>> i am just telling you there were very strict -- you seem to be missing what i just said. this document came from the police. it hasn't been looked at, considered experts that you pay close attention to in a perfect area which is -- increasing this country. >> the police have questions to answer as well but the case, if a crime had been committed, they could not hold you to a confidentiality clause. you knew that. you were embarrassed. >> there was a confidentiality clause on both sides. the normal thing would be to stick to the confidentiality clause. >> did james murdock send you a limit? >> i can't remember that. i don't have authority to settle the best figure. >> or any figure. >> again i can't remember -- take half a million and managed to get from there to settle at -- >> were there any other civil cases, open-ended agreement? >> i think i met james murdock place. another one i can remember. wasn't about this series of pages. >> you can throw of what the second meeting was. >> no. absolutely not. >> did you keep him in the loop? did you e-mail him or phone him or send him memos? >> no. i don't remember. >> you don't remember but they might exist. >> a can't remember. >> given there was no current investigation into phone hacking do you accept you lied to was when you told us you investigated this and were satisfied with the explanation you received. >> noaa didn't. >> at the time you told us there was an inquiry. >> maybe. the trend suggested this is the last occasion. when a new development -- evidence for this committee and you say this is devastating evidence of a cover-up, mr. chairman said this means it was last time or it was contradictory. it wasn't a contradiction in any way, shape or form. i hope you will accept that. it was not contradictory. we did not contradict our souls when we put up that statement. i invite you to read it. >> you told us the big question in my mind is -- [inaudible] -- no real suggestion that anybody opened. >> up possible answer. [talking over each other] >> there was no evidence. clearly that this e-mail came through. that settled the case. >> also said that you have a record of it being open to the public or reported. >> that is true. >> the impression you start to give to us didn't matter. >> i challenge anyone to read it because i don't agree with that. >> it is your job to see that the criminal phone hacking at "news of the world" was concealed. you did this on clive goodman's expensive lawyers and continued to pay them even when he pleaded guilty. >> it is not remotely surprising. at the time he was arrested we had no idea -- whether he was not guilty or plead guilty. we will start off by supplying legal representation. that is the decent and correct thing to do. in some states he would plead guilty. the financing of his representation continued. i don't think it is a bad thing. >> even when he was in prison or found guilty. paid salary in prison. >> how the salary was paid -- >> gross misconduct. it was paid then. was it right to pay him 240,000 pound pay off? >> i had nothing to do with that. >> what is your view? >> my view -- >> the truth is you didn't see it. you just thought he had his job and "news of the world". >> that is absolute nonsense. >> the only problem was he got caught. >> that is nonsense. >> you had to conceal the crime. you were desperate to ensure that the hacking was standard at practice at "news of the world" and that is what you told clive goodman he could have his job back and if he did not implicate the paper or its staff. >> confidentiality in this this -- discussions have been waived -- it may be that if you ask them they will tell you that the allegation just made by clive goodman has no truth. >> you promised in order to suppress evidence of criminality at "news of the world". >> that is not true. >> that is why james murdoch agreed to pay the taylor settlement. >> that is not true. >> and payment of the legal fees. >> i didn't know about it. the legal fees were not just criminal representation but when the civil case started, he wasn't cooperating with us in any way, shape or form. he had to have lawyers and they were financed in the hope of actually telling us the full story. >> who agreed? >> i can't remember. >> you did not review obstacles where it was clear that information, only be obtained from that? >> yes. >> did you arrange for lawyers of victims to be monitored by a private detectives? >> yes. >> did you arrange for dossiers to be kept and followed up on that. >> no. >> how much have you received in your employment? nothing? >> i have not had a package. >> and the negotiation? >> i am hoping there will be. >> you expect it. >> i think so. >> what do you settle the derivative? >> most people have -- [talking over each other] >> supposed to be for 90 days. >> provisions about what you can say to this committee? >> no. provisions are there. >> you discussed with news international's lawyers giving evidence? have you ever been in contact with jonathan reese? >> the discussion is left. >> have you been in contact with jonathan reese? >> i met him many years ago. >> when was that? >> many years ago. maybe 10 years ago. >> what was that to do with? >> communication with "news of the world". sometimes on the investigations they need someone to play the role of the chauffeur or undercover investigation bodyguard and he and his partner were used to perform those. >> were you aware of his surveillance of dave cook? >> no. >> were you aware he was contradicted to work for "news of the world" in 2004-5? >> no. >> are you aware now? >> what was on the panorama. >> have you been in contact with philip cameron smith? >> no. >> were you aware of any civil claims against the sun as a result of phone hacking? >> no. >> have you any indication that the sun was implicated in the glen mulcare saga? >> no indication that all. >> are you where the sun may have commissioned glen mulcare? >> i don't have that. >> why did you tell the committee that copeland carry out investigations to go through everything and find out everything that had gone on but vincent copeland told us they carried no indication into phone hacking whatsoever? >> when i came back clive goodman was arrested in august of 2006. went i came back on tuesday which would have been seven days after the arrest, the first meeting at went to -- they were clearly instructed to deal with whatever inquiries that the police put forward. they were actively involved in that role throughout the period. so why would probably think late autumn. >> how many times have you met glen mulcare? how much