Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, it does.

But my answer to that would be: it doesn't matter what the reason is; the threat is there, and that shows a reflection of respect for the system.

No, I don't know the details of that.

Actually it wasn't over -- I'm glad you put me right. It wasn't over a critical adjudication. It was actually over the phone hacking. There was a telephone conversation between myself and the then managing director of Guardian Media Group where that was suggested that they may not ...

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Absolutely.

It is a problem in itself, and that's why I emphasise the fact that this is a minority.

Absolutely.

I've been reading -- re-reading Scoop!, sir, which just about sums it all up. I suggest it's not far from where -- you know, yes. The inbuilt culture of newsrooms is something which has to be thought through, and that's one of the reasons, by the way, sir, why ...

For the most part, we're talking about an industry where people have and continue to play by the rules. So how do you change the culture -- because I think that's where it starts: governance, leadership at the top -- to actually encourage these guys to accept that change must ...

There is that -- there's always that question mark, of course. There's always the issue, which I used to find deeply frustrating as a shadow minister, that of course regulation doesn't stop rogue players. So regulation itself doesn't always -- isn't always a solution, but also there ...

It's a big issue but it's important.

In a sense, yes, it does, but for me that's very difficult because of course, you can't -- when looking at all of this, we're talking about a global industry now and you can't make the Huffington Post or anybody beyond our shores sign up to something ...

I think it's very difficult. That's not to say I denigrate the proposal, because I think it's the right thing to do, but you'll notice with my witness statement I suggest, with some enormous regret, because I don't -- I mean, I don't regret saying ...

Well, actually not in this -- what I did was before I left the PCC, sir, I set up the reform committee and I know they have been working very hard, the lay commissioners, and I'm sure have been extraordinarily helpful to Lord Hunt because they have, you know, now ...

No, this was the first time. The second time I didn't because I realised that if I was -- I had enough battles on my plate, probably, in terms of my relationship with the industry. For all, I hope, the best reasons, because I just wanted to help to underpin ...

So we went -- sorry, I went as an individual, but with the blessings of the Commission to bring them in.

I didn't try the second time, for very good reason. When I did it -- very much not me on my own -- I mean, yes, I went to see him on my own and we had an interesting hour's conversation -- I very much went with the blessing of the ...

Okay.

Yes. It wasn't immediate.

Yes.

And also, can I just -- sorry, because it's so important. One thing also which I think is -- I think is a really important part of the matrix here, if I can call it that, and that is the Commission, the lay commission. You know, I'm really proud of ...

I don't think that is true. I think the governance review body -- the governance review itself actually made a huge amount of difference in terms of our governance and our structures. We changed really important things, like, for example, the appointments process. We became much more transparent, much more ...

No, no, no.

Well, a number of changes had been introduced. I mean -- well, a lot of changes. I mean, when I -- as a result of the review of our governance and structures, we introduced 75 changes to just our internal --

Yes.

"Peta, we've been here before." For some of them. But what was interesting was some absolutely got it and absolutely understood why I was very happy for the Financial Times to write this up as a story, because it was important for the public, for people beyond the press ...

Yes!

Not unable to deal with, but I think I was the first chairman of the PCC to formally write to all of the publishers and proprietors, actually at the suggestion -- and a very good suggestion, I thought -- of the independent reviewer -- review body I'd set up for phone hacking ...

Yes, in a sense, it was a coded message to say --

I was thinking carefully about what I put in writing. When I'm approaching publishers and proprietors, I'm thinking with great care about what I write. These are very powerful people, who have a view about their -- about where the system is. These are people who, in one instance ...

Yeah.

No. Not -- with respect, I'm not saying it's satisfactory. What I was trying to say was, in a sense: be careful what you wish for, that -- in a sense, I wanted this letter to go to the Secretary of State to say that I was concerned that suggestions ...

Mm.

Yes.

Not at that stage, no, because what I wanted to do was first meet with the proprietors and publishers just to see, just to see, before slightly screaming with frustration, what could be done. Because this is about the time, also -- I can't remember when April -- when Easter was ...

I'm saying:

"The Issue of phone hacking remains a serious concern, both to me personally and the Commission as a whole. Following the statement from News International last Friday in which it apologised for its actions and accepted its internal investigations had not been sufficiently robust, the phone-hacking review ...

No. If I may, no, I wasn't saying the system was fine.

No.

No, I --

Yeah.

That's right. I can almost remember that. Yeah, here we go. I have it here. I wrote to the Secretary of State.

Ah.

Okay.

That's all right. Where is it?

Good.