Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1640-1659)
MR ANDY
COULSON AND
MR STUART
KUTTNER
21 JULY 2009
Q1640 Mr Farrelly: We have heard
that there was a continuing relationship and payments were also
made subsequently to Glenn Mulcaire. Why did you not make sure
that that arrangement was terminated when Glenn Mulcaire pleaded
guilty?
Mr Coulson: For the same reason
I think. There was a very serious legal situation on-going. With
Clive I think maybe looking back on it I was pondering whether
or not it would affect his mitigation in some way. I do not know.
I just felt the proper thing to do was to let the legal matters
come to an end. I decided two weeks prior to that that I would
resign and then subsequent to that obviously I was not involved.
Q1641 Mr Farrelly: You are a very
senior adviser to the leader of the Opposition and presumably
if not now then in the future if the leader of the Conservative
Party becomes the Prime Minister you will have to deal with spokesmen
at the Palace, for example. Do you think it is sustainable to
have a relationship with the Palace when you were the Editor while
journalists on your watch hacked into the phones of the private
and personal secretaries to the Princes and future King of England
and also of your counterpart, then Paddy Harverson, at the Palace
and yet when you learned of this you did not immediately sack
either the reporter or the person who had hacked into the phones?
Mr Coulson: No, but I resigned.
Q1642 Mr Farrelly: Do you think it
is sustainable for you to have a relationship of trust in the
future?
Mr Coulson: In relation to Paddy
Harverson, with the greatest of respect, ask Paddy Harverson.
I have no problem with it. I have seen Paddy socially since this
case. I apologised fully several times, quite properly, to the
Royal Family and to all those who were affected by Clive's actions.
In relation to this job now I have done my best to work in as
upright and as proper a fashion as I possibly can. Ultimately
though I guess it is for others to judge.
Q1643 Mr Farrelly: Do you think in
your heart of hearts that you can have a proper relationship of
trust with the Palace given the circumstances of what went on?
Mr Coulson: As I say, there is
no problem my end.
Q1644 Mr Farrelly: Mr Kuttner, just
a few final loose ends. Did you authorise the arrangements entered
into by Greg Miskiw with Paul Williams, which was an alias for
Glenn Mulcaire?
Mr Kuttner: No, Mr Farrelly.
Q1645 Mr Farrelly: That was done
without your knowledge, was it?
Mr Kuttner: Correct.
Q1646 Mr Farrelly: As Managing Editor
would you have been expected to have been informed that such a
relationship was entered into?
Mr Kuttner: That Greg Miskiw had
entered into a holding contract for a potential story? Not necessarily,
no.
Q1647 Mr Farrelly: For £9,000.
Mr Kuttner: I think the figure
is £7,000 but the answer to your question is no. The point
at which I would have expected, and indeed I believe would have
become aware, is if the story was working out and if we were likely
to put it in the paper. I think I would then have been told—in
fact more than think, I know that I would have been told, "Look
we have such-and-such a story involving a gentleman and it is
intended to publish it in the paper, and the financial impact
in terms of the cost will be X," but it clearly never reached
that stage.
Q1648 Mr Farrelly: Clearly but what
level of payment then would you expect to be consulted on before
it was paid and to authorise before it was paid?
Mr Kuttner: To be consulted on?
Q1649 Mr Farrelly: To be informed?
Mr Kuttner: To be informed in
advance?
Q1650 Mr Farrelly: Yes.
Mr Kuttner: Anything in or about
the order of £1,000 plus.
Q1651 Mr Farrelly: And authorisation?
Mr Kuttner: Well that would follow.
Do you mean authorisation in terms of making the payment or authorisation
in agreeing?
Q1652 Mr Farrelly: Authorisations
on making the payment.
Mr Kuttner: Making the payment?
That would follow once the story had been published and something
was generated to create that payment in the system, and then,
having been made aware of it in advance, I would check it, as
I think I said earlier, against whatever I had been alerted to
and if it was a very substantial payment, whatever the Editor
had been alerted to, and I would authorise the payment.
Q1653 Mr Farrelly: So you are telling
me you would normally be expected to be informed about payments
of around £1,000—
Mr Kuttner: Plus.
Q1654 Mr Farrelly: And yet for the
entering into of a contractual agreement that would trigger a
payment of £7,000 you are saying that you would not necessarily
expect to be informed?
Mr Kuttner: Not at that stage
since it was not a firm contractual arrangement in the sense that,
as I understand it, it was an agreement to pay X for a story if
and when that story was confirmed and published.
Q1655 Mr Farrelly: It seems a pretty
straightforward contractual agreement to me. It says "The
News of the World agrees to pay a minimum sum of £7,000
on publication of a story based on information provided by Mr
Williams."
Mr Kuttner: Contingent upon publication.
Q1656 Mr Farrelly: So under your
control as Managing Editor you are asking us to believe that they
were so lax that you would allow people to enter into contractual
agreements to pay someone seven times the minimum at which you
would expect to be informed?
Mr Kuttner: No, I think that is
a misunderstanding of the position.
Q1657 Mr Farrelly: Well, can you
enlighten me?
Mr Kuttner: If we were about to
make a firm commitment to pay for a story, once the story was
confirmed, once it was prepared for publication, I would then
be advised "Look, we have such-and-such a story, it will
cost whatever it will cost and I have been made aware of it,"
and I might indeed say at that point, "This sounds a lot
of money for this story", or "Are we going to put this
story on the front page or do it as a double page spread?"
and the editor, depending on the amount, is involved to a degree
in that debate.
Q1658 Mr Farrelly: Before that stage
the paper would not be worth what it is written on really?
Mr Kuttner: I do not accept that
at all.
Q1659 Mr Farrelly: That seems to
be the implication.
Mr Kuttner: I do not accept that.
Whatever that says is what it represents.
| 
