The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

I think it was reasonably well-known that his review was going to be handed over to us, and he -- as he did the previous week. It was subject to a leak. The Daily Telegraph advised us that they had considerable detail of the contents, and that put a certain degree of pressure on us to advance matters.

It was also the case that there were -- two stories emerged in the tabloid press between the end of the previous week and my giving the statement which looked like stories which had been brought out of cold storage, having waited there for a suitable occasion. Whether it was in fact tabloid competition or whether it was that they were just sighting shots to warn everybody that life might be becoming exciting, I don't know, but the combination of all those events were that we wanted to make a statement as early as we could.

On the previous occasion in 1990, when the first Calcutt 1 reported, there was about a five-week gap between publication and the Home Office statement about it. I'm not in any way comparing those two facts, because the original report, Calcutt 1, was that of a full committee under Sir David, whereas the review was simply Sir David himself, but the combination of all those things was why we moved as fast as we did.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech