Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
1140-1159)
MR TIM
TOULMIN
14 JULY 2009
Q1140 Paul Farrelly: Just following
Adam's pointand this is an allegation I am not aware ofif
there was a payment, for whatever reason, to people who had been
convicted of a criminal offence, would that not be something that
you would investigate under the Code, if the complaint or allegation
were made to you?
Mr Toulmin: If a complaint is
made that a criminal was paid for a story then, of course, it
is relevantif a complaint is madethat that has happened.
Q1141 Paul Farrelly: This is a narrow
view of your remit and, probably, why people might want to have
you take a more proactive role in terms of standards. Re-reading
your report on News International, there was a preoccupation going
through it that, actually, the employment of the private investigators
was somehow there to subvert the Code when, in fact, it was to
go on fishing expeditions for juicy stories.
Mr Toulmin: Which would subvert
the Code.
Q1142 Paul Farrelly: You started
off, with the Chairman, on looking at what was new and what was
not new. Can you tell me: is the Guardian's list and breakdown
from the Motorman affair and the Information Commissioner that
one News of the World reporter made 130 requests, another
made 118, and there were three different news executives signing
off allegedly illegal searchesis that new?
Mr Toulmin: That detail may be
new. Again, that is probably a question for the Guardian
people. The fact that News of the World journalists were
using private investigators came to light during the Motorman
inquiry is not new.
Q1143 Paul Farrelly: No, but is the
detail new?
Mr Toulmin: It may be new; I cannot
Q1144 Paul Farrelly: Do you not think
it is rather important that you do satisfy yourself whether it
is new or not?
Mr Toulmin: We have been through
all this, of course, before, with the previous Select Committee
Inquiry and with the Information Commissioner. Again, I think
that where it is relevant to any suggestion that we have been
misled, of course, we will need to find that out.
Q1145 Paul Farrelly: Actually, we
have not been through this detail in previous inquiries
Mr Toulmin: No, but through the
issue of the Information Commissioner's report.
Q1146 Paul Farrelly: We went through
a list of fine and upstanding things that Mr Mulcaire told you
he had been doing for his retainer, such as credit status checks,
Companies House searches and electoral roll searches. This is
a different list. We have not gone through a list of allegedly
breaking into the DVLA in this detail, into the police national
computerwe have not gone through that in previous inquiries.
You do not know whether it is new or not.
Mr Toulmin: Obviously, we were
aware of what sort of activity was going on; whether precisely
we knew the number of News of the World journalists that
were associated with each particular offence is new, I am not
sure. You will just have to ask the other people that. The point
is, we did know these were the types of allegations that were
made at the time, but these are matters for the Information Commissioner
to prosecute, surely. This relates to breach of the Data Protection
Act, allegedly. He decided, for whatever reasonand you
have questioned him about thisnot to take any further action.
Q1147 Paul Farrelly: I just want
to come back to this because I do not agree with you, Tim, and
I think people will gain a very poor impression of the PCC if
that is the line you continue to maintain. Would you agree: it
is the oldest trick in the spin doctor's book to say that things
are an old story, and it is not just a question of whether these
happened before 2007 but, actually, the detail of what went on
and whether the PCC and Parliament were misled. Do you agree?
Mr Toulmin: Of course, that is
hugely important. If there is any allegation either that we or
you were misled it is hugely important.
Q1148 Paul Farrelly: If subsequent
information has come to light through people whom you have questioned
and we have questioned and the record has not been corrected,
would you say that is pertinent?
Mr Toulmin: Absolutely, yes.
Q1149 Paul Farrelly: Clearly, would
you also agree that the connection between Mulcaire and Motorman
and Whittamore is illegality, without a public interestor
alleged illegality.
Mr Toulmin: Yes. Allegedthat
is quite important. The relevant authority for dealing with these
sorts of complaints, if it was under the Data Protection Act,
of course, would be the Information Commissioner. Similarly, the
relevant authority for the allegation about the breach of RIPA
is the police, and that is why they ended up being prosecuted
and convicted.
Q1150 Paul Farrelly: Could you tell
us when you conducted all the training seminars?
Mr Toulmin: They were in 2007.
Q1151 Paul Farrelly: Given the Guardian's
allegations, does it concern you (this goes back to my original
point) that there were people attending these seminars, or arranging
for their reporters to attend these seminars, who clearly knew
about the Taylor affair and knew about, if it is correct, the
detail of what was being commissioned from Whittamore or Motorman?
Does that concern you?
Mr Toulmin: I think any breach
of the Data Protection Act, any breach of the Code, any criminality
on behalf of journalists, it all concerns meof course it
doesbut the whole point of those seminarsseven 2½-hour
seminars at the News of the World, which all their staff
had to go towas precisely to ensure that further transgressions
would not take place, and that people were fully aware of both
what the Code required and, also, the law, and their lawyer was
there as well, ensuring that they were fully aware of that. It
should go without saying that any allegation that this behaviour
has gone on at any point, at any level in the company, and anyone
was aware of it, is a matter of great concern. The question for
us now is: in their submission to us, 2½
years ago, were we misled into believing that it was more of a
contained problem than it was? That we have an open mind on, and
that is one of the points that we are going to be looking at.
