Not at all. Thank you.

And I'm very grateful to you for that invitation.

No. I think that it's important that we ask ourselves: what are the means, whether it's changing the existing law or looking to other remedies, for dealing with this issue? My point is not to argue for a specific end-slate, to say that there should be a free-for-all ...

Well, I think you're absolutely right, and the prior point that I made is that we do need to look at the law of defamation. There are at least two problems with the existing law of defamation. One is that it costs a great deal for the average citizen ...

Quite. Costs as a punishment.

All I would say is that -- sensible to whom? Approved by whom? If the court says that you must be part of this voluntary association, otherwise you pay a particular price, then the law is making the judgment between one method of remedying problems, which is -- by its definition, it ...

It's arguable. What I infer from what you've said -- and I'd have to give it proper consideration -- is that the law would punish those who chose not to enter a voluntary method of regulation.

Absolutely, but Private Eye might decide that this system is a less effective and speedy way of giving redress to those who legitimately have concerns about what we've written than our editor, exercising his own judgment, and in that sense we're saying that a particular method of organising ...

It may be the case that some titles would willingly join in such an arrangement, and that they would consider it to be a badge of pride that they were willing to abide by such an arrangement, but it may be the case that there are other titles or writers ...

Indeed.

I can see the merits in the case that you're putting forward. I'd have to give it appropriate consideration. A couple of thoughts occur to me.

The first is that part of the case that you make is a case for reform of the law of defamation in ...

I think there is a lot of merit in newspaper titles that consider themselves to be responsible, holding themselves publicly to a high standard. Absolutely. The only additional note that I would enter is that as the nature of the modern media changes, the definition of what is a title ...

At first blush, it seems fair, but the devil would be in the detail.

Yes, I would agree with it except in one regard. I don't think it's at all abusive to be compared to JS Mill.

Again, you're more of an expert than I am. I have followed the debate but I cannot follow it with the degree of authority that you can, Mr Jay. But it is the case, yes. I have seen people wrestling with the equal weight given, as I understand it ...

Yes. I have a strong -- some might call it a bias, a prejudice, a predisposition to favour free expression, but by definition, one of the reasons that I favour free expression is that I believe that it is through public debate, the clash of ideas, that we can arrive at ...

Yes, I do believe -- the first thing that I would say is that there is a case for reform of the law itself and certainly for reform of the law of defamation. I think it's also the case that there's an evolving jurisprudence as a result of the ...

I think the situation now is certainly not ideal and there are abuses. This Inquiry has heard about them. They have caused widespread public disquiet. My instinct is, if we look over time at how we have reacted to other abuses and errors and crimes that have been identified, there ...

No, I think there is undoubtedly real public concern and I think you are quite right to say that that public concern has existed over the last 50 years. I think that that public concern pre-dates the last 50 years. I would simply say that when we're thinking of ...

I'm sure that there are cases where journalists and others will behave in ways which are deplorable. The question remains, however: what is the most effective means of ensuring that individuals do not behave in a deplorable fashion? It's often the case that individuals reach for regulation in ...

I don't think any of us can accept that behaviour necessarily, but there are a variety of sanctions. There is social ostracism, disapproval. There is the penalty that someone pays who chooses to use a commercial outlet to publish that which is inappropriate or distasteful. But by definition, free ...

The question again is -- when you say that they should pay attention to particular standards, if it's the case that they should obey the law like everyone else, absolutely, but I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to regulate and who wish to introduce some ...

I think each case has to be looked at on its own merits. I think if you look, for example, at the bar, then it is entirely understandable that there should be a system of public examination before an individual can plead a case in court and offer their services ...

I think the best way of making sure that people obey the law is making sure that the police are appropriately resourced to investigate crime, that the courts hear the case for the prosecution and the defence and then, if someone is found guilty, that they face the consequences. I ...

It would certainly be one that I imagine probably wouldn't stand up in court. We might admire the audacity of the individual making it but certainly wouldn't be inclined to acquit him.

It would strike me as a weak argument, yes.

And that the case for regulation needs to be made very strongly before we further curtail liberty.

Not entirely. I have a prior belief that we should use the existing laws of the land and individuals and institutions should be judged fairly, on the basis of the existing laws of the land --

I think it's entirely legitimate and appropriate to have a public debate and to ask serious questions about how individuals have used and perhaps in some cases abused freedom of speech. Quite right also to ask what action, if any, should be taken, but the balancing item in the ...

I think it is a problem that is capable of being regarded as serious, yes. The purpose of the remarks of my speech, however, was to ask the question: might the cure, in certain circumstances, be worse than the disease? The fact that I used the word "disease" I hope ...

From time to time, I would see the Inquiry's deliberations and the evidence put before it reported in the newspapers, yes.

I think it does, and I think, again, there are a number of activities that you or I or anyone here might consider to be inappropriate, unethical, even illegal, which can, in certain circumstances, be justified because they're in the public interest and they expose a scandal. But certainly ...

Mm.

Yes. I think that the revelations that there were individuals who were breaking the law in order to secure stories are disturbing. There is evidence that the practice went beyond those who have already been convicted and that raises undeniable concerns, I think, in all our minds. The question -- one ...

I spoke entirely off the cuff and without notes, and this is a transcript that was recorded at the time.

No.

Yes.

Yes, I was. I had been invited to speak to the press gallery, as politicians often are. I had spent most of my speech cracking a few jokes, as is the way of these things, and then I made a couple of points. I was speaking without notes but these ...

No.

I believe that Rupert Murdoch was only interested in establishing a school for purely philanthropic reasons. As he made clear, I hope, when he was appearing as a witness to this Inquiry, he cares passionately about improving education and feels, as I do, that it's rather a pity that ...

Not in the UK, no. They were discussions about the way in which -- styles of pedagogy and assessment, how children learn, how we monitor their progress, and also how we improve professional development for teachers who change as a result of technology. I became interested in the subject as a ...

We never discussed anything specifically to do with Wireless Generation. I do remember discussing, both with Mr Klein and Mr Murdoch, among other things how new technology would change the shape of education, but as I say, those discussions were no different -- in fact, probably briefer -- than discussions that I ...

I can't remember when the Guardian article first appeared that mentions Wireless Generation. I was aware that both Mr Murdoch and others had an interest in the way in which technology would change education, but I wasn't surprised by his interest because I'd had a number of ...

I didn't know anything about that company until I read about it in the Guardian.

No.

It's my belief that we could move to that situation, but I think at the moment it's important to recognise that the free schools movement is succeeding without that element, and I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it.

There are some of my colleagues in the Coalition who are very sceptical of the benefits of profit. I have an open mind. I believe that it may be the case that we can augment the quality of state education by extending the range of people involved in its provision ...

No. I believe and believe to this day that the free school movement can thrive without profit.

That's a view that a number of people hold, yes.

Of course.