example. what matters here is what is on the front page, and the headline on pages four and five. i look at the front page now and am reminded that, had we not had a dvd promotion this day, the story would have been twice the size. that's all i can say. compare that to the leader column. a do not think it holds. >> would you have buried the story altogether if you had not known "the mirror" were going to splash it? >> certainly not. >> the free dvd was all about "little britain." that takes up half the front
1:10 am
page. you can see the other half. it is a standard "news of the world" splash. >> i do not know that it was standard, but it was a "news of the world" story, a "sunday mirror," story, and other newspapers followed it. it still gets a reasonable amount of coverage in "the guardian puzzle -- guardian." >> january 2007, you resigned. whether discussions before the resignation? >> there was the conversation about my resignation. >> did you have conversations with mr. murdoch before you resigned? >> no. >> you concluded your severance agreement, described as a compromise agreement.
1:11 am
the narrative starts at page 02379. we can see it is dated february 26, 2007. do you see that? >> yes. >> which i think is exactly a year to date -- i am sorry. a month after you resigned. >> i resigned two weeks before i actually left. the conversation i mentioned it took place two weeks before i left the building. >> you were not resigning on the basis that you would walk away from any benefit to might attain. you and thought you would lead eventually. >> it was my decision. there was not in negotiation or discussion about whether or not i would or would not. i was very clear that i was going to resign, and i did so.
1:12 am
>> clause 3, you received both payment in lieu of the employers contractual. , and compensation for termination of employment. so there are 2 you a separate trenches -- tranches. the last is paid in 2007. is that standard practice or not in severance agreements of this sort? >> i have never resign before, so i do not know whether this was the format that was followed. i am told that the separating out of payments in this way is a reasonable standard practice, but i am not an employment lawyer, so i cannot be certain of that. >> there is reference in the agreements -- a rather
1:13 am
complicated clause. it effectively means that the stock units which were going to vest in new in august 2007 would continue to best in you, notwithstanding your resignation. do you see that? >> yes. >> as of that stage, did you also have stocked in news international, as opposed to news corporation? >> i had shares in news international, which i think i sold it before i left the company, before i resigned. there may have been some shares i had around this time that i may have sold immediately. >> can i be clear -- apart from the restricted stock units which would vest in august 2007, were the shares or stocks either in
1:14 am
news international or news corporation, up by may 2007, in your possession? >> i do not believe so. >> there is a provision that the employer will pay any reasonable professional expenses incurred by you in relation to certain matters. that clause, i think, is subject to litigation in a court of appeal. >> that is right. >> under the last clause, 7.1b, you agreed, in consideration of a small payment, you would not make or cause to be made, directly or indirectly, any statement or comment to any person, including without limitation to the press or other media, which might impugn the good name or character of the employer, any of its
1:15 am
newspapers, or any associated company, including officers, employees, or shareholders. has that provision in any way impacted on the evidence you are giving a specs >> -- giving us? >> no. >> when you resigned from head editor of "news of the world," did you receive any commiseration from the star blair? >> sometime later, yes. >> mr. brown? >> yes. >> mr. cameron? >> i do not remember doing so. >> you were approached by mr. osborn in may 2007. this is in your statement. it was in march 2007.
1:16 am
>> which paragraph? >> herger 59. >> thank you. >> you met for a drink. he asked you, in effect, whether you would be interested in joining the team. it goes without saying that mr. osborn knew that your natural sympathies were with the conservative party. >> i do not know. you would have to ask him what his thinking was. certainly, he approached mei sae asset. >> i think it is pretty obvious that he did know otherwise he would have gone somewhere else. >> in any event, he was correct. >> did you know if anyone else's in the running for the job? >> no. >> did you know if anyone else was later?
1:17 am
>> no at a later stage after i started working for the conservatives i was told that there had been another bbc journalist to have been that had a discussion i think of mr. cameron quite some time that i was considered for the job. it did not work out. >> his name has come up in this context. what did mr. osborn say that you could offer the conservative party? >> the conversation was more around my views of how the party should organize its communications with the election. i gave my views.
1:18 am
>> what did you tell him tax c? >> i told him i'd you needed to .e professional pee have a good relationship with as many media ones as general. i told him later the conversation with mr. cameron that my firm belief with the television would play a crucial part in any general election campaign. the might be more so than it had done previously. >> you had no more political experience, did you? >> no. >> didn't mr. osborn at least thought yout he might bring to the table? >> i was the editor of a
1:19 am
national newspaper. i had managed the team. i had a hand in running a business i suppose in terms of the commercial aspects. i am sure these are considerations. >> i am sure this is the case that you were a good editor. you're taught from the you being the director of communications. >> i think this is a question for mr. osborn. the question was not this is why we think you're going to be great. i do not recall it that way at all picture it as a part did the
1:20 am
interview. at what point did you say are you interested in this job? >> i think it was clear that they were interested in hiring me. he said they were going to make changes to the professional set up. he will likely to meet mr. cameron. >> he identified you as the man? >> i didn't think he would have called me. >> this might have been an interview. let's ask him a few questions. we will go in and think of it. >> and did not know what was in georgia osborne's mind. >> you are a newspaper man. you're used to selling ideas and stories.
1:21 am
did do not see this conversation as selling yourself? that is what most people do and interviews. >> i went into it with a degree of reluctance. i was not really thinking about politics. once he met him, how did you would your view across the that it might be a good idea or maybe you did not? >> what i fell is that this is what the party needed to do to be elected. this touched on the print media. i remember very well saying to mr. osborne that television is
1:22 am
going to be hugely important. hardly a stunning observation. i was already thinking about the possibility of this. >> i presume you went along to think about it. why are they asking me to do this job? >> he said i want you to talk to and meet with mr. cameron. it went on and from then. >> your career in journalism, you have the largest circulation
1:23 am
in the united kingdom. now you're up to sending completely different. it doesn't pass through your mind what are they asking me to do this? >> something completely different. this is be on the stories you have alighted on. rain campaigns variate i came to be in tune with the leadership of the newspaper that is fast. those things i am sure were attracted. the route from journalism to politics, i was hardly the pioneer. there have been several people from their the history of politics that have gone from newspapers into politics.
1:24 am
>> even became director of human occasions. that may reject of human communications. -- he even became director of human communications. >> it is as appropriate. >> what about your connection to "news of tnews international?" >> there may well have been a conversation about the fact that i worked on "news of the world" and maybe we discussed some individuals in that regard. i do not really remember. i am sure the conversation would have touched on my previous employers in some way. >> you are close to mrs. brooks? >> we are friends, yes.
1:25 am
>> you also understood the viewpoints of the conservatives that had some sort of closing vote. >> that may have been a consideration, yes. >> they were ones which certainly passed through your mind. >> they would have done for mr. osborne. >> they did. i cannot tell you what he was thinking. in terms of my thinking, i went into the meeting. i did not see it as a meeting.
1:26 am
my initial reaction was slightly reluctant but i was intrigued. i have further conversation and decided that this was something i wanted to do. >> there were conversations. i want to ask you this simple question. did either france is more or and and llewellyn raise this case with you? >> and remember. it is possible. >> use said toward the end of may 2007, it day said the offer of this.
1:27 am
were you of for the job after the conversation which may have taken place? >> i think the conversation is the confirmation. it may well be in those conversation. in my mind, that conversation was the confirmation penn . >> he also ask me about the goodman case. can you remember the gist of your answer? >> i was able to repeat what i
1:28 am
said publicly. i said that thing about this case in terms of what they did. >> did the job follow that conversation? >> in terms of paper work, i cannot remember the exact time. >> can as the about the timing of their conversations with rebecca? if you said that that could be in may or earlier. >> i cannot remember the time. i know i told small number of friends. i am sure she was among them.
1:29 am
>> what was their reaction? >> i think she would have congratulated me. >> i do not remember her saying otherwise. >> >> do you know whether she had any influence over you getting the job? >> not that i recall. >> were there any conversations with her at any stage which might have indicated that she had an influence of you getting the job? >> not that i can remember. >> you say that he met mr. cameron, i am keen to understand this. appreciate this interview. by the time you're going to meet mr. cameron, we know exactly
1:30 am
what was happening. did you formulate in your mind and did you have to explain what it was the you were bringing to the parti? what skills to do actually bring to the parti? >> i am sure i tried to talk in the most favorable light of myself. i am sure i try and to do this. >> what i'm keen to understand is what it was a year able to point you in your history make up. i understand boasting. i understand that. this could be a sensible move. what was it?
1:31 am
>> i think it was my experience. i stop working as a show business professor. i had worked for for nine months on the internet. i may well have mentioned that. there the conversation, the have been trying to tease out whether i was the right man for the job.
1:32 am
>> you save the background may have been considered useful. it does not specifically discussed as being an advantage. >> it is my best recollection. i do remember explaining that my "news international" background was not suggested by either. it was introduced into the composition by me. my background should not therefore be seen as some sort
1:33 am
of guarantee of the papers. >> in might be a factor. >> my help in terms of connecting with "news of the world" readers, yes. >> also your personal connection. >> it would not hurt. i do not take the view that they would guarantee any kind of support. >> i am not talking about you expressing the view. i'm talking about the guarantee. >> my personal connections well beyond "news international." >> at this time, mrs. birk is becoming an influential person. >> use influential before that.
1:34 am
>> even before that? >> quite possibly. >> i did not know where she was in terms of for a career. >> i think it is fair to say, yes. >> politicians were keen to get close to her. >> it is fair to say that they want their message across. >> in order to get your message across, the best lightning rod was mrs. brooks. >> if you are a politician, you have the opportunity to talk to an editor. you will take it. you'll try to sell yourself and
1:35 am
your party in the best possible light. >> she has a personal personality. >> she has a strong personality. >i think i would say strong. >> action "news of the world" you said that you would not get it from that paper. he said he was more sympathetic to the labor party. >> i never worked with him. i cannot say with any degree of certainty. certainly from what i knew of him, and i knew of him briefly, he worked for another rupert murdoch paper in new york. we with each other regularly.
1:36 am
he was more likely to be left- leaning. >> you are discussing likely support of different newspapers. the message you were getting is beth "news of the world" was not in the back. is that fair a? i much i used those words but that is the essence. >> is important about "news of the world" might go at the next election? >> i'm not sure that david cameron ever said we have a "news of the world" in the bag. this is a conversation i introduced. >> you felt that he
1:37 am
might benefit from your insight? >> it went further and we discussed other newspapers. >> it is not just "news of the world". it is also the son. i told him that he should not. he understands that he is not him. >> i started that conversation. >> it was for mr. cameron, yes? >> circulation. quest not just circulation, it contained a significant number
1:38 am
of others did and did? >> within its circulation, yes. >> in terms of the most important newspaper, the son would always be there. >> if you wanted to look at it yes.erms of circulation, esp other newsa number of anothe tippers we needed to work hard to gain support. i did not look at my working day and analyze and based on circulation. at the a lot of effort in trying to secure it. i did exactly the same. i put a lot of work into it the daily telegraph. >> i am not sure i was
1:39 am
suggesting that you lavished this. >> all i was suggesting is that it was the most important. are we in agreement that lets in terms of circulation, yes. >> in terms of influence? >> i am not sure i buy the theory that a newspaper's endorsement will influence its readers directly in that way. >> do you think politicians buy into that very? >> i think that is a theory that is becoming less and less popular with politicians. >> at the time we're talking about the 2010 election. do you think politicians are still buying into its? >> we wanted the support of the sun and as many new savers as we
1:40 am
possibly could. we did not know when the election was going to be. work has to be put into it. >> newspapers or not the only focused by any measure about communications. television was fundamentally important. we were clear. that is a mechanism for communication. television was going to have to be impartial. >> ps. >> newspapers do not have that limitation. >> the compositions you have with a newspaper are different than the ones you have with the bbc. in terms of planning a strategy, where are the people that you wanted to try to have good relationships with, the people you would spend your time talking to and the way he would
1:41 am
try to get the best possible light your policy, the television was crucial. i would say as we got closer, i would say even more so. >> planning your strategy in relation to the print media, they went to one side. there are two key elements. you have to do your best to secure the support of the sun. are we agreed? >> yes. >> in order to secure the support, at the best way in was the record books. >> i would not describe it in that way. i was keen and that we had the relationships throughout the paper. four otheroes throug
1:42 am
newspapers. these figures do not work that way. you cannot rely on this. what the war attempting to do is build a series of relationships that we had something positive to say, you give yourself the best possible coverage. it was a range of relationships from the newspapers. >> you do not wish to endorse any particular newspaper even the eiffel the causes. even mention the "guardian." >> i had good relationships. i probably would not include "the daily mirror" in truth.
