emerges, or was there prior to that departure, you would have a different piece. but there's quite a -- that's an important point just to be clear about. >> my final question is it seems to me on the face of it that the news of the world was sacrificed in order to try to protect rebekah brooks' position at news international. in effect, rather than her being -- having her departure being announced, "the news of the world" was offered up as an alternative to try to deal with the whole thing. do you regret now making that decision? do you regret closing "the news of the world" to try and save rebekah brooks? in hindsight, do you wish you accepted her resignation to start with in order that that paper with a fine tradition could probably continue and all of the people who are now out of work could still be in work? >> i regret very much the pain of people that will not be able to find work. the two decisions were totally unrelated, absolutely sxl totally unrelated. >> so when you came into the uk and said your priority for rebekah brooks -- >> i'm not sure i said that. i was quoted as saying that. i had about 20 microphones stuck in my mouth, so i'm not sure what i said. >> you were misquoted? >> i'm not saying that. i just don't remember. >> i think it's important -- i'm sorry, mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. davis, it's important to know the closure of a newspaper with a his 160-some odd years is something that is a grave thing and something that is a serious matter of regret for us, for the company. but much more serious than that is the seriousness of really the violation of privacy, the hurt that certain individuals at "the news of the world" caused to the victims of illegal voice mail interceptions and their families and really -- i can tell you, you know, i advocated at the time that this was a step we should take. this was a paper and a title that had fundamentally violated the trust of its readers. it's something that was a matter of great regret, real gravity, but under the circumstances and with respect to the -- i believe the bad things that certain of the things that happened at t"te news of the world" some years ago did, it was really the right choice for the paper to cease publication. now, it is important to note and i want to be clear with the committee on this that the committee is doing everything it can to make sure that journalists and staff at "the news of the world" who had nothing to do with any of these issues, who are completely blameless in any of these things and many are, you know, really done tremendous work journalistically, professionally, commercially for the business that we find reemployment for them wherever we can, and i think the company is being as generous as we can under the circumstances. the company is being as thoughtful and compassionate for them and their families to get through this. but it is a very regrettable situation, and one that we did not take lightly in any way. >> you have made that clear. i'm going to ask for members -- i don't want to cut anybody off. please, we still have some way to go. implts mr. murdoch, james, through all the civil actions, have been been paying glenn moore's legal fees, not you personally but your organization? >> as i said earlier from the question from mr. davis. >> no. let's keep it short. yes or no. it's a yes or no question. >> i don't know the current status of those. are we paying all of his legal fees? >> have you been paying legal fees during the course of the civil actions? >> i don't know the details of the civil actions, but i do know that certain legal fees were paid for him by the company, and i was as surprised and shocked to learn that as you are. >> can you understand that people might ask why a company might wish to pay the legal fees of a convicted felon who has been involved intimately in the destruction of your reputation, if it was not to buy your corporation's silence? >> no, it's not. i can understand that, and that's exactly why i asked the question. it's exactly when the allegations came out, are we doing this? is this what the company is doing? on legal advice, you know, and again i don't want to be legalistic, and i'm not a lawyer. these are serious glaglitigatio. it's important to get to court at the right time and the strong advice was from time to time it's important and customary and even pay legal fees. >>. >> i don't know the precise status of that now. i know that i asked for those things for the company to find a w way. >> i'll talk to the committee on the status of those legal fees. >> this is a serious question, mr. murdoch sr. is it not time for the organization to say, enough is enough? this man allegedly hacked the phone of the murdered schoolgirl, millie dowler? is it not time for your organization to say, do your worst. you behaved disgracefully. we're not going to pay any more of your costs? >> i would like to do that. i don't know the status of what we're doing or indeed what his contract was, whether it still has any force. >> if the organization is still paying his fees, will you give the instruction now that that should stop? >> provided it's not in breach of a legal contract, yes. >> i want to return to the question of making a statement without being in the full possession of the facts. during our 2009 inquiry, all the witnesses who came to us testified to being intimately involved in particular a huge trawl of e-mails after the arrival of colin miler. it seems they're quick to distance themselves from that investigation according to some of the quotes in the newspapers. so could i -- i stated clearly that that trawl, that investigation covered no new evidence. it was still a loan rouge reporter. mr. murdoch, james, can you tell us about the file of e-mails, the so-called internal reports that was discovered allegedly. we read through the pages of the sunday times, a great newspaper, in the offices. can you tell us more about when that was discovered, when you first came to know about it, what's in it? >> i first came to know about that earlier this year in 2011. >> can you be more precise about the time? you've got a great grasp of knowledge here. >> it would have been in the -- it would have been around -- it would have been in the springtime. i don't remember the exact date when i was to talk about it. >> before april? >> it would have been april or may. i can try to find the meeting schedules and whatnot and come back. it was a few months ago. i can't speak, i should say -- i can speak a little bit to it, but as to the activity that was carried out in 2007, again, i piece this back together