I will.

I don't think so, no. I think that's everything.

I felt that the work that we were doing to look at this review had been going on for some time, it was coming to a fruition around this time anyway, and obviously the issue was a matter of public concern.

I think it was a call at my instigation.

No. Neither Mrs Brooks or Mr Mohan made any indication of that sort to me. The nature of the telephone conversation was to alert them to the fact that the government was taking some action, that there was going to be this further work by the police here in the ...

I don't recall having a specific discussion myself with the Prime Minister. I know the Prime Minister was interested in this specific issue, but I don't recall whether I had a specific conversation with him.

No, a review was not ordered -- was not requested or required at short notice. The Home Office had been discussing -- first started discussing with ACPO the possibility of a Police Review or further police work on this -- they first started discussing that with ACPO under the previous government. So the ...

It was -- this was in relation to the question about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the action that the government was taking and that the Metropolitan Police were taking to work with the Portuguese authorities to further look into the matters relating to that disappearance, to see if there ...

I do. Would you like me to tell you?

I think that would be a fair reflection, yes.

I think the other one that I sort of identified earlier is the possibility of creating, if you like, what one often sees with when sort of structures and regulations go in, that then becomes a desire to -- for people to encourage those means to be used in a way ...

I think by definition, it's difficult. I understand the point that has just been made about the discussion which will hope to identify any potential consequence therefore not get into the difficulty of unintended consequences but the very definition of "unintended consequences" -- one isn't always able to identify ...

Therefore I think it would be inappropriate for me to go too far in relating any personal views in relation to this.

Well, thank you, sir. I fully accept the challenge, in the sense that you have set out, and that you are asking -- you will be asking everybody about their opinions. I suppose I would -- I hesitate at this stage to come down on a firm example of what might be ...

No.

Yes, I accept that.

I can quite see that it would be possible to put such a backing in place to give that independence and that respect for freedom. I guess what is sort of at the back of my mind is a concern that that sort of structure isn't in the future ...

I recognise -- and indeed we explored this a little earlier -- that there is a difference between those two systems. What I would say though is I think one of the questions about the first of those that you have set out, ie the statutory backing for a body that is ...

I think -- well, if what you're saying is does it rule out the body itself becoming statutory rather than just a self-regulatory body, I wouldn't rule that out. I think one would need to look at what was proposed in terms of how it was going to operate ...

I think it is right that there needs to be a process, a system by which people can raise concerns about what has been said in the press. Obviously, in particular, up until now, it's been in relation to individuals. I take the point that there may be groups ...

I believe the freedom of the press in important in a democratic society.

In that case, I apologise, sir. I misunderstood Mr Jay's question.

I see the argument that is being made. I think my -- the concern I would have, which is what I was trying to set out in an earlier answer, is the extent to which what you term, Mr Jay, as regulation -- there's a question about that, given the freedom ...

I accept that that is the case, sir.

My question is the extent to which the initial stage or the stage that you've set out helps or does not help that longer term process of ensuring --

It would be possible to set those boundaries in that way, I'm sure, sir. I think that the long term solution to the issue is actually about a wider understanding more generally in society of the issues that are being addressed.

Yes.

Yes, sir, that might be one option of dealing with the issue. I think what I would say, though, is it would be necessary to be very careful that that didn't then generate -- and I'm not suggesting it would for the sort of groups that Mr Jay referred ...

Yes, I think this is, um, very difficult given the importance that I said earlier obviously about the freedom of the press, but obviously the press can both portray particular groups negatively and positively, and there is an opportunity for government and others to work sometimes positively with the press ...

Obviously opinion in the media on an issue like immigration is varied. There is no single media view in relation to immigration. So there are certain papers that will take one viewpoint, there are other papers that will take a different viewpoint. So it's not the case that there ...

I think that the -- there is a general public concern about uncontrolled immigration, which is reflected in the press, but that is a concern that I don't think -- I think most politicians would accept is out there among members of the public.

I think I should point out, first of all, that I do make specific reference to immigration and criminal justice policy because that was in the question that I was asked to address.

I would say that no politician who often, as I do, goes out on the doorsteps and ...

I think it's this whole question of -- sort of which comes first. It is a difficult one to properly analyse -- in your terms I should say to analyse properly, I do apologise -- in this matter because obviously the media will pick up -- the media may have themselves a view ...

I see that it's an argument that some will put forward. I think the point is -- the point I would make is that politicians listen to the public in a whole variety of ways, and the views that the public have, and of course, one of the ways in ...

As I go back to my previous answer, the reason I said that I didn't see that there were risks inherent in the relationship between the two is because I don't think just the very fact that politicians and press speak to each other lead to the sort ...

No, I -- well, the reason I said I didn't believe there was a risk inherent in the relationship is because I think that assumes a certain behaviour on the part of both the responsible parties and I don't think that is -- that can always be assumed to be ...

Yes. I mean, the reason why the government has introduced police and crime commissioners is we believe it's important to have that democratic accountability at local force level.

Well, it will introduce into the arena, if you like, another individual who will obviously have an interest in a relationship with the media themselves. The Police and Crime Commissioner will be an elected individual but obviously they will, on occasions, be speaking to the media about the issues that ...

Yes, I mean I -- obviously, as has been indicated earlier, in looking at this issue from -- with my responsibilities, as has been done by the HMIC, and IPCC is looking from the police point of view in terms of their relationship that they have with the media, I think it ...

Well, a minister will -- politicians speak to journalists. Journalists speak to politicians. Those conversations will take place sometimes over lunch, sometimes over dinner, sometimes over coffee, sometimes in a corridor.

Well, the -- I think the example that I've just set, namely that politicians are -- the media is one conduit through which politicians are able to put their views to the public. Ultimately, politicians wish to be elected and are elected. For the senior police officer, they are not going ...

I think it's a decision that would be, I would say, between politicians and not just police officers but politicians and public servants more generally in that the -- obviously, for a politician, there is an interest in encouraging the public to have an interest in what you're saying ...

I think that's fair.

Well, I expressed surprise, because, as I say in paragraph 107, I'd already had a conversation that weekend with Sir Paul when he'd spoken to me about the allegations that appeared in the newspaper about his stay at Champneys and therefore -- he'd given no hint in that ...

I didn't attempt to dissuade him practically because the letter was already on its way to Her Majesty with his resignation.

And I think, sir, that is one of the themes that actually comes out of some of the reports that have taken place, that one of the reasons why it's necessary to put a clearer framework in place for everybody within each force is precisely because junior officers may ...

I can see the distinction that you have made, but I think you've partly answered your own question, if I may say so, by reference to the fact that one probably won't know what was said within that conversation.

I think it's -- the public have concern -- public concern is raised not just because of the way something looks but because of a concern as to whether -- a question as to whether there is something behind that perception that is of substance and therefore is of something more concerning ...

That, of course, was -- became more apparent around the time of early to mid-July in 2011, when, as we've been through, there was, for example, very particular example of the Chamy Media contract with the Metropolitan Police Service, and therefore that added to the picture of concern about these ...

Yes. I asked for work to be done on integrity because of a more general concern about these issues.