1:43 am
more importantly, david cameron to be viewed as we do this as possible. they had in el toro mountain to climb. we wanted to touch as many readerships as we could. >> " do you advise that he became as close as he could to mrs. brooks? >> no. >> did the work that out anyway? >> there is a family connection. burke is a constituent of his. they live relatively close. there is a fairly long established family connection. that was the genesis of it.
1:44 am
>> let's go back to the section about influence of papers having an outcome. above the second perception that there is supplied support that would be the director of favors tax there are issues and policies relevant to the issue. >> in the course of the election campaign, there were issues that a whole range of newspapers were considered to be important.
1:45 am
i will seek to maximize that. once in government, he got on with the business of governing. politicians keep their promises. we ended up with a coalition of government that made that a more complex process. >> we all got to close to it? had expressed you before it july 2011? >> i do not remember him doing so. >> you said that he almost have to meet with journalists because it was so important that you think he would have preferred to be enjoying in that
1:46 am
at home with his family. did he ever expressed disgruntlement to you that he has spent so much time with journalists and editors? >> frequently. >> there is a deeper problem here. they're getting too close to one newspaper group. >> no. that i recall. >> it follows that he must have been surprised that we all but to close to "news international." but it came after a chain of
1:47 am
events. did not know what his thinking was. a was not there. -- i do not know what his thinking was. i was not there. >> i was asking what your thinking is or was. do you feel the politicians got to close to "news international" or what? >> i look from the perspective of what they're not there was improper conversations or a dump that sits over this idea. i never saw a conversation that to my mind was inappropriate in that way. >> try not to look at this too literally. he denied many times there were no express deals. we're not talking about
1:48 am
inappropriate conversations necessary trade-offs. this closeness is unhealthy. >> the word on help the implies impropriety. i'm not sure i agree with that. i have been out of politics for quite some time. things are going to change. things have already changed. i think the process may have even begun. we were the first government ever to be transparent with the media. maybe the process is already started to enter into people's minds. >> transparency was not introduced until july 2011.
1:49 am
i think that we make public some special meetings with the media. >> that was in 2010. >> can i ask you to go backs to 45? >> at some stage, we ought to have a break. >> let's go do that. we'll give him a few minutes. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable sate
1:50 am
>> next, several portions of the testimony in pride -- in parliament. >> you spoke of -- let me find it. >> you spoke of pursuing matters on behalf of your readers. i am wondering what you did to discover the views of your readers save up for those who communicated with you. if you had millions of readers, how are you identifying their views, or are you reading the ruins of what you believe the correct approach this -- i am trying to find the balance here. >> yes, i think in the european campaign, which had been a long tradition at the time. since the census in the 2009, we were short where our readers were on that matter. we had done polls in the newspaper, and both of the male -- mial and the sun gave us
1:51 am
1:52 am
>> we probably did not support ken clark because it was in europe. i do not remember having a particular line in the papers about leadership. >> mr. paulson was in charge of communications in may of 2007. can you recall when you first heard about it? >> i heard about it from him after he had met with george osborn. i was then told that he got the job. >> what was your reaction to that piece of news? >> i probably said well done. >> how did you feel about it? >> he had to resign from the news of the world, and he had found another job, one that he was interested in. >> were you at all surprised? >> i was not surprised when he finally got the job. he was a good communicator, and works with several others so there was a long history of journalists going into politics. this did not seem any different. >> let's go into some meetings of political parties.
1:53 am
this meeting in greasy put an asterisk by. -- in greece, you put an asterisk by it. you do not remember it happening. whose idea was it that he meet with the murdoch's on this occasion. >> i do not recall if rupert murdoch was in europe that summer. i think the idea was organized by at no. 10. i knew he was coming, but the arrangement was made through mr. murdoch's office and no. 10. >> were you consulted at all?
1:54 am
>> no. >> you were there increase on holiday with the murdoch family -- in greece on holiday with the murdoch family and there was nothing more to it. >> it was for elizabeth murdoch's birthday. >> you presumably met with mr. cameron on that occasion. >> i did. >> do you remember how long he stayed? >> i think it was an afternoon and an evening.
1:55 am
>> were you aware of the conversations that took place or not? >> i was witness to one of with mr. murdoch about europe. in very general terms. then he had subsequent other conversations. >> it was not a sort of formal sit-down conversation, however the one i was witness to happen to be there when we were talking about europe. was this -- >> was this an occasion you were pleased about or not? >> it seemed like a very cordial
1:56 am
meeting. it lasted an afternoon or an evening so it was not particularly long. >> by that point, you were quite friendly with mr. cameron were in the decks >> yes. >> we know that he attended a new year's eve with you. >> it was my sister-in-law's party. >> they had a family relationships before i came along.
1:57 am
>> are you accepting that mr. cameron became your friend? >> yes. looking further down this list, in may of 2009, from that. of course there is no evidence that your meeting with mr. brown, although you did say that your list may not be complete in relation to mr. brown. >> i know it is not complete i am also not sure the they had a formal or informal meeting. i am pretty sure that if they had they would be meeting at downing street with mr. brown from that. in may right up until september. >> a topic of conversation on
1:58 am
may 3, 2009, did it cover political issues? >> it would have in general terms. there were probably lots of other people there at the lunch. >> i am not quite sure that my memory is correct, but i believe the european constitution debate was at large as was afghanistan at the time. >> we know that on the ninth of september 2000 and nine, mr. james murdock told mr. cameron that the sun would support the conservative party of the next election this headline was on the front page in september 2009.
1:59 am
when did you first know that that shift would take place? >> to the conservative party? >> yes. when did you first know that shift would take place? >> if we put aside the timing of it, i think probably in the june mid 2009. i think by that stage it was post a campaign for election, the point of it was there did
2:00 am
not seem to be one a senior politician including the prime minister who was willing to take tress the issues the military were phasing out there. >> the question was simple? >> that was it in a nutshell. >> was there any part of
2:01 am
>> back in june, was that it was more that we had lost things to support gordon brown some government and what did that mean. they were very initial discussions in june. >> was there any part of the decision based on the who was likely to win the next election. >> i am not sure who the polls are at the time, but it was much more in that summer about our leadership and where they stood in terms of the politics of the government. bank bailouts had been the year before, and the recession was one of the issues that our readers were concerned about. the main point of the summer was that we had not written one
2:02 am
editorial in support of the labor government for quite some time. it was not as clear-cut as -- a >> the question was any part of the discussion related to who was likely to win? >> in general terms, but i cannot remember what the polls were at the time. >> from your perspective, you were interested in who was going to win. >> one of the most interesting things about its readership is the amount of voting voters. if you are a mirror journalist, you are tied to labor. i think the floating voters are quite important. the overwhelming feedback from the readership at that time was that they were very unhappy with what they had. >> there was also a dinner in the september of 2009, can you remember if anyone else was present?
2:03 am
>> i cannot. there would have been other people from the office present. not particularly that one. >> was there any discussion as to the timing of the changes? >> no. >> did mr. cameron and know the timing? >> probably he knew that it was with and a period of time that you referred to with james murdoch, that it would happen. >> can we see how specific you
2:04 am
can be. >> what was he told? >> they had a discussion which is this is what they will probably do. the timing was a matter of discussion with the political scene there. the timing conversation was not with david cameron or his advisers. were you responsible for the timing of the decision. >> in terms of the conference season, yes.
2:05 am
>> i was certainly instrumental in it. ultimately, of rupert murdoch is the boss. as were others. >> you are the driving force
2:06 am
behind it or not? >> i was instrumental, not the driving force. it was pretty collective in terms of everyone's view, particularly their readership that we were going to distance ourselves from the labor party that we have supported for many years. in terms of the timing it was quite a small group. >> and you are part of that small group?
2:07 am
>> yes. >> the timing was careful. it was designed to cause a maximum political damage, would you agree? >> the discussion on the time and was this, it would be terribly unfair at the start of the party conference to say that before hearing what mr. brown and the senior cabinet ministers had to set, and they could have come up with a fantastic policy for some readers or anything. it was unfair for us to go before. >> are you saying that mr. brown said something that caused you to change your minds and go back to plan a. >> we thought it was unfair to cloud a party conference in that way. i think you heard from him
2:08 am
yesterday that the conservative party would have liked the endorsement at the beginning of their conference. the sole reason for it was that we knew we were ready to do it, and his speech, he spent less than two minutes in afghanistan. that was the right timing in order to distance himself from it. i was talking about fairness rather than that if it would affect the decision. they would probably not see it like bad.
2:09 am
>> this was about how they would see the decision. >> the incredibly important decision that they made in the 1997 -- >> please keep to the question. >> the ancient history is quite important in this manner. if you are asking for an explanation. i think it was a very important decision and we gave it careful consideration after years of labor support. >> the new it would anger
2:10 am
certain people, didn't you? >> individuals within the labor party? >> yes. >> yes. >> did you sense in any way that this was an exercise of power concentrated in a small group of people within it news international? >> i do not think we ever saw it in those terms. >> i don't think we've ever seen it in those terms. >> rightly or wrongly, i have believed that my main
2:11 am
responsibility was to leadership. any influence that we would come to bear on their behalf was at the most important thing. that was just the way it was. we did not see it like that. we knew there would be certain individuals in the labor party who would not be happy with that decision. >> our responsibility was to mr rupert murdoch. you were instrumental to use your term. was he can should be adding much to this debate? >> yes he was. all five of you in different ways exercising power, would you agree? arcs a think on the part of us
2:12 am
and the political editor, the journalists -- we were all of a mind that this was the right thing to do. we just did not see it in those terms, so i am sorry. >> you don't see the in truism of the dissemination of power from within a few people capable of impacting the opinions of many people. >> i can see how you might phrase it like that from our perspective the sun newspaper has in its history always done quite dramatic endorsements. we have had a tradition and a history of being bold and dramatic and our timing when it
2:13 am
came to politics. i know that critics saw it that way. >> you of the conversations were those close to mr. brown -- did you try to face mr. cameron? >> i was too busy for that. my main concern was to fix mr. brown. >> i felt that it was the right thing to do to speak to mr. brown before anyone else. as a general courtesy, and they
2:14 am
were due to come to the news international party that night. i wanted to get a hold of them before that. >> i think a series was too strong a word, but i left a message. i certainly put a request in earlier to speak to him. >> he eventually did speak to you didn't he? >> yes he did.
2:15 am
>> there is a slight difference to the one word that we use that we better not go into. >> that is what they claim to have said. >> was the angry? >> depending on how you heard it could be quite an offensive word. he seemed quite angry. but not surprised. >> as you said, the town had been on favorable to the government.