Q1152 Paul Farrelly: Can I just ask
you what information you are going to be asking News International?
Can I ask you a few points? Will you be asking how Mr Mulcaire
was paid for his `phone hacking activities in the Taylor and the
other two cases; whether it came out of the retainer that they
paid to Mr Mulcaire or did it come from a separate slush fund
as was alleged to have operated at the time of Goodman? Will you
be asking that question?
Mr Toulmin: I can see why you
are going down that line, but I think I have to be quite clear
that this is an ongoing issue. The Board of the PCC must meet
and decide precisely what questions to put to the News of the
World. In the meantime, we are gathering material from those
people who are making the allegations. Nick Davies has kindly
said he will answer our questions after he has spoken to you,
and the Information Commissioner is giving us some further information
as well. At that point, we will decide, as a body, what questions
are right to ask to discover what we want to find out. If you
have got a specific list of questions you think we should ask
then, of course, we will take account of that.
Q1153 Paul Farrelly: Chairman, with
your permission, might I just give you four more? I have suggested
one that might be relevant. It is directly relevant to the evidence
they gave you about Mr Mulcaire's retainer.
Mr Toulmin: Absolutely. We want
to hear them then.
Q1154 Paul Farrelly: Will you be
asking them what submissions they made to the court in the Taylor
case, and whether they were accurate or not? I think you might
wish to ask for the transcripts of the 30 recordings that are
alleged to have been made from Taylor's `phone, and the journalists
and executives who were involved. You might ask who knew about
what dealings with Whittamore and for copies of the alleged itemised
account department records, and whether those were accompanied
by statements that the searches were for the public interest.
You might also ask, perhaps, how far up the chain of command the
settlement of the Taylor case went, and whether indeed it went
to the Board of News International and perhaps ask for board records
and minutes. Clearly, the record was not corrected as far as the
PCC was concerned because you were not told of the case. Is that
correct?
Mr Toulmin: We were not told about?
Q1155 Paul Farrelly: The Taylor settlement.
Mr Toulmin: We were not told about
the Taylor settlement, no.
Q1156 Paul Farrelly: I have one final
question, if I might, Chairman. With Mr Coulson, we made a criticism
in our last report of the PCC, that you did not invite him to
give evidence regardless, even though he had resigned. Since then,
Tim, on our visit to the PCC you have been brave and independent
enough to say that, actually, thinking back, the PCC had missed
a trick in that and should have called him. Have you got any plans
now to put to your Board a recommendation to call him to ask exactly
what was going on on his watch and what he has denied knowledge
of and what he has not denied knowledge of?
Mr Toulmin: I am happy to repeat
what I said to you at the PCC when you came over, and just for
the record that was that although I did not think we needed to
call Andy Coulson because I do not think it would have, in fact,
added anything to the information we were given by the News
of the World, which had conducted its own inquiry, of course,
maybe, there is an argument presentationally that it would have
been better to have been to have done so, and of course, as I
recall, this Committee did not call him either, although you may
be about to change that as well. The focus of this is on whether
we were misled. If Andy Coulson has any evidence or if there is
any evidence that Andy Coulson knows about whether we were misled,
he may come in as a relevant party. Again, that sort of decision,
clearly, would be a matter for the Board of the Commission to
decide when it reviews all this information that it will have
at its disposal next week.
Q1157 Mr Hall: You have repeated
on a number of occasions this concern that you have that the PCC
may well have been misled in the original investigation and that
you would take that as a very serious situation to be in. If it
turns out that you were misled what powers have the PCC got to
do anything about it?
Mr Toulmin: I do not want to correct
you but I think it is important to distinguish that there is an
allegation, or there is a suggestion, that we have been misled
by the Guardian, and the suggestion that it may not have
been deliberate. What we are going to do is test what they said
to us two years ago with what we know now, and allow them the
opportunity to comment on that. We cannot anticipate whether there
will be a finding that they misled us or not.
Q1158 Mr Hall: No, but what I am
saying is if you were misled what sanctions have the PCC got to
do anything about it?
Mr Toulmin: Of course, that is
hypotheticalit will depend on who did the misleading.
Q1159 Mr Hall: It is not a hypothetical
question at all; if you have been misled, what powers have the
PCC got to do anything about it?
Mr Toulmin: The PCC's powers,
as you know, are vested in us through the industry; it is a self-regulatory,
non-statutory body. Our powers are about scrutiny, embarrassment,
shining a light on people, making recommendations about what should
happen, contracts of employment are written in a way to include
compliance with the Code and respect for the PCC. So, of course,
it is a disciplinary matter if we find that we have been misled,
depending on who it is and so on. I do not want to anticipate
what the PCC might say in relation to that before it has had an
opportunity to review all of the evidence that is before it, and
decide whether it has actually been misled or not.
|