Examination of Witnesses (Questions 860-872)
TUESDAY 8 APRIL 2003
MR PAUL
HORROCKS, MR
PETER COX,
MR DAVID
NEWELL, MR
PETER LONG,
MR EDMUND
CURRAN AND
MR ED
ASQUITH
860. Can you understand that a lot of people
find that really very worrying, if a large number of people like
you give a very reasoned answer that basically they should not
have done it, yet they do it? There is no stop or anchor on them
and no requirement for them not to do something but the majority
of you, and certainly those who represent the PCC, cannot stop
them.
(Mr Cox) We have to deal with something like 120 different
stories per day. With every single story they think PCC. If they
do not think PCC, and it is written into the reporters' contracts,
then they will be for it if they make a mistake. Every single
story requires a decision: do we publish or not? One newspaper
took a line that was not particularly against any PCC guidelines
and that was their stance. I respect that stance. It is not my
stance.
861. So there is no PCC guideline, but you think
there is a protocol. The vast majority of you think they should
not have done it, yet there is no recourse to stop them doing
it. Can you understand why we might start saying there should
be some back-stop powers to the PCC?
(Mr Curran) I think there is a very large number of
people in the United Kingdom who actually supported The News
of the World campaign. I was not one of them. We might not
necessarily be in the majority within the United Kingdom, even
though the five of us for example here do not share Rebecca Wade's
view. I personally think that one of the great virtues of the
place where we live is the diversity of opinion and we should
defend the fact that we have a range of newspapers that covers
views we ourselves do not necessary share. I was not a member
of the PCC when this issue of the paedophile originally arose,
but I do think that simply because a group of us share a particular
view does not necessarily mean that every editor in the United
Kingdom has to share the same view.
862. When it comes to public safety, arguably
when you are dealing with paedophiles who are named and shamed
but they are not charged—we are not talking about people
being charged here—that then has to come down to politicians
because it could very clearly be a matter of public safety for
those individuals. In the end, you are handing it over to us as
politicians to make a decision because you cannot do so, because
you have said one thing and now you are arguing the other way.
(Mr Horrocks) There is a big issue here about those
people who have been charged, put before the courts and—
863. We are not talking about those; definitely
we are not talking about them. They are guilty, fine. We are talking
about those where we do not know and that is what the problem
was with The News of the World. It was not about the guilty
ones, those charged.
(Mr Horrocks) Really was it not that they trawled
back through records and looked for people who had been before
the courts and may have served their sentence?
864. It is not new news. It is in the past,
people who have served their sentence and are living in the community,
and something has to be done with these people.
(Mr Horrocks) The only advice I would give there is
that newspapers should have a protocol of their own in conjunction
with the probation service, police and local authorities.
865. I totally agree. Why I am hammering away
at it is that the PCC thinks it should not be practised; you have
more or less it should be. On this issue it could not understand
that there was a problem, and it put that in writing. There is
a problem. Paul Dacre identified there is a problem. The PCC should
be proactive. You are right, it should have strong protocols.
There should be more dialogue but the PCC says: "It is not
up to us to be proactive. Give me specific individual examples
and I will deal with that but I am not dealing with the whole
issue."
(Mr Newell) If I may make one point, I am not an editor:
I am a lawyer and director of newspapers. My understanding of
the situation in The News of the World case was that all
those that were named were convicted, to start off with. Second,
if a person who is not a paedophile is represented as being a
paedophile in a newspaper, the law of libel takes care of that.
Ms Shipley: Can you answer the question
I have just asked?
Chairman: That was your last question.
Ms Shipley: You have let them off the
hook though, for they will not answer!
Alan Keen
866. Is there any one of you who perhaps thinks
it would be better if there were no professionals on the PCC at
all, that it should be comprised of lay people? After all, the
PCC is hopefully looking after the interests of people who have
been offended by things that newspapers have published. Does any
one of you think that they should all be lay people on the PCC?
