Examination of Witnesses (Questions 122-139)
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2003
MR PAUL
DACRE, MR
ROBIN ESSER
AND MR
EDDIE YOUNG
Chairman: Gentleman, I would very much
like to welcome you here today. I know you have gone to some considerable
trouble to be here and that is appreciated. I need to make the
point that the Minister is winding up in a debate on whether the
BBC should come under the National Audit Office. The division
bell will very likely ring soon and I fear then we shall have
to interrupt this in order to go and vote so I apologise for that
inconvenience and discourtesy right away. Again, thank you very
much indeed for being here this afternoon.
Mr Bryant
122. You were in the room, I think, and you
probably heard Max Clifford say that we have the most savage media
in the world. Do you count yourselves as noble savages or wild
savages?
(Mr Dacre) Well, I was not in the room and I did not
hear his remark and frankly it is worth a good laugh but I would
possibly riposte that we have a very good press in this country,
one that I am very proud of. It is a press of enormous energy,
a press of enormous diversity and plurality. More people read
newspapers in this country than most other countries. You, as
representatives of democracy, I should think should be very pleased
at such an energetic and diverse press. It is a press that has
its faults, everything has its faults, but it is a press that
I am proud of and I do not believe it is particularly savage,
no.
123. Which are its faults?
(Mr Dacre) It can occasionally be inaccurate. It can
occasionally be insensitive. It can occasionally behave in an
overly competitive fashion. But it has also great strengths. Great
freedoms involve abuses, as you know.
Chairman: Before we proceed, could I
just remind the Committee this inquiry is into privacy and media
intrusion. It is not an inquiry into the general standards of
the press and I would be grateful if the questions could be focused
on the subject of our inquiry.
Mr Bryant
124. One of the things which has been intimated
by other people today is that one of the faults of the modern
media is a failure to recognise a right balance between the freedom
of the press and the privacy of individuals. The PCC Code of Practice
refers to a reasonable expectation of privacy. How do you understand
that?
(Mr Dacre) Well, as you know, we have the Code of
Conduct on the PCC. That defines people's reasonable expectation
of privacy as regards pictures and situations where they might
expect to be heard. My understanding is that if they are in a
public place they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If they are in a place, say their own garden that cannot be overlooked,
that is a place where they should have every right to have privacy.
125. One of the phrases that we have debated
some fair amount this afternoon is the phrase that is used very
regularly "of the public interest" and some people have
been trying to draw a distinction between that which the public
is interested in or that a newspaper can make the public interested
in and something which is to the benefit of the public to know.
Do you draw that distinction or do you think that is a false distinction?
(Mr Dacre) Well, it is a very big question, is it
not? I wish your question was a little more specific.
126. I am sorry, I ask the questions that I
want to ask.
(Mr Dacre) Of course you will, but I am saying it
is a little difficult to answer because they are such huge questions
and one could write a treatise on them and I am trying to give
you a brief and sensible answer. Expectations and what would interest
the public. Let me say first of all that unless you produce a
newspaper that interests the public they are not going to buy
you. I do not have a five year term of office like you. I have
to persuade the public every day to go out and buy my newspaper,
often in the rain and pay 40p for it, therefore I have to interest
them. I have to provide material that they will find interesting
and the Daily Mail does that by producing a brand of serious
journalism mixed with celebrity gossip and human stories. That
enables us to have a very large circulation and I would argue
engage in very serious discourse with our newspapers. Therefore,
I as an editor have to decide what interests the public and how
far we can go within the Code. Whether it is of public interest
of course is a different matter. How far can we go in interesting
the public without offending the Code and whether that is therefore
in the public interest? That is what the Code is there for, that
is what the PCC is there for and that is what they have to decide.
All I can say is we have the Code. We observe it very, very carefully.
We study every story in the picture in the light of that Code
and we decide whether it is in the public interest in the light
of that Code.
