[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o discretion was -- but you can[o[o[o[o[o[o[o understand the concern[o i've got[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o because one of things that i do[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o have to consider in my terms of[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o reference is how future concerns[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o about, among other things,[o[o[o regulation across mediation should be dealt[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[n[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[n[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[n[n[n[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o information available to us are quite imprecise. they are calling to find they are subject to huge amount of interpretation.

notably in this case the plurality test in the enterprise act, how the public interest of plurality. you can also -- as we all know that are very spooky go through a low threshold of evidence if you like refer decision, then makes a further decision on whether to refer to the commission and therefore. my own view where we should focus our efforts should be to make that a more rational coherence, a more tightly defined process because that in itself within makes it much, much more difficult for politicians to infuse the process with their own -- all i'm saying is that if you do manage to tighten it up then it

is nonetheless still appropriate to have a politician at the end of a who is held to account for the final decision. you could both tighten it up and remove politician but i personally don't believe that one could ever be so scientific and what plurality is that it is completely beyond debate or discretion but i don't think, i think plurality can be much more tightly defined. but it's sort of a mathematical formula to a mathematical formula you get the calculations sorted out but it's not always some degree, however small,[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o vanishing small of[o discretion. >> i[o understand.[o[o[o[o but my concern is once you're in[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o the air, and[o i entirely endorse[o[o[o[o[o[o[o your view abou[ot importance of[o[o[o[o[o[o democratic -- i understand your[o[o[o[o[o[o point very very well. but the concern is slightly[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o

different, that once you are[o[o[o[o[o[o[o exercising discretion, if you,[o[o[o if internally a politician --[o[o[o[o[o[o[o [inaudible][o[o have extremely[o[o strong views born[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o perhaps about from personal[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o experience, about having their policies trashed in the press and all the rest[o[o of it it[o[o[o[o[o[o[o becomes difficult than to avoid[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o perception.[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o but actually this is payback time.[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o >> yes.[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o >> and it's trying to[o cope with[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o that problem i'm struggling with [o[o[o[o with. >> frankly i[o can't provide an easy -- look the easy answer is to say therefore, remove politician's -- i've given reasons why i'm personally not persuaded. i wouldn't, i personally would

not assume that this is just a one off. i think if you step back for a minute and look at the sector, the press sector with this is a sector that will have huge change in the coming years. the printing presses based on a business model dying on its feet. was recently have this hyperbolic shrill is that you the huge amount of competition all fighting -- for readers and customers.[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o

[o[o[o[o >> that's actually if you i at[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o least tentatively reached.[o[o[o[o but i ga[ove you the option to dodge out of the[o question.[o[o[o[o if that option isn't open then[o[o[o[o[o[o we do have to cope with the[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o issue that this area there may[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o be very, very strong, entirely[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o understandable views and once[o[o[o got to find[o a mechanism to[o[o[o ensure that nobody can challenge[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o a decision on the grounds of[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o [o perception of bias if not[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o [o actual bias.[o[o[o[o[o[o[o otherwise, all you've done is bounced the decision away from[o[o[o[o[o[o [o politicians into a far more[o[o[o[o[o[o[o

[o terrible group of people called[o[n judges. [laughter] >> you said that sir i didn't. >> because somebody else will. >> it is a real dilemma. it is a dilemma. it's not a simple one off answer. i can totally understand respect a conclusion because they're probably be more controversial decisions in the future, maybe a number of them but there's a perception an athlete of politicians of all. it's a perception, in reality somehow their own views political views inform. we may be easier for reasons i've explained i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater,[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o your metaphor.[o[o[o >> your answer is ultimately this is[o a risk that political[o[o[o[o[o[o

