Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2003
MR PAUL
DACRE, MR
ROBIN ESSER
AND MR
EDDIE YOUNG
140. I think it is five hundred pages.
(Mr Dacre) I know, that is why I am saying have a
look at it. The fact that it is five hundred pages shows how much
work has gone into it and how much work has gone on in the last
10 years, the growth of the PCC, which is not the organisation
that the Press Council was twelve years ago. A lot of mistakes
have been made, an awful lot of things have been learned. What
I would guess from your question is you think that the PCC has
not got enough teeth and therefore we are somehow—
141. I am not saying that, the European Court
is.
(Mr Dacre) All right, and therefore that somehow we
are fooling ourselves by just defending it if we do not accept
the realities of what might come. First of all, I would say that
the PCC's prime area of responsibility is to ordinary people,
it is to protect the rights, the freedoms and the privacy of ordinary
people. Once you accept that you realise the great dangers if
you take the PCC's ability to fine you, introduce some kind of
method of punishing newspapers into a whole different area. Let
us examine fines for a moment. The PCC totally depends on goodwill.
It is a body there which is designed to solve disputes, correct
complaints, to improve press standards and by consensus to encourage
the press to observe our code of ethics. If you introduce fines
you are going to change dramatically the whole goodwill nature
of the PCC. If I know as a newspaper that I am going to be fined
I will not cooperate in that goodwill measure. Everything will
have to go through lawyers. The PCC's response to me will have
to come back by lawyers. What is a quick and speedy mechanism
at the moment (it takes about 31 days for the average PCC adjudication)—incidentally
when lawyers are involved in a PCC case it takes double that amount
of time—so it will take much longer and justice delayed
is justice denied. It will also, as I say, change the whole nature
of the relationship between the media and the Commission. It will
also hurt small newspapers who cannot afford the fine. It will
probably go out of business and it will be like swatting a fly
to the big newspapers, and indeed you might even have a situation
like you have in France where newspapers boast about the number
of fines they have paid; in other words they are great celebrity
busting stories. But most of all it will be the rich who will
benefit because they will be the ones who will be able to afford
the lawyers, to fight for the fines. The poor people will not
be able to afford the lawyers to fight because once they start
asking for a fine we are going to submit legal submissions, they
are going to have to come back with legal submissions and ordinary
people will be denied quick, free justice. So I hope that goes
some way to answering your question.
142. It answers one part of the question but
I am not sure it is the issue. I have got the court judgment in
front of me and at paragraph 109 it says: "The court finds
that the lack of legal power of the Commissions"—that
is the Broadcasting Commission as well—"to award damages
to the applicant means that those bodies could not provide an
effective remedy to them"—
(Mr Dacre) The Broadcasting regulations can fine—
143. But I am just making the point to you and
it seems to me there are two routes we can go down. Either the
Government can introduce legislation to remedy this defect which
the European Court has found in the UK system—because I
would imagine, like most editors, the last thing you want is to
be constantly trouping to Europe because the British system does
not change to accept this remedy—or else the system changes
and the PCC remedies some of these defects. It has the power to
provide a financial remedy to somebody—
(Mr Dacre) Most people who come to us do not seek
a financial remedy, they really do not.
144. No, I understand that, but some do. One
of the major difficulties and why we have mounted this inquiry
is that the ordinary working person cannot get a remedy whereas
the stars and the very public figures can.
(Mr Dacre) I would argue that the ordinary people
do get more of a hearing with the PCC than the famous and I would
suggest to you that if you have a privacy law or if you have fines
newspapers will take the attitude, especially with a privacy law,
that they are only concerned about dealing with the rich, the
powerful and famous, the celebrities, because they are the people
who are going to come back to them in a court. Newspapers do employ
very good lawyers. I am afraid they will take the attitude that
the goodwill and self-regulation thing regarding ordinary people
will go by the board and therefore ordinary people or people not
generally in the public eye will be the sufferers there because
they do not have the money or the lawyers to represent them.
145. But do you accept that scenario, that the
industry may be forced into change?
(Mr Dacre) No, I do not accept that. I think the PCC
is showing that it can police the press very effectively and I
think every year that has passed it is doing a better and better
job.