2:16 am
>> yes. >> did you have any conversation after it september 2009? >> i did have a conversation with mr. brown and i think it was in october rather than that night or that week. >> so within a week -- >> know it was a few weeks after. >> why did it take you so long to speak to him? >> it was clear there was nothing more to say at that point can you remember anything about that conversation?
2:17 am
>> i remember it quite clearly. the sun that had run a letter that a mom had written about her son who died in afghanistan. the son had been particularly harsh to him over it. >> he rang me? >> can you remember anything about the conversation? >> it was quite tense. it was a private conversation, but the tone of it was very aggressive. and quite rightly he was hurt by the projection and the headlines that had been put on
2:18 am
the story. also in his defense, he suspected or thought that this might be a way in which the sun might be headed. i assured him it was a mistake and that this was not the way the paper was going to be paid. i had spoken to the editor or that morning very early on when i saw the headline and we had discussed it at length. i heard that the sun coverage was going to be a personal attacks. >> atoms but politicians fear most isn't it?
2:19 am
>> i think the fact that it resulted in such an extraordinarily aggressive conversation between me and mr. brown shows that a disney -- that it does not happen that much. >> a fear of personal attacks has been a factor in what politicians do or don't do. i think that neil may feel that way about the sun, but i am sure that the paper does. i do not think it is concentrated on the personal -- occasionally depending on the story that could happen, we are
2:20 am
concentrated on the issues and the policy of the campaign rather than attacking for the sake of personal attacks. i think he felt that that letter was purely personal attacks. the whole point that we hold politicians to account on occasion has been found to be intrusive, but that is not the policy. i think when a newspaper oversteps the line, i have heard criticism of papers that i have edited and others. privacy is a hugely debated tok -- topic. >> it is also a manifestation of the power that the sun and other newspapers often see the personality of the added tours. the fear is that the politician
2:21 am
the parts from what the paper once there may be a personal attack. >> they are highly motivated and ambitious people i do not think it is fair that they live in fear of power. that would be like saying they are fearful of the leadership or electorate.
2:22 am
it all flows out through the tree that is you and then comes back. the point of me being here is to give the inquiry about how this works.
2:23 am
it is true that there is some leadership issues, but it is not a particular individual that has power, it is the paper. >> in extreme circumstances and history people can stop by over the newspaper. they felt that they should probably take the time to spell the name of a grieving widow correctly. that think that was probably fair. for a lot of newspapers >> when
2:24 am
mr. murdoch related become resistant to mr. brown, i cannot remember when that was that is of some assistance when did mr. murdoch relay that conversation to you. we had a rather angry and intense conversation with mr. brown.
2:25 am
previous to that conversation i had also indirectly had similar threats made. they were hostile comments. >> i feel that the content was a private conversation, but the tone of it was incredibly aggressive and very angry. . you were chief officer of news international, you might have been fearful if mr. brown did win the next election, he had it in his power to harm the influence of your company. do you see that? >> i accept it. -- i do not accept it. i do not think that. at not any.
2:26 am
in the conversation did i think that if mr. brown quincy will go against the commercial interest of this company. >> that may not have flashed through your mind in the conversation, but when you reflected on that that would immediately sprang to your mind. although mr. brown had said those things to mr. murdoch, and although i have heard similar insinuations from other close to mr. brown, there was a tone of threat about it. i just dismissed them i suppose. >> some would say that an elected government has a executive power conferred on it by amendment or buy through parliament into course would be quite in title to bring in media policies which it thought to be in the public interest. would you agree? of course it is proper for the government to debate and introduce policy on the media. of course i agree with that. >> when he told me his conversation, it does not surprise me.
2:27 am
>> what mr. murdoch tell you? >> exactly what he told the 1. >> the conversation, was it was that if she returned to are not? >> i feel that the content probably was private conversation. the town of it was incredibly aggressive. >> you were chief executive officer. the might have been fearful that this is against the odds. he had the interests of your company. do you see that?
2:28 am
>> i do not except it. >> which part? >> that i did not think that. >> that did not cross your radar? >> not at any point in the conversation. i thought if he wins, he will go against a company. >> when he reflected on the conversation, it would immediately spring to mind? >> no. at no stage did you harbor any such fear or concern? >> no. >> although i have heard similar insinuations from
2:29 am
others there was a threat about it. we just dismiss them. >> someone said that an elected government it was by mandate. they're thought to be in the public interest. it did in fact on the commercial impact and media companies. would you agree? >> i am sure that is recorded properly. of course i agree with that.
2:30 am
>> i'm just trying to explore your thinking in 2010. you have mr. brown put on your evidence hostile to news international. you have mr. cameron is that right? he says he is favorable. he is not hostile. >> he is not hostile to the farm. it is how this would weigh in your thinking. this is something you should be thinking about. >> it depends. gordon brown if he accept the premise that he is irresponsible politician that it does not hit personal prejudice before its policy-making decision perrin if
2:31 am
he is not that person anti does fit those things, that is his duty. it's not be about his personal prejudice. he decided to make a change. it did not occur to me that mr. brown and his colleagues would devote their time and carrying this out. >> it might have been part of the settlement for the labor party that the labor party would not intrude for our media policy and harm the interest for international and other organizations. did that play a specific part in your mind? >> no.
2:32 am
>> can i come back to mr. cameron. there is an absence of text messages which might have existed. >> yes that is correct. >> he said that he detected you at certain times up to a dozen times today, is that true? >> no. >> a handful? >> no. >> it is preposterous. i would tax tem on occasion like a lot of people. >> can you give us an idea of
2:33 am
frequency? >> probably more between at january 2010, on average once a week. >> a critical time was the election campaign from may 2010. can you give us an idea of frequency during that time? >> maybe twice a week. >> can you tell us the content of any of these text messages? >> some were from here -- about a social occasion or a personal comment on a tv debate or something like that. >> how often do you think he met with them socially during this period? ignore the record. >> i am ignoring the record but it gives me a sort of refreshed memory. what was the period of time? >> the run up to the 2010 election which was on the sixth
2:34 am
of may. how often would you meet with him or did you meet with him socially? >> i did meet with them between the january 2010 and the election. we would have met about three or four times. >> what comments did you make on his performance in the television debate? >> i think like everybody i felt the first one was not very good. >> did you taxed at the other two party leaders or not?
2:35 am
>> i did not taxed gordon brown, no. >> everybody wants to know how his texts are signed off. >> know. >> he would sign them off "d.c., in the main." occasionally he would sign them off l o l, lots of love.
2:36 am
i told them that means laugh out loud that he stopped signing them like that. >> did you make phone calls to his constituency home? >> no. >> did you often pop around to each other's houses? >> no. we occasionally met in the countryside because i was there every weekend and he was there with his constituency.
2:37 am
>> was there a meeting ahead of which you tested each other to make sure you would not be seen together? >> my husband is chairman, and i think mr. cameron has been there as well. was the question did we meet
2:38 am
their? >> did you tax to each other before hand? >> there have been many meeting points over the years. is there a particular one? >> de remember this or not? >> which date? >> it was in the times on tuesday. it was a suggestion in the times that we did not meet. there was some reason that that was significant. if he did meet with anyone it was my husband. did you attend his private birthday party in october 2010?
2:39 am
>> yes. >> did you have any communication with mr. cameron following the guardian hacking story in the 2011? >> i am sure we discussed it. >> did you discuss the phone hacking allegations against news international would mr. cameron at any time between the july 2009 guardians story and your departure from news international? >> yes i did. >> i wouldn't want you to say anything that bears on the current police investigation.
2:40 am
in general terms, can you assist us as to the conversation? >> not very often, once or twice. because of the news of the phone hacking story, it was a constant that kept coming up. we would bring it up, but in the most general terms, we had a more specific conversation about it in 2010.
2:41 am
and it was what i remember rather than general terms. >> if it is a general conversation then it may relate more to mr. cameron and then at me. >> it was nothing particularly that was from the public, but he was interested in the latest developments about him. i told him the same thing i tell everyone, it was due to the amount of civil cases coming in that in 2010. >> the context must be that he
2:42 am
was concerned that this went be on, is that fair? >> >> yes. it was a general conversation in late 2010 about the increase in the civil cases. >> the inch -- increase of civil cases could only be an indication that this phenomenon was not limited. are we agreed? >> i think it news international has a knowledge that publicly. >> can you help us what what mr. kamen said? >> it was a general discussion about -- he asked me what the
2:43 am
update was. i explained the story behind the news. there was no privilege in permission, it was a general update. >> you are focusing on what you told him. i am concerned with what he might have said. >> i think it was about the civil cases. i responded accordingly. >> in any other instance? >> no. >> we are in the dark about what these compositions were about apart from the general. there were a particularly around the civil cases of 2010.
2:44 am
my answer is we did speak about it, very generally, but in late 2010, we had a more detailed conversation because if you go back in the chronology of the phone hacking situation, that is when civil cases were coming in and being made newsworthy. >> ok. on a different topic, you have been a close friend of elisabeth murdoch for over 10 years. >> longer actually, but yes. >> they have a country house and oxford shire as well, don't they?
2:45 am
>> yes. >> how often have the ban in their country home, your home in the country, or camerons constituency home and the company of other politicians? >> to distill that, how many times have i been in his home with other politicians? >> i am pretty sure i have never bend there. >> the party reaps this.
2:46 am
it is an august 2008. >> it is done prior. >> well done. we can see who was there. they range of politicians. >> no other democrats decks right. i can see the list. if bskybou know as plans?
2:47 am
>> i do not know their hold client must. i am sure they have not represented this on the corporate level. probably. >> and me ask you some general questions. when were you aware of the bid would be made? >> before the public announcement, shortly before the public announcement. before the general election? >> i think it was before. yes. before. i cannot remember when the public announcement was, but i think it was shortly before. >> this was a big moment for news corp. were there not discussions with
2:48 am
either murdoch about the timing of the bid? >> i played no formal role in these transactions. i was made aware that it was on the cards, so to speak. >> they have this on his international as well. they had no news interest in it, why were you there? >> people were interested. at the time, the way it was presented to me i did not think it is going to have an effect on "news international" >> you said you had no formal role. there is no reason why you should. what about informally? in here, as we have been discussing, you are extremely well connected to a very senior
2:49 am
politicians across the range. that is part of your job. wouldn't your review as to how it might work out, how it might play is extreme value and formally, not formally? >> extreme value to news corp? >> to your ultimate boss. >> it was never quite put in those terms. i do have an informal rule. after the formation, if you want to call this, this directly brought "news international" into what was a
2:50 am
news corp reaction. it is in reliance with the daily then telegraph. once they form that alliance and were using their own news outlets, i probably did get involved. not in the deal or the transaction. >> not the deal or the strategy behind it, it is the public presentation, the the way they could be counted. they have been developed for personal reasons.
2:51 am
>> that may be true. in this time, it was a quasi-- judicial decision. i do not think my input was of relevance. i am not sure it was of any value particularly. >> when you first made aware of the code name "rubicon." >> i think i was told about it. i may have heard before but i was told what that was.
2:52 am
>> i am asking one that was. >> maybe a couple of months before. six or eight weeks before. >> someone who enjoys tactical illusions. was it a code name which anyone in government know about?
2:53 am
>> do they know about it? >> and never heard them to acknowledge that name. >> this bid was discussed on any occasion. >> i am pretty sure that it was the birthday party. >> that was the private party. what about december 3, 2010 which we have some evidence about.
2:54 am
>> it is discussed at that dinner. i am aware that it was mentioned. it was mentioned because it was in the news. >> were there 0 indications that he had acted in duty? >> not necessarily. they have always been put to
2:55 am
the. perhaps some personal prejudice that come into that decision. it is quite disappointing. it would bid along those lines. >> how favorable do you think this is? >> i have seen them occasionally. >> even informally, he put out feelers? >> i think he poses something on his web site saying that he was quite favorable before the decision went to him. >> may be in it anyway. not from a direct conversation. >> it is a further occasion when you may have met with him on december 2010.
