that, because i think that i heard from mr. campbell on monday that he doubted whether it was the same support. i am not trying to get into a form of a debate here, because i want to make it politically neutral as possible to make it easy for all parties coming forward if you'd like, and it is the consensus politics to which you referred to earlier. >> you mean, you could only make progress i think on a area like this. by consensus, and that doesn't mean that without any argument, but it does mean that it has to be a backing for the principle, and backing for a way to get to in the end. i mean, at the moment, if you look at what is going on in parliament, of course, there is a lot of partisan argument over for example, of the bskyb and i

won't go into any detail, and that is obvious. behind, that i think that what i divine is that clear understanding by all of the parties that we got too close to the papers and that applies particularly to the two main parties. and it is not healthy for anybody, and least of all not for the press, so with luck, there will be that. continuing momentum for change and some of us can do the best to ensure that it takes place. >> i'm pleased to have asked you the question, because listening to mr. campbell the other day, i don't say it was very depressing, but it certainly creates a concern. >> i mean, i -- look, i'm not in

any doubts, sir, that there is a concerted effort by some of the newspapers to argue against any form of more coherent regulation than you have today, and i think that mr. dayco has said he has a perfectly honorable view, but i don't share, about what he thinks will happen if there is a marked regulation. i hope and believe that even he recognizes that the landscape has changed completely even in what the public will tolerate. >> he certainly said that last september when he at the ended the seminar. >> yes. >> on other matters on page 10, you don't favor an absolute requirement, but you favor a presumption and you indicate why, and the third issue, the

makeup and the underpinning of the reconstituted blame regulator that you would like to be called the press commission, and i'm sure that the label does not matter. and first of all, it is, it's normative force, and are you in visiting here a statutory underpinning and if so, why? >> yes, aim. and one discrete statutory underpinning is that if you don't, it continues to be voluntary, and there is no way that i can perceive by which you can and then bring in those newspaper groups that don't want anything to do with the regulation, and this used to be a matter of speculation, and now it is a matter of reality with the decisions of the express newspapers decided to take and extract themselves from the ppc. that is one reason. and secondly, that if you leave it to self-regulation, we end up

with this absurd situation where they are judge and jury in their own cause. i mean, as has become clear in the course of this, i do have very high respect for paul dayco and i have known him for a very long time, and so on, and none of that is soft soap. but i simply do not believe that anybody could or should be placed in the position of adjudication which he and senior colleagues have over the standards of the press when the adjudication is taking place of them. that seems to me to defy all known principles of justice. so in the moment that you accept that proposition that i have made, you then have got to accept that this body will have to externally to be imposeded,

because there is no other way to do it, and the press won't be able to do it themselves, and i believe they should calm down about the effects of the awe n autonomy on politicians and ministers and have regards to all of the other institutions which parliament has set up and sustains. which are not remotely in the pockets of ministers or parliament and the most obvious one is the judiciary. i mean, it is entirely sustained by votes with a capital v of money from parliament, but wherein a free society, i don't dream to try to understand what happens in the constraints of the supreme court, but there are more statutes which have been established which include the united kingdom of statistics authority and the united kingdom auth authority statutes which have led to a more pleuralistic

society, and parliament have set them up to come to more account. >> once you have a statute there, it is easy to amend it, and the less benign government in years to come will amend it in a way that is amicable to the interests of the press. do you see any force in that? >> no, on that basis, you would not change the law at all, because it would change again. it is not easy to amend primary ledgedation, and i mean -- legislation, because it is quite -- in abstract theory it is easy, because the legislation is passive, but in practice it is difficult, because you have to have parliamentary time to do so and make a case to the colleagues and go to the minister and before the house of commons and explain why you are doing it, and then it will proceed through the stages which

takes a long time which is a necessary part of the process. i think it is absurd to argue that you should do one thing that is right today for fear that something may happen in the future. i mean either we should look at the case on the merits, and if it is correct, then go for it, and if it isn't, then don't go for it. >> the editor of the "times" -- >> mr. harding. >> gave that argument and when i came back to point to section 3, the constitutional reform act which en shrines in the statute the independence of the judiciary, he decided he brought a knife to the gun fight, and as it were retired from the debate. >> yes. >> but that's a identification of a principle, and i think quite different of the judiciary to review something on the basis

of an alleged breach, but do you see a value or detriment in having a similar sort of declaration of principle as it were to put the position beyond doubt and to demonstrate that if somebody did want to change it, they would have to change the principle which actually could not be done through an and/or amendment as it were but to require a fundamental rethinking of the structure? >> i think that -- yes, sir, i think that a statement like that would be of value and which it would be, and then picking up the point of the constitutional reform of the 2005 act. i know that you are familiar with the terms, but all i knew is there is a requirement of the independence of the judiciary, but there are also powerful