class have got to be sufficiently grown-up about to[o[o[o[o[o[o [o deal with in a way that is[o[o[o[o[o[o[o[o demonstrably openly and obviously, fair? >> i have confidence that if we were, and this is if i may, what i think is inquiry is so extraordinary important amongst many other reasons that if you are able to make a set of recommendations which take them on a ramshackle part are available, and rather kind of uneven procedures and make them as they say, coherence, tightly defined, easy understood but i'm confident that their greater coherence and precision would protect politicians in the future from allegations of undue bias. i think in the worst of all worlds at the moment however we have politicians involved deciding a series of definitions and test which are very loosely

defined. that cannot carry on. it cannot carry on. i mean i give you another example. i find it very odd that if the media group grows organically just increases its market share over time, under the present rules of competition and plurality, there's nothing which triggers a benefit for the competition authorities to have another look at what it means. if a particular cuckoo just gets bigger and bigger, do you know what i mean? in other sectors you have triggers which allow that but it's just another example of how the rules seem to be sort of eccentrically designed for the realities of fast-moving rapidly shifting media sector such as the media.

>> i meant to cover just one small point of detail in&/&/&/ relation to the conversation you&/ had with dr. cable. appreciate that conversation is private and confidential.&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&? i don't mean to pry into but&?&?&?&?&?&? did he mention at any point the threats or bullying from news corporation or news&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&? international, part of for the&&&? resize was making the comments he did, which were taped on the third of december? >> not to my recollection to me but i do see now am aware he had the same conversations with norman lamm that i had that i referred to earlier. >> move now to media policy questions in the future, mr. clegg. can we start at paragraph 77 of$>d>d>d>d> your statement, page 1381 do.$>$>$>$>$>$>$>$> $> -- page 13812.$>$>$>$>$6

freedom accountability and plurality. are you aware, i think we were touching on the issue of plurality, and you would like there to be triggers into competition and plurality issues without a merger situation existing, is that the basic point you are making in paragraph 81? >> yes. the point i mentioned earlier, that size matters but size isn't just determined at the point of a transaction. they can come if you like creep up on you through the success of the particular group just increasing its market share. >> incidentally this issue about whether you come up with a cystoscope definition -- >> i'm not an expert on this but i'm fully open. i'm told that it's the size that

is pretty tricky. but i mean that maybe one part of the reforms that one introduces two coherence in this area. >> so you wouldn't be advancing&

has movie channels, historical geography -- geographical channels and all that. to what extent is that relevant -- >> that's right. >> the next issue is corporate governance, which you have touched on, but like i said we would return to it paragraph 82. public interest, public interest and the approach of the state to journalists. in paragraph 84 you revert to the public interest test. you effectively are asking the inquiry to provide greater coherence and plurality, but are there any substantive ideas

which you wish to draw to our attention for consideration? >> i would say this. my overall view is that everyone seems to agree that the current oversight and relative framework in which the press operates is discredited. the ptc and so on. everybody agrees it needs to be reformed in that area. everyone agrees that the new system needs to be robustly independent the independent parliament, government, public, media as well, powers to investigate, powers to impose sanctions and so on. there's been a subsidiary question about whether that new regulatory environment requires some statutory underpinning or not. i have some views on the. i think you need, i think one needs to come up with a coherent solution on all of that in order to ensure that the accountability when things go

wrong, when all the privacies abuse, when power is abused by the press, is properly held to account. however, i think you need to counterbalance it out with reforms that actually enshrined protect and promote the freedom of the press and the ability of journalists to go after the truth without fear or impediment. and on that, my own view is i am intuitively quite attracted to some the ideas that i think are being presented by other witnesses in this inquiry. for instance, emulating the quasi-constitutional guarantee of the judiciary in an act of parliament. i think it will be well worth exploring in shrine in sort of quasi-constitutional statute the freedom of the press and to supplement it with a clear

