Thank you.

No, because I never met the parties concerned.

Correct. I think if I take you back, I'm trying to explain the context in which I made my own comments in a private and confidential conversation, and what it was that had made me seriously disturbed about the way News International were operating. I was explaining my own ...

But I don't know when the meeting was that my colleague had.

Yes.

Well, I've just told you I didn't know when that was.

Well, it was in the context of the conversation that my colleague had had.

Mm. I didn't make a note of the date, so I can't confirm that absolutely.

The period after the intervention notice. It was in -- I think we're talking here about November, probably.

No, because I don't have a record of the meeting and I treat it in that way. No, but it occurred within that period.

That's correct.

That's correct.

That may be the way -- the thoughts going through their mind. I can't comment on that. I wasn't dealing with them myself and I just had to deal with the facts as they presented themselves.

And that is what is relevant.

Well, if you'll just allow me to go back, I did explain I'm not totally sure who this was. It could have been a composite of two people or it could have been one. They may have been told that, and I made it very clear in my ...

I had no reason to disbelieve him. My reference to politicisation related to a particular phase of the process, where the reports came back to me of the conversations which Mr Michel in particular had had with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and I was responding to that.

That is the way I approached it also.

I had no idea what their preference was.

That's quite right, no, and I didn't rule that out. I merely said that if I had conceded that to one party, I would have, in the interests of fairness and impartiality, had to concede it to others, and there were a lot of people who potentially wished ...

Well, there would have been a lot of speculation if I had met one party and not others.

Well, as I think I said in my evidence, there's nothing wrong with that argument in principle, but if I were to do that, there would be a perception of bias and I would have to have meetings with all the other parties who may well take a very ...

Indeed, and both with parties who were in favour -- there were occasions when I met parties who were against the bid, and I specifically excluded that subject from the agenda.

That was -- let me repeat what I said. There were no fundamental objections to having a meeting, but the advice I had received from officials was that it would be inappropriate to discuss the bid.

Thank you.

I'm not an expert on media and media policy, so I approach this with some reserve, but I do have a view on the shape that I think the future media regulation should take, and I think the way I would approach it would be to say that there ...

Well, my party hasn't had terribly good treatment over the years, and one can speculate as to the variety of reasons for that, but I think this level of engagement, which is positive, we're not avoiding senior decision-makers in the press, but nonetheless, but infrequent, I believe that ...

Well, because I think it's important that I know who they are and they know who I am, but I don't want to be in a position where I'm dependent on them or they're dependent on me.

No. As I said earlier, I try as a matter of good practice to meet, albeit infrequently, the main editors and occasionally proprietors, but I don't want to make a habit of it.

Well, I think in that paragraph I'm trying to move a little bit in the direction that I think Judge Leveson has just described as to whether it with be helpful to set out the policy framework more clearly and explicitly before decisions are made, and one way of ...

I don't think that's difficult to understand. The Telegraph, like several other newspapers, was very hostile to the Coalition. They didn't want a Coalition government, they wanted a Conservative government, and felt that the Liberal Democrats were compromising their true Conservative values, and so all the Liberal ...

Well, I was angry with myself at what had happened, but given what you just said about perception of bias, I understood that there was no alternative in this case.

Correct.

No, I do understand in my case that the remarks I made did create a perception of bias and therefore made it difficult for me to continue. I fully understand that. It doesn't mean to say I would have been biased; I wouldn't have been. But nonetheless there ...

Yes, I would hope that we would get to a world where that was generally understood, but it if it's not understood, it's important that there are legal protections built in for the parties, as is the case at present.

Yes. And I think we must assert that.

Thank you.

Well, thank you. And I certainly understand and respect that argument. But I think what you're trying to achieve can be achieved if there are appropriate checks and balances and legal protections built into the system.

I know this is taking the conversation in a slightly different direction, but ...

I think the last phrase is a slightly pejorative way of describing it.

No, I can see the argument you're making, and I can see that in certain circumstances that could produce -- I don't know how to put the correct phrase, but good quality decisions, but I think you may well achieve that objective, but you would lose another, which is ...

Yes.

But you're suggesting that this should simply be in framing the rules and I can see that --

But I think in most of these cases a minister does become involved. I may be wrong in that case, but I think there has to be a role for the democratically elected representative.

I'm not familiar with that process as you are.

Well, I think the direction of policy in the last -- over the last generation has been in that direction, and politicians have been progressively removed from competition policy decisions, but there is a small residue where there is a genuine issue of what one could call national -- of public interest ...

I do, yes. I have two responses to it.

I think what you're saying does suggest the importance of politicians with major decisions having considerable self-discipline in putting aside those visceral reactions, and I think mine broke down momentarily in that interview but otherwise was maintained, I think.

But ...

That is correct. There is a process in place -- it's a long time since I was in local government -- by which councillors I think the phrase is recuse themselves if they have a personal interest. I think having a personal interest is different from having an opinion.

Well, it does require self-discipline, and the necessity to put this -- put one's personal views about the policy on one side. As I said earlier on, this was an unusual and very important case, but there are thousands of local councillors up and down the country who are making ...

I'm not sure I totally follow you. So you're implying that politicians might be biased because they have a policy view? Is that the question?

A strong view on?

Yes, I do. I think it's right that politicians are involved -- elected politicians are involved in the process. As we described the first stage of my interview, there is a series of checks and balances built in, there is a major role for the regulators, but elected politicians, ministers ...