1 2 (2.00 pm) 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Jay, yesterday morning, a man by 4 the name of David Lawley-Wakelin interrupted and 5 disrupted the proceedings of this Inquiry for purposes 6 of his own. I directed that an inquiry take place and 7 it has been completed. Appropriate measures to prevent 8 any risk of repetition have been taken. 9 It is of critical importance that witnesses can give 10 evidence without disruption of any sort, and in those 11 circumstances I am today referring this incident to the 12 Director of Public Prosecutions so that the Crown 13 Prosecution Service, in conjunction with the 14 Metropolitan Police Service, can consider the way in 15 which the matter can be dealt with appropriately. 16 MR JAY: Sir, this afternoon's witness is the Right 17 Honourable Michael Gove. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 19 MR MICHAEL ANDREW GOVE (sworn) 20 Questions by MR JAY 21 MR JAY: Your full name, please, Mr Gove? 22 A. Michael Andrew Gove. 23 Q. You very kindly provided us with a witness statement 24 dated 30 April 2012. You signed and dated it. There's 25 a standard statement of truth. Is this the formal 1 1 evidence you're tending to this Inquiry? 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: As with many other witnesses, 4 Mr Gove, thank you very much for the time and trouble 5 you've taken in compiling this material. I'm grateful. 6 A. Not at all. Thank you. 7 MR JAY: Mr Gove, you have been a Member of Parliament since 8 2005. You are currently Secretary of State for 9 Education and in a previous life you were a journalist? 10 A. Yes, that's absolutely right. I used to work for the 11 Times. 12 Q. May I ask you about journalism, first of all, since this 13 chronologically is most relevant. Lord Mandelson spoke 14 of a transactional sort of relationship between 15 journalists and politicians. Do you agree with that 16 formulation? 17 A. I don't entirely. I can quite understand why 18 Lord Mandelson thought that the relationship between 19 politicians and journalists was a purely transactional 20 one. I prefer to think of the relationship between 21 politicians and journalists as being nuanced and 22 multi-layered. Sometimes it will be the case that some 23 politicians will regard their interactions with 24 journalists in a transactional fashion, but it can also 25 be the case that friendships can arise and it can 2 1 certainly be the case that politicians can understand 2 the pressures that journalists face in trying to make 3 sure that the public are informed and it can also be the 4 case that journalists can appreciate the pressures that 5 politicians face in trying to make sure that their 6 policy is presented fairly. 7 Q. Thank you. In your view, have we reached the point 8 where the current state of relationships between 9 journalists and politicians is poisonous or close to it? 10 A. No, I don't believe it's poisonous. 11 Q. Have we reached anywhere near that point? 12 A. No, I don't believe we have. Of course there's acrimony 13 between some journalists and some politicians as 14 a result of wrongs or perceived wrongs, but I think that 15 the idea that the relationship is poisonous is an 16 overstatement. 17 Q. Are there any aspects of the relationship, if one 18 doesn't like the word "poisonous", one might 19 characterise as unhealthy? 20 A. I think it's certainly the case that there are sometimes 21 elements of the relationship between politicians and 22 journalists that can be a little rough-edged. I think 23 that's certainly true. And it is also the case that 24 there are some politicians and some journalists who 25 develop, over time, a close relationship, which may not 3 1 altogether be in the public interest. But in my 2 experience, most politicians and most journalists have 3 a proper sense of the boundaries between each. 4 Q. So a close relationship which may not altogether be in 5 the public interest, why not altogether in the public 6 interest? 7 A. It may be the case sometimes that a relationship between 8 certain journalists and certain politicians will involve 9 a journalist or a politician relying one upon the other 10 for confidences which are not always shared with the 11 public at an appropriate time. 12 Q. Is there any implied trade-off for the sharing of such 13 confidences? 14 A. Sometimes it can be the case that journalists will 15 respect particular confidences in order to maintain 16 a relationship with politicians which they believe to 17 be, in the long term, in their interests. 18 Q. Is this a phenomenon which, to the extent to which it 19 exists, you've seen across all political parties? 20 A. I think it's a phenomenon that's existed across 21 generations. I think that it's in the very nature of 22 journalism as it's been practised for decades, that 23 there will be some journalists who will respect 24 confidences, others who will play fast and loose with 25 them. 4 1 Q. Do you have a view, Mr Gove, about a point which has 2 come across strongly through three witnesses now -- 3 Mr Blair, Lord Mandelson, Mr Campbell -- that at the 4 heart of the problem lies the fusion of news and 5 comment? 6 A. I can well understand why they express that concern, but 7 actually news and comment have been fused in newspapers 8 ever since the first public prints appeared. The best 9 and most scrupulous newspapers strive to ensure that 10 readers are clear what is news and what is comment, but 11 if you look back to the 1950s, 1930s, before then, you 12 will find that the boundaries between news and comment 13 were very porous in lots of journals. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So what does that make of clause 1(3) 15 of the code: 16 "The press, whilst free to be partisan, must 17 distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and 18 fact." 19 What does it make of that? 20 A. Well, the press strive to. There are some pieces which 21 are clearly comment. The op-ed page of the Times, or, 22 for that matter, the leader page of the Daily Mail, is 23 strongly comment. It's also the case that there reports 24 and dispatches which will clearly be fresh from the 25 front line or from an event, but it's also going to be 5 1 the case that there will be feature pieces, colour 2 pieces, in which a reporter will intermingle both 3 a documentary fact and also their perception and that 4 perception, of course, inevitably will be subjective and 5 what we rely on is the common sense of the reader to 6 discern the difference between that which is straight 7 reportage, that which is reporting with colour or a view 8 or an accent, and that which is comment or polemic. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So actually, you would really require 10 1(3) to be slightly differently drafted, because 11 I understand what you've just said but it doesn't fit 12 with 1(3) of the code: 13 "The press must distinguish clearly between comment, 14 conjecture and press." 15 You've just said they can't, really. 16 A. Well, I think a lot of the discrimination between the 17 comment, conjecture and fact relies upon discriminating 18 readers and one of the merits of having a plural press 19 is that discriminating readers can tell the difference 20 between those newspapers whom they trust, over time, to 21 give us a reliable account of affairs and those 22 newspapers whose reportage may be more highly coloured. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand. Does that mean the 24 answer to my question is: "Actually, yes, this doesn't 25 represent what happens"? 6 1 A. I think it's an ideal. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. 3 MR JAY: So we're left at the point where the discrimination 4 of the reader is likely to be one of the main 5 yardsticks; is that right? 6 A. It's certainly a factor, yes, and the experience that 7 they have over time, as they come to trust the 8 reliability of certain accounts in newspapers and then 9 raise a sceptical eyebrow towards others. 10 Q. Or maybe because the reader is attuned with a particular 11 world view he or she is imbibing through a particular 12 paper, he or she doesn't feel if necessary to undertake 13 that discrimination because there is a complete harmony 14 between what the paper says and what the reader wants to 15 read. Is that an issue? 16 A. It's certainly the case that people tend to read 17 newspapers whose outlook on the world they find 18 congenial, but it's not invariably the case. There are 19 Daily Mail readers who vote Conservative and some 20 readers who vote Liberal Democrat, so simply choosing to 21 read a newspaper doesn't mean you buy into the mindset 22 or the editorial line that that newspaper has at that 23 point. 24 Q. You've made it clear, Mr Gove, that the term "poisonous" 25 is a far misrepresentation from the true position, and 7 1 you've made it clear that you prefer some aspects of 2 "an unhealthy relationship", to put it at its highest 3 but go no further. In terms of where we are at present, 4 do you place any responsibility on what might be called 5 the machinations of the political classes over the 6 years, wrapped up in the term "spin"? 7 A. "Spin" is a term that's been interpreted in many 8 different ways. For some, it simply means the 9 professional presentation of a government's case. For 10 others, it might mean playing a little bit fast and 11 loose in order to try to ensure that your case is 12 presented favourably, irrespective of its merits. But 13 I think there have been spin doctors ever since the time 14 of the Roman Republic. It's always been the case that 15 politicians have employed individuals who are there to 16 put a favourable gloss on their activities. I think any 17 judgment about spin should be placed in its proper 18 historical context. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So has it been a continuum throughout 20 or do you think that in the last years it's taken 21 a different hue? 22 A. I think it has been a continuum throughout. I think 23 that when you had politicians in the early 18th century 24 employing people like Daniel Defoe or Jonathan Swift in 25 order to publish pamphlets putting forward a particular 8 1 gloss on their politics, that was spin after a fashion, 2 and I think at different times the activities of some of 3 those who were working for politicians in the interwar 4 years, in the 20s and 30s -- there whether undoubtedly 5 spin doctors operating then. 6 Of course, the changing nature of the media means 7 that the techniques employed change over time but the 8 principle that there are individuals who are 9 propagandists or who attempt to tailor perceptions of 10 the news, that's been, I think, something that's been 11 a historical continuity ever since politics has emerged. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And it's not got worse or better? 13 A. I can't make that judgment. All I can observe is that 14 it's been a factor throughout history. 15 MR JAY: I think it's clear from your evidence already, 16 Mr Gove, that the characterisation we've received from 17 some witnesses -- to be clear about it, Mr Blair, 18 Lord Mandelson and Mr Campbell -- of a state of affairs 19 which is close to being toxic, with language like "feral 20 beasts" being employed, and those with the contrary 21 view, that it's all the fault of the political classes' 22 spin -- you're asking us to tone this down, that in your 23 view this is an exaggeration about where we are at 24 present. Have I correctly summarised your opinion? 25 A. Perfectly. 