2:56 am
>> i have been asked about it before. mr. cameron attended a boxing day party at my sister-in-law's. i popped and on the way to another dinner. i do not think i did even speak to him. i would have seen him. not even to have a conversation. >> are you sure it would not have covered bskyb b issue?
2:57 am
>> i do not think it was a conversation. >> i would like to cover some subject matter conversations with politicians. seeking to ignore private in social matters. it is self evident this would increase the issues of the day. is that there?
2:58 am
>> sometimes, yes. >> today also embrace issues such as media policy? >> very rarely. there are some examples when they have met with a politician particularly to discuss that. >> the role of the bbc, was that often the subject? >> not particularly. in general, it wasted money was something we would address. i never really had a conversation. >> how about issues such as self regulation to be pressed? were those ever discuss with politicians? >> probably not enough.
2:59 am
when you ask me the question, i was reflecting on the fact that i could not remember a conversation with a politician where we did discuss bcc. we obviously the last couple of years, it has been the subject. >> the go before the index i think a couple of years is in danger of muddying the waters. i want to speak more generally. can you help us with that? >> i think after the operation, there was this general debate going on in the media in terms of, particularly in 2003 which was pretty much to the end of the use of private detectives in the way they have been for the last decade. i think that was something it would have been discussed with
3:00 am
the politician at the time. i suppose press ethics particularly came up with jack straw. i know that they had spent some time discussing the protection act. i think particularly, of the custodial ones. i remember that being a bit conversation with politicians. i probably only got involved in that quite later on. again, quite late off. so there was some discussion but not a great deal. >> you were friends with mr. blair and mr. blair we know often felt "the daily mail" was hostile to him and his wife. was that something that you discussed with you? >> on occasion, yes. >> quite often, perhaps?
3:01 am
>> not quite often. it was probably more -- would discuss it with me. >> i'm not interested in private discussion but i'm interest in the private -- what was the concern being conveyed to you in this context? >> it wasn't, if you like, press ethics it was the tone. i think she read the letter was concerned that she felt a lot of her coverage was quite, was quite sexist. but she's not the first high profile female to think that about the uk media. that would come up on occasion. and she sometimes felt it was quite cruel and personal about her weight and that it sort of concentrate on those things
3:02 am
rather than in her eyes, her charity and the things she's going to do. but i'm not sure that's what you're asked me because it's not really press ethics. it's really more tone. >> it may be part of the whole picture. we know that mr. blair described the press in 2007. was that a discussion in which he had with you? >> no. although i think that post-iraq i think there was some conversations about the 24 hour media, which i think is what he was referring to, the fact that we the press have become therapy because there's always a constant need for a news story. application of 24 hour news was mentioned in terms of iraq, but not really. i was surprised when he said that.
3:03 am
>> his speech speaks for itself but i think it went further with just a temporal point. certainly 24 hours a day, the way they behave. sometimes they act a bit wild. do you see the analogy? >> i see the analogy. >> he didn't concern any of those -- he didn't have any those concerned with you? >> no. >> dead politicians ever complain to you privately about coverage of "the sun" of them a? >> yes, occasionally. you know, there was, if people, if someone thought it was unfair, i become you asked me a question earlier about how i can learn how you but if i passed information from gordon brown to
3:04 am
tony blair, i think it's something of that, which i said wasn't true, essentially people doing that. but on occasion they would complain. tony blair would often complain about attitude to europe and him on europe, regularly. many, many home secretaries would regularly compaign -- complaint about campaigns that we are doing in the paper, so yes, they did. i think our role was that i think i was correct because our role was those issues. >> further general questions, see if we can analyze the power play which we may or may not be an issue here. him you were very close to
3:05 am
mr. rupert murdoch's? >> i was close to them, yes. [inaudible] >> yes. >> would you also agree that politicians, for whatever reason, wanted to get close to mr. murdoch to advance their own interests, are we agreed to? >> i think that a lot of politicians wanted to put their case to mr. murdoch, advance their own interests is probably, i'm sure that most politicians have a higher view for what they were doing. >> we are not suggesting this is solely selfish, but i think we can agree more or less where we are. but this may be the more important point. in order to get close to mr. murdoch, in practice had to get close to you. would you agree with that? >> no. >> why not? >> because it is not true. >> would you agree that politicians might see that you
3:06 am
at influence over mr. murdoch? >> no, i don't, i sorely don't think that, no. i think a day, i was an editor of a newspaper, a very large circulation newspaper with a wide readership, with an exceptional censorship placing voters but and i do believe that, like other editors in similar situations, politicians did want to get access to the editor of "the sun" and his or her team as much as possible. but i don't think that people ever thought to get to mr. murdoch they had to go through me. i don't think that is correct. >> let's see if we can break that down. politicians certainly wanted to get close to you, to have access to you, didn't they? >> yes. >> and you were someone who mr. murdoch trusted implicitly, weren't you?
3:07 am
>> yes. i hope so. >> that was well understood by any politician who cared to look, wouldn't you agree? >> well, i think they thought we had a close working relationship, yes. >> didn't you ever examine the motives or thought processes of politicians, why they were wanting to get close to you? just even as self-indulgence, well, what's going on here, why are they trying to get close to me? >> well, i think, i think i always examined the ulterior motives of politicians. but i thought it was pretty obvious that they wanted to get, i don't know a politician that would turn down a meeting with a senior journalists from any broadcast or any newspaper. so it wasn't, it didn't need a lot of thinking that politicians
3:08 am
wanted to get access to journalists. i mean, that's been the same case for decades, as you, as you pointed out in your opening statement in this module. >> you were in possession of the megaphone which would be facility to them, in which they have access to, logically and self-evidently, might have influence over your readership. that's the truth, is in its? >> i think politicians were very keen to put their case to me and my team at "the sun" because of the large readership of "the sun." >> did you regard it as part of your role for, perhaps it was accidental byproduct of your role, to build up friendships with politicians? >> well, i think some
3:09 am
friendships did occur, but i think it's important to put it in the context of friendships. i mean, we all have lots of different friendships, old friends, new friends, work colleagues, associates. and you know, through the decade that i was a national newspaper editor and the years i was ceo, and a 10 years i was a journalist, some friendships were made. i don't think i ever forgot i was a journalist but i don't think they forgot they were a politician. >> did you not understand that you did have a degree of personal power over politicians? >> no. again, i just didn't see it like that. i saw my role as editor of "the sun" as a very responsible one, and i enjoyed my job, and every
3:10 am
part of that job, but particularly as i said an eyewitness statements, i enjoyed campaigns and i enjoyed, you know, bridging a gap between public opinion and public policy, taking on concerns of the readers. so i don't except in the power terms that you keep describing it as. >> your real interest is people, isn't it, mrs. brooks? you understand how human beings think and feel, don't you? >> i do like people, yes. as a journalist, do try to be empathetic otherwise no one would tell them anything. >> you understand the potential, i can put it in this way, personal outcome, how you can get people to do, might get people to do what you want, and what they're trying to do for you, don't you get any of that? >> i'm not sure quite what you
3:11 am
mean. >> there's nothing anything sinister. i'm talking about really the power of human empathy. some people are empathetic. it's not lost on you, is it? >> well, i hope, i hope to be empathetic in life to people, yes. >> i just wonder whether you sense, or sensed, we're talking about the past and now, how, the effect you might have had on politicians, some have made have even been afraid of you, is that true? >> i, i literally, like i said, i don't see politicians as the sort of easily scared people, because most of them are pretty strong, ambitious and highly motivated. so. >> let's see if we can just take one case study and see whether
3:12 am
there's any validity in that case study. you remember the they can sterilization case of? >> yes. spent which actually got doctor mccanns evidence at page 57. do you have that there? and if you look at page 57, line 11, question i asked was you talk about the meeting with rebekah brooks. are you on the right page of? >> they are not numbered in that way. >> they are actually. 15 at the bottom to each page has -- >> right. i've got it. thank you, sir.
3:13 am
>> question was, you talked about the meeting with rebekah brooks which led to her view of your case, a formal review. just assistance quickly with it. can you recall when that was? i think is probably just elaborate a little bit. [inaudible] news international actually bid for the rights of the book along with a colleague. they would materialize the book. he was somewhat horrified at the prospect of that given what we been treated in the past. [inaudible] we were subsequently afraid by news international and associated to do is the book, and after much deliberation we had a couple of meetings. [inaudible] so pausing there, there's going to be sterilization in both the
3:14 am
sunday times and "the sun," i believe, do you recall that? >> id. spent a chance -- i do. >> your chief executive officer? >> that's correct. >> the price you paid for the sterilization, do you remember it? >> i can't remember actually. hundreds of thousands of pounds. >> a million we have been told. >> no, it wasn't a million. have a million maybe. i can't, i can't remember. i may, i can -- have to wait to find out but i'm not sure. >> to paraphrase the rest of what dr. mccann's said, was that your intervention was successful in securing a review
3:15 am
of the case. do you understand that? >> you asked if it was successful and he said it was. >> do member anything about that intervention? >> actually just go by, the reason i was involved as chief executive was because it concerned to newspapers, the sunday times and "the sun." if you like, i did the deal with harpercollins from a corporate point of view. and then left it to the two editors, to decide the different approaches. i had always gotten along very well with dr. mccann and kate mccann threw out there and credible dramatic time. and, in fact, i think day, if asked would be very positive about "the sun" actually. and in this case i thought the
3:16 am
idea to run the campaign, again, the review of madeline's case was the right thing for "the sun" to do, and i think the sunday times did the book. so my extension at the point was the original discussion with dr. mccann. i don't think i spoke to theresa may directly, but i'm pretty sure dominik may have done. >> let's see whether we can agree or disagree of what might happen. we were discussing the arrangements with the mccanns, you asked if there's anything more they wanted, do you recall that? >> maybe, yes. >> dr. mccann said he wanted a uk review of the people?
3:17 am
do you remember that? >> i do. >> was that all? [inaudible] >> maybe, yes. >> we have been going to a list of issues that dr. mccann and kate mccann wanted to be sure before we went forward with the sterilization. >> did you then take the matter up with downing street direct? >> no. >> did you not tell downing street that the sum is going to demand review that the prime minister should agree to the request and that sun has supported him in the last election? >> no. in fact, i didn't speak to downing street or the home secretary about this but i know dominic or tom will have spoken to them.
3:18 am
they would have spoken directly either to number 10 or the home office. i'm not sure. probably the home office. >> this unwanted and immediate result and a lesser would be posted all over the front page from the mccanns to the prime minister asking, unless downing street a great comedy not have an? >> i think that's how "the sun" had the campaign. there was a letter, yes. >> the home secretary was told that if she agreed to review, at page one letter would not run. do you remember that? >> no, i don't. >> the secretary of state did not respond in time. you did publish the letter on the front page. do you remember that?
