Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1780-1793)
MR ANDY
COULSON AND
MR STUART
KUTTNER
21 JULY 2009
Q1780 Mr Hall: I think you have been
asked this question before. Is it a widespread practice on pseudonyms
and payments with the newspaper or not?
Mr Kuttner: No.
Q1781 Mr Hall: And I assume there
is an audit trail to that particular answer that you can say you
double-checked?
Mr Kuttner: Well, if there were
such payments insofar as one could divine them then it would be
possible to produce the information.
Q1782 Mr Hall: Mr Coulson, you have
been very clear in your evidence that you were unaware of the
activities that Goodman was involved in and that you thought that
this was a one-off incident. You have been absolutely clear about
that. But you were unaware of the Goodman case. How can you be
so certain if you were not aware of the Goodman case, which has
reached the public domain, that there were not others?
Mr Coulson: I only know what I
know.
Q1783 Mr Hall: You know what you
know but you did not know about Goodman, so there is a distinct
possibility that there are lots of other things you do not know
about.
Mr Coulson: I know what I know.
I thought this might come out in evidence earlier—I am assuming
that we are coming to an end—and this is not directly related
to your question so apologies but I would add this: I received
a call from Scotland Yard the Friday before last from a detective
superintendent to be told that there is strong evidence to suspect
that my phone was hacked. In fact, it would appear that there
is more evidence that my phone was hacked than there is that John
Prescott's phone was.
Q1784 Mr Hall: That explains a lot
about the John Prescott story, does it not?
Mr Coulson: It is not directly
related to your question, I know, but I think it perhaps demonstrates
as to your point of what I did know and what I did not know. I
clearly did not know what Glenn Mulcaire was up to.
Q1785 Chairman: Scotland Yard's suggestion
was that Glenn Mulcaire had hacked into your phone?
Mr Coulson: Yes.
Q1786 Chairman: And was it suggested
that he was working on behalf of the News of the World?
Mr Coulson: I sincerely hope not,
Chairman!
Chairman: I am promised one final question
from Mr Farrelly.
Q1787 Paul Farrelly: One final question,
John, but I am about the break the promise because I hate hanging
threads. We have asked questions about the payments to Goodman
and Mulcaire afterwards. I was not going to ask this question
because it seems impertinent, Mr Coulson, but the question of
your notice period has been left hanging in the air. Was it six
months or 12 months?
Mr Coulson: I will take advice
from the Chairman here. I am not minded—and I will take
your advice, Chairman, and please do not think me impertinent—to
discuss the private details of my contractual arrangements or
otherwise with News International. If you want to push me on it
and you insist, then obviously I am open to your advice on it,
but I feel I have given a pretty full answer to the question.
Chairman: If Mr Farrelly is determined
to press this then we could receive it in confidence.
Q1788 Paul Farrelly: 12 months would
not be unusual in the business, would it, for someone at your
senior level?
Mr Coulson: As I say, I feel as
though I have given a pretty full answer in response to it.
Q1789 Paul Farrelly: Was it made
on the basis that you would be welcome back at some stage in the
future to News International?
Mr Coulson: Certainly not from
my end. I left on the basis that I was leaving a 20-year career
in News International and I certainly did not leave on the basis
that there was some way back.
Q1790 Paul Farrelly: My final question,
and this would have given you the opportunity to have mentioned
your call from Scotland Yard, but the question is made in a different
respect: were you ever asked, Mr Coulson, during the long police
investigation to help with their enquiries?
Mr Coulson: No, not directly.
Q1791 Paul Farrelly: What does that
mean?
Mr Coulson: I was never interviewed
and I was never asked to give any form of evidence.
Q1792 Paul Farrelly: Did that strike
you as strange?
Mr Coulson: I think that is a
question for the police. All I would say is I think I am right
in saying that the police have made clear, the Guardian
have made clear and I think the PCC have made clear that there
is no evidence of my direct involvement in any of this.
Q1793 Paul Farrelly: Mr Kuttner,
were you ever asked to help the police with their enquiries?
Mr Kuttner: No I was not. I took
the view that both I and the newspaper generally should give the
police the fullest co-operation but I was not asked.
Chairman: Mr Watson just wishes to make
one short statement on the record and then we will be done.
Tom Watson: To clarify Chairman, in light
of the letter sent from News International yesterday evening,
I just would like to confirm that I did through the Clerks seek
the advice of Parliamentary Counsel and their advice was that
the letter received was very close to the line of improperly interfering
with the Committee's work.
Chairman: I understand that it was Speaker's
Counsel.
Tom Watson: Speaker's Counsel, yes. Did
I say Parliamentary Counsel?
Chairman: Could I thank you both very
much for your patience.
| 