9 1 Q. What about Mr Blair's point -- and this is a slightly 2 different point -- that in relations with proprietors 3 or -- I suppose you would say in one case, with an 4 editor -- there's a strong undercurrent of power, 5 undertow of power, which is -- I don't think he said 6 exactly "unhealthy", but that may be the sense of the 7 message he's seeking to convey. Do you recognise that 8 phenomenon or not? 9 A. I'm not sure quite what he meant by that. I didn't have 10 the opportunity to see Mr Blair's evidence or to read 11 it. I would observe again that over time, newspaper 12 proprietors have attempted to imprint their will on the 13 political sphere. Some politicians have resisted that, 14 other politicians have bent to it. But in that respect, 15 newspaper proprietors are like others who have wealth 16 and wield influence. From time to time, they will 17 attempt to influence politicians. Robust politicians 18 will know when to listen and then when to tell them, 19 I hope politely, that they won't bend. 20 Q. I'll come back to that point shortly. We're still on 21 your career as a journalist, as it were. You were 22 a leader writer at the Times for, I think, about 23 a decade; have I got it right? 24 A. Yes. I started as a leader writer at the Times and 25 I held a few other posts but throughout my time at the 10 1 Times I was writing leaders, yes. 2 Q. Was there any editorial influence on your leaders, to 3 your knowledge, exerted by Mr Murdoch or anybody acting 4 on his behalf? 5 A. None. 6 Q. In terms of the editorial direction of the Times, 7 insofar as one can discern one, could you assist us, 8 please, from where it derives? 9 A. It came primarily from the editor. The editor would 10 convene a leader conference after the main news 11 conference in the morning and he would discuss with the 12 leader writers and sometimes with executives from other 13 parts of the newspaper which we thought were the most 14 relevant stories of the day, of greatest interest to 15 Times readers, and what the Times' view should be of 16 them, consistent with the position that the Times had 17 taken in the past. 18 The editor who hired me, Peter Stothard, had 19 a particular world view. One of his predecessors, Simon 20 Jenkins, an equally distinguished editor, had a slightly 21 different world view, and on some occasions those views 22 would overlap and, as I say, on other occasions diverge. 23 Q. Did you regard it as your role, when writing leaders, to 24 represent the world view of the editor or were you in 25 any event given a degree of latitude as to how precisely 11 1 to express any opinion? 2 A. It was my role, when writing the leader, to represent 3 the world view and the stated view of the editor, but 4 before that view was arrived at, there would be a free 5 and open discussion, and there were a number on 6 occasions on which I argued vigorously against the view 7 that I thought the editor might hold, and then, if the 8 editor was unconvinced, which was usually the case, 9 I would knuckle down and write the leader in accordance 10 with the line that he decreed. 11 Q. And in terms of the editor's world view -- I appreciate 12 this is difficult to work out from precisely where that 13 might come -- did you get the sense that that was 14 genuinely the editor's world view or did you get any 15 sense that someone else might have been contributing to 16 that world view? 17 A. I got the sense that it was emphatically the editor's 18 world view. Every time that I heard Peter Stothard 19 talk, or subsequently his successor, Robert Thompson -- 20 or indeed when I had an opportunity to talk to 21 predecessors like William Rees-Mogg or Simon Jenkins, it 22 was clear to me that they were men of decided views who 23 were reflective individuals who came to their leader 24 view only after a great deal of thought. 25 Q. May I move to the role of proprietors in general. You 12 1 make it clear -- and I think you have already made this 2 point in paragraph 52 of your statement, our 3 page 01252 -- that media proprietors, in your experience 4 and from your reading of history, tend to be 5 intellectually curious and politically engaged figures 6 whom it is always fascinating to. In relation to your 7 own experience -- and without looking at historical 8 examples, which plainly would be outside your 9 experience -- could you assist us, please, with whom 10 you're referring to there? 11 A. Rupert Murdoch, Viscount Rothermere, Richard Desmond are 12 all three newspaper proprietors whom I have had the 13 privilege of meeting and each of them operates in 14 a different way. All of them it was fascinating to 15 meet. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Were you surprised to hear 17 Mr Rupert Murdoch say that you'd always be able to find 18 out what his opinion was on any subject by reading the 19 editorial in the Sun? 20 A. I wasn't too surprised by that because I think there's 21 a distinction between the Times and the Sun. The Sun is 22 a newspaper which in most, but not in every respect, 23 reflects Rupert Murdoch's world view. The Times is 24 a newspaper put together in a very different way. 25 MR JAY: The role of the Sun is very different as well, 13 1 given its size, its mass penetration, as it were, and 2 the fact that it's seen as a floating voter and has been 3 historically, certainly in 1997 and again in 2010, 4 although some have argued it was simply returning to its 5 roots. Do you see any dangers inherent in that? 6 A. I think it's right that individual newspapers should 7 have individual characters and their decision about the 8 political positions that they adopt should be matters 9 for proprietors, editors, the editorial team, and 10 I think the pluralism of the British press is 11 a strength. The fact that there are so many national 12 titles, each with a different character and flavour, is 13 something that enhances British democracy. 14 Q. One has to agree with that at a level of generality, but 15 does one not have to analyse as well -- and tell me if 16 you agree or disagree -- whether there is 17 a preponderance of support for any one political party 18 over time which might therefore have influence on the 19 democratic process? 20 A. With respect to the Sun? 21 Q. No, with respect to all newspapers in the plural 22 universe you are describing. 23 A. I think that given any individual has a free choice over 24 which newspaper to buy, then the political balance of 25 the press, I think, reflects the success of newspaper 14 1 proprietors and editors both in providing information 2 that's congenial to readers and also commentary that 3 they find favourable. 4 So if one newspaper -- forgive me, one political 5 party, over time, benefits, then that's a consequence of 6 the free decisions of individual and it shouldn't be 7 seen as the exercise of power on the part of newspapers; 8 it should be seen as the exercise of millions of 9 individual preferences by readers. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: You have to be a bit careful about 11 that. One witness gave evidence to the Inquiry that 12 actually the newspaper he bought was entirely, as it 13 were, genetically driven. That's what his parents 14 bought and actually he quite liked the sport, or the 15 crossword, and no inference should be drawn whatsoever 16 about his political persuasion from the fact that he 17 always bought this particular paper. So that's 18 a different -- 19 A. That is one individual's view, and of course, given that 20 there are millions who buy newspapers, there will be 21 millions of different reasons. 22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's the point. 23 A. But I merely observe that the Socialist Worker and the 24 Morning Star are freely available on the news stands. 25 They have both sporting and literary cover but they sell 15 1 rather less than the Sun and the Daily Mail. 2 MR JAY: You say in paragraph 40: 3 "There are always potential risks in any 4 relationship between politicians and those (I note not 5 only media persons or entities) who might benefit 6 commercially or otherwise from government decisions." 7 What are the potential risks that you're referring 8 to there? 9 A. I think anyone who exercises a degree of influence, who 10 has power, who has wealth and who might be pursuing 11 a particular agenda can, if they exercise an influence 12 over a politician which is unfortunate or unethical -- 13 they can derive advantage from that. But I think I made 14 the point earlier that of course newspaper proprietors 15 are individuals of wealth and influence, but there are 16 also other owners of other organisations who also 17 exercise wealth and influence and it's appropriate that 18 politicians, ministers and shadow ministers reflect on 19 their relationships with all of those individuals. 20 Q. The proprietor you know best, of course, is Mr Murdoch. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Wherein lies his fascination? 23 A. I think that he is one of the most impressive and 24 significant figures of the last 50 years. 25 Q. That's a lapidary statement. Can you expand on that? 16 1 A. I think that the changes that he made to newspaper 2 publishing as a result of his decision to relocate his 3 titles to Wapping lowered the barriers to entry for 4 newspapers and meant that like the Independent, which 5 would never otherwise have existed, existed, and as 6 a result more individuals have been employed in 7 journalism. It's also the case that his investment in 8 satellite television has also created jobs as well, and 9 I think that it's undoubtedly the case that there are 10 few entrepreneurs who have taken risks in the way that 11 he has and therefore generated employment, but also 12 controversy in the way which he has. 13 Q. And the generation of controversy, how does that arise 14 or how has that arisen? 15 A. It's often the case that successful people invite 16 criticism. He has been successful in a particular 17 industry, where there are others who are only too happy 18 to criticise, and they have exercised their liberty to 19 do so. 20 Q. You described him, consistently with the evidence you've 21 just given, as a force of nature, a phenomenon and, 22 I think, a great man. That's right, isn't it? 23 A. Yes, it is. I enjoyed meeting him when I was 24 a journalist, I subsequently enjoyed meeting him when 25 way a politician and I would also say that as well as 17 1 having been a successful businessman, I think that the 2 position that he took on, for example, the European 3 single currency, has been vindicated by events. 4 Q. Have you ever expressed a view on the merits of the 5 BSkyB bid, Mr Gove? 6 A. Never to any of my political colleagues, no. 7 Q. So insofar as you held a view about it, by definition it 8 would have been a private view? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Can I ask you, please, 72 and 73 of your statement, 11 where you deal with your discussions with Mr Murdoch -- 12 at paragraph 72, 01255, you say you never, to your 13 recollection, discussed the BBC licence fee, Ofcom, 14 BSkyB or media policy issues with Mr Rupert Murdoch or 15 anyone representing his interests since becoming an MP. 16 A. That is correct. Yes, absolutely. 17 Q. And in paragraph 73 -- this deals with government policy 18 or decision-making -- to the best of your recollection, 19 you do not recall any specific discussions not already 20 mentioned? 21 A. Yes, that's right. 22 Q. Your colleagues presumably would know your view anyway, 23 wouldn't they, on these matters? 24 A. I think they could legitimately infer what my view would 25 be. 18 1 Q. Thank you. Your specific interactions with media 2 organisations, you provided us with a schedule, which is 3 your exhibit MG5. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You'll see it under tab 7 of the bundle which has been 6 prepared. Again, if one were to attempt an overview of 7 this document -- it starts at our page 01224 -- we can 8 see that you have interactions with a number of 9 newspaper groups. It's probably right to say that 10 News International titles are the most prominent. Would 11 you agree with that as a sort of generalisation? 