I have confidence that if we were to -- and this is, if I may add, why I think this Inquiry is so extraordinarily important, amongst many other reasons, that if you were able to make a set of recommendations which take the rather ramshackle powers which are available to secretaries of state at the moment, rather uneven procedures, and make them coherent, tightly defined, easily understood, I am confident that that greater coherence and precision would make it -- would protect politicians in the future from allegations of undue bias.
I think we're in the worst of all worlds at the moment, however. We have politicians involved, deciding on a series of definitions and tests which are very loosely defined. That cannot carry on. That is absolutely -- I give you another example. I find it very odd that if a media group grows organically, just increases its market share over time, under the present rules of competition and plurality, there's nothing which triggers an ability for the competition authorities to have a look at what it means if a particular cuckoo just gets bigger and bigger in the media nest, if you see what I mean. That's very odd. In other sectors you have triggers which allow that. That's just another example of how the rules seem to be eccentrically designed for the realities of a fast-moving, rapidly shifting sector such as the media.