requirements on the lord transcript of the day to uphold the independence of the judiciary and indeed, you have to as a further oath that the office has to swear in the lord chief's court here, and i don't think that anybody ever anticipated that certainly with the relation of lord chancellor would be the subject of the judicial review here. but you have to say that the person who was subject to those obligations between '07 and 2010, and they were in your m d mind, all right. and had any of my ministerial colleagues said you should have been dhog been doing this or, that i would have felt it was conflictory, and that explicit statutory duty there helped in my view to understood pin the nonstatutory

duties in this regard which were in the ministerial code. so there were sorts of sort of ripple effects from declarations like that and for sure extremists, and you know, so i suppose it could have been subject to judicial reviews as well as that happy prospect, so i think it is a good idea, yeah. >> and looking at paragraphs 45 and 46 of the witness statements, and 00551. in 45, you say you take seriously any concern of statutory regulation could lead to an unacceptable degree of state control. i do not believe that these concerns negate the concerns of a statutory system, but rather constructed with great care and then you explain how to do this

in paragraph 46, that it is all done at arm's length. >> yes. and. >> and what about the concern though that there is a seepage or the perception of seepage that there might be state control over the content of what newspapers can do? >> i don't think that there is state control over the content of what newspapers can do. i mean, by what process could the state, i mean, control what they were doing? they will be still free to publish anything they wanted within the general law. i think that if i may say so, i don't know who said this, but it is nonsensical, and a fantasy. >> i think that is made clear. indeed. unless you have any points that you want to develop in particular to the future, those are all of the questions that i had for you. >> and it was created in my mind by lord in reference to the

justice of the times. i think that it is quite important to talk to the news international about a single body, but what is striking in my dealings with these papers over sort of 30 years is that the life is sure they will end by the same group, and they are all very different, and you have had the s"sun" which is the most powerful paper and the one that mr. murdoch has used as the agent of the power, and right out front, and then not far behind the "news of the world" and then the "sunday times" which in a sense that shares a name with the "times" is a very, very different animal from the work works in a different market. and i put those three together

in one bracket. and they are sort of parties and vehicles and quite sfreparately the times and i have to say in sort of an interest because i have written for them on and off for the last 30 years, but that, the times has a very different culture from these other papers, and in my lengthy experience, maintains high standards and i just say that, because i think it is quite important that they should not all be tarred with the same brush. >> it bears the weight of its history? >> yes. and it has -- and it is very interesting that they didn't end that building and end up in the other one, but a very different culture even though they are a floor apart, and it is what you might say what their reader s expect. >> paragraph 50 of your statement.

>> yes. >> now, if that is not an invitation, i don't know what is. >> i will provide you with more details. >> i'd be very grateful, and the reason i would find it very valuable, and let me make it abbunt daa abundantly clear. much criticism has been addressed at least initially, and i hope not so much now to the fact that my background, and this is a lawyer, and laterally as a judge. and i have been parachuted in to a world that is not mine and expected to identify all of the pitfalls and the solutions, and the suggestion is that, that is simply not practical or feasible. you bring a very different experience to bear, and i have

said it to a number of people. and therefore any assistance that i can get to try to come to terms with the reference, the terms of reference that i've got and to produce a solution that is practical, effective and properly balances the legitimate interests of society where a free press is critical of the press who have the commercial problems that they have to face with the internet, and the public is quite a task. >> yes. >> and therefore, i would welcome enormously the assistance of you and as i have said to others and will continue

to say to provide input. i will come up with the recommendations, and then everybody can do with them what they will, but i wouldn't want to fail to miss to take up a point for want of the humility of asking. i am humble in this area. >> yes, sir. of course, i will do that. if i may i will reflect on it, and prepare a written statement, but i was also reflecting on the setting up the parliamentary standards of the authority which i felt was a need to do, and that has been a very interesting institution, because here is a body which is, has considerable power over the members of parliamentt which is the

parliamentt of the land, itself, and to begin with, it caused conflict and friction between the members of the house of commons and this body, but it sort of gradually settled down, and there are mechanisms there by which the members of the authority and the five members are appointed at arm's length from the people of the house of commons and it works, so of course, i will -- >> well, there are a couple of things that you have agreed to look at. and i'm very grateful. let me just ask one further question if i might, really picking up on something that lord hunt said which lord wakem agreed with. >> and the lord chairman of the ppc at the moment, correct? >> yes. and lord hunt put it this way, oh, well, if you introduce legislation then members of both

the house of commons and the house of lords will do their level best to really try to emasculate the press, and that is my summary and not his words. and they will want to use the opportunity to impact on the freedom of speech and expression and the press which i have constantly espoused. and another person said, i'd like the know who these people are, and lord wakem said, well, there are certainly people like that, and if you have got some sense of that, i'd be interested to note. >> well, i mean, that could be people in the house of commons and the house of lords afterall, a number of getting up for 1,400, and it may have this view that their business is to