12 A. Yes, I think it's entirely fair. 13 Q. But on the other hand, we see you having a meeting -- at 14 least two, and there are possibly others -- with the 15 Guardian? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. There are several meetings with Lord and Lady Rothermere 18 over dinner, but the implication might be that those are 19 more social occasions than formal political occasions; 20 is that a fair inference? 21 A. Yes, I think that's entirely fair. 22 Q. But nonetheless political matters would arise during the 23 course of such occasions, no doubt; is that fair? 24 A. Yes. Lord and Lady Rothermere are, as you might expect, 25 interested in politics, as any informed and intelligent 19 1 observer of the scene would be. Yes, absolutely. 2 Q. I don't think that there's anybody or any national paper 3 which has been excluded from this table, but there have 4 been limited occasions when you've been with the 5 Northern & Shell group. There was a lunch with 6 Mr Desmond on 7 June 2011, we can see, but I think only 7 one occasion with Mr Yevgeny Lebedev, which was 8 28 June 2011. 9 A. Yes, that's right. I think I've lodged with the Cabinet 10 Office an update and I hope that that will be shared 11 with the Inquiry shortly. Subsequent to that, I have 12 had dinner with Mr Lebedev on one other occasion, with 13 my wife. 14 Q. It's very difficult, Mr Gove, if one were to alight on 15 a particular meeting -- the most ancient, I suppose, is 16 two years old. Obviously we have more recent ones, but 17 even two years it may be difficult to remember 18 a particular conversation. Let's see how far we get 19 with this. 19 May 2010. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. There was a meeting with Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks 22 plus more than ten others. It's described as a "dinner 23 and general discussion". It's within two weeks of the 24 formation of the Coalition government. It may be 25 reasonable to infer that you're discussing very recent 20 1 events at that dinner; is that a reasonable inference? 2 A. Yes, it was a dinner party held at Mr Murdoch's flat in 3 St James', to the best of my recollection, and I think 4 there was at least one other minister there, although 5 I couldn't swear to it, and it was a relatively 6 straightforward dinner in which one would speak to the 7 individual on one's right and one's left, and then, 8 I think just after the main course, there was a general 9 discussion involving most of the participants. 10 Q. So the general discussion was about recent political 11 events and nothing more? 12 A. I think that it touched specifically on education, 13 because Mr Murdoch is interested in -- and I think his 14 evidence to this Inquiry reinforced that -- education 15 reform worldwide. 16 Q. If we can move forward to 10 June 2010. This is 17 described as "dinner and general discussion". 18 Rebekah Brooks plus several others. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What do you recall about that occasion? 21 A. It was a social occasion and my wife was present and 22 also present were another couple who were mutual 23 friends. Rebekah Brooks and her husband were there, and 24 it was a general social discussion. Inevitably, because 25 Rebekah Brooks had been an employee of 21 1 News International when I was working at the Times and 2 because my wife continues to work at the Times, some of 3 the conversation was about mutual acquaintances in the 4 world of journalism, some of it general political 5 observation, some of it commentary on current affairs 6 which wasn't explicitly political. 7 Q. It's fairly clear from the evidence you're giving that 8 you have a fairly sound recollection of these events. 9 Is that a reasonable deduction? 10 A. I recollect quite a lot of the general circumstances 11 surrounding that. I've been helped by my private 12 office, who provided me with details of what I was doing 13 immediately before and afterwards, which has helped jog 14 my memory. But I don't have a verbatim account, I'm 15 afraid, of every issue we touched on. 16 Q. On 17 June, the lunch and general discussion on this 17 occasion is with News International executives and 18 senior editors, including Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah 19 Brooks. Again, can you remember or assist us with what 20 that general discussion was about? 21 A. Yes, absolutely. My private office have helped me here. 22 I had just returned from giving a speech to the national 23 college of school leaders in Birmingham and the board of 24 News International had gathered at the Wapping site to 25 have a board meeting. It was generally the case that 22 1 over lunch they would invite a guest speaker from the 2 world of politics to speak to them. On this occasion, 3 I was -- rather than speaking directly to them and 4 giving a sort of pre-arranged oration, I was interviewed 5 by my former colleague, Daniel Finklestein, who asked me 6 a series of questions, mostly about education reform and 7 what the coalition was attempted to do in order to 8 improve schools. 9 Q. In terms of the background chronology, we know that the 10 BSkyB bid was launched on 15 June -- and this is two 11 days later -- so the obvious question is: was the bid 12 discussed or mentioned at that lunch? 13 A. Not in my view. I arrived after the board had been 14 having their discussions, and my interaction with any 15 members of the board were limited because I arrived, was 16 ushered to a sort of Parkinson style seat, where Daniel 17 Finklestein asked me a series of questions and then 18 I was able to thank my host and then leave. 19 Q. So you were only there for a self-contained part of the 20 occasion? 21 A. Yes. It was a -- I hesitate to say "staged", but it was 22 a staged interview with Daniel Finklestein asking me 23 a series of questions. 24 Q. When did you first learn of the bid? 25 A. I honestly can't recall. 23 1 Q. It was launched on 15 June, so in terms of that date 2 frame, was it before or after 15 June? 3 A. I have to confess to the Inquiry and to others that 4 I have not followed the progress of the bid with the 5 same interest as many others, so of course at various 6 different points there were twists and turns in the 7 narrative of the bid that would pop up in the 8 newspapers, but I have to say I did not give it any 9 particular attention. There are any number of news 10 stories that you might ask me about and I sort of 11 remember the broad narrative of the story but I couldn't 12 remember when the story broke on public consciousness. 13 Q. Do you think that you were told of the bid before it was 14 formally launched? 15 A. I don't believe I was, no. I have absolutely no 16 recollection of having been informed other than having 17 read about it in the newspapers or seen it reported on 18 television. 19 Q. I think the question is, Mr Gove, that if you learnt of 20 the bid after its public announcement, one can see that, 21 okay, you wouldn't necessarily remember precisely when 22 that was in terms of everything else that was going on, 23 and this was only five or six weeks into a new Coalition 24 government, but if you learnt of the bid before it was 25 announced publicly, then that might stick in your mind 24 1 because of the slightly unusual circumstances in which 2 you acquired that knowledge. So may I try again? Do 3 you think that you learnt of the bid before it was 4 publicly announced? 5 A. I do take your point, and absolutely I have no 6 recollection of anyone telling me about the bid before 7 it was launched and I think your point is well made. 8 I imagine that it would have been significant if someone 9 had taken me into their confidence and I have absolutely 10 no recollection of any such conversation of any kind. 11 Q. So 10 June, the dinner and general discussion, is it 12 possible that it was mentioned on that occasion or not? 13 A. I think it highly unlikely, and I certainly have no 14 recollection. 15 Q. Okay. We're going to go fairly quickly now through the 16 rest of this list. We're still on tab 7, Mr Gove. 17 There's a lecture on 21 October 2010, which is at the 18 centre for policy studies, and one draws the inference 19 that that was a semi-formal event, obviously a lecture 20 given and maybe a discussion afterwards. Is that so? 21 A. Exactly so. Mr Rupert Murdoch gave a lecture, quite 22 wide-ranging. A significant section of the lecture 23 touched on education reform. Afterwards, there was 24 a dinner for, I think, 40 or 45 of those who had 25 attended. 25 1 Q. Thank you. 2 Now, 17 December 2010, top of the page, 3 Rebekah Brooks plus several others. This is described 4 as a social event. Can you assist us, please, with the 5 circumstances of that, where it was, for example? 6 A. Yes, it was an invitation to a concert at the 02. My 7 wife and I joined Rebekah Brooks and her husband and 8 other guests. 9 Q. Is it conceivable -- I've been asked to put this to 10 you -- that the BSkyB bid was mentioned on that 11 occasion? 12 A. I think it highly unlikely, certainly in my hearing. We 13 arrived just as the concert was beginning, and we had 14 an opportunity for a few friendly words, but it 15 certainly wasn't the sort of atmosphere or environment 16 which was conducive to a business discussion, and 17 I don't believe that anything like that was raised at 18 all, no. 19 Q. And what about 31 January 2011, which is a dinner 20 sponsored by academy sponsor Mr Dunstone. Can you 21 assist us with that occasion? 22 A. Yes, Charles Dunstone is a friend who has, at the 23 invitation of the last government, sponsored an academy 24 in the northwest of England. Rebekah Brooks was one of 25 the governors of that academy and the conversation was 26 1 a general conversation about politics and we naturally 2 touched on education. 3 Q. The possible coincidence in the dates -- one can't 4 really put it higher than that -- is on 21 January 5 Mr Coulson resigned as Director of Communications. Do 6 you think that matter was discussed on 31 January 2011? 7 A. I have pretty clear recollection that we did touch on 8 Andy Coulson's resignation. It's understandable. 9 Andy Coulson had been a colleague of both of ours, and 10 I think both of us felt a degree of human sympathy for 11 him having had to resign twice. 12 Q. Were there any other occasions on which Mr Coulson's 13 resignation was discussed with executives of 14 News International? 15 A. Not that I can recall, no. 16 Q. Over the subsequent months throughout the early part of 17 2011 -- you see there's another discussion, 19 May. 18 Mr Harding and the two Murdochs are there and 19 Rebekah Brooks. 16 June and 26 June. Do you think 20 phone hacking as a topic was ever discussed? 21 A. Not at any of those events, no. On 19 May, I was due to 22 have breakfast with James Harding to discuss 23 News International's involvement in education, which we 24 may come onto. Both Mr Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks 25 joined us at that breakfast. I hadn't expected them to. 27 1 It was a pleasant addition. On 16 June, I joined 2 a group who had dinner with Mr Murdoch after the 3 News International reception. The conversation then was 4 very general, and on 26 June, again, the conversation 5 touched primarily on education. 6 Q. Education seems to be -- unsurprisingly, given your 7 position -- the most important topic which was raised at 8 these various interactions; is that right? 9 A. Yes. I do recall that on breakfast on 19 May we did 10 touch on one or two sort of general political issues: 11 state of the European Union, issues like that. 12 Q. On any of these subsequent occasions, was the stage or 13 progress of the BSkyB bid ever mentioned? 