If I can expand, state involvement is another one of those areas where there are huge sensitivities, some of them principled, some of them based on self-interest. Some of the elements of proposals for reform -- in fact, I think probably most of them -- contain some form of incentive, either access to new forms of defences, which could be accessed by those titles that self-regulate and contribute to the self-regulatory body, for example in the case of the Hugh Tomlinson proposals -- and obviously these would require some sort of statutory basis. Another reform that could be necessary to reform the system, and which would bring it closer to a co-regulatory framework, is that the body itself should be established and recognised in statute.
But the point we make here -- and a third element could be funding by the state. For example, if a journalist association was involved, many countries have that part of the funding shared by the state, if the journalist association doesn't have the resource to pay it.
My view is that -- and the view of my co-authors is that all of these things can be made to work, and can be made to work in a way that doesn't of necessity conflict with freedom of expression, but the necessary safeguards have to be put into place. This is a solvable problem.