Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
1180-1199)
MR TIM
TOULMIN
14 JULY 2009
Q1180 Mr Watson: What slightly concerns
me is you say the "use of private inquiry agents—"
Mr Toulmin: Private investigators.
Q1181 Mr Watson: "—is
minimised". However, if you do not know which companies are
used and how much is spent on these companies, that would just
be anecdotal, would it not?
Mr Toulmin: I think that is one
of the problems with this. Again, I would just point out that
there is a patchwork of responsibility here. The PCC is responsible
for the Code, the Information Commissioner, who has legal powers,
is responsible for the Data Protection Act, and has carried out
inquiries and raids on private investigators, and would be the
best person to ask about that sort of thing, at the moment.
Q1182 Mr Watson: Just one last question:
you mentioned something about how contracts were operated post
your report. Are Codes of Conduct built into journalists' contracts
of employment now?
Mr Toulmin: Yes.
Q1183 Mr Watson: So all contracts
in these companies have now been rewritten?
Mr Toulmin: It is practically
universal, and, again, those that did not do it at the time of
our last inquiry have gone away and done it. I think, Chairman,
I might be right in saying that the Express have done it
as a result of this current inquiry. So it is practically universal
now.
Q1184 Mr Watson: Would you be able
to let us know which organisations have not done it, if there
are any?
Mr Toulmin: If there are any they
are likely to be small, but I will certainly do that.
Mr Watson: Thank you very much.
Q1185 Alan Keen: The Chairman has
indicated the shortage of time so I will try and be brief and
just ask one question, basically, but it may take more than one
answer to satisfy. Who, in your experience, holds the budgets?
Is there a chief accountant that reports to the chief executive
who is commercial only?
Mr Toulmin: In the newspapers?
Q1186 Alan Keen: Yes.
Mr Toulmin: It would be internal
to the newspaper.
Q1187 Alan Keen: Are there budgets
to do with journalism, or acquiring information, which are quite
separate from the editor of the newspaper, or does the editor,
in your experience, control the total budget within his domain?
Mr Toulmin: One of the things
we found out from our inquiry in 2007 at the News of the World
was that there was a situation where cash payments (I think we
found £12,300 or something to Mulcaire from Clive Goodman)
were signed off by, I think, the then managing editor at the News
of the World. So that is within the newspaper. It is not clear
that the editor, who was then Andy Coulson, did know about that
at all. In fact, I think the police found there was no evidence
of that. I think the managing editor denied that he knew what
those cash payments were for—just "a source for royal
stories", apparently. That is one area where things have
been tightened up and it was one of the recommendation points
in our report.
Q1188 Alan Keen: Has that system
been adopted by most newspapers or even all newspapers; that nothing
to do with acquiring information is dealt with outside the budget
that would be controlled by the editor who is controlling what
is printed?
Mr Toulmin: Obviously, the buck
stops with the editor and the editor's relationship then with
his board of management is a separate matter that would cover
all budgets. I think what we did was to make clear to these papers
that slack use of cash payments may—and did in this case—give
rise to this lack of supervision and these legal transgressions
and breaches of the Code. So, yes, we would certainly expect that
newspapers and magazines would be very tight on that now.
Q1189 Alan Keen: Could you give us
examples of different methods, different systems, of ownership
of newspapers? Could you give us one or two different examples
of where the actual owners have become interested in what is being
printed and the details of the finances, the payment for the acquisition
of information?
Mr Toulmin: I do not know if it
is people who actually own them; that will depend, as you say,
because it will be shareholders in some cases, and individuals
in others and trusts in other cases—but certainly we brought
in management. So we went outside the newspapers when we did this
report and we brought it to the attention of the people who are
the chief executive/managing directors of these companies to ensure
that the whole message filtered down from on high.
Q1190 Mr Ainsworth: Just following
on from that, setting aside who signed off what cheques and budget
trails and paper chases, and so on and so forth, from your experience
of the culture of the way that this industry works (and I am new
as well, so be easy on me), I just wondered what you felt about
the allegations that have been made, quite widely in the press—Stephen
Glover in the Independent, for example, saying that he
found it incredible that Mr Coulson did not know what was going
on under his watch. What is your view about that? Have you had
a complaint from Mr Coulson about it?
Mr Toulmin: No. I think the whole
point of the PCC is that the buck stops with the editor. It is
up to the editor to foster a culture in his or her newspaper that
means that journalists there respect the Code of Practice. That,
again, is our concern; it is the Code of Practice which was over
and above the law; of course, we would expect editors to make
sure their journalists were conversant with the law, too, and
obeyed it. People have raised eyebrows that Andy Coulson did not
know what was going on, but he would say that having been exposed
as not knowing he then resigned because he should have known what
was going on. So a lot of people have said that it was surprising.
