Thank you, sir.

And I'm not condoning law-breaking. But I am defending, and I will to the last breath, freedom of expression. So I think we should leave it perhaps there on that high note. Thank you.

No, I do not believe that we should put up with that stuff, as you say.

No, I think I've -- thanks to the close questioning, I've had a chance to really offer my thoughts on the current state of the industry and the challenges we face. I think I would just -- we haven't talked much about the public interest but -- we don't ...

I'll take a rain check.

I can see that. I think there is a real practical problem here. I am concerned about it, as are other editors. In terms of libel, this is the one area that probably concerns me most, and so I'll give that careful thought, sir.

We'll certainly take that under consideration, but I think my views on any form of statutory regulation are fairly clear. But --

Indeed. I don't wish to pre-judge what Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, may want to say on this, because he's done a lot of serious thinking and from what I've seen I think it's promising, to look at whether this new body, the Media ...

Again, we don't probably have the time and neither do I have necessarily the competence to offer a blueprint for libel reform in this country. My principal concern was just simply the costs of dealing with a libel claim or where people --

Well, when this idea first came up, I was very sceptical, not least because I consider myself to be the readers' editor. If there are problems and they're serious problems, I deal with them, my deputy deals with them or the number three.

I've slightly changed my mind ...

Well, credible. "Pride" is a loaded term. But it has to be credible and it's not just got to be credible to the people who are part of the system; it has to be credible to the public at large. We'd hope that it would receive the support ...

Again, I think that it just has to be seen as a new industry standard.

Yes. Again, I would say it would depend on more specifics. If you're referring to libel, if you're referring to privacy matters -- as I said, I don't consider myself a specialist in this area, it's fraught with perils, but there are examples of where -- if there ...

Well, sir, you probably have to be a little more specific about what you're referring to.

Phone hacking has been the trigger.

Well, we want to be careful, to coin a phrase, of fighting the last war. We definitely need to think ahead as well as draw lessons from the past, and this sorry, appalling episode of phone hacking. So we do need to think about the future. We need to think ...

Sir, if I may add that one of the tests of the new body will be: could the events of 2008, 2009, 2010 and the phone hacking that went beforehand occur and not be prevented or tackled with rigour and promptness by the new body? If that new body fails ...

Yes.

Again, I subscribe to that view. It can't be optional. Everybody needs to buy in to the new arrangements. Otherwise they won't be credible. But I think if they are good enough, robust enough -- there is, by the way -- the matter which we haven't touched on, which ...

I agree with that, sir, and it is incumbent on the industry to produce new, credible proposals for independent regulation. That is the lesson of the phone hacking scandal, and to a degree it's the lesson of what's already come out in this Inquiry. I think I speak ...

It's certainly a fair characterisation of what happened 20 years ago, but I would make two points in response. First of all -- and I don't want to steal anybody's thunder, but I believe that Lord Hunt will be putting forward some interesting proposals on independent regulation shortly ...

Well, not necessary -- well, I'm going to disagree with you, sir. I think that what has happened in -- and I'm basing my comments on conversations I've had with members of the profession outside the Financial Times. This has been a real shock, what happened at the News ...

We are in certainly interesting times. My remedy, or the remedy that should be considered, is bringing in some outsiders so that it doesn't look like a cosy stitch-up at the PCC where sitting editors decide the rules and then enforce them.

I also would say that the new ...

Well, at the moment, there's plenty of people offering opinions about the state of journalism.

I'm relieved. But we need to have some outsiders, and I think that plays generally into the -- again, this is very much a personal view but, you know, journalists are not monks in cells. Journalists are members of the community. Journalists should be accountable in the court of public ...

Experienced people in the business of journalism. Not just lawyers.

It's not a tenable position. We need outsiders. There have been some changes, but certainly for too long the PCC was dominated by insiders. You need to have some people who are -- if not serving editors, certainly people who have served as --

Yes.

First of all -- and other editors or others have alluded to this, and others will elaborate on this, but I think first of all, in the event of serious breaches of the code, fines should be applicable. I also think that forcing or obliging newspapers to publish very prominently, according ...

So I think we need a new body, we need a new composition, and we need -- of that body, and we need new powers. I'm happy to elaborate.

No, it is a complaints mechanism, and if I may say, I was just about to explain why I think we need to have a little bit more of the regulatory aspect and not just the mediation.

I think that I'm more interested in carrots than sticks. I think that if you're looking at the current set-up in this country -- because I wish we did have a First Amendment in this country -- we can come back to that in a minute, but we don't ...

It should be obviously up to them. I believe that is the way forward because this is a fast-moving train here, but I suspect from numerous conversations that there is -- that web-based journalists, bloggers, they look at the mainstream media, not just in this country but also in the United ...

That would presume, sir, that they feel they want to be part --

Probably flattering rather than polite, but there we are. But this is the case. This is the issue. Because if you talk -- and again, having spent a lot of time in the States, for those who do their journalism on the Internet and bloggers, they think they can publish anything ...

Well, again, sir, I think you've cut to the heart of the matter because if you think about --

Yes.

I've wrestled with this and I haven't come up with an answer. I think it's -- there is a real problem when, for example, some people in the -- on the Internet, web-based news organisations outside this jurisdiction can publish details, for example, of a famous footballer and his ...

Indeed they do.

No, I don't believe they can and I wouldn't seek in any way to regulate the Internet. This is a very difficult area. There are the questions of a two-tier media market, in effect, where you have a press which is subject to certainly self-regulation to be discussed ...

Very much vice versa, sir. Again, it was taken as conventional wisdom that in order to govern, in effect, with today's -- what is known as the 24/7 media environment, where you have to, if you like, feed the press, feed the media with stories, and you need to ...

Well, you certainly can't -- you certainly would not wish to regulate it or pass a law. This is about journalists having a very clear view of their responsibilities and how they conduct their relationships with politicians.

Well, it's first quite striking, the number of people who have worked in the media business. It would certainly encourage me to believe that they understand the media business very well, but also it can lead to too cosy relationships, and we can talk about that. I'm not ...

Then we have to look at the quality of the story produced in that particular case, and I always -- so I think that the question is: what is the story that you've produced as a result of this?

There may be cases for others to pursue in which they ...

Well, first of all I'd like just to make clear that I'm talking about the kind of methods and practices employed by the Financial Times and what we expect of our journalists in that we do not engage in misrepresentation.

Second -- and this is important -- I have the ...

Yes.

I did make reference to the Daily Telegraph and the story in which two reporters misrepresented themselves as constituents to Vince Cable, the business secretary. I should add and make very clear --

I was primarily referring, clearly, to News International and specifically the News of the World in the light of the phone hacking scandal, the details of which now everybody is aware of.

Well --

Mm.