David Cameron was visibly rattled by Robert Jay QC, Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry, earlier today. Counsel was examining the relationship between the PM and Rebekah Brooks. Counsel concentrated on the text that Mrs Brooks sent Mr Cameron on the eve of his 2009 party conference speech. Mrs Brooks’s use of Cameron’s phrase ‘in this together’, which he used extensively in the subsequent speech, has led some to argue that their relationship was too close.
In the morning session, Counsel asked Mr Cameron how often he met Mrs Brooks socially at the weekend. Mr Cameron was vague in response, only offering ‘well not every week’ in answer. (Mr Cameron returned from lunch with a clearer answer thanks to his wife’s meticulous diary keeping. ‘We met [the Brookses] an average of once every six weeks,’ he said. Lord Justice Leveson told Mr Cameron that this showed ‘the great value of wives’. Onlookers shuddered.)
Counsel then began to probe the appointment of Andy Coulson — a decision that the prime minister confessed ‘haunted’ him. Mr Cameron said that he was ‘not necessarily’ seeking a tabloid journalist as communications director. His intention was to secure ‘a big hitter’ in order to revolutionise his relationship with the media, especially by wooing those conservative-leaning newspapers which were ambivalent towards his leadership. (He said that he had ‘more work’ to do in this area.) He admitted to interviewing 4 people in addition to Mr Coulson: one tabloid journalist (understood to be Trevor Kavanagh), a senior broadsheet journalist, Guto Hari, and a BBC executive.
Mr Coulson was hired, Mr Cameron said, because he was an ‘effective operator’. Counsel asked about Mrs Brooks’s involvement in the process. Mr Cameron said that he and Mrs Brooks discussed Mr Coulson at least once, but he could not recollect the precise details of that or any other conversations on the matter. But, Mr Cameron did say that he recalls Mrs Brooks being pleased with Mr Coulson’s appointment on the grounds that he was an ‘effective operator’.
Mr Cameron’s account of these particular events differs from Mr Osborne’s in emphasis rather than in fact. Whereas Mr Osborne stressed that Mr Coulson was hired because he was a very capable man who shared the Conservatives’ beliefs, Mr Cameron played down Mr Coulson’s politics by saying: ‘Alistair Campbell was much more political than Andy Coulson.’ Mr Cameron insisted that Coulson was an exceptional manager and operator, and defended his record both in opposition and in government.
Counsel asked Mr Cameron if Mr Coulson’s former position at News International had tipped the balance in his favour. Mr Cameron replied that it was ‘not irrelevant’, given his extensive experience and contacts, but denied that it was the determining factor. Indeed, Mr Cameron rejected Gordon Brown’s allegations about insidious ties between the Conservative Party and News International. Mr Cameron said, ‘He has cooked up an entirely specious and unjustified conspiracy theory.’ He added, firmly, that there was ‘no covert deal [and] no overt deal’ between News International and the Conservatives.
On the issue of phone hacking, Mr Cameron contradicted Mr Coulson’s evidence to the inquiry. Mr Coulson has said that he was not asked about the issue after July 2009, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were investigating the matter. But Mr Cameron said that he and Mr Coulson had an ‘ongoing conversation’ about the subject; a stance that he also took in parliament last year.
As for Mr Coulson’s role in the coalition government, Mr Cameron insisted that there was little opposition to the appointment. He said that Nick Clegg’s objections were not ‘particularly strong’. Mr Cameron’s recollection is that Mr Clegg said: ‘There has been some controversy about this. Are you sure he’s the man for the job?’ Mr Cameron also mentioned that Andrew Tyrie was sceptical about Mr Coulson, although he cannot remember ever talking to Mr Tyrie about it.
On the issue of BSkyB, Mr Cameron echoed Mr Osborne’s view when he said that the bid was a ‘political hot potato’ for the Conservatives. He also said that he did not recall discussing the bid with Mr Osborne other than when the government was considering the fallout from the Vince Cable scandal on 21 December 2010.
Under sustained pressure from Lord Justice Leveson and Counsel, Mr Cameron defended Jeremy Hunt’s appointment in place of Dr Cable, which Mr Cameron said was the civil service’s brainchild. He argued that the ‘backing of two permanent secretaries’ and the ‘government’s most senior lawyer’, whose advice was given verbally over a mobile phone, was sufficient. Mr Cameron said that no one advised him against giving Mr Hunt the job, adding that ‘if anyone had told me Jeremy Hunt couldn’t do the job, I wouldn’t have given him the job.’ This was followed by a defiant glare. He went on to defend Mr Hunt’s conduct throughout the bid process. ‘He dealt with it properly,’ Mr Cameron said.
On press regulation and transparency between politicians and journalists, Mr Cameron said that it was ‘difficult stuff to get right’. Many journalists were old and close friends of his, he said. Then he added: ‘you cannot unmake the friendships that you have.’ It was, he said, therefore impossible to keep track of every meeting, conversation or exchange that might take place, or to recall the substance of those interactions. This might lead, he said, to people ‘losing confidence’ in any transparency regime that was introduced. He agreed with Counsel’s statement that ‘transparency is necessary but not sufficient’ to press regulation.
Mr Cameron began to speak more generally on the issue. He asserted that the media’s regulatory environment must change but without endangering a free and ‘vibrant’ press. Asked for detail, he said that he was ‘not going to lecture the press’ on how to ‘rise to the challenge [of] imposing new regulation’. But he did say that newspapers and television were different ‘beasts’ and that statutory regulations were unlikely to work for newspapers. ‘It would be much better to deliver it [independent regulation of the press] without statutes,’ he said. What is needed, Mr Cameron continued, is for people like the Dowlers to have swift redress and confidence in the regulatory authorities. It is worth noting that Lord Justice Leveson appears to want to go further than this by including remedies for those whose privacy has been infringed without ‘sufficient public interest’.
Mr Cameron also raised the possibility of new ministerial guidance for quasi-judicial procedures, especially where special advisors are concerned. He suggested that special advisors might be supervised, trained and appraised by the private office in Downing Street while still doing political work for ministers. ‘Ultimately,’ he said, ‘responsibility [for SpAds] lies with me.’ Lord Justice Leveson said that he ‘shares’ Mr Cameron’s concerns about SpAds and their lack of accountability and training in comparison to the civil service.
Comments