Right. The approach to Module 4. Essentially, I apprehend there will be little evidence in Module 4. There may be a question -- "What is ethical journalism?" -- asked and addressed, and the only other evidence is likely to be the suggested regulatory models. That that's from the press and from others. The Inquiry has received a number of submissions as to possible regulatory models and those are what we shall address during the course of Module 4, which will inevitably be very much shorter than any of the other modules.
So that brings me to the timetable for the Inquiry. During the week commencing 23 April, I apprehend that we will be calling some proprietors or media owners and other evidence crossing modules. So we won't be sitting the week of the 16th; we'll sit next on the week of the 23rd.
We'll then, I'm afraid, have another week off, because I won't start Module 3 until after the elections. In the week commencing 8 May, we'll have further proprietors, we'll have catch-up evidence and we'll start Module 3. By "catch-up evidence", I mean evidence that I have not yet received but have been waiting to resolve. I have already mentioned that it is during that week that I will deal with the outstanding issues in relation to Milly Dowler's mobile phone. It's that week that I will consider again operations Glade and Reproof, and there will be some other witnesses who cross or potentially cross different areas, or more conveniently can be taken at that stage, whose names will be identified in the usual way.
We'll also have the opening for Module 3, which raises the next question. Although Mr Jay will doubtless open Module 3 with customary brevity and depth, does anybody else wish to open Module 3?
Well, that's interesting. I don't commit you to an answer to that now, but if you do, I would like to know in due course. Of course, it depends entirely on who's granted core participant status.
Module 3 will go to the end of June 2012. Module 4 will be commenced in early July, and during the course of July, we also hear any closing oral submissions. The idea is to finish the formal part of the Inquiry by the end of July; in other words, before the anniversary of the date of the appointment of this Inquiry.
Which brings me to the timetable for submissions. By the end of April, I'd be grateful if I could receive submissions in relation to Module 2 and anything that I have not already received in relation to Module 1. That is, of course, an end date, not the date by which I wish to receive those submissions, because I can't start analysing the module until I've seen all the relevant submissions.
Any opening submissions in writing for Module 3 I'd be grateful to receive before 8 May, and by the end of May, it seems to me that there are a number of submissions which will remain outstanding which would be of value.
First of all, the standard of proof, which we raised at the very beginning of this Inquiry and put off. Second, given the terms of reference specifically include cross-media ownership, any submissions on competition law. Third, any preliminary submissions on regulation. I say "preliminary" because they'll all obviously be subject to what I hear in Module 4, but I've no doubt at all that everybody who's been concerned in this Inquiry has been thinking most anxiously about what the future should look like.
Is there any other topic that any core participant feels needs to be addressed? Because if there is, I will want a timetable for that, too. (Pause)
Then, by 17 July, final written submissions, with possible short oral submissions in the week commencing 23 July. I'm not suggesting that anybody will necessarily feel it appropriate to make oral submissions in addition to making submissions in writing. The submissions in writing will be published on the website, so they won't be in secret, and we can revisit that as we proceed through the summer.
Does anybody want to say anything else about the approach or the timetable? (Pause)
Right. The final item for discussion this afternoon concerns the three topics I raised some little time ago which have been the subject of written submissions surrounding Rule 13. I'm very grateful to all those who have provided written submissions, and don't consider it a discourtesy in relation to those who haven't provided written submissions.
There are a couple of issues that I would like to raise based on the submissions and we'll start that now, but before we do, I think it's probably appropriate to give the shorthand writer a short break and allow people the opportunity to think about whether there's anything I've missed out, and equally, if they want it leave because they're not interested in this rather interesting area of Rule 13.
So I'll rise for just a few minutes.