emasculate the press. i have yet to meet them, it has to be said, and i don't believe they have ever put their views on record, and in any case, i'm afraid that i think that the prediction is completely unfounded. what we are talking about here, we are talking about a body which is hopefully statutory but whose role would be very narrow, and what is it there for? it is provide remedies for hopefully fast tracked for defamation, and maybe for breaches of privacy. >> and also maintain standards. >> and we query whether the ajude kated body would do that. >> i agree. >> and i talk about the three limbs. >> and if we talk about the, because, let's deal with the

part of that body or the body which is enforcement mechanisms, and what he is enforcing there s is behaviors, which are found to be in breach of the general rule. i'm not proposing any change in the substantive rule here in terms of either defamation or privacy and you put aside these separate talks. i have briefed him on this and it wouldn't make that much difference, but what you're trying to do is actually to make the current purpose of the pcc, which to provide fast-track remedies in situations like this, far more effective in circumstances in which certainly i have come to the conclusion that the pcc cannot do it. there's no way in the world that process is going to lead to

control of the presses, complete nonsense. and who are -- say you've got a press commission, let's call it that, they have an office, you have educators and you have power to require publication of corrections. and apologies. then they have partial damages. they -- and clearly a really tricky area of this, whether they have part to restraint publication in advance of publication and privacy cases. but how would any of that lead to -- >> i just want to say before we test you on the question of --

restraint, prior restraint -- >> yeah. >> -- you suggest there should be a presumption of prior notification. >> yes. >> was it in your speech -- >> yes, it was. >> -- that it might be in default exhumed damages. >> yes, it was. it was page 10. i think -- i do come to -- i have sat down and talked to a lot of people before i read that paragraph, because a lot of the discussions i have had in justice is a really complicated area, about whether you should have an absolute prior notification or whether they should have come qualification. in the discussions i have serious cases where it was in

the public interest. that's for the subject to be ambushed, not very many, but they could be very serious cases. i was trying to find a way through. and my suggestion was that if you make the presumption that can't meet the test, public interest, then it would be open in several cases for there to be damages. that's something they didn't take into account when they could risk assessment. >> yes, but i think i asked about, there was some mechanism for an editor to go to the commission and say, we don't want to notify -- >> no. well, that would be a very good idea, yes. >> of course, you couldn't force people to do it.

it would be evidence relevant for the court to decide. and if you ignore the advice, then that's relevant. >> i think that's a very good idea, yeah. and i think that would work, too. and just going back to this issue of state control, the commissioner is setting up into these newspapers to explain to editors that they won't get invitations to ask at the appropriate time. the way our society works, which is clear anyway, isn't like that. and by observation, i'm far more open than many, not all, but many your mean jurisdictions. i don't think anything is going to change in respect to this. >> well, i mean, our society is

going to change. >> sorry, i tailed off. i don't think the pluralism is going to change. because you have a press commission, which has a few hours and has not enjoyed public confidence, in which the public probably doesn't. >> i think that's probably a very convenient moment at which to conclude. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, sir. >> all right. well, you shrug, mr. j., you have allowed me to have an afternoon to do some work. thank you very much, indeed. let's say 10:00 tomorrow morning. thank you. more british politics sunday night on our companion network c-span. from the british house of commons, prime minister's questions time. david cameron takes questions on

the economy, budget cuts, job creation and the future of the european union. see it sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c more span. c-span. next on c-span3, fbi director robert muler testifying on current fbi investigations and agency oversite. then a vice president biden event on the auto industry in the economy. then the food safety and nutrition conference to improve food safety and nutrition guidelines for schools. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues with florida senator marco rubio. he's the keynote speaker at the annual south carolina republican silver elephant fund-raising dinner. senator rubio has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate with presidential candidate mitt romney. live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

saturday here on c-span. fbi director robert mueller testified at a senate judiciary committee meeting on wednesday on oversight on the agency. mr. mueller said the fbi opened a preliminary investigation into jpmorgan's $2 billion trading loss. he also said the agency is investigating leaked information on the recent al qaeda block plot. this is two hours, 15 minutes. okay. the photographers are all good people. i have been told by my son inform son-in-law who used to work with me, and i have a certain amount of jealousy because they have the job that i really want to have, except that

they are a lot better at it than i would be. so i had to take the senate as a second choice. so senator grassley, he's here. we'll begin. and it is appropriate that we welcome director robert mueller from the federal bureau of investigation back to the committee during national police week. he and i were the national peace officers in the memorial service for president obama at the capitol. and one of the things we talked about before, several of us did, is every year we are losing too many fine law enforcement officers in the line of duty.

there's a matter that's of great concern to me, and it would be one thing if they were all being targeted by a particular organization that doesn't seem to be the thing that these are disconnected and happening in all parts of the country, but we are losing far too many police officers. i know director mueller is keenly aware of their sacrifice, those people protect us. i do thank him and the hardworking people in the fbi that work to keep us safe. there are police officers on capitol hill, but i'm worried about their safety, too. the fbi has played