Thank you, sir. That, I think, is all the business for today.

Could I also invite you to treat as read the statement of John Evans of HMRC.

Could I invite you, sir, to treat as read the statement of Nigel Regan, the CEO of Big Pictures, and also the statement of Josh Halliday, of the Guardian, both of which go to this issue.

I am happy for the witness to return to her seat.

Did you report it to anybody else?

The email that was provided to you on 4 April suggested that the flight details of eight celebrities were listed.

You are Virgin Atlantic Airways' general counsel and director of human resources and external affairs, is that right?

Please make yourself comfortable.

Could you confirm your full name, please?

Sir, our last witness today who is giving oral evidence is Jillian Brady.

Sir, is now a convenient time to give the shorthand writer a break?

Thank you very much. That is all my questions.

Could you expand, please, on what you envisage?

My final question is about the code itself, which you deal with in the antepenultimate paragraph on page 2. You say the code itself should be a living thing, capable of being changed in the face of experience and changing circumstances?

You say it should be obviously independent; can I take it you mean independent not only from the government but also from the press?

Do you have any thoughts about how such a body should be resourced?

Do you see any room for press involvement, as opposed to ownership?

You say that the status quo is not an option and that a new regulatory commission is needed which is free form press ownership.

That takes us on the question of what should be done in the future, which you deal with, in fact, at the start of your witness statement.

-- used.

Is it for that reason that essentially your concern is not to stop investigation of public figures but to regulate the methods --

Do I accurately distil your point if I say that it is that an excess of privacy for figures in public life can have an adverse effect on the public interest?

Moving to what you say about circumstances in France.

Can I ask you this: are any of them based on direct personal knowledge of the conduct to which you refer, or are they comment on material which has been put into the public domain?

You devote five paragraphs on page 5 of your statement to your comments on the conduct of the police.

Could you clarify for us what it is that you are alleging some politicians well knew was going on but failed to expose?

Before we come very briefly to that subject, can I ask you about the third paragraph on page 5 of your witness statement, please, Mr Mellor. You say:

"With a few honourable exceptions, politicians in and out of government were too frightened to expose what many of them well knew ...

You have made clear, I think, in your evidence the importance you attach to the freedom of the press. Would you agree with me that it has a vital role to play holding the powerful to account, getting to the truth of matters of public interest and facilitating democratic debate?

My last question about that period in late summer and early autumn 1992 is just to give you the opportunity, if you wish to take it, to tell us about any other of the methods that were used by the media not just to obtain either of the stories but ...

Moving on to some of the methods used to obtain that story, you tell us there was some phone tapping. Now, I understand you are not asserting that it was illegal phone tapping, because it was done with the consent --

Are you able to help us or not as to whether that timing was deliberate --

Can I ask you first of all: it has not escaped the Inquiry's notice that this took place very shortly after you announced Calcutt 2.

Shortly after you had announced that he would be undertaking the reassessment, two stories appeared successively in the media. The first was a kiss and tell story provided by Antonia de Sancha, and the second was a hospitality issue concerning a person called Mona Bauwens. Following the second one, it ...

And shortly after that --

I am going to move now from the topic of Mr Murdoch on to what happened to you in 1992. Now, in the summer of 1992, in July, you announced that there should be a second Calcutt report, didn't you?

You tell us, a little bit further down the same page, that by the time of the Broadcasting Act that we have just looked at, Mr Murdoch was used to ministers doing his bidding. What is the basis for that assertion?

The Inquiry has seen a note of a meeting between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Thatcher prior to the takeover of the Times and the Sunday Times, as heard from Mr Murdoch. Are you able, from your time as a politician in the 1980s, to tell us anything further from your ...

Taking you back before the days of Classic FM to the 1980s and you tell us in your witness statement that Margaret Thatcher was ready to bend the rules for Mr Murdoch to enable him to establish a commanding position over the UK media. I am looking at page 3 ...

-- prominently featured Mr Murdoch and it prominently featured people who plainly didn't want him to be able to broadcast and pursue --

-- which we also see in the debate. But it is right to say, isn't it, that the debate, which I think you have had a chance to refresh your memory --

We have looked at the debate leading to the Act. We have looked at the two provisions which show how Mr Murdoch was able to continue with his Sky venture, and you have explained to us your reasons for supporting those --

The effect of this subparagraph, together with the one at the top of the next page -- the one at page 18 deals with proprietors, the one at 19 with licence holders -- was such that it didn't impose a restriction on a satellite broadcaster broadcasting from overseas, however much of ...

-- paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, which deals with cross-media ownership.

At page 18 of the same Act, following the internal pagination again, we see the other important section, which is schedule 2, part 4 --

Subparagraph 2, if one reads it, including going over the page, its effect, wasn't it, was such that a foreign owner of a non-domestic satellite service was not excluded from operating in this country.

Indeed, and these were the provisions for foreign ownership.

This is schedule 2, part 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, right at the bottom --

And I am going to take you to particular features. The first is at page 8, following the internal pagination at the top left.

-- from the Act?

There are some extracts at tab 8 --

And we can look at that briefly?