That's all right. It's interesting.

Thank you.

Yes, I think we both agree on that.

Yes.

That's basically the position I take, and I think the reason why I was trying to make it is that although -- and again, I'm not an expert on this -- I can see the need for a statutory basis, I can see the need possibly to bring in people ...

Yes.

Yeah, no, I don't imagine --

-- in the lecture, and I was overstating it for effect, partly because, you know, it's become a truism that the Press Complaints Commission had "failed". I agree it didn't do some things. I agree it was -- I do -- I was recycling what Christopher Meyer said to a certain ...

Yes. Look, perhaps I would agree -- I would concede I was overstating it in --

But that was really pursuing the privacy law.

Well, I mean, Calcutt didn't really go anywhere very much, did it?

I will entirely concede that.

I'm no great expert on the PCC, but as I said afterwards, it seems to me, in fairness, the point has to stand that if the PCC did not have an investigatory function, it can't be accused of not having conducted an investigation. But likewise, it shouldn't ...

As I said earlier -- I mean, look, I --

No, it's not satisfactory, and if the explanation I would take from Christopher Meyer, that it wasn't his area of responsibility, I would also agree that it should not have pronounced in that area.

What I'm really saying is: was what went wrong at News International, which I agree is as yet not fully proven, the responsibility of the Press Complaints Commission? It may have failed to detect it, but if it wasn't its function to detect it, is it fair to ...

Well, I did feel, as I've already explained, that to a certain extent the Press Complaints Commission was somewhat railroaded, and I was surprised when it became a truism, that from the Prime Minister down, people were saying the Press Complaints Commission had failed, whereas, as I think I ...

Yeah.

There's a degree of recycling, I admit.

Yeah, okay. I did have -- I did have some concerns, and I'll be honest, I -- I -- you know, Module 1 of your investigations, I didn't feel it quite got to the bargain, if you like, between celebrities and sections of the press.

Oh, that's the Greenwich one?

-- improved regulation of the press. I think my worry at the time, and as that speech is about, as I say, these areas of privacy and statutory curbs on media --

Okay. I was stretching it perhaps a little bit. I mean, I think my point is that yes, as I've agreed with you, I think there is room for --

In terms of -- obviously I've qualified it, because I've been talking at greater length and that was -- you know, I was making a point around -- that's the one about Milton, isn't it?

Oh dear.

-- when you should pull back. Well, I think you can be blamed with hindsight if a lot of people think it looks wrong, and -- you know, the famous Wendi Deng pyjama party, for example. I remember a then member of the cabinet telling me about that at the time and ...

Yeah. I don't blame the people on the media side excessively, because I think one of the things about the media is seeking access, and I think if you're pushing at an open door, it's quite difficult to know when you should --

I say "may have got too close" because I think if it comes to the relationship between a proprietor and a Prime Minister, it's for them to judge, and both of them -- both Tony Blair in the thing we cited and also David Cameron have used that expression. You ...

Well, we've discussed already questions around a strengthened or a beefed-up PCC, and clearly I think that would be an important matter. I suspect that the whole question of media cross-ownership and media ownership and how government deals with that question will be revisited as a result of the ...

I certainly think you could say that on the European question there have been times when newspapers have helped keep scepticism alive, if you like, but if you look at present circumstances, I don't think you can necessarily say that scepticism about Europe now is fuelled by anything the ...

I'm not sure -- certainly, you know, politicians like to have the press supporting them behind them, and they go out of some way -- some way to court them, but whether it actually has led to transforming their behaviour otherwise than perhaps getting them to do things rather more quickly ...

Could you give me an example?

Yes, but it's not always on a particular issue. The media may raise an issue, but, if you like, the public view on that issue may not necessarily go in the direction that the media necessarily thought. To give an example drawn from my own experience, when I and ...

Well, yes, indeed. I was referring to the evidence from Christopher Meyer, the former chairman of the PCC, amongst others, that -- my understanding is that the number of complaints from ordinary citizens about the way they've been treated which were dealt with by the PCC had gone up quite ...

I think there are obviously degrees of transparency and who you are transparent to, whether you're transparent to the public or whether you're transparent to, in our case, in broadcasting's case, to the regulator, and there may well be a role for that in whatever replaces the ...

Yes, I agree with that, although I think part of that process is inevitably under way, given the disaster of the last year.

Yeah, although I would call it freedom of speech.

No, I'm not entirely sure. I suggest in my witness statement later on that belonging to a regulatory organisation -- self-regulating, possibly backed up by statute -- is something which, for newspapers and magazines, I think would be desirable, and I think there should be, if possible, some consequences for major ...

I would entirely agree with you on that point. I remember the days of the NUJ closed shop, which I don't think were particularly happy because I think you need access to -- a lot voices should have access to the media.

Exactly. I would be very hostile to that.

I think that there are some politicians in some circumstances who have been quite open that they would like to curb freedom of expression. I mean, I know on the left -- and indeed, Paul Dacre raised it as well -- there's a question about whether journalists should have to be ...

Yes.

Well, I think if it's not in the paper -- and I think Ian Hislop made this point: the reason why people don't buy newspapers, he said, is because people don't believe them, and if they don't believe you, then I think your business is at stake ...

That's certainly true. I'm glad to say broadcasters are rather higher.

I think that -- well, I think certainly in the case of Chris Jefferies, he had legal redress, and he's received compensation of what's been done, apologies have been made, and I don't know whether newspapers have disciplined --

Yes, I would agree with that, although I think in most cases what should normally happen is that journalists who are responsible for professional misconduct would be dismissed by their employers and are unlikely to be employed by other people.

Yes, I think we do. I think we, as journalists collectively, have standards. I think organisations -- as I tried to make clear, I think there are reasons why they behave in different ways, but they should have standards as well. But what I also believe -- and it's a point ...

There is indeed.

Well, as I say in this section, question 2.8, I make the point that already what has been revealed outwith your Inquiry has had very severe consequences for a number of individuals and for a number of businesses and organisations. So the point I'm trying to make there ...

Well, clearly breaking of the law is something that we all disapprove of and should be investigated, and clearly there are issues that we're discussing about, whether you're talking about media organisations or politicians or indeed the police, people who are in positions of power and authority, and ...