3:19 am
>> i do remember "the sun" kicking off the campaign with a letter, yes. >> you don't believe there was any conversation or indeed threat to the secretary of state, is that right to? >> i'm pretty sure they would have not been a threat. you would have, we'll have to ask dominique, because as i said my involvement was to discuss the campaign in the continued search for madeleine with the mccanns, and to do the deal on the book, and, because i had done so many campaigns in the past they wanted my opinion but after that i'd left it to both editors to execute the campaign. >> what i've been told is that you then intervene personally, mrs. brooks. you told number 10 that unless the prime minister ordered the review by metropolitan police, "the sun" would put theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were
3:20 am
met. is that true or not? >> no. >> is any part of that drew? >> i didn't speak to number 10, or the home office about the mccanns, and telling think after the campaign had been one. in a can of any conversation as i had, and i don't think directly to prime minister. i think it was one of his teams. >> we can find out in due course whether this is true or not, but i must repeat it to you. you just said you directly intervened with the prime minister and warned him that unless it was a review by the metropolitan police "the sun" will put their home secretary theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> i did not say to the prime minister i will put theresa may on the front page of "the sun" every day unless you give me --
3:21 am
i did not said the. invite any conversations with number 10 directly, they would have been particularly about that but they would've been if i'd been having a conversation "the sun" was leading a major campaign with a very strong letter on page one to start the campaign, and anyone who need me would have talked to me, any politician would have talked to me about it. but i did not say that. i don't think i said that. >> could we ask of this? were you part of a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on the government with this sort of implied or expressed threat? >> i was certainly part of a strategy to launch the campaign in order to get the review for the mccanns, yes, but i think
3:22 am
there were threats, is too strong. >> well, give me another word then for threat, could you? >> persuade. >> persuasion, all right. >> in your own words, mrs. brooks, define for us what the strategy was. >> so, the mccanns were deeply upset that there hadn't been a review. it seemed incredibly unfair that they hadn't gotten it this review. you only have to read their book to understand that. so we said we would join forces with you. and dominic mohan and his team went away and i can our member when the id of the letter came a. it may have been my idea to do the letter, i get my member. but the campaign was launched in order to try to convince the government or convince the home secretary that every he would be
3:23 am
the right thing to do. >> do you know how i can about that the review was ordered? >> no, i, government. sorry, such a lot has happened since then. [inaudible] spirit i remember dominic mohan telling me the review was going ahead. action i think he said the mccanns have one. >> "the sun" headline on the 14th of may front page was result of the campaign, prime minister was quote opening the files, do remember that when? >> i remember "the sun," the mccanns winning a campaign, yes. >> so this is not as you say a case study in the exercise of power by you. i'm not suggesting that the end result was right or wrong. many would say it was right. there should be a review.
3:24 am
i'm just saying the means by which you achieve the objective. >> but it could be said that a review of madeleine mccann's case, with everything that has gone on, was the right thing to do. we presented the issue, we supported the mccanns in their determination to get a review. it wasn't new. they tried before, before the election, and the election had come into -- and "the sun," and home secretary clearly thought it was a good idea, too. because i'm pretty sure there wasn't, it wasn't a long campaign. it wasn't 10 years. i think it was quite short. >> yes, it didn't take very long because government yielded to sure pressure, didn't they? >> perhaps they were convinced by our argument. >> there are always two sides to the coin. of course anybody would say on one level money should be spent,
3:25 am
but the campaign to date on told has cost 2 million pounds. and some would say well, maybe that money i have come somewhere else. >> the madeleine campaign? >> called operation great, i understand. >> right. >> perhaps you did all you are doing was professing the views of your readers. >> is that it? >> in that case it was an issue that we explain to the reader's, that a review hadn't taken place, and that we presented the mccanns story, as in the reason why they wanted the review. i think that absolute child with a readership. the campaign was started with a very heartfelt lesson. and the politicians were convinced our argument, or the mccanns argument was correct.
3:26 am
>> there was a giant commercial interest to your paper because this sells copies, doesn't it? >> campaigns can sell newspapers. i think the sterilization of the book actually was good for circulation for the sunday times. i'm not sure how well the campaign was in circulation but that would be a matter of record. it may have been. [inaudible] at one point the shadow home secretary, wasn't he? >> yes, he was. >> do you remember a conversation with him over dinner in which you discuss the human rights act of? >> i do. >> and to cut to the quick, his position was in favor of the action come your position was not, is that correct?
3:27 am
>> i don't think that's quite right. similarly his position was that it was a shadow cabinet dinner. and his position was that david cameron's promise, partially say the tories party promised to repeal and replace it with a british bill of rights i think was the plan at the time, was not, should not be so easily promised. and so it wasn't that he was pro-or against the. he was just making a legal point that it was her difficult to do. >> were you impressed with him after that conversation speak parks well, as it turned out, he was absolutely right, but at the time it was more his colleagues
3:28 am
around the table because they may, i think they put out policy announcement that it was going to be in the manifesto. david cameron had written for "the sun" explaining this. and so the dinner conversation was quite heated, as he was the only one at the table saying actually, i might have been standing up to his challenge, colleagues like that, and at the end he turned out to be correct. >> didn't you tell mr. cameron after that conversation you had with mr. grieve, you can have someone like that as home secretary, he won't appeal to our readers either, and that's indeed what happened? >> no, i did not tell mr. cameron. what the camera dash it was a conversation, as i said, was a very heated conversation, or not by his colleagues were trying to almost silence him at the table because he was in effect saying
3:29 am
one of the promises the conservatives have made to the electorate was never going to repeal, and he was almost the opposite way around, that they were concerned that his view was not to be taken seriously. and as it turned out he was entirely correct. .. >> absolutely not their view, and they were going to repeal the hra and replace it with a
3:30 am
patient's bill of rights. and mr. green was mistaken. >> just before we break, could i take you back to this issue that we've bounced around several times which is who is leading who. do you think that at least in part what you were, in fact, doing to use your own words was bringing issues to your readers as opposed maybe to responding to your readers' interests? >> i think that's correct, yes. >> and i'm sure we'll come back to it this afternoon, but i would like you, your view which
3:31 am
you can reflect upon which is this. you're, obviously, everyone's entitled to be a friend of whomsoever they want to be a friend. that's part of life. but can you understand why it might be a matter of public concern that a very close relationship between journalists and politicians might create subtle pressures on the press who have the megaphone and on the politicians who have the policy decisions? >> yes, i can understand that. >> all right. um, 2:00. >> all rise. [background sounds]
3:32 am
and politicians. >> do you recall occasion at the time the labour party brighton in september 2004 when chris brown mp had been speaking at a meeting and argued that rupert murdoch should not be allowed -- do you recall that? >> i don't, i'm afraid. i'm sorry. what data was it? >> 2004. as he arrived at the news international reception, you approached mr. blair. do recall that? >> i think i know what anecdote you're referring to. >> it's not an anecdote. and a witness statement ve seen, you said mr. brown,
3:33 am
shouldn't you be out of comment by now, or something like it. did you say that? >> i don't wind up saying that, no. >> do you remember what your husband said? >> i remember what mr. bright said my husband said. >> he was extremely rude, wasn't he? >> mr. bright? >> no, your husband. >> i don't think h said that. >> mr. watzman, you had him for mr. watzman. mr. watzman would say, or will say, following his, mr. watson, resignation in 2006, is a veteran? >> that that's what mr. watson which they? >> no. but there's underlying truth to it. and you have come you have encouraged "the sun" to write adverse maternal about him, is a
3:34 am
veteran? >> no, i -- story. "the sun" has covered and has written adverse things about mr. watson. i think mr. watson is referring an incident, and i can't remember, i think 2006, when he galvanized troops as backbench rebellions in order to form mr. blair to resign. it was a situation where the night before mr. watson publish the letter in which mr. bryant was on all slightly, calng for tony blair to step down. he had driven halfway across scotland to see mr. brown. and when the newspapers confronted mr. watson answered you clearly tell mr.brown to me famously said no, i was just a living a comments that take dvd. and i think the subsequent coverage, not just in "the sun" but the times and lots of newspapers very quickly of mr. watzman i think that's where
3:35 am
it are regions from. >> did you ask another sun journalist to write stories about mr. watson that the new were completely untrue? >> no. >> did you tell others the political editor of the bbc, in august 2011, or rather did you speak to him at the labour party conference in 2009, along the lines what am i goig to get about tom watson? >> i may have done, yes, but i can't remove are saying that exactly. >> do you feel that you might have used "the sun" as an unfair means of disparaging politicians you did not particularly like? >> no. i don't actually.
3:36 am
>> now, go back to the bskyb issue, and paragraphs 90-92 of her witness statement please, mrs. brooks. >> yes. >> paragraph 90, you say in the fourth line, third lne, many people sought to weigh the issue with me. and i became involved in defending the bid to them. so you're suggesting there you are adopting a defensive position, is that right? >> well, i see lots of people at that time as well. so not necessarily, just politicians. the fact is it was a common misconception, and often reported that news international was trying to buy the remainder
3:37 am
of bskyb rather than news corp. and that subtle distinction therefore because was in the uk territory was perhaps understandably got confused. and so yes, there were occasions when i defended the did. >> you do also in paragraph 90, the next page, when the conversation, i'sure as i would expect my views forcibly, particularly given the opposition, it might be said that stronger in your eyes the more strong you need to be. would you agree? >> i think, i think the anti-sky did alliance, so many dierent members of all of the meat at all other rivals of sky, and that day, i kn were seeing politicians and i think dr. cable have a dinner with them early on in 2010. so i think yes, i did. when i met eva, if i had the chance to put ourside of the
3:38 am
story, so to speak, i would. >> and those people included mr. cameron and mr. osborne, didn't they? >> not mr. cameron. i had a conversation with mr. on four. i've may have mentioned it to mr. cameron but it's not to be dwelt on because it wasn't a particularly long conversation but i did have a conversation with mr. osborne about it i think sometime in 2010. where i put my views, country -- contrary to the once feared from everyone else. >> comeback to the in a short time. paragraph 92 of her statement, you say with regard to this just in i had discussions with those with david cameron and george osborne, i'm sure i did refer to the issue generally. is that statement relevant to both mr. camero and mr. osborne? >> yes, but general discussion
3:39 am
in terms, always in relation to usually in relation to something i'd heard that the anti-sky bid had put forward. but i remember better conversation with george osborne sometime in 2010, but obviously as discussed, and the bskyb he did was mention at the dinner at our home in december but i don't them having a particularly forceful conversation with mr. cameron about it. although our views on the bskyb bid, news corp you and news international views or my views were pretty -- [inaudible] >> where they shared by mr. cameron? >> mr. cameron always made it very clear that it was, or it was agreeing light judicia decision and it wasn't him and it was not up to them. he i think have been lobbied by lots of other people. so i would say no, it wasn't
3:40 am
particularly sheer. he was always very evenhanded about it. >> wasr. cameron supportive of the bskyb to your knowledge? >> not particularly, no. i think it would be fair to say that he understood why we wanted to present our position in relation to the other lobbying he was getting. >> was mr. osborne supporte of the bskyb bid to? >> he never said so. he never said explicitly that. however, i think one of the points that we, or we are trying to make about the bid was if, if that kind of level of investment was coming into the uk, tha contrary to the anti-sky bid line for saying that it would be, it would be a bad thing, that actually we thought into call centers around the country, the creation of jobs, that we were tred to put this argument to mr. osborne. but again, they would all say the same thing, it's not my
3:41 am
decision. >> think my question was only was he supportive of the bid to? >> as i said, he never explicitly said so. >> could you confirm whether he was supportive or not? >> no. he was interested in our argument. i think that's probably his best. >> we are aware of the role of fred michel in relation to the big? >> well, i was aware at the time but not to the extent tht i have not seen but i was aware, yes. >> so when you say to the extent that you now see, are you referring to the e-mails of? >> yes, but i had realize there were that many e-mails. >> when did you read thoe e-mails of? >> i actually still haven't read them all. >> you saw some? >> i saw some during the evidence given by james murdoch. >> and when they were drawn to our attentn that way, did it surprise you in any way?
3:42 am
>> will i think the truth is at the time, at the time the bskyb bid, i suppose, like most journalists i viewed public affairs and obvious with quite skepticism a often thought that mr. micl's perhaps overextended position. however, he was doing his job. you know, he was passing on information as lobbyists do. >> how do you know he was overrating his position of? >> i supposeecause as journalists we would have quite direct contact with ministers and prime ministers, you know, in the course of our work. but i always thought it was slightly strange that he had that level. not quite strange. that's not fair.