definition of the public interest. so that journalists know they can use a clearly understood definition of the public interest frankly some of the definitions are arbitrary. one of them is the public interest is when coming in almost paramount to whenever the press want to be free to say whatever they like. you need to have something that the press as conferences. the press has confidence they have a public interest which protects them and acts as a shield against any intimidation or undue interference. and they have got court -- sort of a quasi-constitution and the free democratic society. i hope that within allow them to be a little more, and i will put it, a little more comfortable with some of the unavoidable forms on the way in which they are regulated and held to account. in other words it is a two-pronged thing. you to take steps to protect

freedom of the press and take steps to ensure against the abuse of power in the press. >> thank you. you said you would return to the issue of -- the underpinning. do you see any constitutional difficulties with that in terms of intention on the freedom of the press? >> i would say some of the way this issue has been cast is deeply unhelpful. some of the way the debate has become polarized such as you are either for some statutory encouragement on freedom of press, or you're in favor of the law of the jungle. neither are remotely desirable or realistic. actually the press already operate in a manner which is governed by statute. there is taxation, you name it.

the idea that operation in a vacuum is not the case now. i personally see this issue whether you need that statutory power that merely as a means on in. and has got to be independent regulation, independence of government, politicians and the media which question then is do you need that, can you secure the independence without statute? and i think those people who say no statutory, no role for statutory powers at all have got to explain how on earth you could have independent which is in one way or another underpinned by statute. and i would suggest there are two areas where statute may may need to play a role. the first is one that was raised by mr. davey, editor of "the daily mail," is the so-called desmond problem. and as i think mr. davey quite rightly suggest, maybe

parliament will have some role in creating incentives for controlling all parts of the meeting -- and jolting. it's hopeless if we end up as has been the case recently in part of differences were the medias opted out of a regular system altogether just have buy-in from everybody. i think he rightly recognized that may be a place for parliament to know. the only of the specific a were i think there maybe maybe a be a need for statute is whatever new bodies replace the ptc body or bodies i suppose it could be one body, sort of press commission and then an ombudsman linking it, or maybe one body they clearly cannot be the gift of government. they cannot be in control of parliament the they must not be any way be run by politicians directly in any shape or form. they must be self standing, independent, but who guards "the

guardian's"? who will stand behind them if things go awry? that's we might want to what they called a statutory backstop. i think what was -- we have instances of that already. the advertising standards agents, the nsa has sort of a statutory backstop in form of ofcom. the legal services board is a self standing nonstatutory body, if i understand cricket, -- correctly, which has, overseas. so i think they're sort of one step model may be the way to square this circle because i am very sensitive to the concerns that people have that anything that has to be -- you've got to tread a fine line. and i believe maybe that's a way of, maybe a way of addressing those concerns. >> don't you also have to have a

mechanism by whereby whoever is doing this than in force the orders that are made? >> yes. >> and, of course, that might mean not just the body against the press, but also the individual who wants to complain. so it's got to be fine people in, doesn't? >> yes. >> and how do we do that without some sort of statutory cover, and i understand the point you make entirely, and you're probably aware the irish model made prescribe with the regular has got to do, and then the regulator is approved because somebody says well actually it does take all the boxes and then he gets on with the job. and there are other ways of achieving it as you just identified. spent yesterday i wish model i think is fascinating because the way they got round for want of

put it, the desmond problem is if i understand cricket, in affect said if you, or his organization a or b. want to be provided with the protections under a new defamation law, that echoes here, because we're debating new defamation bill which is a very pro-freedom of press piece of legislation, which the coalition is pursuing if you want to have those protections you must enter into the regular system. you can't have protections under that law and not be part of the -- it's just a very normal way of making sure that you get complete buy-in. but you can't, but that's not possible without without statute acting as a carrot for those incentives to be effective. >> and without, the question is whether it's possible without in

some way the framework having an endorsement which doesn't simply defend upon agreement. >> yeah. no, because then it becomes they can choose all over again. >> absolutely. >> paragraph 61 other statements statements please, mr. clegg. this is page 13809. the media feel that any form of statutory regulation be a step too far, but perhaps for them to demonstrate tough independent regulation all major players taking part can be met without -- they need to make the case why they should be exempt the accountability and scrutiny to which institutions is subject. but do you feel editors and proprietors have made that case