146. Could I raise one specific point with you
as a final question. In one of the pieces of evidence that I got,
all the members of the Committee got, was from the Scottish Police
College at Tulliallan and it was about the role of police officers
as counsellors. Tulliallan College is the main training college
for police in Scotland and they train family liaison officers
and one of the areas they have to be trained in now is stress
counselling for families who have been subjected to what is described
as "tremendous stress and hurt through inappropriate actions
of the media". This is a general point, it is not a specific
point. I understand that because clearly, particularly given the
high profile that many cases now have in the media, the pressure
which some families are subjected to, I think they will welcome
very much that professional help from the police. But one particular
issue in this piece of evidence we have received which concerned
me is the final paragraph of the letter suggests, and I will read
it out: "A final but significant point is the developing
trend for the family liaison officer," that is the policeman
who has been trained to help these families in these difficult
circumstances, "to be targeted by the press during the investigation.
Reports are being made of officers being followed and photographed
and their families being compared to those of victims." The
author of this report concludes: "Officers are less likely
to volunteer for the role or their welfare could suffer if the
press targets them and their families." That strikes me as
a very, very disturbing development and I am sure as an editor
it is not one that you would support but clearly this is someone
with not vested interest, a police college in Scotland, saying
that this is now an issue.
(Mr Dacre) Clearly I deplore that. I just do not know
about it. Certainly you have a very competitive press north of
the border, as we know, but I would be surprised if that is happening
and I would not defend it for one moment. But going back to the
need for stress counselling, I have an old-fashioned view that
stress counsellors cause more stress but seriously it is a problem
that if there is a big, big story these days you have a situation
where you can have five or six crews from the BBC or different
BBC programmes, ITN, ITV channels, the radio channels, the local
newspapers, freelance agencies, and I think that is something
that the PCC should be looking at in the future. All I know is
that when the Press Complaints Commission does get knowledge of
that, someone rings up and says, "This is not right,"
we all withdraw. But if a child has gone missing or it is an important
child murder case there is huge national interest in that and
whether you like it or not the press can do an awful lot of good
in that. In the case of Amanda Dowler the parents, grief stricken,
probably did need a lot of help but they needed the press and
the press were very helpful with the police.
Chairman: I am really sorry, Frank, but
I have got seven other people who need to ask questions.
Alan Keen
147. The Chairman will be glad to know that
you have given answers to the questions I was going to ask but
if I could jump on a little bit. When you started you gave a really
robust defence of the press and we agree with that. I thought
from the first questions you answered to Chris Bryant you looked
as if you were slightly on the defensive as if you thought we
were going to attack you. Our interest is really just to listen
to people both on your side of the argument defending the PCC
strongly and to listen to those who are very critical of the press.
The previous member of the panel was highly critical of the press.
(Mr Dacre) He has made his living out of the press,
a very good living, for many years.
148. He said you were a law unto yourself, which
I take as a compliment when that is used most of the time. There
is a lot of heavy criticism of the press. You say the PCC is doing
a great job. How do you want to get rid of that criticism that
is there because we presume some of it must be justified? Even
you must presume some of it is justified. You have really not
given way at all on the PCC's action and power. Is there anything
else at all that you think the PCC should be strengthened on?
(Mr Dacre) Well, I think the PCC can do even more
than it is in trying to get its message across to everybody because
in my experience there is an awful lot of ignorance about the
PCC even amongst journalists and editors of some newspapers. To
that end they do do a lot. They have a web site. They have press
releases released twice a week. They keep a comprehensive catalogue
of all the press coverage that they communicate to anybody who
asks for it. They have got a twenty-four hour help line. But I
think the PCC has still got a long way to go to get its message
across to people. I think we should be responsive to things like
privacy and listen to your complaint, and you will be having the
PCC chairman and the secretary here later, and I think the Code
of Conduct is something that should change and grow and that people
should be aware of that. I think the PCC in the past has perhaps
made mistakes. I think it may have given the impression that it
has been more concerned about the privacy of the famous and the
rich. I think that is very unfortunate because I think the great,
great dogsbody amount of work done by the PCC and a very devoted
staff is to benefit and protect ordinary people and generally,
as I say, I think the press itself should actually start defending
itself a little more robustly. We are criticised, MPs are criticised
but we have a very good message to sing and I would be very, very
worried if you gentlemen and ladies recommended more curtailment
of the press because already we are pretty curtailed.