3:43 am
the level that came out was pretty good really. >> a couple of documents, 163 e-mails, picture you, only a couple. krm-18. have one of them under tab 17 in the bundle. we can probably put it up on the screen. i'm not sure if would be available to anybody else. in the file, 101,657, you may have it as a separate piece of paper. let us know. >> i do, thank you. >> it relates to the 12th of october 2010, and you were copied in an e-mail from a
3:44 am
mr. michel. are you with me? mr. anderson, we heard what mr. james murdoch explain who he . can you remind me? >> fred michel is publicffairs for news corp europe and asia, and matthew anderson is corporate communicate should for news corp. >> the general gist of this e-mail is, the bid is still with dr. cable. this is before the 21st of december, it's necessary to keep briefings and key cabinet ministers. why do you think you were copied on this e-mail? >> i'm not sure because i wasn't copied on many of them. so i don't know. there would be regular meetings between the news corp people who
3:45 am
were in charge of the bid, and occasionally maybe i was in that meeting. i don't know why i was copied on this particularly. >> reference to the next one, which is samefile, t. r. o. p-10 thousand 16 at -- >> hang on. just before it -- sorry, which? 1679? >> yes. >> that wererobably the only one you have in that file spent all three e-mails speak to i found an earlier one. the most relevant one is 1679 which you will have on tap 17. >> yes. the one that starts very good? >> that's right. it's stated the 14th of december 2010. it's sent from a mr. michel to mr. james murdoch, and your copied and. are you with me? >> yes im.
3:46 am
>> this was the ofcom issues letter. is in its? >> you have got the chronology. i accept that, yes. >> you scan the page, three minutes later you replied to mr. michel, don't you? [inaudible] now, the reason why you're able to replace it quickly is because i think a dinner with mr. osborne the night before, hadn't you? >> that's correct. >> so you discuss the issues of the lead of the night before? >> i must have done so, yes. >> and the reference to gao is not including a special adviser. it's g. oh, personally, is in its? >> yes. >> why were you discussing this letter with mr. osborne at all? >> you are timing out the time of the issue of these letters likes it that. my memory from t dinner was that it was with my husband and
3:47 am
i, mrosborne and his wife, mr. lewis and his wife. so it was the six of us. it was in a restaurant, more of a social occasion. but like i said in my witness statement, i probably brout it up but i can't remember, but they would have been part of the dinner i would have discussed our frustration perhaps with him at the time of what was going on. so i don't know whether i brought it up for church, but we did discuss at the dinner. not any great links because -- >> the part of the detail, was in an ofcom letter, you would agree with me? >> that would have been, i mean, that would have been my stance on it because i probably wasn't all over the complexities of an ofcom issues letter. as chief executive news international. i mean, literally my main focus,
3:48 am
my main involvement in the bskyb did -- the bskyb bid if you like, nothg to do with the transaction but generally in response to the huge amount of opposition and lobbying that was going on by the anti-sky of li life. >> was the dinner must have a compass, this was a discussion about the issues letter because the e-mail makes that clear, would you agree? >> i a tree with you. that's exactly what the e-mail says, but i don't remember detailed conversation at a social dinner about the complexities of an issue such as ofcom. so it may have been precisely three minutes of me saying, can you believe that that has happened? and george osborne looking perplexed and the respond to fred michel the next day. it was a very brief conversation but it did happen. >> it didn't happen but it's not mr. osborne looking slightly
3:49 am
perplexed that he is totally baffled according to you. >> totally baffled in my conversation with them. >> the conversation must've been initiated by you, mrs. brooks. you usually don't hold back on occasions, do you? >> i just got number i brought it up or not, that's all. [inaudible] >> let's say i brought it up then. >> we don't want you to guess. >> i have been told to just spend i promise you, you're not been forced to guess. >> well, i can't remember who brought it up but am happy for arguments sake to accept that i did. but i'm not sure that's the case. >> do you think as an appropriate conversation with mr. osborne? >> i think, i think it was an entirely appropriate conversation. i was reflecting the opposite view to the view that the asserted by that stage rom etty much every memr of the
3:50 am
anti-sky data lines on many occasions. so i think, for one, threminute conversation beginning of dinner i got the opportunity to get our view. i don't see why that's inappropriate. >> you might be asked to assist us who initiated it? >> i'm accepting for the sake of argument that i brought it up. i just can't remember if tt's absolutel. it's obvious from your one line e-mail that we know what mr. osborne's thinking is about more generally, don't we? >> well, i obviously remembered from the conversation, which i can exactly how long it took, but from the limited conversation that we had the night before that he was baffled at the response. as what i see. i'm agreeing with you on the e-mail. >> yes, but it's also obvious that he was supportive of your bid, wasn't he? >> no. bafflement, or he was complexed
3:51 am
at whatever, you're telling me with issues. i'm fine. he was baffled at the response speed hold on. paragraph 92 of your statement proceeds on that premise. >> the isues letter? >> yes. >> he was baffled at the response itself. i'm not sure what the question is, mr. jay. >> this stage of course, mrs. brooks, you knew everybody in the cabin and his coalition stood in relaion with the bid, did you? >> no, i did't i particularly didn't know mr. cable's view, personal view. >> you do not any suspicion at all as to what his view was? >> no. in fact, i ask him to mr. cable would carry out that responsibility as any minister would. properly without personal
3:52 am
prejudice. >> by the time you had read the e-mail the first in the chain, if not before, you were well aware what mr. himes you was, the merits of the bskyb bid, n't you? >> i don't remember hearing that, hearing anything from mr. hunt directly on the bid, particularly. but i have a recollection that he put something on his orksite. i think came up in this inquiry. that he put something positive on his website, was in its? >> did you have cnversations with mr. james and mr. rupert murdoch about how the bid was getting on and he wasn't supporting its? >> i think, if my conversations with mr. james murdoch and mr. rupert murdoch about the bid
3:53 am
were in essence probably discussing the latest move of the anti-sky alliance, sadr member havinto call mr. james murdoch wendy anti-sky alliance commissioned a poll to the pr agency they hired, i believe weber shandwick. and they discover that 80% of people didn want us to buy the rest of sky shares. so i would probably update because the anti-sky alliance of courses working in the uk territory. so there would be occasions when i would update rupert or james murdoch him and/or internal meetings that went on inside news international that occasionally i would attend, too. >> news corp, news international regarded it important to lobby government generally in relation to the bid, aren't we agreed? >> i don't think that was the
3:54 am
strategy. i think, i think it was a response. >> regardless of what originated it, it's what happened in the income isn't? >> certainly from what wee seen from fred michel's e-mail, there was a lot of lobbying went on from our site, yes. >> you could assist the murdochs to this extent that you knew the persons involved, at least as well as income and you cou advise them in relation to mr. osborne, mr. cameron, mr. hunt, in a way -- [inaudible] isn't that what you brought to the table here? >> no, i don't think the. first of all, the strategy behind the bid was set by news corp, and i've nothing to do with that. and had again no formal role. and secondly this was a quasi-judicial decision, which is nothing to do with rsonalities, the preferences of particular, of the prime minister or the chancellor of
3:55 am
the exchequer in this case, or mr. hunt before he took over for dr. cable. >> you weren't so naïve, were you, to believe that quasi-judicial decision be carried out necessarily, you would naturally fear that it might intrude, you knethat, didn't you? >> no, actually. maybe it was naïve of me to think, you know, the procedure would be dealt with properly, but i did believe that. i had no reason not to until dr. cable's comments came out in the summer. >> okay. but we do have one e-mail, don't we, which you have, you have found. it's rem be two, you kindly disclose this to us. yes, this e-mail, tap number for? >> it is under tab for. before we look at it, i think
3:56 am
people would be interested to know how it is that this one e-mail have survived and others might not have done. can you assist its? >> welcome in the period, beginning june and july 17, when my blackberryas damaged, there were certain e-mails on their and some text messages, and for purposes of section 21 notice of this inquiry, my legal team went through all those, and inert to disclose anything that fell into the inquiry. and this was the only e-mail that i had in that period that was relevant to the bskyb questions i've been asked in my witness statement. >> would have to look at in this order. page 02606 will will be the first page of this document.
3:57 am
you can see at 1629 hours, on the 27th of june 2011, are you with me? >> im. >> frederick michel, send an e-mail. it goes to just do i think, although it's not altogethe clear. is that your understanding? >> i would be surprised if it just came to me. as you saw from the previous enough, there always copied to the sae group of people. but perhaps it was directly getting. >> the text of the e-mail is on the next page, which is zero to 607. hunt will be making references to phone hacking in a statement later this week. you would meeting -- [inaudible] this is his belief. phone hacking has nothing to do with the media plurality issue. if something has gone wrong with -- >>hat's corruption, i think.
3:58 am
>> you are being told whilst the secretary of state is going to be saying in his rubicon statement, code-named, in a statement department. is that it's? >> yes. >> that speaks to its appeared on the issue of the privacy committee supports the widening, the future of the press and more newspaper groups of the regulatory regime that he wants to prevent the public inquiry. further the committee wanted to come up with a -- put enough pressure on the pcc to strengthen itself in terms of recommendations forward. was anof this news to you, mrs. brooks? >> yes, i think it was. >> was it a bit surprising to you? >> i think, i think it was, it was news to me and, therefore, could be surprising, yes.
3:59 am
>> the next paragraph, looking in phone hacking practices more thoroughly, and has asked me, the pronoun me is mr. michel, to advise him privately in the coming weeks and guide s and number 10 is positioning. do you know what i was about? >> well, i think, i think it speaks for itself. >> does that surprise you? >> well, at the time, the date of this e-mail, i think is -- >> the 27th of june. >> the 27th of june, and at the time of news international it was a particularly, i have a lot of my own concerns. we just handed over the lewis file to mps because probably my focus more than anything else. i augus have his e-mail and a million others. i read it at the time.
4:00 am
and i responded i think to find it when the rubicon statement was. so i think the e-mail and response speaks for themselves really. >> well, your response was 1720 hours, we have to go back to the previous page, when the rubicon statement, and answer came back, probably wednesday. can you assist us further from your memory as to mr. michel's feelings with mr. hunt at this time? >> probably not any further than the evidence that james murdoch gave really. i mean, fred michel worked for news corp., and not news international so we didn't work for me. so my interactions with him were
4:01 am
not as frequent. so i'm not sure i can add anything particularly. i know fred michel's own statement was that sometimes he overstated his cae, for all i know this could be directly from jeremy hunt or as he said, number 10. so i just don't know. >> you say in paragraph 28 understatement, talking generally of your time as ceo of news international, that your time was previously occupied with the phone hacking issue. you members saying that? >> i do remember. >> content what am i going now? >> page 28 of yourstatement. i'm concerned with the detail of
4:02 am
your investigation, or your knowledge, mrs. brooks. were relations between murdoch, father and son, increasingly cold as this issue dvelop? >> i don't think is between father and son. i mean, the situation was false. >> you'd is descrid in one article, "vanity fair" this time, being the go between in an increasingly -- father-son relationship. is that you? >> "vanity fair" spent a lot of time covering the murdoch family dynamics. and they're just like any normal family. they'd have dynamics and to change. i wouldn't put any thing by anity fair" spent maybe one should. listen to the question. were you the go between in a father and son relationship? >> no, they can speak to each
4:03 am
other. >> i didn't hear that? >> no, they could be very happy to speak to each other. >> it was also just tested that james was passing blame onto his supporters buts that what was happening? >> no. >> he wasn't? >> what's the context of the "vanity fair" piece? >> you've seen the piece. it alleges that you are now under pressure to please a protect not only rupert but also james. bova taken the decision they have no idea what's going on inside the company, and a particularly james passing blame onto subordinates. is that's what was happening? >> no. >> so you can't shed any light on the truth or otherwise as to what can you are shedding light. >> it'saying that i was the go between between father and son and increasinglyfraught. the situation i think -- >> relationship.