from the past. it was before any of my involvement, but the company at the time, i think you're referring to a dismissal -- an unfair dismissal case that was brought by mr. goodman, and that was the basis for conducting -- it was right about the time of the conviction, so it was all in that period of time. >> that's what we inferred in our report last year, but despite the assurances as to the other motivations. >> there was a -- it was right at the time mr. miler had come in, codes of standards had been talked about. this is before my time. all of the 2007 business was there, and the -- an investigation was done or a fact finding piece around this, and there was a -- outside counsel was brought in. and i understand that the legal executives -- i think it was mr. chapman at the time with miler to that effect. the opinion was clear that as to their review, there was no additional illegality with respect to phone hacking in that file. as to their review, that was the opinion that was clear. the company really rested on a number of things from then on, and i certainly know in 2009 when additional allegations came in the summer, the company really rested on a handful of things. >> i wanted to move right up to date to what was discovered in the offices when it was discovered. so in 2010 the civil glagtss had it was known to us to the company additional new information, new evidence that wasn't there before. and the police investigation started off. one of the things that was went back and looked at -- i suppose it was in the spring by senior people at international was that file, and it was relooked at. it was opened up and looked at, and it was very rapidly brought to our attention that this was something that -- >> when did this happen? when was this looked at? >> again, this is between april, may, and june, in that period. >> who looked at it first? >> on the side of the people managing the work on behalf of news international from early this year who have been led by mr. lewis, that's correct. >> and what's in that file? it's been reported as a collection of 300 e-mails or loose-leaf binder. what is it? >> as you know, there is an ongoing criminal investigation, and i think it would be wrong of me to talk about specific information or evidence that is subject to and could make problems for the police in doing the important work that they're currently doing. >> i don't want it's going to cause problems with the police if he tells others that a a ring binder with a loose-leaf. what is this? >> it's paper. i think there are e-mails and documents. >> have you read it all? >> i have not read it all, but some it things in it have been shown to me. >> and what was your reaction? was there expletive you used when you first read some of these e-mails? >> i tried not to use expletives. >> occasionally when you do. >> my reaction immediately was to agree with the recommendation of the executives involved, which was this is something to bring to the attention of the police with respect to their ongoing investigations and perhaps new ones. >> when was it given to the police to be reported june 20th? >> i believe it was in june after we informed the board of the company as well. >> so that dates accurate. >> i believe it was june, yes. >> "the sunday times," a great newspaper, painted a picture on the 10th of july from this file that six so-called gate keepers on the news desk dealt with glenn, and they name thd them. do you recognize that summary from the file that you've had a look at? >> mr. farrelly, i respect you to understand that detailed questions about any of the evidence, information that we passed to the police in relation to their ongoing criminal inquiries are difficult for me to answer. i would appreciate it if we could allow the police to undergo the important work that they are undergoing. there's a process that's important. we're cooperating with it. we're providing information on a regular basis. the company is providing information on a regular basis as needed by the police, and i really believe we have to allow the police to conduct their investigation and hold the people who did wrong to account in this area. >> okay. i'll respect -- >> i want to comment on anything now. it could have resulted in guilty peop people. >> i fully understand. i will respect that clearly. the descriptions in the press so they're on the record actually do -- including in "the sunday times" implicate andy in knowledge of payments to the police, so i wouldn't expect you to comment on that. i will now turn to the letter that was provided as -- provided to us by rebekah brooks as evidence during our inquiry that this trawl of e-mails produced nothing more. that letter from lawrence abrahamson, the then senior partner, mentioned that e-mails had been reviewed of andy coulson, stewart, ian edmundson, clive goodman, neil wallace and joe stenman and nothing came to light from that review that contradicted the lone reporter, rouge reporter working with glenn. knowing what you know now from the other evidence you've discovered, have you looked back at in detail at the basis on which they wrote that letter and why they -- why they gave such a clean bill of health? >> all i can say is that having directed -- having looked at some of the things in that and the advice of the senior people inside the company more recently that looked at that, it was the view of the company self-evidently that it was right to bring this to the attention of the police and go forward. that opinion from the counsel was something that the company, you know, rested on. it was a clear opinion about a review that was done around those records. in addition in conjunction with the police continuing to say that there was no new evidence and that there was no reason to open a new investigation and in conjunction with the pcc saying that they had done their review and done their inquiry and there was nothing new there, it was viewed that that was a civil matter. it was only real when new evidence emerged those three things began to be undermined. >> can you provide us with the instructions given to the law firm, the information -- the extent of the information that was given to them as of the totality of information that was available? that sort of detail would help us conclude what really happened? >> if there's additional detail required around to those legal instructions, we will consult and come back to the chairman with a way to satisfy you with the information that you'd like to have. >> clearly, we spotted last in our report that this review coincides not so much with mr. marlin's arrival but with