14 A. No. 15 Q. And outside what we see here, which may not cover 16 informal interactions by phone or email or whatever, 17 were there any communications either about the BSkyB bid 18 or phone hacking issues, to the best of your 19 recollection? 20 A. To the best of my recollection, no. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: As a former journalist who is married 22 to a journalist, it is not in the least bit surprising 23 that a large number of your friends are journalists or 24 work in the business. 25 A. (Nods head) 28 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Have you found it necessary, whether 2 formally or at least in your own mind, to erect 3 a Chinese wall between what might be called the 4 development of social relationships and the normal human 5 action that all of us get involved in, and the business 6 side of what you now do for a living? And if you have, 7 how have you worked it out? And if you haven't, how did 8 you work that out? 9 A. I try to exercise appropriate judgment on all occasions. 10 It's not simply former journalists or current 11 journalists whom I know and with whom I have social 12 interactions with whom I have to exercise a degree of 13 caution. As a journalist, I became friendly with 14 politicians in other political parties and individuals 15 in public life. 16 Now, as a minister, I have to be careful that 17 natural human interaction, friendship and regard don't 18 lead me to make any judgment, politically or with regard 19 to the dispersal of public money, that would embarrass 20 the government or put them in an invidious position. So 21 certainly with respect to journalists, I try and operate 22 a set of common sense rules which apply also to others 23 whom I come into contact with as a politician. 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And do you think that the common 25 sense rules that you put in place for yourself are 29 1 always shared by those others, whether of your present 2 Parliament or former Parliaments, former politicians, in 3 their relationships with the media? Or have you learnt 4 from what you've seen have been, in your view, mistakes 5 by others? 6 A. I prefer to allow others to account for their own 7 actions. I wouldn't want to sit in judgment on any 8 other politician. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not asking you to sit in judgment 10 on anybody. What I'm asking you to do is to tell me 11 whether you have developed your own rules by reference 12 to what you've seen, and you've decided you really don't 13 want to go in that sort of direction. I'm not going to 14 ask you to name names. 15 A. I think that the common sense rules that I've applied 16 are the rules that any politician sensibly should apply, 17 taking advice from Parliamentary colleagues and from 18 civil servants and so on, but I don't think I could 19 point to any political predecessor -- and I recognise 20 that you're not inviting me to name any individual but I 21 don't think I can point to any political predecessor and 22 say, "I don't want to go down his or her route." 23 I think that there are certain common sense judgments 24 which would apply to politicians, to judges, to 25 barristers, about exactly when you make your excuses and 30 1 leave, and when you say, "That's a very kind offer, but 2 I fear I can't accept." 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Do you think the public understand 4 these judgments or do you think the public are concerned 5 that things have become -- let me use a word that has 6 been used -- rather cosy? 7 A. I think the public are very sensible and I think that 8 they are perfectly capable of making a judgment about 9 individual politicians or indeed politicians as a class, 10 and I don't think that they need steering, nudging or 11 coaxing towards a sensible view. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, why is it then that there is 13 such disregard apparently expressed? 14 A. For whom? 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Both journalists and politicians. 16 A. T'was ever thus. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So it just goes with the territory? 18 A. I think it does. I don't think there's any time that 19 I know of when politicians were held in uniquely high 20 regard. I think if you look back at the caricatures of 21 politicians in the early 18th century or the commentary 22 on politicians in the 1920s or 1950s, you will find that 23 they were held in pretty low regard then. 24 As for journalism, it's always been a rough old 25 trade which has tended to attract non-conformists and 31 1 rebels and for that reason, while it has a certain 2 romance, it hasn't always attracted respectability. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So your reaction is that the 4 suggestion that I think I've received from more than 5 a few people over the last few months that actually 6 public regard for both has gone down is misplaced? 7 A. I think it's always wise to look at the historical 8 context. It was a Latin author who said, "O tempora o 9 mores!" as they were lamenting the slack morals of their 10 time. I think that human nature doesn't change much 11 over time and politicians and journalists have always 12 tended to be held in relatively low regard. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's not quite the question, but 14 never mind. Right. 15 A. It's my view. 16 MR JAY: A slightly jaundiced view of human nature, but 17 maybe that's the message you're -- 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. 19 MR JAY: Can I ask you, please, about one individual who 20 doesn't feature on your list, at least to the best of my 21 scrutiny of it: Mr Dacre. Is he someone you've met with 22 or spoken to on any semi-formal basis? 23 A. I have met Paul Dacre on at least two occasions. 24 Q. How would you describe the nature of your relationship 25 with him, if any? 32 1 A. I respect him as one of the most impressive editors of 2 our age. 3 Q. Influence on policy. You deal with this at paragraph 64 4 and following of your statement, 01253. You make the 5 point, under paragraph 67, that it's foolish, indeed 6 self-defeating, to abandon politicians to make sense in 7 the long term to win necessarily ephemeral good 8 headlines. Although many politicians do precisely that, 9 don't they? 10 A. Some do. 11 Q. In paragraph 68, you say: 12 "The views of journalists should be given no greater 13 or less weight than the views of people in other 14 professions or occupations." 15 Well, as a prescription for action, I'm sure that's 16 right, but as a statement of fact, is that right? In 17 other words, might I gently suggest that the views of 18 journalists are given greater weight because of the 19 power they exercise through the megaphone they possess? 20 Would you agree with that? 21 A. I generally think that those journalist who are 22 influential are journalists who articulate a strong case 23 consistently and with intellectual authority, and 24 journalists who plough a particular furrow and do so 25 without style, elan or intellectual consistency don't 33 1 have their views taken particular account of. 2 Q. I think what you're effectively saying is it's the 3 market which determines the weight which should be given 4 because the stronger the ability of the journalist to 5 put forward a cause or an argument, the greater weight 6 will be accorded to that journalist. Surely it doesn't 7 work quite as simply as that, Mr Gove, because there are 8 certain section of the press where views are put across 9 without necessarily that degree of elan, elegance and 10 intellectual weight but a disproportionate impact is 11 conveyed. Do you at least see the force of that point? 12 A. I'm not sure I do. I think the best journalists are 13 those who can construct -- if we're talking about 14 opinion journalists who are attempting to persuade 15 politicians or even the public of a particular course of 16 action, the best are those who certainly write with elan 17 but also marshal facts in an effective way, and -- you 18 mention the word "market". I think it's fair to say 19 that there are some journalists who write for relatively 20 low circulation newspapers but whose opinions are taken 21 seriously, much in the same way as there are academics 22 whose papers would not be read widely but the quality of 23 whose argument certainly weighs with me and other 24 politicians. 25 Q. Then in paragraph 70, you say: 34 1 "Principle campaigns by responsible newspapers on 2 particular issues can significantly advance the public 3 interest." 4 In a sense, though, you've defined the right answer 5 by referring to a principle campaign to responsible 6 newspapers and to particular issues, but there are 7 examples of campaigns which may be lacking in principle, 8 at least to the viewpoint of some, that may be full of 9 stridency and noise, and such campaigns might, in 10 certain sections of the press, have a disproportionate 11 impact. Do you accept that? 12 A. Yes, that's certainly true. Historically the campaign 13 that Horatio Bottomley ran when he was an MP and a sort 14 of a sort of newspaper impresario, that was 15 irresponsible, and I think we can argue that the 16 Beaverbrook Rothermere campaign against Baldwin at the 17 turn of the 20s and 30s, that was irresponsible. So 18 yes, there did be irresponsible newspaper campaigns, but 19 there can also be irresponsible campaigns from pressure 20 groups and there can be irresponsible campaigns from 21 charismatic politicians. 22 Q. The last two are no doubt outside the terms of reference 23 of this Inquiry. We're only concerned, I suppose, with 24 campaigns generated from newspapers. But maybe this 25 goes back to the issue of the fusion of news and 35 1 comment, or maybe it goes back to the issue of the 2 highly influential proprietor or editor, that the 3 newspaper not just a voice, it is an amplified voice, 4 and the dangers which flow inherently from that. Do you 5 see the risk of vice there? 6 A. I do see your point. It is certainly the case that if 7 you have a proprietor who has a strong view, if you have 8 gifted journalists who can make a case compellingly, and 9 if a newspaper manages to strike a chord with the 10 public, the momentum behind a particular campaign bay 11 grow. But it's up to politicians to decide whether or 12 not they will listen to that campaign and admit the 13 logic of the case that's being made, or say that it's 14 wrong. 15 Baldwin recognised that the campaign for Empire free 16 trade was wrong. Other politicians recognised that the 17 campaign which the Sun and others ran to keep us out of 18 the single currency was right, and I think if we're 19 reflecting on other newspaper campaigns, I think we can 20 undoubtedly say that was a campaign in the public 21 interest. 22 Q. Well, some people might still disagree with that 23 proposition, Mr Gove, but I'm not going to take you on 24 on it. 25 A. I'm sure -- well, a dwindling number may. 36 1 Q. Perhaps these two general questions. Either as 2 a journalist or, since 2005, as a politician, have you 3 seen, observed or heard any evidence of an express deal 4 or arrangement made between a proprietor or an editor, 5 I suppose, and a politician? 6 A. None. 7 Q. If I was to substitute in that sentence for "express 8 deal or arrangement" "implied deal", what would your 9 answer be? 10 A. Exactly the same. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is there no difference between the 12 likely impact on a politician of the wealthy person who 13 owns substantial media interests and the wealthy who 14 exercise power in other ways, whether as captains of 15 industry but who don't have what has been described as 16 the megaphone that the press provide them? 17 A. I think that undoubtedly it's the case that if a wealthy 18 individual has a newspaper that might be another reason 19 to be polite and to be interested in their views, but 20 it's undoubtedly the case that whether they're captains 21 of industry or spokesmen for organisations with 22 influence in other ways, politicians will always listen 23 to different voices in the debate. I sometimes think, 24 however, that disproportionate attention is paid to what 25 newspapers may say, for example, during an election 37 1 campaign. I think the public are shrewder in making up 2 their mind about which parties to support than is 3 sometimes imagined. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But do you think disproportionate 5 attention is paid to what newspapers say generally? Is 6 too much time spent by politicians on what is appearing 7 in the news? Perhaps not by you, but what's your 8 experience? 9 A. I think there are some politicians who do spend too much 10 time worrying about newspapers, and there are others who 11 show a proper insouciance. 12 MR JAY: May I move on now to a specific topic, because we 13 asked you in your witness statement to deal with the 14 issue of schools and Mr Murdoch and the free academy and 15 school issue. Could you first of all, please, explain 16 to us the nature of free schools and academies in the 17 context of what became new legislation in office, the 18 Academies Act 2010? 19 A. Yes. I'll try to be brief. Academies are schools which 20 operate outside local government control. They were 21 created by the last government, by Tony Blair, and they 22 were explicitly modelled on city technology colleges and 23 grant-maintained schools, policy initiatives that 24 originated under the predecessor Conservative 25 government. 38 1 An academy, under Tony Blair, was an underperforming 2 school which would be taken out of local authority 3 control and linked with a sponsor, either 4 a philanthropist or an institution of educational 5 excellence, and given the support required in order to 6 improve. 7 We've carried on with that policy and extended it. 8 We've allowed existing schools which have demonstrated 9 the capacity to improve themselves and to improve 10 others, to enjoy the freedoms that come with academy 11 status, freedoms not just from local bureaucratic 12 control but also from the national curriculum. Free 13 schools are essentially a new form of academy where, 14 rather than central government either suggesting that 15 a school should become an academy or permitting an 16 existing school to become an academy, invites a new 17 organisation, often a group of teachers, often 18 philanthropists, to set up a new state stool school. 19 Q. The funding arrangements, to be clear then, in relation 20 to free schools and academies, they will usually be 21 a philanthropist? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. But the secondary or parallel funder will be central 24 government; is that right? 25 A. Yes. With all academies, the recurring costs of making 39 1 sure that the pupils are educated are supplied by 2 central government. The money is calculated to ensure 3 that the academy enjoys almost exactly the same funding 4 as other schools in that local authority area. In the 5 past, when there was rather more capital around, 6 government would often provide capital to ensure that 7 either a new building was built or an existing building 8 was refitted as part of the academy's programme. That 9 is, for regrettable reasons, much less common now, 10 simply of course because of the economic situation that 11 we inherited. 12 Q. And for free schools, are the funding arrangements 13 broadly similar? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What, if any, then is the role of the local authority in 16 terms of the funding? 17 A. The local authority can be a willing partner and there 18 have been some local authorities that have co-sponsored 19 academies. There have been other local authorities that 20 have said that they wish to play no role in the 21 governments of an academy or a free school, but they 22 would welcome that additional provision and have gone 23 out of their way either to provide sites or to smooth 24 the planning process. 25 Q. You've provided details of model funding arrangements. 40 1 I don't think we're going to look at the detail of 2 those, however. 3 Can I ask you, please, about the detail of 4 paragraph 30 and following. You say in paragraph 30 5 that you discussed your education reform progress, by 6 which you mean the government's educational reform 7 programme -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- with representative of the management of Pearson and 10 the Daily Mail general the Trust. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. In the context of Mr Murdoch and paragraph 31, there was 13 a meeting of which you've provided details in 14 late November 2010 at a site in Newham, and this related 15 to the possibility of News Corporation investing in an 16 academy; is that right? 17 A. Yes, that's correct. 18 Q. And the attendees were James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, 19 Will Lewis, James Harding, Mayor of London, various 20 others, you and your PBS; is that correct? 21 A. Yes, that's correct. 22 Q. There's a note of that meeting, which isn't particularly 23 illuminating, under tab 9 but it's clear the meeting 24 took place on 30 November. 25 A. Yes. 41 1 Q. Can we understand, in the context of the general 2 evidence that you've given, the philanthropist in the 3 model you describe was obviously going to be 4 News International or News Corporation -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I think News International but precisely who doesn't 7 matter. Who was to provide the rest of the money? 8 A. Well, a building, it was mooted, might be provided by 9 Newham or land might be provided by the London 10 Development Authority, which is the Mayor of London. 11 The point that we made is that if a school were 12 established we would certainly ensure that the pupils 13 were funded on the same basis as any new academy, but 14 I hope I made clear then, and I certainly made clear 15 subsequently, that the department for education could 16 not provide the capital costs for a new building. 17 Q. So the running costs would be supplied by central 18 government but that presupposes that the capital costs 19 became available? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. We know that they didn't, unfortunately. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. But the capital costs, were these a sort of joint 24 venture between News Corporation and Newham and/or some 25 other quasi-governmental body? Have I correctly 42 1 understood? 2 A. We took a decision to stand back and to say, "We cannot 3 provide the capital. Of course it's open to you to have 4 discussions with anyone you feel appropriate, whether 5 that's Newham, the Mayor of London or others." I don't 6 know all the details of those discussions but at 7 different times, News International were seeking support 8 from Newham and they were certainly seeking to use a 9 site which was owned by the London Development 10 Authority. I don't believe the plans ever reached the 11 stage of maturity where these preliminary discussions 12 moved towards the establishment of a proper joint 13 venture, as it were. 14 Q. Did you see it in your role, though, to facilitate the 15 provision of funding by others in some way, in 16 particular the local authority or some other party? 17 A. I saw it as my role to do everything possible to ensure 18 that we could benefit -- and the children of the east 19 end could benefit -- by a philanthropist investing in 20 a new school, but it was the case that I couldn't lean 21 on any individual or local authority in order to release 22 land or to provide a building. All I could do is 23 present it to them or have the department present it to 24 them what I thought was an opportunity. 25 Q. I think the project fell through early in 2011. 43 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. We'll come to that in a moment. At about the same time, 3 but no doubt coincidentally, in paragraph 32 of your 4 statement, you explain that on 5 November 2010 you 5 invited Mr Gerald Klein, who at that time was chancellor 6 of the New York City Board of Education, to come to 7 London to address a conference hosted by your department 8 for those interested in setting up free schools. That 9 conference was due to take place, indeed did take place, 10 in January 2011; is that correct? 11 A. Yes, that's absolutely correct. 12 Q. But four days after you extended the invitation, 13 Mr Klein joined the board of directors of News Corp on 14 9 November, and that was something which you had no 15 previous knowledge of; is that right? 16 A. I didn't know it. When the news came through, I have to 17 confess that I wasn't entirely surprised. Mr Klein is 18 something of an educational superstar, so while we were 19 anxious to get him to talk, it didn't surprise me that 20 others were anxious to work alongside him. 21 Q. Were you given any advance notification that he might be 22 joining the board of directors of News Corp? 23 A. None. 24 Q. Did he remain, out of interest, at the same time 25 chancellor of the New York Board of Education, or did he 44 1 have to give up that post to become a member of the 2 board of directors of News Corp? 3 A. He gave up the post. I think there was a sort of 4 transition period, and quite a lot of the our 5 correspondence I think with him was originally with the 6 New York schools department. 7 Q. At the conference which took place -- you describe what 8 happened generally between paragraphs 33 and 35 of your 9 statement. There were, I think, at least two dinners. 10 But this was all in the context more generally of 11 education reform and free schools widely. It wasn't 12 specifically to do with the project which we've been 13 talking about five minutes ago; is that correct? 14 A. That wasn't raised at all during the conversations that 15 we had. We were anxious to learn from Mr Klein about 16 his experience in raising standards, particularly for 17 the poorest children in New York, and there were a range 18 of other speakers from the United States of America who 19 were involved in that work, including those who run the 20 inspirational Knowledge is Power programme set of 21 charter schools. 22 Q. Did you understand it to be News International or 23 News Corp's position that if the first free school in 24 Newham were successful, this was going to be the start 25 of several, or did you understand the position to be 45 1 different from that? 2 A. I understood it to be the case that they had limited 3 ambitions. Obviously setting up a school is 4 a significant exercise, but I believe they wanted to set 5 up one school in the east end in order to ensure that 6 their sense of corporate social responsibility was 7 fulfilled. There was some talk at one point about 8 whether or not another school might be located in west 9 London as well but that was the limit of their ambition. 10 Q. Can I just deal with the point whether this was pure 11 philanthropy, Mr Gove? 12 A. Of course. 13 Q. Do you agree that although there is and was no scope for 14 immediate profit, it was generally thought that the free 15 school would only thrive if profit were obtained at some 16 time in the future, as in the Swedish model? 17 A. That's a view that a number of people hold, yes. 18 Q. Was it a view that you held? 19 A. No. I believe and believe to this day that the free 20 school movement can thrive without profit. 21 Q. But it would be desirable, I suppose, if profit were 22 generated, although I suppose that would always be the 23 position? 24 A. There are some of my colleagues in the Coalition who are 25 very sceptical of the benefits of profit. I have an 46 1 open mind. I believe that it may be the case that we 2 can augment the quality of state education by extending 3 the range of people involved in its provision. 