(Mr Curran) You will probably say I am biased because
I am a member of the PCC. I have been a member for about a year
now. I do think there is some virtue in having some editors. By
the way, I am not so sure about the argument of one of my colleague's
as to ex-editors, which I might come to. In my experience over
the past year, there has been a number of occasions when issues
have arisen where an editor round the table has been able to explain,
a bit like us explaining to you today, what it is that goes through
our little heads when we arrive at some of the conclusions at
which we do arrive and put in our newspapers. I think the lay
members in that respect have found that valuable. I certainly
would not like to think that the lay members would feel browbeaten
by any individual editor or editors on the PCC. I absolutely subscribe
totally to the idea that there should be a majority of lay members
on the PCC and that our basis for being there is to be representative
of the existing industry, both national and regional, which I
think we are.
(Mr Horrocks) I think the current editors are aware
and conversant with current issues. The difficulty with a previous
suggestion about having ex-editors is that you would not have
people on the PCC who are actually dealing hands-on with live
issues.
867. Would you agree with me that the whole
aim of the PCC is to get justice for people who have been offended?
What have the difficulties of modern newspapers got to do with
whether somebody has been offended or not? It might be very difficult
getting the paper out quickly but in the end it is what is printed
there and whether somebody is offended by that which counts, not
the problems that editors may have in coming to that decision
to print.
(Mr Horrocks) That is making the assumption that we
as editors—and yes, I am one and I sit on the PCC—are
incapable of identifying with the treatment or injustices that
people feel they have suffered.. We have all been in the newspaper
business long enough to know basically what is right and what
is wrong. The debates are usually pretty short because it is often
very clear where the answer lies but, as Ed Curran points out,
the lay members are in the majority. The other valid point of
having editors on the Commission is that they are able to explain
certain points sometimes on straightforward issues as to why you
put the names and addresses of people who have been found guilty
in a court case in the papers; why are witnesses named at inquests;
why are people identified when they do not want to be in a public
hearing. That happens because it is the law. Lay members may not
always be fully aware of that.
(Mr Cox) Having said that, and I do agree entirely
with it, my view is that to go above 16 would make it slightly
unwieldy, but I would certainly have weighted it slightly more
towards the lay members.
868. Paul Horrocks has made those comments and
you are inferring that you need professional advice. Take a panel
of three magistrates. They make the decision. The person in the
dock listens to the decision that they have made and might be
unhappy about it. The legal advice comes from somebody who is
not making the decision. You seem to take a different view. You
think that the professionals on there should be part of that decision-making
process.
(Mr Horrocks) The professionals there are giving advice
to lay members. Yes, we are part of the decision-making procedure
but we, the editors, are in the minority. My experience—and
I have only been on the PCC a few months—is that often it
is the lay members who lead the discussions and make the final
decisions. If there is ever any issue when we cannot agree, the
lay members then decide.
869. Finally, why do you think it is then that
Ofcom are not going to put professional broadcasters on their
complaints panel? They think it would compromise them. Those were
the words, and if they did not come over they were mouthed by
the Chairman of Ofcom he thinks that having professionals from
the broadcasting industry on the panel would in fact prejudice
the result. Why do you think they think that and the newspaper
industry thinks completely differently?
(Mr Curran) I do not know. Maybe broadcasting or whatever
is a slightly more transparent discipline than the newspaper industry
and the problems associated with it. Certainly in the course of
the year I have been on the PCC—and I do not think I could
have carried all the documents from Belfast—the amount of
paperwork that actually crosses our path is incredible. It covers
such a vast range of issues, way beyond privacy. The complexity
of the newspaper industry itself and the range of issues that
we have to deal with make it valuable to have editors available
to give their considered view on it. I do not think we are prejudicing,
at the end of the day, the ultimate decision. If one looks at
the make-up of the lay members, their independence and stature,
they are not people who are likely to be prejudiced.
(Mr Horrocks) I also think it makes you a better editor.
