Press standards, privacy and libel - Culture, Media and Sport Committee Contents


Examination of Witness (Question Numbers 1140-1159)

MR TIM TOULMIN

14 JULY 2009

  Q1140  Paul Farrelly: Just following Adam's point—and this is an allegation I am not aware of—if 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 relevant—if a complaint is made—that 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 searches—is 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 computer—we 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 reason—and you have questioned him about this—not 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 interest—or alleged illegality.

  Mr Toulmin: Yes. Alleged—that 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 me—of course it does—but the whole point of those seminars—seven 2½-hour seminars at the News of the World, which all their staff had to go to—was 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 hypothetical—it 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.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 23 February 2010