Mr Bryant: Let me give you a very specific
instance. It is slightly conflated between two stories just to
protect the privacy of the individuals concerned and it is a case
that I put to another witness earlier of a family who have a child
with a particular emotional and physical illness which is of interest
to the newspaper. The news people turn up at the door. They have
heard about the child, a young child, a seven year old child.
The parents consent to the newspaper doing an interview on the
understanding that the child will not be named nor where they
live, except to say in South Wales, and that no photo will be
used although a photograph is taken at the time just for the internal
purposes of the newspaper they are told. All of this does appear
in the newspaper, the name of the child, a photograph of the child,
the school that the child goes to and the town where they live,
all of these details. How would you make sure that that did not
happen or do you think that it is legitimate for that to happen
because it is of public interest?
Chairman: You and your colleagues are
going to have a fair amount of time to ponder your answer to that
question because we have to go and vote. Could everybody be back
as soon as possible, please.
The Committee suspended from 5.35 to 5.45
pm for a division in the House
Chairman
127. You were going to say before we were so
rudely interrupted?
(Mr Dacre) Well, through the bell I think I heard
the question. It is an outrageous case. If the PCC had been adjudicating
on that I think they would have found the newspaper concerned
guilty on several counts. Health, as you know, is one area that
the PCC is very strong on and they would have found the paper
guilty on that. They are very tough on children and identification
of children without the parents' consent. If the newspaper did
that that was wrong and I condemn it utterly. If the newspaper
and the photographer had said they were going to behave in one
fashion and then did not and took a picture and then said they
were not going to, that again would have been condemned. I have
very little sympathy with the case but now you are going to tell
me something that is going to catch me out, are you?
Mr Bryant
128. I am not in favour of a privacy law myself.
On balance I would much prefer to see a tough PCC.
(Mr Dacre) But you do understand the PCC would have
come down terribly heavily on that case.
129. Yes, but they have not, this is the difficulty,
on this case.
(Mr Dacre) Well, from what you have told me I find
that astonishing.
130. I find it astonishing and the family finds
it astonishing.
(Mr Dacre) I have sat on the Commission for four years
and I just cannot believe, the way you have told that story, that
the Commission—on what grounds did the PCC not come down?
131. They will not tell me because they do not
have to provide grounds and this, it seems to me, is one of the
difficulties. There are two questions that follow on from that.
It is unfair in a sense, as you point out, to put a case in front
of you which is not your newspaper.
(Mr Dacre) It is very difficult, yes.
132. But there are two issues which arise for
me. One is that half of me could not care less what you do about
public personalities but what I do care about is the constituents
of mine.
(Mr Dacre) I could not agree with you more.
133. So what I want to know is what you do to
make sure that something like that does not happen?
(Mr Dacre) All right. I do not want to labour the
point but I do find it astonishing that the PCC (a) has become
involved in that, and (b) if it had that it would not have adjudicated
in the most censorious fashion against that paper, and that is
based on sitting once a month, twelve months a year for four years
on the PCC. So I do ask you to perhaps go back there and get it
re-submitted to the PCC because I just find it astonishing. Anything
involving children and health they are terribly, terribly tough
on.
134. So what do you do?
(Mr Dacre) On our paper, as you know, every newspaper
man working for the Daily Mail Group has a contract. As a matter
of contractual obligation the Code is written into his contract.
I have a large and very capable managing editor's office which
keeps all the journalists memoed about developments in the PCC,
in the Code and the journalists are constantly reminded when other
newspapers offend it that we should not make the same mistake.
Every decision that is made in the news room is made in the light
of the Code. Our lawyers read copies assiduously for the PCC Code
as they do for libel. If I have got one job today it is to persuade
you—you are sceptical—ladies and gentlemen that the
press do take the PCC very, very seriously and the Code is now
very much part of their lives. It is in the psyche and the consciousness
of a newspaper at every level.