Q1191 Mr Ainsworth: Are you in the
camp that says that if he did not know he should have done? Are
you part of that?
Mr Toulmin: I think he clearly
should have known that people were involved in conspiring to break
the law but he did not, apparently, and resigned and paid a high
price for it.
Q1192 Janet Anderson: Can I just
follow on from that? Do you find that credible? Clearly, in your
job, you have a lot of dealings with editors, you must know about
the way they operate. Do you not think a national newspaper editor
who was worth his or her salt and up to the job should know absolutely
what is going on on their watch?
Mr Toulmin: Of course they should
do, in an ideal world, and the Code of Practice should never be
breached, and so on. The police were all over this story, and
I think there was a statement from the police last week that said
that their investigation was not half-hearted and they conducted
quite a penetrating inquiry (obviously, they have legal powers
that we do not have) and there is no evidence, as far as I know,
linking Andy Coulson to those crimes at all. So that would include
him knowing about it.
Q1193 Janet Anderson: Surely, if
he had been doing his job properly, is it not one of his responsibilities
to know what his reporters are up to?
Mr Toulmin: As I said before,
the buck stops with the editor and he resigned and everyone accepted
it was a serious oversight, to say the very least, that he did
not know what was going on.
Q1194 Janet Anderson: Do you believe
now that if this kind of thing is still going on editors will
know about it, or should know about it?
Mr Toulmin: They certainly should
know about it and they should put a stop to it if they are aware
of it—of course, they should—because they will be
in trouble if they know about it with not just us but with the
law, and they may have private prosecutions brought against them,
and all sorts of things. So, of course, it is completely unacceptable.
Q1195 Janet Anderson: Just finally,
I have a book here Fake Sheikhs and Royal Trappings by
Peter Burden, and there is a quote on the front from a former
news editor of the News of the World: "That is what
we do;" he said "we go out and destroy other people's
lives." Do you think that is a proper function of a national
newspaper?
Mr Toulmin: No, I do not.
Janet Anderson: Thank you.
Q1196 Mr Sanders: You have used the
phrase "public interest" a lot this morning. Is public
interest a set of standards?
Mr Toulmin: No, I do not think
it is. It does vary considerably and it depends on the type of
person involved: whether they are a public figure, whether they
have misled the public; whether they are, in any way, corrupt;
it depends on the extent of the subterfuge used—if there
is any evidence, as we are talking about today, and so on. The
public interest does vary; it is probably impossible to codify
it for all circumstances because, as I say, the individuals, in
terms of their public profile, will differ and whether they hold
public office, but, also, their own behaviour. If they have done
anything deliberately to mislead people, for instance, that would
probably give a journalist a greater public interest to intrude
into their lives than somebody who had not.
Q1197 Mr Sanders: So who defines
what the public interest is?
Mr Toulmin: It is fluid and it
gets defined on the back of specific cases. So, over time, you
can look back and look at the PCC case law and look at various
legal rulings as well. You can look at a broad framework which
is set out in the Code which gives examples of the types of things
that are included, and these things are changing all the time.
It also responds to changing cultural expectations and so on.
You cannot really write it into a law; it is the sort of thing
that has to respond, I think, as time goes by.
Q1198 Mr Sanders: So when is it defined?
At what point does somebody define what the public interest is?
Mr Toulmin: I do not think there
is a point at which people do define the public interest; I think
there are examples of the public interest, and there are certain
circumstances in which it is justifiable to pursue something in
the public interest or to use subterfuge in the public interest.
There are a very, very large number of very interesting stories
and pictures out there of which we are very aware, at the PCC,
which do not get published because the editors concerned, having
frequently talked to us about it, decide that there is not a sufficient
public interest to publish the story or the pictures.
Q1199 Mr Sanders: Presumably, that
is material that has been gathered in, possibly, through subterfuge,
but then does not see the light of day. In a sense, if you cannot
define it and set it in stone, there is a green light then for
people to go out and `phone tap and blag and engage in subterfuge
under the guise that it could be in the public interest.
Mr Toulmin: That would be a fishing
expedition which we have been incredibly robust in denouncing,
as you might expect. We say you have got to have grounds to engage
in subterfuge. You would have to have very, very serious grounds—more
than a strong suspicion; you would have to probably have evidence
that something was going on to use that type of subterfuge and
to justify it in the public interest. These are not things that
people routinely do just trawling for a story. I think that, obviously,
would be a completely outrageous breach not just of our rules
but, also, the law, and I cannot imagine any newspaper would sanction
that sort of behaviour any more.
| 
