In the last paragraph on the same page, you explain what you're wanting to do and you explain that you want to look at specific measures in five areas: harassment, children, privacy, public interest and intrusion into grief. You start by discussing the concept of harassment and you say:
"... which undoubtedly has rightly most concerned the public in the days since the tragic death of Princess Diana. To the problems of the paparazzi, there are no easy solutions."
If you turn over the page, there's a very long discussion on the issue of paparazzi. Reading that -- I don't expect you to read it all again now. I'm sure you're familiar with the contents of this speech. Reading that, it's clear that the concerns that you are looking at, you're discussing, are in some ways very similar to some of the stories about the paparazzi that we've heard at this Inquiry. So if I give you an example. You explain that you want to help reduce the market for paparazzi pictures in this country, you intend to include an amendment to clause 8 to prohibit the publication of pictures obtained through persistent pursuit or as a result of unlawful behaviour. You say that you're particularly thinking of pictures obtained by freelancers who break traffic laws, commit trespass or stalk their prey and you say this:
"There will therefore no longer be a market in this country for pictures taken by the sorts of photographers who persistently pursued Princess Diana. Motorbike chases, stalking and hounding are unacceptable."
And you explain:
"Editors who carry pictures obtained by them will be subjected to the severest censure by the PCC."
We know that the new changes that you recommended came into force. They were made and they came into force in January 1998, so some six months after you gave this speech. There was a ban on information of pictures obtained by persistent pursuit. The new clause 4, as it turned out, made explicit the editor's responsibility not to publish information or pictures in breach of that clause, for example.
To be honest, those changes exist to this day. Although the code has now been significantly shortened, the preamble to the code makes clear that all the same points. Yet it might be said that it hasn't actually made a difference. I don't know, Lord Wakeham, if you heard the evidence given back in November of last year by celebrities who spoke of harassment, pursuit by photographers, the need to obtain injunctions to prevent harassment. Some examples spring to mind: Ms Miller being chased down the street by ten men with cameras, the owner of Big Pictures picture agency boasting in his autobiography of chasing cars and taking pictures through car windows.
Why, in our view, have the changes that you implemented quite rightly after the death of Princess Diana not made a difference?