Memorandum submitted by Mr Paul Dacre,
Editor of the Daily Mail and Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers
I write to you as Chairman of the Culture, Media
and Sport Committee to place before your Committee my views and
evidence, as Editor of the Daily Mail and as Editor-in-Chief
of Associated Newspapers—which includes the Mail on Sunday,
Evening Standard, Scottish Daily Mail, Ireland on Sunday and
Metro—and as a Commissioner of the PCC, on the matters
which you are considering.
The whole question of privacy, media intrusion,
and the behaviour of a free press is of vital importance in our
society.
However it would be wrong to consider the effectiveness
of the present methods of regulation without reminding ourselves
that there already exists a powerful body of law which controls
the media's activities.
The press in this country works under some of
the most stringent and powerful laws of any western democracy.
The libel laws, contempt of court, the provisions of the Youth
Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, the Children Acts, the Law
of Confidence, the body of law restricting the reporting of certain
cases in court, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Copyright
laws, the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act, the Sexual
Offences Act, the Representation of the People Act, the Access
to Justice Act, and other numerous restrictive laws already add
up to a huge body of legal controls.
To add more would add to the burden, not only
on a free press, but on the courts and force ordinary people into
the onerous and expensive process of going to law to exercise
their rights. That is why I passionately believe that an efficient
process of self-regulation protects "people not generally
in the public life" much better than a statutory one.
It is, perhaps, worth pointing out that, despite
the explosion of different media technologies over the past fifty
years, the printed press in Britain remains remarkably popular.
My own paper, for instance, has increased its circulation by nearly
a million copies a day over the past decade. I have to say that
ten national daily newspapers, selling 13 million copies every
weekday, read by some 30 million readers and nine Sunday nationals
selling over 12 million each week represent a diverse newspaper
industry—of extraordinary plurality—and one which
is clearly liked by the general public. It's also worth emphasising
that if people don't approve of their paper's conduct they can
always stop buying it or switch to another title.
Indeed, when you consider the depth of national
coverage, and that of an extremely robust and varied provincial
and local newspaper industry, it is surely remarkable that there
are not more breaches of the PCC's Code, more sustainable complaints
of intrusion or inaccuracy from those who find themselves in print.
Which brings me to the PCC, but before analysing
its role I would like to underline four things…
— Having been an Editor for over 12
years I can assure you that for every complaint I receive from
people "not generally in public life" I receive hundreds
of letters thanking me for helping them, through the pages of
the Daily Mail, in matters ranging from personal to national
importance to them. Indeed, we receive very few critical letters
from "ordinary" people. The bulk of our complaints come
from the rich, the powerful, the corrupt, the pompous and the
famous (not least politicians!) and are invariably designed to
intimidate and prevent us from doing our proper job as a newspaper.
— As someone who has spent over 30
years in Fleet Street, I have no hesitation in saying that as
regards such things as privacy, the industry's behaviour over
this period has improved considerably (as is outlined in a recent
article in the Guardian by that paper's Media Commentator
Roy Greenslade). That is not to say that further improvements
can't be made.
— The PCC has been responsible for
much of that improvement. In the past 10 years it has become increasingly
powerful and successful in protecting the public and indeed continues
to respond to the public's needs by toughening and revising its
Code. For instance, the record of the PCC in protecting the privacy
of children is exemplary and continues to improve and be strengthened.
— The industry in general, and newspapers
in particular, take the PCC extremely seriously. On the Mail,
the Code of Conduct now governs our every thought and action.
All journalists employed by me have the Code written into their
contract. It is difficult to overstate the shame felt by a paper
when the Commission upholds a complaint against it.
PRESS COMPLAINTS
COMMISSION
The first lie to nail is that the Commission
is somehow controlled by newspapers. The PCC is independent of
the media industry, having a majority of lay Commissioners and
a distinguished and impartial appointments body.
To suggest that they are poodles of the press
is to deeply insult the integrity and honesty of people like Baroness
Smith of Gilmorehill, Professor Lord Chan, Mrs Arzina Bhanji,
Sir Brian Cubbon, Lord Tordoff, Baroness Dean of Thornton le Fylde,
Lady Browne-Wilkinson, Dame Ruth Runciman, Bishop John Waine,
Dame Mary Donaldson and Professor Lesley Rees, all of whom are
or have been lay Commissioners at the PCC.
