Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1840-1859)
MR CHRISTOPHER
GRAHAM AND
MR DAVID
CLANCY
2 SEPTEMBER 2009
Q1840 Mr Watson: Indeed.
Mr Graham: But it is very difficult
to give you a view separate from specific cases.
Q1841 Mr Watson: If, because of resource
problems or time or because you are trying to get corporate change,
you do not bring any cases, it is very hard for people, for journalists
working in the field, to know where they stand in terms of making
that public interest test in the work they do. Is that not right?
Mr Graham: Well, it should not
be for the Information Commissioner to go round prosecuting journalists
because we do have the PCC and there is the Editors' Code and,
since they have amended clause 10, these are clearly breaches
of the Editors' Code, so I would expect the PCC would be dealing
with that.
Q1842 Mr Watson: It is unlikely that
the PCC would, and in fact I do not think they have the power
to, bring a prosecution for people who break—
Mr Graham: They should not need
to bring a prosecution because compliance with the Editors' Code
is part of a journalist's employment contract. If people want
to get tough, they can. I think our job is to attempt to get rid
of the suppliers. You are talking about dealing with the punters,
but I say there are other people to deal with the punters, not
the ICO.
Q1843 Mr Watson: But the evidence
you have in front of you shows that there was law-breaking on
an industrial scale from the newsrooms of some of the major newspapers
in the United Kingdom.
Mr Graham: But the only evidence,
Mr Watson, that I have got is the ledgers and the invoices. I
do not know what the story was in many cases and I do not know
what the defence would be, so you would be asking me to switch
the focus of the Information Commissioner's Office from some very
important work into something that could perhaps be better done
by the PCC.
Q1844 Mr Watson: I understand the
point you make. What I am trying to do is ascertain responsibility
in the system for getting this right. Let me try it another way.
Are you convinced that these practices have now ended in newsrooms
up and down the country?
Mr Graham: I am not in a position
to know. We did not know before Motorman. Motorman, and Dave will
correct me if I am wrong here, was not at our instigation. We
were riding on the back of—
Mr Clancy: Of a police investigation.
It is very much like the work that we do on a day-to-day basis.
We will get information, execute search warrants on premises and
then we find, in some cases, vast amounts of information. I think
the Anderson case was one such case whereby we had a couple based
in St Ives who were prolific blaggers. They would obtain bank
account information and information from any organisation for
a price on a massive scale and, once we go in there, we see that.
There may be another Whittamore out there, we do not know, so
we cannot comment on whether the press are still using these practices
or not, but our view is that, if we had a custodial penalty and
there is the issue of vicarious liability of directors, perhaps
that would focus the minds—
Q1845 Mr Watson: You have said this
before. You have repeated this on numerous occasions now and I
understand that is the point you make, but what I am trying to
understand is that the decision you took, which, by the way, I
think was the right decision, to blow this open, bring it into
the public domain and try and effect massive change in the way
journalists run about their work, I can understand why in a resource-sensitive
area that is what you did, but what I cannot understand is why
you have not gone back to see whether that has been successful
or not or what gauge of success there is.
Mr Clancy: How can we measure
it? Do we go to editors and say, "Have you come across any
examples of journalists that have stepped over the line?"
Q1846 Mr Watson: Okay, so the only
response you have got is, "We would like a custodial sentence
for people who've broken the law", so presumably you are
still getting people raising these issues with you, providing
you with leads and evidence?
Mr Clancy: These are non-press-related.
This is the issue. You are focusing on the press and we are focusing
on the trade.
Q1847 Mr Watson: I understand this
is not necessarily your responsibility, but I would like to tease
you a little bit. Is there anyone in this country who would know
whether these practices are still going on other than editors
and journalists in the newsrooms?
Mr Graham: Well, editors and journalists
must know; it is a self-regulatory system. Our free press in this
country is not regulated by statute, except in relation to defamation
and a few other offences. It is a self-regulatory system and,
for example, we have had evidence this afternoon that, on the
face of it, the PCC was misled. Now, I do not think it is really
up to the Information Commissioner to get involved. We are looking
at the dealers, you are interested in the punters, and I do not
think we are ever going to agree, but there is a role for both
sides. If we put the dealers out of business, then the punters
will have to go elsewhere.
Q1848 Mr Watson: There is a supply
and demand here, I accept that. I am not trying to tell you how
to do your job, I am trying to find out how we can be certain
that this is not going to happen again. Is it your view that editors
have a responsibility for this particular case and perhaps they
should write to the people involved who are on the ledgers to
apologise or put the matter right and let them know a bit more
information? As you rightly say, it might not be your job to do
that, but do you think that they have got a responsibility to
do that?