4 But I apply one test: are we improving education 5 overall and improving the lives of the poorest most of 6 all? And in particular, when I have been pursuing 7 either Mr Murdoch or others, my aim has been to get 8 money from others into the state education system for 9 that end. 10 Q. According to a piece in the Guardian on 3 September 11 2011, under tab 28: 12 "State sources close to [you] admitted last night 13 that the education secretary had been hoping to allow 14 free schools, which are set up by local people but still 15 funded by the state, to make profits in the second term 16 of a Tory-led government." 17 Is that an accurate statement of your aspiration? 18 A. It's my belief that we could move to that situation, but 19 I think at the moment it's important to recognise that 20 the free schools movement is succeeding without that 21 element, and I think we should cross that bridge when we 22 come to it. 23 Q. Was that aspiration or that bridge which you haven't yet 24 come to a matter which was ever discussed with Mr Klein 25 or anyone else on behalf of News Corporation? 47 1 A. No. 2 Q. The other aspect which I'd like you to consider is in 3 the United States of America, News Corp's profit in the 4 education sector does not come from running schools but 5 from its subsidiary business called Wireless 6 Corporation, which it acquired in November 2010. Do you 7 know anything about that? 8 A. I didn't know anything about that company until I read 9 about it in the Guardian. 10 Q. And that was therefore late summer of last year, was it? 11 A. I can't remember when the Guardian article first 12 appeared that mentions Wireless Generation. I was aware 13 that both Mr Murdoch and others had an interest in the 14 way in which technology would change education, but 15 I wasn't surprised by his interest because I'd had 16 a number of meetings with organisations like Pearson and 17 Microsoft in which they too had explained to me how the 18 nature of education would change as a result of new 19 technology. 20 Q. Were these issues, in particular the technological 21 issues, discussed by you and anyone in or within News 22 Corporation, News International? 23 A. We never discussed anything specifically to do with 24 Wireless Generation. I do remember discussing, both 25 with Mr Klein and Mr Murdoch, among other things how new 48 1 technology would change the shape of education, but as 2 I say, those discussions were no different -- in fact, 3 probably briefer -- than discussions that I had with 4 individuals from other companies that were engaged in 5 this area, specifically Pearson and Microsoft. 6 Q. So were these discussions in the context of a possible 7 commercial venture? 8 A. Not in the UK, no. They were discussions about the way 9 in which -- styles of pedagogy and assessment, how 10 children learn, how we monitor their progress, and also 11 how we improve professional development for teachers who 12 change as a result of technology. I became interested 13 in the subject as a result of visiting Singapore and 14 seeing how technology had made a difference there, and 15 also reading from a variety of sources, including the 16 Livingstone Hope report commissioned by my colleagues at 17 the DCMS. I'd been interested in the prospect that the 18 technology offered to transform education for the 19 better. 20 Q. The final question before we take a short break: was it 21 your assessment, Mr Gove, that commercial considerations 22 were entering into News Corp's thinking at any stage or 23 was it your assessment that they were purely 24 philanthropic? 25 A. I believe that Rupert Murdoch was only interested in 49 1 establishing a school for purely philanthropic reasons. 2 As he made clear, I hope, when he was appearing as 3 a witness to this Inquiry, he cares passionately about 4 improving education and feels, as I do, that it's rather 5 a pity that this country and America have fallen down 6 international educational league tables relative to our 7 competitors, and for that reason I think that he wants 8 to make a contribution here to improve educational 9 standards and I think that's a good thing. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: We'll have a break, Mr Gove. Thank 11 you. 12 (3.11 pm) 13 (A short break) 14 (3.20 pm) 15 MR JAY: Mr Gove, may I move off schools. We've covered 16 that topic. I move on now to the transcript of your 17 speech to the press gallery on 21 February 2012, which 18 is exhibit MG11, under tab 13. Did you clear this, as 19 it were, with Downing Street or not? 20 A. No. 21 Q. So you were speaking entirely -- well, not ex cathedra, 22 obviously, but in your capacity as Secretary of State 23 for Education but personally? 24 A. Yes, I was. I had been invited to speak to the press 25 gallery, as politicians often are. I had spent most of 50 1 my speech cracking a few jokes, as is the way of these 2 things, and then I made a couple of points. I was 3 speaking without notes but these were reflections that 4 I'd been turning over in my mind for a wee while. 5 Q. I may have misunderstood the position then. So what we 6 see as the transcript is literally a transcript? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. It is not a briefing note or a speaking note? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You were speaking entirely off the cuff? 11 A. I spoke entirely off the cuff and without notes, and 12 this is a transcript that was recorded at the time. 13 Q. Thank you. May I take the issue in stages, if I may. 14 The first issue maybe is what your analysis, if any, of 15 the problem is, because in relation to our discussion 16 about the relationship between politicians and the press 17 and vice versa, you saw the problem as being really of 18 a lower scale of magnitude of seriousness than others 19 have seen it. But in terms of the culture, practice and 20 ethics of the press, looking more widely at what we were 21 considering in Module 1 of this Inquiry, may 22 I understand what you analysed the problem, if any, to 23 be, how serious it is? In your own words, first of all, 24 could you assist us with that analysis, please? 25 A. Yes. I think that the revelations that there were 51 1 individuals who were breaking the law in order to secure 2 stories are disturbing. There is evidence that the 3 practice went beyond those who have already been 4 convicted and that raises undeniable concerns, I think, 5 in all our minds. The question -- one of the questions 6 is: are the existing laws sufficient to punish those who 7 have been responsible for wrongdoing and to provide 8 a suitable deterrent in the future to those who may be 9 tempted to follow them? 10 Q. You're moving immediately on then to prescription and 11 prognosis. We're still to diagnosis. May we just go 12 through the various stages of diagnosis of the problem? 13 A. Mm. 14 Q. We also heard evidence from DAC Akers in April, 15 I believe, as to the possible extent of the problem in 16 relation to bribery in the context of Operation Elveden. 17 That presumably equally gives rise to concern in your 18 view; is that right? 19 A. I think it does, and I think, again, there are a number 20 of activities that you or I or anyone here might 21 consider to be inappropriate, unethical, even illegal, 22 which can, in certain circumstances, be justified 23 because they're in the public interest and they expose 24 a scandal. But certainly both phone hacking and the 25 bribery or corruption of public officials are crimes. 52 1 Q. May I just park those matters now and consider all the 2 wider issues, the evidence the Inquiry received in its 3 first module between -- I think it was 15 November and 4 9 February. It seems a long time ago now, but we've 5 seen a lot of evidence. Presumably, Mr Gove -- I am not 6 asking you to say that you followed every single piece 7 of evidence but you were keeping a weather eye generally 8 on the evidence coming out before this Inquiry; is that 9 right? 10 A. From time to time, I would see the Inquiry's 11 deliberations and the evidence put before it reported in 12 the newspapers, yes. 13 Q. The evidence was -- and I stress the evidence; no 14 findings have been made -- of a range of unethical, 15 immoral, harmful behaviours which went far beyond the 16 scope of corruption of police officers and phone 17 hacking. I can give you plenty of examples, if you 18 wish. It's just your assessment of that. Are we 19 looking, in your view, at a miniscule problem, which is 20 atypical, really, of the culture, practices and ethics 21 of the press, or are we looking at a problem which is 22 capable of being regarded as serious? 23 A. I think it is a problem that is capable of being 24 regarded as serious, yes. The purpose of the remarks of 25 my speech, however, was to ask the question: might the 53 1 cure, in certain circumstances, be worse than the 2 disease? The fact that I used the word "disease" I hope 3 conveys that I can -- I believe that there is a serious 4 problem, but I subsequently -- and I suspect that we may 5 go on to this -- came up with examples of processes 6 where what had been put in place in order to deal with 7 the problem was arguably worse than the pre-existing 8 situation. 9 Q. So when we're looking still at diagnosis, we have 10 a problem in terms of its quality and extent, although 11 the extent may be difficult to judge, which is serious, 12 which causes harm and therefore is, at the very least, 13 worthy of significant consideration. Is that where we 14 are? 15 A. I think it's entirely legitimate and appropriate to have 16 a public debate and to ask serious questions about how 17 individuals have used and perhaps in some cases abused 18 freedom of speech. Quite right also to ask what action, 19 if any, should be taken, but the balancing item in the 20 scales is what would be the costs in terms of the 21 infringement both of liberty and the culture of freedom 22 that might come about if that regulation went too far. 23 Q. Your argument almost proves itself by definition, 24 because if you use terms like "if you go too far", then 25 by definition one's gone too far into an area of 54 1 overregulation. But can we see where we are in terms of 2 regulation? You're not in principle, presumably, 3 opposed to what you describe as a proportionate, 4 reasonable degree of regulation to address a problem, 5 a serious problem, which undoubtedly exists. Are we in 6 agreement about that? 7 A. Not entirely. I have a prior belief that we should use 8 the existing laws of the land and individuals and 9 institutions should be judged fairly, on the basis of 10 the existing laws of the land -- 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, do you think -- 12 A. And that the case for regulation needs to be made very 13 strongly before we further curtail liberty. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm not seeking about curtailing 15 liberty but let me give you the speeding example. 16 Speeding is a crime. If a person driving the car in 17 excess of the speed limit were to say, "Actually, this 18 is all a problem of enforcement. I'm not to blame for 19 trying my car too fast; you, the police, are to blame 20 for not stopping me", you would dismiss that argument as 21 pretty specious, wouldn't you? 22 A. It would strike me as a weak argument, yes. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is that as far as you're prepared to 24 go? 25 A. It would certainly be one that I imagine probably 55 1 wouldn't stand up in court. We might admire the 2 audacity of the individual making it but certainly 3 wouldn't be inclined to acquit him. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Hm. But what we require of everybody 5 is an obligation to the rule of law, to obey the law, 6 and we have to recognise, have we not, that the police, 7 with their limited resources, cannot necessarily devote 8 as much time or attention to certain crimes as they 9 would wish in an ideal society, perhaps. The 10 consequence is that decisions are made and people are 11 trusted to obey the law. But doesn't there have to be 12 some mechanism to ensure that they do, or must it only 13 be the police? 14 A. I think the best way of making sure that people obey the 15 law is making sure that the police are appropriately 16 resourced to investigate crime, that the courts hear the 17 case for the prosecution and the defence and then, if 18 someone is found guilty, that they face the 19 consequences. I fear for liberty if those principles 20 are eroded. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Would you say the same about other 22 industries and professions which are subject to 23 regulation, that their liberty is being eroded by reason 24 of the fact that they have to observe a higher standard 25 of behaviour than that imposed by the criminal law? 56 1 A. I think each case has to be looked at on its own merits. 2 I think if you look, for example, at the bar, then it is 3 entirely understandable that there should be a system of 4 public examination before an individual can plead a case 5 in court and offer their services as a barrister. It's 6 entirely appropriate that if someone behaves in an 7 unethical manner that the bar should say that they are 8 no longer capable of practising. 9 But there's a difference between offering your 10 services as a barrister and publishing something, 11 because whether or not it's an individual author of 12 items on a blog or the editor of a newspaper or 13 a particular journalist choosing either to tweet or to 14 contribute to a newspaper, I think what they're doing is 15 exercising a precious liberty, and I'm concerned about 16 any prior restraint on their exercise of free speech. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Maybe there won't be a prior 18 restraint but there will be a requirement that they pay 19 rather more attention to the standards of their 20 profession, if that's what you call it, than perhaps 21 they sometimes have. 22 A. The question again is -- when you say that they should 23 pay attention to particular standards, if it's the case 24 that they should obey the law like everyone else, 25 absolutely, but I think the burden of proof is on those 57 1 who wish to regulate and who wish to introduce some 2 method of regulation to make the case that that 3 regulation would be effective, rather than a curtailment 4 of the freedom of individuals to express themselves and 5 to engage in public debate, and I think the general case 6 for free expression has to be restated in every 7 generation, because we all collectively benefit from 8 a feeling that we are and shouldn't be inhibited in 9 stating our views on whatever platform is available to 10 us on matters that engage us. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Mr Gove, I don't need to be told 12 about the importance of free speech. I really don't. 13 But I am concerned that the effect of what you say might 14 be that you are fact taking the view that behaviour 15 which everybody so far in this Inquiry has said is 16 unacceptable, albeit not necessarily criminal, has to be 17 accepted because of the right of free speech. Is that 18 right? 19 A. I don't think any of us can accept that behaviour 20 necessarily, but there are a variety of sanctions. 21 There is social ostracism, disapproval. There is the 22 penalty that someone pays who chooses to use 23 a commercial outlet to publish that which is 24 inappropriate or distasteful. But by definition, free 25 speech doesn't mean anything unless some people are 58 1 going to be offended some of the time. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Don't you think that some of the 3 evidence that I have heard from at least some of those 4 who have been the subject of press attention can be 5 characterised as rather more than "some people are going 6 to be offended some of the time"? 7 A. I'm sure that there are cases where journalists and 8 others will behave in ways which are deplorable. The 9 question remains, however: what is the most effective 10 means of ensuring that individuals do not behave in 11 a deplorable fashion? It's often the case that 12 individuals reach for regulation in order to deal with 13 failures of character or morality, and sometimes that 14 regulation is right and appropriate, but some of us 15 believe that before the case for regulation is made, the 16 case for liberty needs to be asserted as well. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I think I've spoken about 18 liberty and I'm not going to repeat myself. I am 19 concerned that over the last 50 years, there have been 20 repeated concerns about the conduct of the press, 21 repeated chances, opportunities, last chances, to quote 22 a former secretary of state, then further incidents -- 23 the death of Princess Diana -- then further problems -- 24 and I've passed Calcutt 1 and Calcutt 2 -- and here we 25 are, yet again, with a real public concern about how 59 1 certain parts of the press are behaving. Now, do you 2 dismiss that public concern as something which should be 3 put entirely subject to the freedom which I absolutely 4 endorse, the freedom of speech? 5 A. No, I think there is undoubtedly real public concern and 6 I think you are quite right to say that that public 7 concern has existed over the last 50 years. I think 8 that that public concern pre-dates the last 50 years. 9 I would simply say that when we're thinking of what the 10 means of addressing that concern should be, that we 11 should think carefully about the effects of regulation 12 in the same way as a legislator, when any particular 13 proposal is put before them to deal with a particular 14 evil, thinks: is this legislation necessary or 15 proportionate? Is it the right remedy for the 16 particular problem that's been identified? And I'm 17 unashamedly on the side of those who say that we should 18 think very carefully before legislation and regulation 19 because the cry "Something must be done" often leads to 20 people doing something which isn't always wise. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I am prepared absolutely to 22 agree that I should think carefully about the effect of 23 anything I suggest, and believe me, I am thinking very 24 carefully. I equally accept that one can't knee-jerk 25 react. The dangerous dogs legislation of which several 60 1 people have spoken may be thought to be an example. I'm 2 not saying it is, but it may be thought to be an 3 example. But would you agree that in the context of the 4 repeated concern, time after time -- and it may be more 5 than 50 years, you may be absolutely right -- does 6 suggest that where we are now is not entirely fit for 7 purpose? 8 A. I think the situation now is certainly not ideal and 9 there are abuses. This Inquiry has heard about them. 10 They have caused widespread public disquiet. My 11 instinct is, if we look over time at how we have reacted 12 to other abuses and errors and crimes that have been 13 identified, there has been a tendency -- it hasn't 14 applied in every case but there has been a tendency to 15 meet that particular crisis or scandal or horror with 16 an inquiry. That inquiry has come up with 17 recommendations, some of those recommendations have been 18 wise and thoughtful, others perhaps less so. But what 19 has subsequently happened is that the regulation or the 20 intervention which has flowed from that inquiry has then 21 been gold-plated and applied in such a way as, in the 22 terms that I used in my speech to the press gallery, to 23 be a cure worse than the disease, and in my speech to 24 the press gallery, I mentioned the way in which the 25 vetting and barring scheme had grown and the way in 61 1 which the Every Child Matters agenda had grown, and the 2 way in which the Food Standards Agency had grown to 3 interpret its brief in a particular way. 4 Now, those were three examples where I believe -- 5 and it's perfectly open to others to disagree with me 6 passionately, obviously -- but where I believe that an 7 unfortunate tendency arose, which is a belief that we 8 could, you know, mitigate against the evil which is 9 inherent in human nature by setting up bureaucratic 10 bodies or enacting regulation. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. Well, in the same way that 12 you recognise others are entitled to their view, you are 13 absolutely entitled to your view and I welcome it, and 14 I was keen to make sure that it was appropriately 15 discussed by the Inquiry. I would further agree that 16 bureaucracy is extremely unsatisfactory and that laws 17 don't necessarily solve problems. But if some sort of 18 regime is to be in place -- and you may say that we 19 don't even need a PCC, that it should just be 20 a free-for-all. But if you don't take that view -- and 21 I'll be interested to know if you do -- then there has 22 to be some structure -- not corrected to content, 23 I entirely agree -- that permits those who wish to 24 complain that their liberties are being interfered with, 25 that their rights have been infringed in order they can 62 1 obtain redress, hasn't there? 2 A. Yes, I do believe -- the first thing that I would say is 3 that there is a case for reform of the law itself and 4 certainly for reform of the law of defamation. I think 5 it's also the case that there's an evolving 6 jurisprudence as a result of the ECHR as we balance the 7 right to a private life and the right to free 8 expression, and I follow that debate with interest. And 9 it's certainly the case that there may be room for 10 improved regulation. 11 All I would say, and sought to say, is that the 12 experience that we have of regulation over certainly the 13 last three decades is that sometimes good intentions can 14 result in the curtailment of individual freedom and they 15 can also result in an unrealistic expectation of how 16 individuals behave. 17 MR JAY: So are we clear then, Mr Gove, from your speech, 18 that you were throwing up ideas for consideration and 19 making it clear that in your view there was a burden of 20 proof to be discharged before freedom of speech was 21 impeded or restricted by regulation, rather than setting 22 up a final position which effectively said, "Freedom of 23 speech is preeminent, touch it at your peril"; is that 24 it? 25 A. Yes. I have a strong -- some might call it a bias, 63 1 a prejudice, a predisposition to favour free expression, 2 but by definition, one of the reasons that I favour free 3 expression is that I believe that it is through public 4 debate, the clash of ideas, that we can arrive at 5 a better form of governing ourselves, a better method of 6 helping the next generation and it's entirely 7 possible -- it's happening often enough -- that I will 8 be proven wrong in open debate and it may well be that 9 the fears that I gave expression to in this speech prove 10 to be phantoms. 11 Q. Because, of course, under the ECHR, as you mentioned, if 12 you're outside the realm of Section 12 and interim 13 injunctions as you well know, Article 8 and Article 10 14 have the same status, don't they? 15 A. Again, you're more of an expert than I am. I have 16 followed the debate but I cannot follow it with the 17 degree of authority that you can, Mr Jay. But it is the 18 case, yes. I have seen people wrestling with the equal 19 weight given, as I understand it should be, to both 20 articles. 21 Q. One might be forgiven, reading these words, that -- not 22 that I mean this abusively; this is straight out of 23 JS Mill -- that Article 10 is being given a predominant 24 status, particularly the last paragraph of your speech. 