135. One of the issues then is having broken
the eggs you cannot put the eggs back together. In most of these
cases recompense is when it is an ordinary family whose lives
have been torn apart by some foul play, which might not be the
intention of the editor but nonetheless has come to pass. One
of the things that the PCC can insist on is due prominence for
the rebuttal or the reply. For instance, today in the Yorkshire
Post the front page of the Yorkshire Post has a big
photo of Matthew Kelly and immediately next to it has the word
"Guilty" and because the Yorkshire Post is a
broadsheet it is folded so that is all you can see. You cannot
see that underneath the photo of Matthew Kelly there is "No
charge" and that the "Guilty" actually refers to
a completely different story. But I have seen instances where
the due prominence that is given to the reply is done with such
responding arrogance on behalf of the newspaper that it is effectively
putting two fingers up to the PCC.
(Mr Dacre) Well, I think that is very regrettable
and all I say in my group is if the PCC finds against us we carry
their full adjudication, which can often be of considerable length.
We do so with prominence. For instance, the Evening Standard
recently did a serious investigative piece on a school, what life
was like in an inner London school, and inadvertently they identified
a couple of the children in the case. The PCC investigated, adjudicated,
"You cannot identify children. The case upheld against the
Evening Standard." Although it was a serious piece
of journalism the then editor carried their adjudication in full,
in fact I have got it here. So that is the kind of prominence
we gave it and that is not done in a begrudging fashion. The editor
also wrote a leader on the day accepting they had made a mistake,
apologising to the children and accepting the PCC's adjudication
unreservedly. My experience certainly at national newspaper level
is that people take a punch on their nose, which is why the PCC
has such clout. It is a very shameful moment but it is one we
recognise we must do and it is not one that we like because too
often our critics, our competitor papers, make great hay of it
as well.
Mr Bryant: Thank you.
Chairman
136. Before I call on Frank Doran, could I put
this question to you, Mr Dacre. It follows from Chris Bryant saying
that he was not in favour of a privacy law. Everybody, whatever
their approach to these matters, is in favour of the principle
of self-regulation. Is there not now though the problem of the
Human Rights Act and the fact that certainly anybody with means
can use the Human Rights Act as a way of seeking to enforce and
gain damages for an alleged intrusion into privacy? What we have
got, and it is now building up in case law, is a series of judicial
decisions which are making a privacy law which has not been made
by Parliament. So is it possible simply to go back to the issue
of self-regulation when a lot of people for whom self-regulation
is not enough can now use the Human Rights Act to get their own
private privacy law made?
(Mr Dacre) I think that is a very good question and
of course this is an area which is being defined all the time
as the courts consider this matter. I think the first thing to
say is there was an expectation when the Human Rights Act came
in that the judges would fashion a privacy law. I have to tell
you that so far they have been extremely cautious about this and
shown that they actually feel the best place for privacy to be
adjudicated on is in the PCC. That is not me saying that, that
has been said at the High Court and the Appeal Court. If I could
just make a couple of comments. Mr Justice Silber during Anna
Ford's judicial review of the PCC ruling on her complaint about
the Mail and OK! running pictures of her on a beach said: "The
type of balancing operation between privacy and freedom of expression
conducted by a specialist body such as the Commission [the PCC]
is still regarded as a field of activity to which the courts should
and will defer. The Commission [PCC] is a body whose membership
and expertise makes it much better equipped than the courts to
resolve the difficult exercise of balancing the conflicting rights
of privacy and of the newspapers to publish." Another very
significant recent case was testing the Human Rights Act in a
ruling which overturned an injunction preventing the press from
naming the footballer Gary Flitcroft, who, as you may recall,
although he is a married man had been linked to two ladies of
a lap dancing persuasion. In the Court of Appeal Lord Woolf gave
the verdict: "Once it is accepted that the freedom of the
press should prevail then the form of reporting in the press is
not a matter for the courts but for the Press Commission and the
customers of the newspaper concerned." He added: "This
is the position irrespective of whether the particular publication
is desirable in the public interest." He went on to say:
"In many of these situations (stories of sexual infidelity)
it would be overstating the case to say there is a public interest
in the information being published. It would be more accurate
to say that the public have an understandable and so legitimate
interest in being told the information. The courts must not ignore
the fact that if newspapers do not publish information which the
public are interested in there would be fewer newspapers published,
which would not be in the public interest." So piece by piece
the courts seem to be indicating that they believe the PCC has
shown itself to be trustworthy in this area, that it has case
book now stretching back over many years which shows it has behaved
in a responsible fashion in the area of privacy and that they
are indicating they are happy that this is an area the PCC adjudicates
in.