The huge advantage of the PCC to "people
not generally in public life", whose interests you are particularly
examining, is that the PCC has a clear and understandable Code
of Practice which is pro-active and effective in reducing the
number of occasions which might give people cause to complain
about their treatment by the press.
On those occasions where they do have a justified
complaint members of the public can get it heard and resolved
completely free of charge and quickly. The complainants are not
hampered by the considerable cost of hiring lawyers.
I can also attest to the effectiveness of censure
by the PCC. No editor likes or wants to publish their strictures.
However they must if they overstep the mark. Editors therefore
take great care to avoid breaching the rules.
As I said, all journalists employed by me have
obedience to the Code written into their contract as a requirement
and face disciplinary action, including dismissal, for deliberate
breaches of the code. Staff receive regular updates on Code changes.
They are supplied with copies of the Code and further copies are
pinned on our notice boards.
Complaints which come into this office, whether
from the PCC or directly, are taken very seriously and thoroughly
investigated by senior executives. This is a process which has
greatly improved over the last ten years—directly as a result
of improved self-regulation.
THIRD PARTY
COMPLAINTS
The PCC is pro-active in many ways. For example
the PCC's intervention or advice at early stages on regular occasions
has acted to prevent a situation where complaints might justifiably
arise. Self-evidently such actions cannot and are not publicised.
To take all third party complaints, on the other
hand, would utterly reduce the PCC's effectiveness in considering
first hand complaints which are inevitably better informed and
should, rightly, be the PCC's first duty.
Third party complaints totally clogged up the
system in the early days of the Press Council, encouraging professional
complainers, lobbyists, PR practitioners, lawyers on the make
and self-interested politicians to complain about everything and
anything in a newspaper. The result was that ordinary people with
justifiable complaints could not get a prompt hearing.
A PRESS OMBUSMAN
I find the proposal for a Press Ombudsman, presumably
paid for by the state, both repugnant and impractical.
Repugnant because such a person would in fact
be a government sponsored censor.
Impractical because such a system would be a
bureaucratic nightmare. It would be impossible for such an Ombudsman
to be instantly available to ordinary people with cause to complain.
A Press Ombudsman would have to draw up ground rules by which
to work.
Would they mirror the PCC Code? If so such duplication
is unnecessary.
Would they in fact be enshrined in law—and
thus be press censorship?
THE HUMAN
RIGHTS ACT
The Human Rights Act, which rightly places great
emphasis on freedom of expression as an inviolable right, is,
I must point out, currently being tested in the courts. That is
surely the right place to examine it.
I note that, in an appeal under the HRA, overturning
a judgement against a Sunday newspaper, Lord Woolf made it quite
clear, to quote him: "Any interference with the press
has to be justified because it inevitably has some effect on the
ability of the press to perform its role in society."
It is pertinent to point out here that the PCC
Code, which is clear and strong on privacy, is enshrined in section
12 of the HRA. That section requires that a court take into consideration
any relevant privacy code.
The court would, rightly, take a very serious
view if the PCC Code on privacy had been breached in a case before
it. The HRA therefore underpins and gives strength and power to
the PCC Code.
CONCLUSION
It is my conviction that, in a democratic society,
self-regulation is the only acceptable way to regulate the press
in matters which are not already covered in law.
This is a course which is being adopted by many
of the countries of Europe, the Commonwealth, and elsewhere. It
would be astonishing if this country were to change course and
resort to more government control.
I am not suggesting that everything is perfect.
A free press inevitably has its warts. It is also frequently an
irritant to those in power who would like to silence it—as
evidenced by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe's disgraceful
treatment of that country's media.
A special law on privacy would not benefit people
"not generally in public life". As I have indicated,
in order to take advantage of such a law, those who believe they
have been offended would have to employ lawyers and be prepared
to go to court. A privacy law would be a law for the rich.
It would surely be a sad day for the people
of Britain—especially those "not generally in public
life"—if your Committee came to the conclusion that
further legal restrictions were necessary. A free press is an
essential part of a true and great democracy—even if the
cost of that freedom is that, occasionally, there are lapses of
judgement or mistakes made by editors.
10 February 2003
| 