the objective you have with his lawyers when you were negotiating with the proceedings? >> with his lawyers? i doubt if i had any contact. >> would they have kept you abreast of negotiations with the legal team? >> i am not sure they're as much in the way of negotiations. >> did you follow glen mulcare nondisclosure structure? >> social structures? >> the disclosure structures in the civil case. >> the disclosure discloses whatever. >> when glen mulcare was instructed in march of 2010, did glen mulcare tell you who the people were? >> certainly didn't tell me. >> were you aware that anyone in the company was told who at that time had instructed him? >> no. >> did you ever order surveillance? did you ever ordered commission private investigations to do any surveillance at all? >> i don't know. >> have you received commission reports on the civil case lawyers? >> let me think about last question. i may have had an indication. certainly not in the last few years but maybe -- probably did in fact. maybe a bit of surveillance. maybe something else. it is not unusual. >> did you ever have news international journalists to persuade them to settle their claims? >> no. >> are you aware of any former colleagues who might have done that? >> i am not aware of that. >> are you aware rebecca bob brooks once contacted civil claims? >> no. >> did you advise clive goodman to plead guilty? >> no. >> you mentioned in relation -- to get this absolutely right -- after clive goodman pleaded guilty of these interceptions, ways for him to come back from his sentence? that he felt the country had a duty of care for the secretary and politicians? as he felt that clive goodman, once he had this sentence, once he paid his penalty, that he hoped he could persuade that clive goodman could still come back. in a different role. >> a second chance. >> we heard evidence before the committee that he started into -- to ensure that he was -- clive goodman was looked after. do you think andy colson had something to do with that? >> the day was satisfied. >> to meeting james murdoch to clarify that james murdoch to this committee, he says in that evidence that tom crone told me wrongdoing extended beyond clive goodman and easily for the investigation as necessary. and actual reflection on that meeting. >> that is contrary to what you said. an indication that from what you told mr. murdoch in that meeting he must have been aware wrongdoing extended beyond clive goodman. you are saying that is not the case. >> that is what he said before. i thought you were asking me whether during that meeting it was made known to him. >> and was it? he was made aware? >> as i said, of the document. >> clive goodman is saying he wasn't made aware of the wrongdoing on clive goodman. >> that is what i was saying. >> is that what you said to him? >> a reflection which i said -- told him about the document and the effect of that document clearly is beyond clive goodman. >> there is an important connection here. in that meeting in the full significance of that document, what it meant. >> the document clearly suggests news of the world -- [talking over each other] >> i can't remember. it is three years ago. >> are funded difficult because the ambiguity and something that should be incredibly clear. [talking over each other] >> i can't remember the exact phrases used but i am certain that i explained to him that the case on this basis and production of that document, it is clear that news of the world -- >> you can't be sure -- you do explain to james murdoch -- [talking over each other] >> i just answered the question. [talking over each other] >> you said his relation was correct. >> would you just said. >> you did tell me. on his part, there should be no ambiguity as to whether this evidence meant wrongdoing extended to clive goodman. >> i can't tell you whether on his part. i can only tell you that i explained about "news of the world". >> real ambiguity and the significance of the document that the police required -- out side of the council and outside lawyers, tom crone agreed the significance of this document meant there were two choices. either settle the case or fight the case. fighting the case would have meant going to trial. in that respect, i don't believe there was any ambiguity. the significance of the document being produced was quite clear to be found. >> navigation of the document, was there any ambiguity in what was explained to james murdoch that was made clear to him but only that this document settled the case but this document was in effect proof that there were more at "news of the world" involved in a phone hacking that clive goodman. >> there was evidence to show that clearly one potential journalist may have been implicated but at the time when tom crone talked he denied any knowledge of this document. >> the document is very clear. he relies on the explanation of tom crone to this document exists -- and was absolutely as a result of your discussions in that meeting any indications that you pointed out some detail and wrongdoing extended to clive goodman. >> based on the fact that those outside the consulate extended lawyers. >> and going -- >> it is important because you don't rush into these things. you take time by getting outside advice as it were. with respect, it is significant that that was the advice that they gave. >> of course it was. but in terms of -- an understanding of the broad issues, this is absolutely crucial. james murdoch has been very clear and if that is wrong it is a serious matter. reflection is very important on the crucial second part. >> it seemed to be clear to people. i can speak for james murdoch's recollection of this and can't speak for james murdoch's view that he took away from that meeting. what i took away from that meeting was that there was agreement to settle and that is what happened. >> i would have thought in your position that you would have been extremely clear and made absolutely clear that in a settlement there is evans of further wrongdoing but significant to the company and that has to be dealt with. and was extremely clear. there would have been no room for ambiguity. would be uncertain about that and you would have known for sure. >> i didn't think there was any ambiguity about what had been taken. >> there were two issues. there was settlement of the case and what the settlement of the case meant to the company and is very unclear how it was properly communicated that all land with you missed the meeting it was up in the air and the interview convinced me that you made clear today. the settlement of the