25 Would you agree with that observation? 64 1 A. Yes, I would agree with it except in one regard. 2 I don't think it's at all abusive to be compared to 3 JS Mill. 4 Q. No, I wasn't intending to convey that. I reassure you 5 of that. 6 I think that's probably as far as we can take this, 7 Mr Gove. You're expressing a cautionary view and that's 8 where we are, is it? 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think we can go a little bit 10 further. 11 Let's just test a couple of those ideas. One of the 12 possible ways forward that I have been considering is to 13 reflect upon the very real cost of litigation and to 14 reflect also upon the inability for those who are not of 15 substantial means to obtain redress for sometimes 16 destructive invasions of privacy or libels. That has 17 led me to consider and to suggest -- and I've not 18 reached any conclusions as yet -- that some sort of 19 mechanism could be devised which allows for small claims 20 to be resolved outside the court and to enable people to 21 obtain swift redress. Of course, that would require 22 consensual submission but it would enable both the 23 individuals and the press to save a great deal of money, 24 and it might also encourage responsible titles to join 25 a new regulatory regime that enforces the code. Would 65 1 you consider such an appropriate desirable or not? 2 A. At first blush, it seems fair, but the devil would be in 3 the detail. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I recognise that issue, but I'm not 5 dealing with the detail at this stage. If one did 6 visualise such a system, which also provided redress by 7 way of apology or publication of a correction, as the 8 PCC presently does, would you agree that it would be 9 sensible, if not imperative -- but let's say sensible -- 10 that all responsible titles signed up to it? 11 A. I think there is a lot of merit in newspaper titles that 12 consider themselves to be responsible, holding 13 themselves publicly to a high standard. Absolutely. 14 The only additional note that I would enter is that as 15 the nature of the modern media changes, the definition 16 of what is a title inevitably changes with it. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No, no, I agree with all that and 18 I've had the debate of everything from the conversation 19 in the pub, through Twitter, through blogs. I'm on top 20 of that additional complication. No, that's not the 21 true. I'm aware of the additional complication. But 22 assuming that such a system could be devised, where the 23 detail did not create the concerns that you are 24 obviously wary of, as you identify, and assume also that 25 one could articulate a respect for the freedom of 66 1 expression which is your fundamental starting point, in 2 the same way that, as I explained, section 3(1) of the 3 Constitutional Reform Act recognises the importance of 4 the independence of the judiciary -- it's a statutory 5 recognition of that fact, so one could equally have 6 a statutory regulation -- wouldn't one need, in order to 7 provide the form of small claim redress court, some 8 statutory framework not to touch what's happening, not 9 to touch content, not to touch the decision-making but 10 simply to permit enforceable decisions to be made in 11 this not formal -- ie not court system -- set-up? 12 A. I can see the merits in the case that you're putting 13 forward. I'd have to give it appropriate consideration. 14 A couple of thoughts occur to me. 15 The first is that part of the case that you make is 16 a case for reform of the law of defamation in order to 17 make it easier for people to have access to the redress 18 that that can give. 19 There's another concern as well. There must 20 inevitably be a grey area where you or I might consider 21 that something was inaccurate or indeed offensive or 22 intrusive, but the newspaper, journalist or blog 23 concerned would disagree, and I'm not sure how such 24 a dispute would be easily resolved. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, we have that today, don't we, 67 1 with the Press Complaints Commission? 2 A. Indeed. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And they resolve it, and it's 4 resolved by a body that is, at least in part, entirely 5 independent of the press and, speaking for myself, 6 I don't immediately see a problem. There will always be 7 issues and provided one is being careful to respect the 8 importance of freedom of expression, but equally to 9 weigh the importance of privacy rights or other 10 Article 8 rights, then that balance has to be made by 11 somebody. Somebody has to make a decision. If you come 12 to court, it's a judge. It could equally be, in an 13 arbitral system, a combination of those who represent 14 the industry, those who are independent, bringing 15 a different judgment, a public judgment, to bear on 16 where the line is, bearing always in mind the importance 17 of free expression. But balancing. That's what we do 18 all the time. 19 A. It may be the case that some titles would willingly join 20 in such an arrangement, and that they would consider it 21 to be a badge of pride that they were willing to abide 22 by such an arrangement, but it may be the case that 23 there are other titles or writers or websites that may 24 say, in a way: "We regard that as a cartel arrangement 25 and we wish to be buccaneers, outside it." Would such 68 1 an arrangement apply to a journal like Private Eye, for 2 example? 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, Private Eye would have to 4 decide. What I might suggest to them, or to such 5 a buccaneer -- I don't know whether Mr Hislop would call 6 himself a buccaneer; perhaps he would -- that if you 7 deprive the public of the opportunity cheaply of 8 obtaining redress and you say, "No, if you want to 9 obtain redress, you're going to have to start very 10 expensive proceedings, and if you can't afford it, 11 that's just too bad", then it may be the court could 12 then say, "Well, fair enough, if the paper is right, if 13 we agree with the paper on this particular occasion, 14 fine, then they succeed, but if we don't agree with the 15 paper, then there is a risk that, for example, exemplary 16 damages might flow because the paper could have had this 17 resolved very easily in a different system", and then 18 Private Eye would have to decide: do we want to be 19 inside the system or outside the system? 20 A. Absolutely, but Private Eye might decide that this 21 system is a less effective and speedy way of giving 22 redress to those who legitimately have concerns about 23 what we've written than our editor, exercising his own 24 judgment, and in that sense we're saying that 25 a particular method of organising one part of an 69 1 industry is preferable to a different method, within 2 that broader industry, of co-ordinating their affairs. 3 Now, it may be that we decide that that is 4 appropriate, but it's undeniably the case that people 5 who take a libertarian view would be sceptical. 6 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yeah, well, they may be sceptical and 7 that libertarian view, they must accept, if they're 8 wrong and so they've created additional cost, they'll 9 have to pay for it. 10 A. It's arguable. What I infer from what you've said -- 11 and I'd have to give it proper consideration -- is that 12 the law would punish those who chose not to enter 13 a voluntary method of regulation. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I don't use the word "punish" 15 actually quite in that way. What I say is that if there 16 is a sensible, approved system cheaply for resolving 17 complaints, those who choose not to take advantage of 18 the system must expect to be visited with the additional 19 cost that is as a consequence created. 20 A. All I would say is that -- sensible to whom? Approved 21 by whom? If the court says that you must be part of 22 this voluntary association, otherwise you pay 23 a particular price, then the law is making the judgment 24 between one method of remedying problems, which is -- by 25 its definition, it has to be a voluntary arrangement if 70 1 it's going to work -- and other methods. 2 As I say, I think it's an interesting idea which 3 clearly deserves careful consideration, because I can 4 see the merits behind the case, but I can also see some 5 dangers, and those dangers would be the creation of 6 a club of which you have to be a member if you are not 7 to face more serious punishment in the courts if you 8 happen to make a mistake. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Or more serious cost, certainly. 10 A. Quite. Costs as a punishment. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The whole point is to avoid 12 everybody -- I mean, it's not actually my mission in 13 life to deprive lawyers of money, but it's not a bad 14 idea in this field, where a lot of people actually can't 15 afford to take on the press. 16 A. Well, I think you're absolutely right, and the prior 17 point that I made is that we do need to look at the law 18 of defamation. There are at least two problems with the 19 existing law of defamation. One is that it costs 20 a great deal for the average citizen to bring action. 21 The other is that the wealthy can use the courts to 22 silence dissident voices, and we have had situations 23 where citizens from other jurisdictions have used the 24 English courts in order to silence people who have been 25 drawing attention to wickedness, tyranny, corporate 71 1 malpractice and all the rest of it. 2 So I absolutely accept that the law of libel is 3 inadequate at the moment, both in terms of redress and 4 in defending free expression. The proposition that you 5 put forward is undoubtedly a thoughtful -- it's not for 6 me to say it's thoughtful; it's manifestly a thoughtful 7 and significant way of addressing the problem, but I'm 8 not certain that the case is made. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, we'll have to see. Everybody 10 will approach these issues from a slightly different 11 perspective and reach their own conclusions as to the 12 way forward, but I do not hear you suggesting that there 13 should be a complete free-for-all. 14 A. No. I think that it's important that we ask ourselves: 15 what are the means, whether it's changing the existing 16 law or looking to other remedies, for dealing with this 17 issue? My point is not to argue for a specific 18 end-slate, to say that there should be a free-for-all or 19 that there should be this method of regulation. Quite 20 properly, this Inquiry will come forward with 21 recommendations, having taken time to listen to the 22 evidence from many witnesses. My intervention in this 23 debate was a reflection of my view that when faced with 24 the case for regulation, the case for liberty sometimes 25 needs to be asserted as well in order to ensure that the 72 1 public debate around the Inquiry's deliberations is as 2 plural as possible. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's precisely why I was keen that 4 you have the opportunity to develop your thoughts in the 5 same forum as everybody else. 6 A. And I'm very grateful to you for that invitation. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's obviously not straightforward. 8 If there was an easy answer to any of it, then there 9 would be an easy answer. Actually, the solution that 10 I'm talking about might also help in relation to the 11 attempts by the very wealthy to muzzle, but we'll have 12 to see. Mr Gove, thank you very much. 13 A. Not at all. Thank you. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Tomorrow, 10 o'clock. 15 (4.00 pm) 16 (The hearing adjourned until 10 o'clock the following day) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73