Being involved in that whole procedure and seeing complaints at
the sharp end and discussing them and understanding the issues
that really upset the public makes you a better decision maker
when you go back to your own newspaper. I do not know whether
it would be possible but I think it would be advisable that any
editor who is invited to be a member of the PCC should take up
that offer and quickly, because you learn a lot.
870. In a few week's time, I have to make a
decision on this matter. It is strange that not one person from
the newspaper industry to whom I have asked that question thinks
that the PCC should be composed only of lay people and yet Ofcom
takes the opposite view. I am less likely to be convinced because
there have been no differences in view.
(Mr Newell) Of course, Ofcom is a statutory body and
it is a statutory system with a tradition that Ofcom is taking
over in terms of dealing with complaints about the broadcast media,
a licensed medium. The PCC system is a self-regulatory system.
We have always believed that there should be a minority of editors
involved in that process. Some of the things I think we have heard
this afternoon about the "buy-in" that goes on within
the industry, that delivers self-regulation for the readers of
newspapers and delivers standards for the readers of newspapers,
comes about precisely because of the involvement of editors in
a minority on the Press Complaints Commission. From my perspective,
I would see that it is something that has actually made the system
work and be tangible on the ground with individual newspapers
and the way in which complaints are handled by individual newspapers.
Chairman
871. I do not want to prolong this because we
have other witnesses, but Mr Curran has said something on which
he acknowledge that things are less than perfect. The point Mr
Keen makes is important, that we do seem to have heard a very
monolithic series of replies over the weeks of the inquiry from
editors and people involved with the PCC, namely that the system
is working so very well that it scarcely needs any adjustment
at all.
(Mr Newell) With respect, I do not think that is the
position you have heard this afternoon and, reading through the
evidence that has been given to you by the Press Complaints Commission
and others, I have seen that people have said that if there are
ideas for reform, they will be looked at. Indeed, the Press Complaints
Commission and the Code have not be/en static. There have been
changes and involvement over the years and I would see, from my
perspective, that the standards within the industry have improved
significantly over the years.
872. It is one thing to say we listen to suggestions
by other people; it is quite another thing to say we ourselves,
having operated this system, believe that there are rectifications
that should be made. After all, this House of Commons is an extremely
imperfect organisation but it is constantly looking at the way
it proceeds to see if it can improve. My own beloved political
party has adjusted itself over the year to what it has acknowledged,
sometimes with pain, as errors. It just seems to me very interesting
that you and the colleagues who preceded you all seem to believe
that any suggestions for improvement ought to come from somebody
else and that you have not any suggestions for improvement yourself,
except for you, Mr Curran.
(Mr Curran) Could I deal with one or two points, if
I may? I do think also, if I may, that Sir Christopher Meyer in
his comments this week had a very open mind, which I think some
of us, if not all of us among the editors, share. One aspect that
he did dwell on, which I think we probably all agree with, is
that there should be far greater publicity given to the PCC's
operations and the public in general should be much more aware
of what they are doing and of the way in which we can go about
making complaints. I suspect that actually that is not still the
case even after ten years. A lot of us would take the view that
there have been great improvements and adjustments and changes
in the PCC, but it is far from perfect. We do want a system in
which the public can have confidence. If you individuals, for
example, do not have total confidence in that system, never mind
the public, then I think we are entitled to listen to you and
we should look at ways in which we can improve.
Chairman: That is very good of you, Mr
Curran. As I say, you have heard some ideas this afternoon. When
you say you are ready to listen, I very much hope that, whatever
conclusions we come to, and I have no idea what they will be,
they may be listened to. When National Heritage conducted a similar
inquiry eleven years ago, and we for example recommended that
the Press Complaints Commissions Code of Conduct be included in
journalists' contracts, the Press Complaints Commission told us
that was utterly unworkable and could not possibly be done. It
took a while before it was done. I do hope that when you say that
we will be listened to, it will happen. In thanking you for being
here, may I thank you, Mr Curran, in particular, not because of
any superiority you may have over your colleagues but because
you have a very big story at home and the fact that you are here
we regard as a very great compliment to us. Thank you.
|