the timing of the industrial tribunal actions that clive goodman and glenn were planning, and that begged the question of why these six individuals were named in there. do you know the reason why it was limited to these six individuals? >> why it was limited to those six individuals i don't know. i think it was in -- i wasn't there at the time, and i can't tell you the circumstances, the conversations that people had with them and the terms of reference of that, but it was viewed that that was something that would be -- had been viewed after the fact that that was, you know, a thorough look at information. based on that review, that opinion was issued. >> neville is one that immediately jumps out. >> again, in hindsight you can say -- we can all say if somebody looked at this and somebody was known yet and the terms and scope of. >> there's unfair dismissal notwithstanding the criminal convictions. we don't know what they were planning to serve on you. do you know what sorts of allegations they were making? we can only imagine they were saying that such and such a person used such a such person? have you been satisfied with the allegations they were making? >> i think many individuals are currently subject to criminal investigation. some have been arrested recently. these are important matters for the police now. i do think it's important that i don't stray into or i'm not led into commenting specifically about individuals or allegations made in the past. >> the question was whether you satisfy yourself as to what clive goodman and glenn were alleging in discussions and negotiations that led up to the settlements, if they brought industrial tribunals against you. that was the question. not what they were alleging, but have you satisfied about what they were alleginalleging? >> i'm not aware of allegations at the time and other things. as to goodman, again, this was in 2007 before i was there, it's my understanding that that is what they were helping to deal with and that that opinion did satisfy the company at the time when we -- and the company rested on that opinion for a period of time. >> i take it you'd like to take the opportunity to withdraw this letter as an accurate portrayal of what really went on at "news of the world"? >> that is the letter -- >> this is the harvard lewis letter? >> it's something -- i think it's something that actually -- i'm glad you've asked about it actually, because it is a key bit of outside legal advice from senior counsel that was provided to the company. the company rested on it. i think it goes some distance in explaining actually why it has taken a long time for new information to come out. i would say i think it's important. it's one of the bases for which the pushback that the company made against new allegations. there was one of those pillars of the environment around the place that led the company to believe that all of these things were a matter of the past and that new allegations -- >> the question was different, mr. murdoch. i asked you whether this letter stimuliing on the record as evidence given to this committee, for whatever reason of a criminal investigation being withdrawn, would you like to withdraw it? >> respectfully, i'm not aware of the legal technicalities of withdrawing that or submitting it on the record. i think it is a relevant document in trying to understand how news international was thinking at the time. >> we'll ask you the question when we -- >> i would say no, but i can come back after taking counsel and seeing if it's a better idea to do it . >> i'll also wind up given the time, but i have a few more questions. as you've described it and as colin described it, the e-mail investigation was carried out by the i.t. democratic apartment an by john chapman and the human resources director daniel cloak. is that your understanding? >> pardon me? what was the question? i don't understand. is it my understanding that -- >> the investigation itself. you described it and colin described it to us. it was carried out by the i.t. department and overseen by the director of legal affairs, john chapman, and the human resources director, personnel director daniel cloak. is that an accurate description? >> that is my understanding. >> can you tell us why john chapman has left the organization? >> john chapman and the organization decided it was, you know, in mutual interest to part ways, and i think the -- i think one of the pieces here as well is for the company to move forward is for -- i think this is important, you know. many of the individuals, even if there's no -- if there's no evidence of wrongdoing or anything like that, i think that, you know, no evidence of improprie impropriety, many strids have chosen it's time to part ways. i was not involved. >> you have no evidence to cover up the existence of the file that's been -- >> i do not have that. >> okay. can you tell us the employment status of daniel cloak? >> mr. cloak left the company some time ago, and i don't know what his employment is. he was the director of human resources for a number of years. not that many -- i'm not sure. but he left over a year ago, i think. i can follow-up with you the status. >> i'm just going quickly to the witnesses who came to us. again, in respect to the file that you've discovered this yeayear regarding les hinton, when did he first become aware of this collection of e-mails and paper, as you discovered, to call it, that clearly rendered the advice given -- the editors gave misleading by him. when did he learn about it? >> i can't speak to mr. hinton's knowledge? are you referring to 2011 or 2007. >> this document left in 2007. >> in 2007. i can't speak to his knowledge, but i would -- i know that mr. hinton was aware of the work that had been carried out, and i think he's testified to this committee to that effect. >> have you asked him whether mr. murdoch is here. have you asked les whether he knew about this document? >> no. >> why not? >> about? >> which document are you talking about. >> the document that was -- that you discovered in april/may in the offices of the law firm that -- >> i don't think it's, you know -- i have not asked him, but i also think that, you know, he -- i think he's testified to this. he as the chief executive of news international at the time would not have been expected necessarily to read x hundreds or thousands of e-mails there but would rely on the opinion of counsel about what they had done. >> and was colin miler aware of this evidence lying with them? >> i cannot speak to other individuals' knowledge in the past. i simply don't -- >> tom krone? >> i simply c