I think that's the approach we would seek to take.

Another example of that kind of thinking is own initiative investigations where sometimes we don't receive -- not very often, but occasionally we don't receive a complaint, but we have the power to make an own initiative investigation ...

In light of legal proceedings taking place in parallel, I think in light of -- I think the kind of thing we would look at there is whether there is a broader set of issues for broadcasting itself beyond the individual specific case against the broadcaster, and therefore whether there was ...

Yes.

Slightly different, I think. I think where Mr Suter --it he was in a sense saying Ofcom should step back from regulating in any respect, and merely be the code approver. And I think what I'm saying is, well, I can see the logic of that argument, particularly from ...

I think the ideas that Tim Suter has put to you are very interesting, and there are some similarities to one or two points that I think we've made in the past. In a document we submitted to the inquiry at an earlier stage we made the argument for ...

We did. Thank you for reminding me. So it's very rare, and largely we don't have to do that. The sanctions are known, and they are, I think, broadly speaking, effective. And they are -- needless to say, I think they are an essential part of effective regulation.

Yes. I think we found the system works. It's very, very rare that we revoke a licence. We have revoked one in the last year or so. But it was -- it's an egregious case, and we --

Indeed.

I don't think our fines are unlimited, but they are significant. The way I would describe the fines and the significance of the fines is in the context of the overall framework of sanctions. This is very much how we think about it, and I would say I think ...

I think in essence we make a very obvious point which a number of other people have made, which is that this world is changing significantly, and we need to think about, or the Inquiry needs to think about how to ensure that that evolution of digital communications is anticipated ...

Yes.

Yes.

In some ways it's a statement of the obvious. Once legislation is in place, it can be amended. In some ways it's theoretical in the sense that we have never felt that -- we have never felt in broadcasting that that has been a particular problem, but I think ...

I think we say a periodic review, whether one ends up in statute or not, is very important. So even if one could devise or the final proposals did not involve statute because people were satisfied that a self-regulatory version was good enough, you would still have to have a ...

I think that goes right back to one of the remarks that we began with when you asked me about our overall purposes and we are very, very clear that our purposes derive from Parliament and who we are here to serve, so when I come in every day, I ...

Yes. Absolutely. Serving journalists, broadcast journalists, yes. Again, we would quite happily talk to and consult with serving journalists in revising our code, but I can't see any way they could possibly be part of our decision-making process, no.

Indeed. We don't have that problem. We have people who respect the regulatory environment and want to uphold it, and if you have industry practitioners who did not hold that view, I think that would be a challenge, would be a serious issue.

Just one small elaboration. I think the point about DNA is definitely important. I can't speak for editors and the press on this, but it is definitely true to say that the former broadcasters who Colette has been referring to, one of the reasons that we feel very comfortable ...

Yes. Let me just enlarge upon the advisory point. When we revise our code, which we do from time to time, one of the most important things that we do is put it out for consultation with the industry, so we actively seek that feedback and that input that you ...

Yes.

Yes, absolutely. And I will say in terms of code setting, in terms of sanctions, in terms of corrections or anything of that kind and in terms of policy making overall, you need to have a bright line separation between those who are regulating and making decisions and those who ...

Yes.

Yes, I think we would draw a very very strong and clear distinction between advice which I think it is very important to take from those with experience and ideally recent experience of the relevant industry in which we do our sales, and the precedents on decision-making or determinative functions ...

That's right.

Well, by degree, I think is the answer to that, in I think once there is a -- what we were trying to do here was again to start from the -- with the objective of having as little -- going as -- keeping as close to the principle of an independent free press ...

Yes, there is certainly an interesting competition dimension to it as well as the freedom of expression dimension to it, I agree.

I think that's one of the issues with it, and we note at the tail end of that bullet point that an accreditation system could potentially have a restrictive effect on rights of freedom of expression. It is a paradox, that point, that it seems like quite a potentially ...

Again I think we're back to some of the principles that we started with and the way we've tried to test these questions, so we have tried to ask ourselves what is necessary beginning with that free and independent press and we'll move away from that so ...

Absolutely, and that characterisation is not one I think we witnessed in advertising, where pretty much everybody, to my knowledge, feels there is an interest in being part of that environment. And that is I think why co-regulation and indeed self-regulation in advertising has broadly worked quite successfully for many ...

No, no. The observation is at the heart of the dilemma here, the heart of the challenge. In our discussion of co-regulation and self-regulation, we observe again two end points to help frame that discussion, and I think one we refer to is advertising, where you have, I think, broad ...

The way we thought about this is to say that in a sense, as everybody knows, there is a tension between the absolutely -- the freedom of the press on one hand and any constraints on that which people have argued is a restriction of freedom of expression, and at the ...

May I do them the other way round? I think the second is the easier one.

The second is very straightforward. If you have established to public satisfaction, as it were, all of the things that Colette was talking about a few moments ago, in other words your governance and ...

Well, I think there's a difference between fairness as conceived in the way that I've described it and balance. We generally think about balance in the context of impartiality and accuracy, which is obviously specific to broadcasting. I think fairness can involve different things, for example the kind ...

Yes. It's in the 2003 Act and I think the origin of that is the 1996 Act. That's right. It is then given form in our Broadcasting Code.

It is.

Exactly, exactly. Normally we would expect allegations to be put to the party to give them an opportunity to respond, but there are circumstances that one can conceive of, and which I think have taken place although I can't recall a good example right now, where that is more ...

When we look at a fairness case, we would look at how the broadcaster treated the individual in advance of the broadcast, and were they given -- were they involved in it with their consent, with informed consent? Were they given, if appropriate, an opportunity to respond to allegations in the ...

Yes.

Yes, that's right. It's precisely for those reasons. If somebody feels they have been misrepresented, portrayed in an unfair way, it's very difficult for a private individual, particularly ordinary people, to stand up to that or correct the position or feel that they have been given fair ...

What we're mainly concerned with there is that broadcasters can -- in programmes can -- okay, those programmes can involve individuals and the preparation or portrayal of individuals, and I think what we're concerned about there is that individuals portrayed or affected by programmes are treated fairly, and given the ...

I think statutory -- or freedom of expression, the right to freedom of expression is clearly derived from the ECHR, so in that sense it is statutory and that's how we think of it and our entire approach to it derived from that framework, so we think of it -- that ...

Yes. I think the key point we're starting with here is that in any regulatory environment for any purpose of regulation it's crucial to start with clarity about purposes and objectives, and if you don't have that, then I think inevitably you will struggle.

Ours are set ...

I think that's the principal point that we don't seek to take on additional regulatory burdens. We've had additional regulatory responsibilities placed upon us in the last couple of years in other areas, none of which we've sought, so we do what Parliament asks us to ...

So the second page, I think marked page 3, as in the possible public purposes? Is that where you are?

Yes.

Yes.

I'm content, subject to -- I'm not sure I've checked it, but subject to my checking it, yes, absolutely, of course.

So there really is quite a substantial difference.

Yes.

The comparison that Mr Dacre made is, no, it's wholly inaccurate, and let me explain why.

The £115 million that is our budget is a budget which covers every single one of our activities. That is all the things that you began with: fixed and mobile telecoms regulation, the ...