Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
520-539)
MR PAUL
DACRE AND
MR ROBIN
ESSER
23 APRIL 2009
Q520 Philip Davies: Can I press you
slightly on your point about Max Mosley in one regard in particular?
Journalists have said to me that they consider the fact that he
was the head of Formula 1, which is an international sport, means
he constitutes a public figure and, therefore, his activities
should have been exposed on that basis, that he was a public figure,
but from what you have said it seems to me that that was not particularly
your justification. It was not that Max Mosley was a public figure:
it was the activities which he was pursuing. What you seem to
be suggesting is that if anybody had been pursuing that particular
activity, that would have been legitimate for the press to report.
Mr Dacre: I think it is much worse
if it is a public figure who should be setting a better example
to the public. I personally feel that if any figure had done that
and paid money to women it is not acceptable behaviour, but that
is a personal view.
Q521 Philip Davies: So, just to clarify
the philosophy, if anybody had indulged in it that would have
been fair game?
Mr Dacre: I think it is very important
that Max Mosley—by the way, you keep saying "you".
The Daily Mail did not—
Q522 Philip Davies: I mean you as
a profession, not you individually.
Mr Dacre: I think the fact that
he was a public figure in charge of a huge multi-million pound
sport followed by millions of people gave much greater justification
to the newspapers and the News of the World in carrying
that story.
Q523 Paul Farrelly: Again, on Max
Mosley, I remember the case in years gone by of the author, journalist,
father and husband Paul Johnson who was a prolific columnist and
moralizer. After he was "exposed" for similar private
activities, did the Daily Mail or Associated Newspapers
ever print an article or column by him afterwards?
Mr Dacre: From memory—and
I could be wrong—I think that he had left the Daily Mail
by then and worked for the Daily Express, but to answer
your question, that fell into my category. I believe this was
a former girlfriend of Mr Johnson's, and I do not think it would
be of any interest to any newspaper if he went and had an affair
with a private lady. As far as I am concerned there was no payment.
You know more about this than me—
Q524 Paul Farrelly: I remember differently.
Mr Dacre: Payment?
Q525 Paul Farrelly: I remember the
story differently, but the question is did you ever print anything
by him afterwards and pay him for anything afterwards?
Mr Dacre: My honest answer is
that I believe he had left the Daily Mail by then. If I
have mis-stated that, then I apologise, but it is a very long
time ago.
Q526 Paul Farrelly: We can check
the history. I have been a journalist but not with Associated
Newspapers. Do you have a moral clause in contracts of employment
so that your staff can be dismissed if they are not whiter than
white?
Mr Dacre: No, but the PCC Code
is in their contract and—no, of course, we do not have a
moral code.
Q527 Alan Keen: Your objection to
Mr Mosley you said was because he was married and also paid money
to women.
Mr Dacre: My main objection was
the way he exploited and humiliated and degraded women in this
way. Paid women, yes.
Q528 Alan Keen: Do you think it is
right, or is it not right, that you should expose a married man
who is a closet homosexual? Would you expose that even if he was
not paying money to another man? Do you think that is something
that the press should expose? I have known many, many men who
were homosexuals but who fitted in with society's demands on them
and then later in life found they could not contain their preferences
and carried on a homosexual relationship with somebody else. Is
that something the press should be allowed to expose?
Mr Dacre: I do not think they
would report that or should report that because of changes in
society, firstly, some of the influences of the Human Rights Act,
but also I think that would be a justifiable matter of privacy.
Now, if that individual was going around willy nilly exploiting
rent boys and if he was a Member of Parliament, I suspect a paper
like the News of the World would think it was justified
in running that story. It is not a story the Daily Mail
would carry.
Q529 Alan Keen: Do you think the
public is entitled to any privacy? You have explained one or two
examples. Medical records?
Mr Dacre: Absolute privacy granted,
it is part of the PCC Code. No question.
Q530 Alan Keen: Medical records?
Mr Dacre: Absolutely.
Q531 Alan Keen: There was a case
where the Daily Mail admitted paying money for stolen records?
Mr Dacre: I do not know that case.
I am not aware of that.
Q532 Chairman: I think Alan is referring
to the Motorman case.
Mr Dacre: Motorman? Yes.
Well, can I just explain what that was? Ten years or so ago data
protection was becoming a matter of greater and greater concern.
All newspapers in common with insurance companies, law firms,
used the services of inquiry agents. Mostly for newspapers it
was to act quickly, get hold of addresses, phone numbers and areas
like that so they could move quicker on stories. They used these
agents who had access to electoral registers and things like that.