company that used to form that. >> with respect, james murdoch was chief executive of the company. he was experienced. i am experienced in what i do. i think everybody understood the seriousness and significance of what was being discussed. i am not sure what you are alluding to to what he should have said or what we should have said from that meeting. he was probably dealing with it as we were. >> the significance is very clear from james murdoch's testimony. he did not -- tom crone did not say anything about wrongdoing. nothing discussed in the meeting led me to believe further investigation was necessary. he is very clear on his reflection of that meeting. you are not. >> i am sorry but i am clear there was no ambiguity about the significance of that document and what options were there for the company to take. one was to settle and one was to fight the case. we took the one to fight the case. as far as i am concerned there was no ambiguity. there was no suggestion then or now that anybody tried to conceal anything. that was a document produced by the police. >> you could not support james murdoch's recommendations from that meeting. he misremembers what was discussed? >> the reason why the clarification was put out in the first place was simply because it was alleged wrongfully that as a result of what james murdoch said, we were guilty of either concealing or covering up a sequence of events and that had to be clarified because that is not factually correct. >> in terms of further investigation, further investigation, this is a very serious matter. was it reflected on a full investigation with lawyers looking to get to the bottom of this? highly significant information? >> it was never suggested to me. with hindsight we now know how devastating the evidence the police had then they gathered from glen mulcare in 2006, wasn't followed. we now know the evidence that was gathered from an e-mail internal investigation of e-mail that was handed over to the police in january of this year that lead to the reopening of the police inquiry. there are lots of things that have come to light from different areas that if we had known then what we know now i think things would have been massively different for everybody. >> compare it to the combination of the clients, relating to what was copied and the decision that will be a review that clive goodman had and you conducted interviews and e-mails. in this case you had a highly significant meeting where he should be made aware or was made aware of the taylor settlement in the e-mail document that any kind of -- where the company decided to have an investigation of what happened. >> that is what happened. i don't think the rest of the team will see this, of the document. he was underestimating the seriousness that had to be taken to settled the case. >> back to when you joined "news of the world". gave evidence to the committee in september of 2009, you said you had come 2 two things. make sure any misconduct was identified and anything would be ruled out. you gave evidence to the committee about the reforms of the newspaper. and make sure any previous misconduct was identified. you suggest there never was in the investigation into wrongdoing at "news of the world" as a result of clive goodman. there were specific paths the commission -- there was never a review. i wonder if you could say that you were remiss, you should have done more? >> i will take personal responsibility for my actions. i am comfortable with what i did. have a sad, hindsight emerged from the police evidence that they had and the internal evidence provided by news international subsequently. if i may clarify what happened when i understood the situation, win glen mulcare and clive goodman were arrested, if you look at my testimony you will see i understood them to be a bridge head as well as provide any evidence the police required and i think that was primarily a position of transparency that nobody could accuse a specialist of prohibiting what was required from them. or anything else. if you look back also you will see from mr. colson's testimony and mr. les hinton's testimony from the time of the rest it was made clear they had to get to the bottom of what was happening. they pled guilty and were tried and convicted. when i came and, i indicated several reforms and changed personal decisions. the first thing i did was send an e-mail to the staff within a week and explained the significance of their responsibility. >> you repeatedly give some detail and at the beginning, tell us what you did. the investigation into wrongdoing conducted by a third party that was very specific briefs given -- there never was a big investigation. >> here we are in september of 2009. i am going back to january of 2007. i certainly believe there had been more of an investigation than i was led to believe. >> and the -- [talking over each other] >> as far as -- the other thing to remember is the police inquiry have understood it at the time was made sorrow -- thorough. that was not the case. so yes. the police inquiry was not as thorough as i believe it to be. forgive me but if the police take away three lines of evidence from glen mulcare's house i would have assumed if they wanted to talk to anybody else it may have been indicated in criminal act they would have interviewed and they chose not to. the only member of staff who was interviewed from "news of the world" with clive goodman. maybe assuming too much but i am a journalist. i am not a detective and i am not a lawyer. i would have assumed that if the police had given -- if you look back at what the assistant commissioner who led the inquiry said at the time, the phrase he used was no stone was left unturned. we might look back at that and say that wasn't the case. by some measure. i acknowledge that. as i said, i did what i thought i had to do and did what i did. and other things may have been necessary but at the time i genuinely did believe -- because of what the police did in their inquiry or when they didn't do. >> mr. gimbel said he was clear about what was identified. in his mind maybe things had been uncovered and you as the new editor coming in uncertain information on clive goodman's conviction that he wanted you to get to the bottom of this. >> i did. when clive goodman appealed i thought it was an extraordinary experience and when i was told about this, on what grounds did he believe he was unfairly dismissed. as the new editor of was told by the human-resources director ahead to sit and listen to him. as confidence of the allegations he made that supported with