4:04 am
>> so what i'm saying to you is that i reported both to james and rupert murdoch, and i talked to them both about the issues unfolding at news international. james and i had offices next door to each other. i have been talking to mr. murdoch everyday. so if "vanity fair" wants to characterize that as a go between, then fine, but i don't accept the premise of what they are insinuating. and secondly, the "vanity fair" piece, whenever it came out, anything that james tried to start to pass the blame onto subordinates and i'm not sure, if that "vanity fair" piece, is referring to james murdoch's testimony at the select committee or his testimony hee. i just don't even knowhen the "vanity fair" piece ran. so it's difficult for me to answer the question without some context. >> can ask about -- can i ask about the police and your meetings about senior police
4:05 am
officers? >> yes. >> rmb one again. the schedule you prepared. the back of it, i think. you kindly provided a schedule of meetings with senior officers with the metropolitan police. >> yes. >> the second page of that, it appears that you did not engage with john gates, assistant commissioner, after december 2006. is that to the best of your recollection correct a? >> i -- i -- i don't think that's correct. i think i did meet him. but i, i me, we hoped, we hoped to show we hosted the police
4:06 am
break the awards every year for start and i was always in attendance, and so, i'm sure that he would've been there. so i just, i really do not think the diary entries are a full picture. >> is likely to be a difference between a large function where you might bump into people, any conversation might be smashed, and dinner a wrestler, maybe only a few of you, conversation might be -- >> no, i did, i do remember having a meeting with john yates, a lunch, aroundi think about the time that cash for honor. >> we are back in 2005? >> right. again, this diary may be corrected in. i didn't see much of john yates spent are you able to say whether that you discuss phone hacking issues within?
4:07 am
>> because i don't remember one meeting, i'm pretty sure though i attended the police bravery a ward right up until to if you can imagine, until 2011. and he was, he was always there. and the kerry member when "the guardian," "the guardian" broke the story in july 2009, and it was a police bravery award, it is usually in july. so i don't want to absolutely rule out the fact that i may have mentioned it to him because he was often around, but i don't remember, sit down conversation where we discussed it at any light. >> so you're admitting of the possibility that -- >> i'm saying that it might quite probably have happened if the sequences of events, if my mery serves me well, and those are the sequence of events that "the guardian" story broke out in july 2009, but i can't member
4:08 am
what date, and the police bravery awards were afterwards but it could've been he other way around. >> "the guardian" story was the fifth or six, wasn't it? the eighth. the meetings with r. -- more frequent. what with the purpose of those meetings in your own words that? >> what they would often be attended come usually he would accompany a commissioner, on a particular senior officer, or if he came in on his own, it would be to discuss things with me and my crime editor and senior team, and it could be a variety of issues. there was also, although is n annual event, if you like, a well-oiled machine, it was always quite a lot of organizations for the police bravery awards. the process continued for many months -- soda, started many months before, and he would've been involved, as i would.
4:09 am
but mainly the issues of the day or introducing a new commission are coming along with an update for the commission. >> did you ever obtain information from him which forms the basis of a story in "the sun"? >> no. >> did he put you in contact with police officers who could provide the basis and to provide the basis of a toried? >> i think, i think most crime journalists would come in a, i was a crime journalist or a crime editor but i think the process was we would awfully bring him if we had a story, that we've got from our in sources that involved the metropolitan police. and he was in a position to steer us away from it or give us a comment if we got it right so there was, there was a come if you like, exchange of information, but it can and will you put it sounded like he had
4:10 am
come into me anything and give me stories. sadly, no. >> mr. wallis of course was an employee of news international into dashed and till 2009 but were you aware of his relationship to? >> no. on insofar as i never worked directly with mr. wallis. but when i took over his position as deputy editor of "the sun" in 1998, i think assume his responsibilities in only come if you like, the police bravery awards. so i was aware that he had started those in the previous year. >> okay. one general question about the nature, this has to be a very general question. in terms of, the nature, the hospital you are offering, i'm talking about lunches, dinners,
4:11 am
did you regard poce officers the same way as politicians go so in other words, it was appropriate to take them to a restaurant of a steward and dust of a certain stature or difference? >> there were definite distinctions between the two. i think it would be fair to say that senior policeofficers were more inclined to want to go to a neutral venueike a restaurant, whereas a lot of meetings with politicians took pace either in hq are at party conferences, or at downing street or various ministries. so that was in my exerience. >> the inquiry has very little interest in the police force going to understand, that's the
4:12 am
summer 2010. but i should ask you this question, even though we don't care about it. was there any exchange as it were between the work experience of his son, which is also in 2007 an acquisition by you? >> absolute not. >> move on to a different issue now. spent are you moving away from police officers to? >> yes. >> there's a balancer as well, isn't there, -- a balance here as well, isn't there, on the one hand they need to keep an eye on the stories that are coming out, but on the other, a professional distance. do you think there is a risk of there? >> well, i think, i think it's
4:13 am
always up to individual conduct in these maters, and so i felt that the contact i had with police officers, and particularly commissioners and senior police officers, in that kind of context was always appropriate. i never saw any, any of my dealings with police. i never saw any inappropriate, either conversations or -- take place. so my experience of it was relatively good. and particularly at the police bravery a ward and we would come, "the sun" shows and that he would come in contact with police officers not just the metropolitan police but from all over the country. and i always thoug they were very useful for us for both sides, rather than inappropriate. but there is always a risk that
4:14 am
that is not the case. >> mr. gordon brown cystic fiosis story, i think he did have some involvement in that, didn't you? >> guess i didn't. >> the peace in "the sun" is under tab 29. it's part of the narrative, as it were. this is an article in 2006. i believe. "the sun" today exposes the allegation tha we hacked into gordon brown's family medical records is false and a snippet we discovered the four year old
4:15 am
son fraser had cystic fibrosis months after his birth. we can reveal the source of our information was a shattered dad whose own on also had a crippling disease and he wated to higight it by suffrage. is that to? >> yes. i think mr. jason 2006. the article came out in 2006, but this was written in 2011. >> yes, you're right. the article is ovember 2006. did you have any involvement in this article, although you are of course editor -- no longer edit a? >> no, i didn't i think i might have even left the company. >> i don't have the exact date. >> published 13th of july, 2011, accordin to what's on the screen now. >> no. sorry, i was still there. >> do you know where the shattered dad, as referred to,
4:16 am
got his information from? >> i think we do, yes. >> and where did he get his information from? >> he got i from the fact that he, his own child had cystic fibrosis, and he, he was given this information when information was sought about cystic fibrosis. i'm being very careful to try to not reveal his identity, that's all, hence the hesitation. but i think we sort of, we know what happened. >> that's all very vague, mrs. brooks. >> purposely so, i think when we wrote this article, i think, although le you say, i was chief exutive at the time. i remembered "the sun" absolutely putting this together
4:17 am
toefute gordon brown's allegations, and we are incredibly clear on it. we had an affidavit from the father where h explains the stricken but i don't think that affidavit is publics so i'm just being slightly hesitant in not to reveal his identity. >> we are not concerned with his identity. that wasn't my question. the father's version is, and we can see this in the article, i have not had access to the medical records of any child, at any time. all of which is the truth, as i all answer to god. apparently it was, his affidavit says, was its? >> i think it was longer than that but that would be pt of it, yes. >> how did the father get the information? >> well, if i can put that back to reassure you, we,t the time, and again in july 2012,
4:18 am
were absolute be satisfied that the father had got the information from legitimate means, and we were very sure about that. [inaudible] >> he got the information because his own child had cystic fibrosis, and he got the information, should i say, through very small, not a small charity, but there is a chaired aspect to the cystic fibrosis society, and he got it slightly by involvement through that. >> what sort of involvement in? >> i'm not going to take it anymore about this was because i don't want to reveal his identity. >>ou are not. >> but i feel, i feel uncomfortable answering that because i think it could lead to his identity. you ask me where information came from, and the source, and i think they are matters that i have to respect as a source
4:19 am
coming to the newspaper. the main point of this issue is mr. brown accused "the sun" attacking into his son's medical records to get the story. and that wasn't true. >> it wasn't accurate speakers no, sir. >> but that's quite important because it plays into something else that is concerning me, which i'm just going to dwell upon. if i have taken a question from mr. jay, just to bed. mr. brown was concerned that information which he thought was private had entered the public domain. and he felt that the way that that must have happened is that "the sun" got hold of his records in some way. that's what he was saying, is that right? >> that's what he said in july 21. >> yes.
4:20 am
now, you knew that, go back one step. first of all, if you don't know anything of how you got the story, it's not unreasonable, is it, to believe that if private details of your cild's condition being put into public domain, they could only have come from medical records. because diagnosis, medical detail. so it's not an unreasonable view to form? >> he formed to that vie or he came to that assumption in 2011, and in 2006, in november 2006, way before "the sun" published the story, we discussed the story directly with the browns, before publication. and the first time i heard that he had a concern of that nature
4:21 am
was when he gave an interview to the bbc in 2011. so it wasn't something that he felt at the time. >> it may be until into the public domain, i'm not, i'm not actually focusing so much on that point, outcome to the point i want to make. you didn't explain to him, because you want to protect your source, no, no, no. we got all this from somebody whose son also has the condition as his own child's condition. you just didn't discuss the source is that right? >> that is right spent my qstion is, would you look at the first line of "the sun" article? "the sun" today exposes the allegation we hacked into gordon brown's medical family as false and a seer. and my concernis whether it's
4:22 am
fair to describe that as my be incorrect, but as false and a smear. >> in the general point that i can absolutely see what you are saying there is correct. but this was not, this was a partularly journey that "the sun" had been involved in since the beginning of the information coming into "the sun" israel, and what happened after that, and subsequent to that. >> but if you never knew how you got it, all you could say, your title said, he's just got it wrong. >> he came to the wrong assution in 211. > that's absolutely fair. so the issue is whether it's part of the culture of the press that actually attacked us the best form of defense.