The Data Protection Commissioner 10 years ago produced a poll
of findings of one inquiry agent and we had a lot of inquiries
with that agent, in common with all other newspapers, Observer,
the Sunday Mirror; I will be very honest with you, I had
not been aware they had been that extensive. There was no suggestion
that it was used to get medical records or had been used in any
ulterior way. I am not saying it was not. The Information Commissioner
never told us what was in those inquiry agency's files. What I
can tell you, and I want to stress this very loud and clear, was
following the concerns raised by the Information Commissioner
we as a newspaper tightened up our procedures massively; we banned
the use of all these agents; we wrote it into people's contracts
of employment that they must observe the Data Protection Act;
we held seminars for our staff to alert them to the problems presented
by obtaining information that could be covered by the Data Protection
Act. The industry itself, the PCC, prepared extensive guidance
notes for the whole industry; it changed its code book to inform
people and it changed its Code to prevent and ban this kind of
thing. So I refute utterly that we have used these methods to
find medical records. As I say, my experience was that it was
mostly used to get phone numbers and addresses, but anyway it
has all changed. I cannot think of more rigorous things we could
have done to ensure that all abuses were completely—
Q533 Alan Keen: Can I turn to a different
issue? We have come across it in the inquiry already and some
people have agreed, others have said it might be difficult to
deal with, but one technique which newspapers use, and you must
be very familiar with it, is headlines to attract people to buy
newspapers but where the body of the article is often nowhere
near as serious as the headline appears to be, and then even further
down it might say: "But he did not really do anything wrong."
It is a very easy way for a newspaper to mislead the public on
a particular issue. Would you clamp down on your journalists and
sub editors if they did that sort of thing?
Mr Dacre: That is a very fair
question. I would like to think it does not happen in the Mail,
although I would not put my hand on my heart and say that it does
not. It does happen in some areas of the media. I think the position
of the PCC on that is that it gives a fair degree of latitude
on headlines as long as the copy underneath is absolutely accurate
and balanced. It is a question of proportion. If they feel the
headline has so badly misrepresented the piece they will find
against the newspaper, but I think it is a fair question. You
have to understand that newspapers in a very difficult market
have to persuade readers to buy their papers, pay 50p/70p a pound
in the rain, and they use some tried and tested techniques to
draw the readers in. I think latitude should be given in headlines:
I believe the copy should be absolutely right and fair.
Q534 Chairman: It is fair to say
that the Daily Mail has on a number of occasions been censured
by the PCC for running stories with headlines—
Mr Dacre: I do not think it has.
I can check and get back to you. I am pretty sure we have not.
Q535 Chairman: Can I give you one
example?
Mr Dacre: I am sorry, I am being
told that we have a few times.
Q536 Chairman: An anodyne feature
about the biography of Otto Frank, father of Anne Frank, who died
in a Nazi concentration camp, was transformed by a headline which
asked: "Did Anne Franks' father betray her?" The story
produced not one single word of evidence to suggest that Otto
Frank had betrayed any of his family in any way. The Mail
dealt with the problem a week later by publishing a short letter
of complaint from the Anne Frank Trust on page 68.
Mr Dacre: Yes, but they did not
adjudicate against us, did they? We put it right, that is what
I am trying to say.
Q537 Chairman: Well, you ran a headline
which did not bear any relation to the story, and then carried
a letter on page 68.
Mr Dacre: It is the best read
page in the paper, the letters page. I take your point, and I
am sorry. At the risk of being pedantic I do not think there have
ever been adjudications against us on that. I regret that. If
that happened, I regret it. All I can say is if you produce 120
pages every night live on edition which is half as long as War
and Peace, we make mistakes. But I accept your point.
Q538 Paul Farrelly: Just picking
up on Operation Motorman briefly, if I might, it would
be wrong to categorise Associated Newspapers as the most "prolific"
offender, because adding up the table Mirror Group newspapers
came in with 300 more than Associated.
Mr Dacre: I do not want be to
overly offensive about but this was one inquiry agent. There are
others. You have seen News International, the Sun, and
the Sunday Times do not figure on that.
Q539 Paul Farrelly: I am aware of
that. When I was a journalist I would certainly use people to
get electoral information, just to check where people lived, and
that information was a matter of public record so that is not
illegal, but I do remember every time I needed an ex-directory
or a mobile telephone number I would painstakingly go and talk
to people close to the person to get them to give it to me so
I was not doing anything illegal. You mentioned the word "quick"
information. It is quick, it is lazy.
Mr Dacre: Well—
| 