137. That is one judge, Mr Dacre. It may well
be that other judges would take a comparable view; other judges
might not. Other judges might be on a crusade.
(Mr Dacre) But those are the two cases—
138. Your newspaper recently published an analysis
of the judgments of Mr Justice Collins on asylum and it could
be argued that he is on some crusade to which he has appointed
himself. In the same way it might well be possible, whichever
way it works, if cases are dismissed under the Human Rights Act
then privacy law is being made through the dismissal of cases
as well as through the upholding of cases. We have got a very
prominent case before the courts now to which we must not refer
because it is sub judice but whichever way that case is
decided another chunk of privacy law will be being made in the
courts.
(Mr Dacre) I accept what you say, Chairman, but certainly
the early signs from the judiciary are that this is an area where
they believe they can trust the PCC and an area they choose not
to become involved in. I do not know. As you see, it is an organic
thing, is it not? We will find out. Certainly I think it will
be a sad day if it does happen in that way.
Mr Doran
139. The Chairman has pre-empted the issue I
wanted to pursue but I will take it on a little bit further. I
have got a little preamble but I promise I will come to the point.
It is quite clear that you run a very successful newspaper and
a very successful company and in many respects it is an opinion
leader and we all recognise that. I have some experience of the
regional press because my two local newspapers, the Aberdeen Press
and Journal and the Aberdeen Evening Express are part of the stable
and quite clearly from your own evidence and the way in which
you have answered questions today and my own experience of the
local papers there is a firm commitment not only to the PCC but
the training which you have referred to. You have made the very
strong point that it also appears in every journalist's contract.
So that gives it some force on the ground. But following the point
the Chairman has made to you, I just wonder whether you are building
a wall around the PCC when everything else around you is changing
because while I accept that the judgments or the extracts from
the judgments you have read out may suggest that the judiciary
is moving in one particular direction I think from the legal evidence
we have heard earlier—and I used to practise as a lawyer
and I have been looking at the cases—what I see is quite
a bit of uncertainty. On the one hand you have got the introduction
of the Human Rights legislation which has created uncertainty
in all sorts of areas and we are only just now coming to terms
with it. But you have also got decisions of the European Court
of Human Rights and there is one particular decision, the Peck
decision, which I am sure you are familiar with, where the court
decided in favour of Mr Peck because the British system did not
offer proper recourse and they mentioned specifically areas like
damages, etcetera. It seems to me that there are two problems
here for the newspaper industry. One is the general uncertainty
in the law at the moment. It may go one way, it may go the other.
I accept it is possible it may go in the direction which you have
indicated from the extracts but given the fact that the UK Government
tends to respect the decisions of the European Court it may be
more likely to go in the other direction. I would really like
you to take your comments a little bit further forward because
the situation is moving all the time. This Committee is looking
at this situation fresh, this is our first day of hearing, but
we are hearing and seeing a lot of conflicting evidence and the
question I am particularly concerned about is, is defence of the
PCC in its present form in the best interests of the newspaper
industry?
(Mr Dacre) You have covered a lot of ground there.
Firstly, at the risk of being presumptuous, I would ask you in
all humility to read the PCC's submission to this Committee because
it is a tremendous document. I have read it myself.
|