(Mr Esser) May I add a little supplement to that,
as I was in the room earlier on. There is a hotline. PCC has a
hotline and that hotline is available in every telephone book
throughout the country and anybody ringing 192 or India can get
it at once and I can assure you that the director of the PCC and
the chairman of the PCC have even better access to even more editors
than even the great Max Clifford, instantly at any point of the
day or night! That message certainly needs spreading but anybody,
any of your constituents can get that number and they can get
direct to the PCC and talk to Mr Dacre any time.
Chairman
149. Do you think it would be a good idea for
every newspaper to publish that, Mr Esser?
(Mr Esser) We do carry it twice a week.
(Mr Dacre) The Daily Mail carries it twice
a week and so does the Evening Standard and the Mail
on Sunday. We have those adverts in twice a week. We could
do it more often. We will do if you think it is a good idea.
Alan Keen
150. It would be a good idea for you to give
one or two of your exciting stories to the PCC and they could
put it on the web site and more of us would read it. We might
have read more of the five hundred pages if there had been an
exciting story at the front of it as a hook! The question I asked
Max Clifford when he gave the response, "Paul Dacre is a
law unto himself," was are there any restraints through the
structure of the companies, the owners and the editors, or are
you a law unto yourself and you do what you want? Is there a standard—
(Mr Dacre) I missed that. Max Clifford said I am a
law unto myself?
(Mr Esser) He said you are a law unto yourself.
(Mr Dacre) I see. Well, I am not a law unto myself.
(a) I work for a company, but (b) I am a law unto my readers and
if I do not connect to my readers' values and reflect their interests
and aspirations and if I offend my readers they will stop paying
40p a day for the Mail and if that goes on in great numbers
I will soon lose my job. As I say, I have to stand for election
every day of the week, not every five years, and I am not a law
unto myself because I am fully signed up in my own contract to
the PCC and its Code of Conduct. I do not know what more I can
say about how seriously we do take the PCC.
Alan Keen: No, you have answered the
earlier question.
Derek Wyatt
151. Good afternoon. Has the PCC ever been audited
by an outside body?
(Mr Dacre) The judges audit us, to use the word loosely.
152. But not the NAO or not another agency?
(Mr Dacre) No.
153. You have never asked for an agency to look
and see how good or bad you are?
(Mr Dacre) No, but the judges were subject to judicial
review and obviously the cases that come up subsequently before
the judges will be examining the same areas. I presume you are
hinting at the kind of Ofcom type of audit?
154. No, but I am happy to come to talk about
Ofcom. No, I was not, I was just asking whether you had ever been
audited?
(Mr Dacre) I am not aware of it.
155. So how do you know how good or bad you
are? You can wait for a judge to make a judgment but that might
be one year or seven years later.
(Mr Dacre) Well, I will tell you how I think we know
because we employ very, very distinguished lay members who are
in the majority on the PCC committee, always in the majority.
Some pretty distinguished people have sat on that committee while
I have been there. It is an independent appointments commission
chaired by three very distinguished people. There is an independent
chairman. We have just appointed the Ambassador to Washington,
Sir Christopher Meyer, to be the new chairman to replace Lord
Wakeham, who by no means was a slouch. Those people seem to think
we are doing a fairly good job. I think I prefer that to something
like Ofcom, who would I presume offer some kind of auditing service
in the sense you mean.
156. On the answerable part, you and I apparently
both belong to professions where the public do not think much
of us. We are normally at the bottom of most polls.
(Mr Dacre) I think journalists are just above politicians.
Derek Wyatt: It depends on the poll,
I think.
Chairman: We are neither of us in professions,
we are both of us in trades.
(Mr Dacre) Yes, you are a socialist too.
Derek Wyatt
157. What I am getting round to is that we have
had to move, because of what happened in the early 90s, to an
electoral commission, to an independent inspector really of Parliamentary
activities. So although an answer was given just a while back
that actually we regulate ourselves that is less true and it is
for the better of politicians, I think, so I welcome that. So
if there is something wrong with the fact that the PCC should
not include any editors? Why can it not just have lay people only?