4:23 am
so that people don't just get it wrong, it's false in capitals, and a smear. you see the point i am making? >> i do see the point you are making, but, so the context is, that article was written after gordon brown had, first of all, i ink his first appearance in parliament since he stepped down as prime minister, was to come to, was to come to the house and speak incredibly and critically, and in some cases made wrong assumptions through his testimonto the house. and then the second thing he did, he then went on, i think bbc, i can't remove or, to do an interview with another wrong assumption, that "the sun" had got the story from fraser brown's medical record. and i think, combining the two,
4:24 am
if you like, attacks from mr. brown, this has never ever been raised by him in any shape or form with any of us at news internationals, or mr. murdoch. he never once mentioned press ethics or practices in our entire relationship, that "the sun" felt that it was a smear, that he was doingit for years later, sorry, five yrs later, for a partular respect and i think that's why they wrote the story that they did. now, i was chief executive at the time. i didn't write the story, but i'm defending their right to write a story like that. >> well, i -- already give provided, actually which have demonstrated is that "the sun" believed, and may be right or wrong, i don't know, that
4:25 am
mr. brown's add two and two and two and got 27. what has, in fact, if he took each one of the instances on their own, it may have, he may have been made a mistake, he may be wrong to reach e conclusion. that's all fair enough, entirely proper, but it goes a bit further than that. >> i accept that, that this story does, but if you imagine for "the sun," "the sun," and i know i keep mentioning this, but "the sun" has a trust with its readership, and it's a very important trust, and if that trust is broken, then, and a former prime minister had claimed i think prtially -- harshly, he comes to the misperception we got it from the medical records. whoever brok the story, "the guardian" probably, that that was false. and there was a correction,
4:26 am
subsequently published in "the guardian," and i think "the sun" felt on that that they had to stand up. because it is a terrible accusation for a former prime minister to make of a newspaper without being in possession of the facts. that we have hacked into his medical record. and i think that's why you're seeing a strong tone of the rebuttal in the pape >> well, thank you. >> you are refuting "the sun" with a virtue, mrs. brooks. let me, w far i can get with it. where did this information come from? >> i'm not going to say, mr. jay. >> why not, mrs. brooke's? >> because, because if you knew where the father's information came from it would identify the source and i'm not going to do that. >> are you saying that the information came from a charity? >> no, i'm not that i'm saying that because the source also had a child with cystic fibrosis, he
4:27 am
was aware and in, it was, it was the fact every child with cystic fibrosis, is how he came to know. >> that would, that would indicate that the father might at some point have been quite close to the browns, perhaps any particular hospital. [inaudible] do you understand the? >> i understand your point. >> did he gain the information by substitution? >> no, he didn't. >> tdk and information directly from the browns? >> no, he didn't. >> didd gained information froma third party? >> i suppose you could describe it as that? >> was the third party an employee of the nhs? >> no, what wasn't. >> well, did a third party have a duty of confidence to hold the information? leches go as simple as that. >> no, i don't think so. i'm sorry. without repeating the source,
4:28 am
"the sun" was satisfied that the information came from legitimate means. and i felt that that covered all those questions. >> was the father paid for his time to? >> i think it was a donation may be, but i can't be sure. >> to a charity in? >> i think he asked for it to be given to the cystic fibrosis charity, which is featured i have in my head. but we can check with "the sun." >> how come te inquiry said whether not the fathers -- site duty of confidence without knowing the identity of the source, but the nature of the duties, that source was discharging? >> sure you can assist to that extent. ..
4:29 am
did you have an agreement great -- freely given to publish this story in "the sun"? >> absolutely. >> they were entirely relaxed about this personal information related to a 4-year-old boy. entirely satisfied that this could be placed on the front page of "the sun" in november of 2006? that your position? >> you used the word relax. youave to consider how
4:30 am
traumatic clearly for any parent this was. >> what was? >> the diagnosis. >> what about including it on the front page of "the sun"? is that helping or not? >> that background -- >> enter my question. obviously the tragedy and pain of the diagnosis but on the front page of "the sun" is not helping this? >> if the browns half me not to run it i wouldn't have. there are many examples of tragic situations in people's lives when people have asked me not to run a story and i haven't and i wouldn't have done. not only they world" itestifying. back to live coverage on c-span2. >> did you have a conversation to talk about this specifically? >> can't remember when my call
4:31 am
was. i think was after -- she ended "news of the world" firing her. >> on the first of december of 2008 two weeks beforehand the week commencing the seventeenth of november did you have a conversation about sharon? >> was discussed. >> would have been or was discussed? >> it was. >> the purpose of the court to discuss sharon? >> wasn't. was to discuss the case and also to try to understand why social services were allowed to do their own review and their own conduct. >> in the course of the discussion you had in relation to sharon smith did you indicate you wanted her back? >> i didn't tell the board to try -- i was very obvious in the coverage in our paper that we launched a petition because the
4:32 am
government were refusing to do anything about the situation. i had conversations with the board. i also -- the shadow minister was michael gerber at the time but i can't remember that. i would have spoken to anybody basically to try to get some justice appointed to the campaign. >> the justice in this way, the person who could make their own decision. >> obviously had influence on that decision but the paper was the main form. >> he was the decisionmaker who could affect by direct instruction. >> just picking up the premise of your question is did i tell
4:33 am
-- in fact in the newspaper from the day we broke -- that they be covered the baby story it was very clear that that was the same editorial lines of mr board was under no illusion that that was the point of our campaign. >> he was also under no illusion. that with the point of your telephone call as well. >> the telephone call was in part the petition and also wanted to deliver the petition to downing street because nothing was moving on the campaign and we ourselves at "the sun" were very surprise 1.5 million as a percentage of readership is a huge reaction. it would not just be -- i don't think it was a point of reference because the editor of "the sun" had to read the paper.
4:34 am
>> you were frustrated by his apparent inaction and had a mass of signatories on the petition, all the more reason to bend mr. colbert? >> the premise of your question is that the ring got mr. bohr's -- it was in line with i wouldn't use. but you said that i say get rid of her or else or whatever you said? i did not say that. the point of the campaign was obvious that he only had to read the paper essentially asking mr. bours for subtle information like the contents of the reviews we were not allowed to see and the white wash i felt council had done in their own review. >> we had better
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
>> thank you. i thought i would ask about a couple of issues that have been raised in the context of the volcker rule. one argument is that its door research and decrease liquidity in the trading world and that it will be a very bad thing.
5:00 am
is that an issue? is that a problem? >> i do not think it is a problem. i put it the other way around. this is like to sound extreme but it is not. the market seemed to be very liquid before the crisis. there are lots of complaints in the banking system itself that the laws were to acquit. -- were liquid. it led to some behavior that is destructive. he would not have had all these separate mortgages tie debt up. he should be prepared to keep a for a while. this a be the normal investor reaction. if you think you can traded tomorrow at no loss, and then it becomes a trading problem. if the markets are too liquid, it can give rise to behavior
5:01 am
that is not very useful in terms of banking and finance markets. generally, and i am not alone in this thinking, there is a big movement in europe to make the markets less liquid. the fullest analysis i know of is by the chief english regulator who examined this closely. beyond a certain point highly liquid markets are not in the public use. i will give you another analyses. you want to be able to buy and sell. that does not mean you will buy and sell a long-term security tim is after you bought it. >> another issue that has been
5:02 am
raised is that the volcker rule creates a handicap for american financial institutions. any insight on that issue? >> when i sat at this table many times, a complaint that i would hear all the time was that american banks are at a disadvantage because it is too small. we want to be obeyed. -- to be big like japanese banks. we have to carry more capital than japanese banks. i would rather have smaller banks. we want to make some roles that are consistent with banks doing their basic jobs.
5:03 am
they are always told by their banks that they will be at a disadvantage to american banks. you are told you cannot do this because you will be discrediting english banks. the fact is the approaches are not that different. the capital requirements should not be that different. the make sure the capital requirements are not that a different. this trading operation, at the bridge look at what we are doing. there no-hit funds come and no equity funds in a commercial bank. he can have it in the same
5:04 am
holding company. it is good to be in a separate part of the holding company. they're going to make a great wall between one-sided the holding company and the other side. i do not know that is any easier. the banks did not like it. there after the same problem. they have a somewhat different approach. i could argue their purchase much more rigorous than what we have. the banks can choose. i do not think either of them are poison. it became difficult in the middle of the crisis to maintain a distinction between parts of the holding company. the point i am making is they are somewhat different approaches to the same problem.
5:05 am
you can argue all day to which is better are which is worse. >> their focus on the same issue of be sure deposits and access to a discount window's been separated from the discount style. i am out of time. thank you for your commentary and leadership. >> it is away from the banks.
5:06 am
i'm not sure there'll be any contact between this. it turned to have limited ability of hedge funds. it is limited. it is pretty much under control. they're pretty much giving of their hedge funds. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is good to see you again. one of the last times you appeared before the banking committee was prior to the passage of dodd/frank. it is at a point time where the volcker rule was unveiled the concept.
5:07 am
i remember during the hearing, and i do not have the exact language, we were debating back- and-forth what this is going to involved. what is going to be covered by the volcker rule? the second thing you said was even though it is hard to define, we will know it when we see it. those are not your exact words. clearly, that was the impression i had. now we have a 300 page rule -- go ahead. >> we have accomplished in 300 pages.
5:08 am
there has been concern about the complexity. as i talked at the ground fault local that the minister this thing, they're saying how do we administer this? my concern is that it is going to be very difficult for people in the field to say you have violated the rule are you have not violated the rule.
5:09 am
it seems to me that the very goal here was to try to deal with these very large institutions that were doing irresponsible things. at the end of the day we are making this so complicated that we are forcing more consolidation, not less. i like your opinion on those two points. are making this so complicated that the baker will get bigger? >> this is a matter that these apply to six, seven or eight institutions. the particular bank is not doing proprietary trading. you're talking about a very concentrated number of banks. very sophisticated.
5:10 am
they had trading desks. there are strict controls over the trading desk. it is $9 million in something. i think he did not have to trace every transaction in real time. and nothing that is the purpose of the regulation. it should have some very sophisticated but not that complex measures but the bank
5:11 am
activity. if they don't, and they ought to be put in jail for having unsafe and unsound banking practices. you can look at these reports. i sat down by the federal reserve. if you see characteristics of the trading patterns that suggests proprietary trading, and then you go look at it. if they say it is a customer trader, who is the customer? you are not making a market when you are buying the same
5:12 am
one. they are in good faith with the management understanding what is at stake. their reputation as a stick with the regulator. to they will table care. -- they will take a dual care. >> i people debt ran this in the past. they tell me not to believe all this stuff. i ran the trading desk. it is the policy not to do proprietary trading. we did not do proprietary trading. the reports showed it. >> thank you. i have one question i want to
5:13 am
ask. senator merkel asked a question about what you answered in terms of british banks and that american banks will have an advantage. we note that the swiss and the u.s. financial sector was significantly larger. their concentration of both were bailed out of billions of dollars for their governments and from others. both have taken dramatic action. i would like your brief comment on what you think about what switzerland is considering. the u.k. has considered fire wall between risky activities and traditional banking. what are your thoughts? >> those banks are no bigger than our banks.
5:14 am
they are more concentrated. they feel even more vulnerable than we feel to these problems. switzerland was obviously very concerned. they had two big banks. both are in trouble. one was in severe trouble. they took exception to high capital standards. my understanding is to find out more directly. the biggest of those banks has privately given out proprietary trading. they have moved away from some of these activities to non risky activities.
5:15 am
there's investment management on the other side. there has been some reaction along the same line of the british banks. they are still open with how they apply the regulations. i was invited. i will have a little session with the european parliament. i think the obvious purpose of the invitation was to try to get a maximum amount a coronation.
5:16 am
>> it has been for years and 95 of the mortgages originated there. how important is it that we move away from that reliance? should they exist in their current forms? >> it is important if you think it is important. it is kind of ridiculous when you look at it. >> read knelt the residential mortgage market is -- right now the residential mortgage market is dependent. hadley wean away from that? -- how do we wean away from that that let's not make the same mistakes. this is a recipe for affected
5:17 am
mortgage market. literally it'll take years. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. it the group of regulatory agencies working on the volcker regulations have indicated that they might not be prepared to implement them in july. should they hold their deadline solid? >> i am not clear what their attitude is.
5:18 am
i am understanding what the basic situation is. there are trying to get the final rule out. they recognize it will take some time to adapt. over a two-year time frame, may be may find particular things you want to change. after july, the law says no proprietary trading. someone told me some law firms set down beds with proprietary trading. i do not even see how this is a contrived. here we are. >> thank you. >> it occurs to me with passage of dodd/frank, it incorporates
5:19 am
the volcker rule and a whole host of other things. it is a complex piece of legislation. at the end of the day, we still have a very small number of financial institutions that control an enormous amount of capital. we have not impacted it very much. >> we do have a much more concentrated financial system. i do think that skepticism about dealing with institutions outside of the banking organization will protect itself. i think the idea that they can


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on