ended to respect you indicate here? >> i have not yet heard anyone make a persuasive case that you can have independent regulation with teeth and full participation of all parts of the sector. in a way which is premised on a pick and choose, take it or leave it be -- pick and choose participation but if someone comes up with some of that great, and we get out of all this, but all of these politicians want to travel on freedom of press. knowing the google to let them if they could find ways get into this holy grail a strong independent regulation without the politician then accuse us of other trying to stick their nose in it. great, but i have got to say i've not heard anybody and some of the most ferocious critics of

the purported motives of the -- phrases, mr. dacre, themselves have said maybe parliament not does need to play a role in making sure -- i belabor this point because i think we're in danger of having a synthetic argument and would in fact if you scratch below the surface, most people except, even people come into this of course think there must be self regulation or gastric i show you push them, and so you might need some kind of statutory backstop. i hope i hope the inquiry will build on what i think is a lurking consensus rather than dwell on what i think is a superficial disagreement. >> well, the argument about the buy-in, or free for all we've had from the very beginning. i better ask you to comment, because you might have a few on the idea that all the press could sign an agreement by me

for five years in other words five years which would give time to legislate or fail to pieces which would be sufficient. >> no, i think we have a once in a generation opportunity to clean this up, to restore public confidence in our great press. and let me be absolutely clear. the conference has not been shaken because of press attacks on people like me or celebrities. it's milly dowler. it's her family. it's chris gentry. it's paul man who was dragged to the press, accused of being a murderer in fact when it was entirely thought. that's what really -- white rightly it is outrageous that innocent people didn't have to be before in the public eye at all are destroyed like the. and that's what's at stake. a once in a generation to sort

that a picture but i think it could be done as if this inquiry could come forth quite precise proposals to do with many of these issues we are not discussing. and i certainly favor active role, assuming they are strong and well thought through to adopt a on a cross party basis. i was very pleased to do that ed miliband and labour party said the same thing. this cannot be the subject of endless political -- if i may suggest i would suggest the less real -- in your recommendations for politicians to make endless mischief about this and hold it up i'd having a list of its maybe further inquiries, the better. because we have been your sometimes no, it's called the last chance land in the past been here countless times before, and opportunity sorted out. i personally think that we must

and can and will do in a way which actually celebrates and protects rather than denigrates or undermines the freedom of the press. it can be done. >> your messages set out in paragraph 86 have already summarized the need for entirely new body independent, et cetera. is there in your assessment a lurking consensus that concern you, you use on an all party basis i suppose, so this sort of solution? >> well, i can't speak for further other parties. what i've heard is actually has made me quite optimistic actually that there is a wide

there's a body of opinion across all parties that we can't that it's bad for politics, but for power, bad for democracy combat for the press. it's offensive and distressing to the public to just let things carry on as they are. and that a little tweak here and there of a fundamentally flawed model will not solve this. >> how much weight, mr. clegg do you give to the arguments which runs along the line chilling effect of regulation, and/or unintended consequences? and that if we're not careful, the sacred cow i suppose of freedom of the press is likely to be irredeemably harmed? >> i think we must be very sensitive to that. if we were come if we were too anyway directly or indirectly see a chilling effect on the press we be losing something very, very precious.

as unwilling as it is it's what makes us a free democratic plural society. i think, i think frankly some of the claims, i mean, i've heard some people, not quite but almost claim that some of the of this inquiry is in and of itself and intimidating journalistic i think it's just preposterous. the idea the idea that this inquiry itself somehow stops journalists from doing their business, it's friday. dispense -- it's frightening. somehow the press is under pressure as i said, in order to absolutely provide helpful, 100% reassurance that nothing in the new environment should infringe on this great liberal virtue of freedom of the press i think one not