(Mr Dacre) Well, you yourself brought up your own
regulation and, forgive me, I think it makes some very useful
comparisons between your methods of regulating yourself and ours.
You have a Commissioner for Standards and Privileges. The last
one you had was a lady called Elizabeth Filkin. She herself referred
to the Committee for Standards and Privileges many cases. The
committee brushed most of them aside or just issued a tap on the
wrist to the people. On Peter Mandelson the committee decided
to take no further action. In the case of John Prescott when he
failed to declare his RMT subsidised flat in the Register of Members'
Interests the committee completely exonerated him. In the case
of John Reid, whom Filkin said had attempted to intimidate witnesses
during her investigation into his paying Parliamentary funds to
his son to work for the Labour Scottish Parliamentary Campaign
the committee decided they should adopt a higher standard of proof.
Finally, there was the case of Geoffrey Robinson, initially exonerated
by the committee, who had to be hauled back in front of them after
the Daily Mail proved that he had accepted a cheque from
Robert Maxwell. The committee delayed until after the election
and then let him off with a token three week ban from the Commons.
You subsequently, with great respect, squeezed Elizabeth Filkin
out of office. You reduced her successor's role and the number
of hours that he or she would work and her staff. The only way
that MPs who get into trouble now would come into the open is
through the press. It was the Mail on Sunday, my sister
paper, who revealed that Michael Trend, the Tory MP, had been
defrauding the taxpayer to the tune of £90,000 by fiddling
his expenses. To make your last point about why do we have any
editors on the committee, Nigel Wicks recently called of the Committee
for Standards in Public Life that they should create an independent
panel headed by a judge to look at cases where MPs disputed the
fact. This, the MPs said, would undermine the system of self-regulation.
So you yourselves have a total body of MPs judging yourselves.
You did not like the findings made by your regulator, you effectively
drove her out of her job and reduced her role. The PCC is totally
different. We have a minority of editors, a majority of lay distinguished
members, we have a large secretariat full of very dedicated people
and we have an independent chairman.
158. Okay. Let me give you this example, which
is a mobile phone. Before the five 2G and the four 3G operators
paid for ICSTIS, which is the same as the PCC, but they cannot
appoint a single person from their companies to actually regulate
themselves and they have the capacity to fine as well, which they
have done. What is wrong with that?
(Mr Dacre) All right. Well, let me try and answer
that for you. If we can go back to another parallel, the television
regulators are allowed to fine television companies and have done
so to huge amounts in the past and people keep ringing up and
saying, "If television regulators can do this, why doesn't
the press regulator?" Can I argue passionately that you are
talking about two different things. Television is a monopoly,
okay? The BBC is a state monopoly. I would argue in my more cynical
mood that it is a state monopoly that has now been colonised by
New Labour. It has appointed a chairman and a director-general,
both of whom are Labour Party donors and many people think the
BBC is very party pris. It is a state monopoly. The independent
companies are monopolies. They take a rare finite resource, the
airwaves, and there is an auction by access to those airwaves
and they beam them into your home whether you like it or not.
Newspapers are totally different. They have no monopoly whatsoever.
Anyone can start a newspaper. Many, many people start it and have
failed. Newspapers come and go. Most of them die eventually. They
only survive by connecting with their readership, by representing
their readers' interests and reflecting their aspirations, guarding
them against injustices and things like that. If those newspapers
do not connect with their readers they will not survive. It is
called freedom of the press, freedom of expression. It has been
a sacred principle, the printed word, for four, five, six hundred
years. You take that freedom of press away, that right for the
newspapers to represent their people and you will be bringing
cheer to everybody who believes in authoritarian regimes everywhere.
The press needs to connect with their readers. They need to represent
their interests against over-mighty authorities. If they cannot
do that you will be curtailing the press.
Miss Kirkbride
159. There is a number of questions I want to
ask but just following up from that, Mr Dacre, you are right to
say that the press is not in a monopoly position and there can
be other entrants to the market. But that is only one driver of
your market. The principal driver of your market is within the
answer to your first question, which is to say you have got to
make something which is interesting to your readers.
(Mr Dacre) Correct.
|