Mr Graham: Well, why do we not
get past square one and have some of these newspaper editors and
proprietors reacting to What Price Privacy Now? published
in December 2006 and say, "This is a bad business. Let's
hear more"?
Q1849 Mr Watson: Do you think it
might be helpful if you were to give them the names of the journalists
that they employed that you have on your files, given that they
have not requested the names of the people?
Mr Graham: I want them to engage
with the problem, however they do it. I do not know what my next
step should be, but I do not want to make up policy in front of
the Committee.
Q1850 Mr Watson: So, when they tell
us that they think that they have thoroughly investigated the
matter and they have put it right, do you think they could possibly
have done that if they do not know the list of journalists that
you have got on your files?
Mr Clancy: I think there might
be information which would identify some of those journalists
because some of the invoices quite clearly indicate that there
have been blags in relation to particular stories and invoice
numbers. Surely, their records should be able to cross-reference
that to a particular journalist, and sometimes the invoices cross-reference
the stories, so editors could examine their business and perhaps
identify which journalists were or were not.
Q1851 Mr Watson: I think you could
perhaps be a little proactive just to ensure that they have certainly
done that or that they certainly have the information about the
people who were at it.
Mr Graham: I understand what the
Committee is saying, but you are not dealing with a regulator
who is not proactive; we are proactive on a very wide front. Before
another committee, I will be being asked, "What are you doing
about child benefit records? What are you doing about tightening
up security with credit reference agencies? What about the banks?"
and so on. There are lots of ways we could spend our time.
Mr Watson: In a previous life, I did
have some responsibility for data-sharing, so I am pleased that
I am questioning you and not being questioned by you. Actually,
I think that you have probably got the argument for the custodial
sentence, not because of the journalists' enquiries, but because
of these poor construction workers who have been denied their
livelihoods over many decades because the construction industry
has colluded with private investigators illegally, so you make
a strong point and I am sure that in our deliberations we can
take that in.
Q1852 Adam Price: You said, Mr Graham,
in your opening remarks that the blagging industry, to dignify
that term, continues to flourish. Are you talking generally or
do you think it is continuing to flourish in relation to newspapers
also using these services?
Mr Graham: We have got no evidence
about the newspapers' use of these private investigators beyond
what we published in What Price Privacy Now? which came
to us because of the Motorman investigation. I do not want the
Committee to feel that the Information Commissioner's Office was
under siege from complaints from members of the public about the
behaviour of the newspapers, decided to raid a particular private
investigator and then, lo and behold, a few years later everything
is hunky-dory. We just do not know.
Q1853 Adam Price: You do make raids
and in any of those recent raids have any newspapers shown up
as punters, to use your term?
Mr Clancy: I can honestly say
that we have not identified any information which would indicate
that newspapers or members of the press have obtained information.
That is not to say it was not there because all we may find is
an oblique reference to information which has been obtained and
passed through to a name, a name we will not know, and individuals
may not identify who that is, so we cannot say for certain whether
we have come across information which is not clearly identified,
as in the Motorman case where there has been information in relation
to a particular newspaper and a particular reporter.
Q1854 Adam Price: So there could
have been a journalist who knew that, but it was not clearly flagged
up as a journalist?
Mr Clancy: Yes.
Q1855 Adam Price: Nick Davies, in
his article, referred to a dozen or more private eyes that have
been working in this field and you simply do not know who they
are?
Mr Clancy: Other than the ones
that will already have been identified by Motorman and the other
inquiries. There are hundreds of investigators out there.
Q1856 Adam Price: He refers to the
former actor who uses his skills as a mimic to blag the same database,
and I have heard references to that former actor, in fact I have
even seen the name somewhere. Are you saying you do not know who
that is?
Mr Clancy: Again, we have had
references to the former actor ourselves, but we have not been
able to identify him. We have had references to "a Man in
a Van", who is a man who operated in South Wales out of a
vehicle because he felt he could not be traced in that respect,
using mobile phones, and he kept all his records in a vehicle.
Q1857 Adam Price: So, to be clear,
you have heard references, which I have seen, from various sources
of a former actor and you do not even know his name?
Mr Clancy: No.
Q1858 Adam Price: The former detective
who was bounced out of the police for corruption and has spent
years carrying cash bribes from newspapers to serving officers,
I have seen references to that allegation before, but you do not
know who that is?
Mr Graham: It may be in Nick Davies's
book which was published a couple of years back. Quite a lot of
this is recycled from that rather exciting chapter about the `dark
arts'; essential reading for all journalists.
Q1859 Adam Price: You read the chapter
in his book, so did you have any thoughts about maybe stealing
some of that? It shows up that this is part of a wider problem
and you have said that yourself.
Mr Graham: I am afraid I am going
to become repetitive. You simply cannot run regulatory bodies
on the basis that you go chasing after every detail that a particular
investigative journalist decides should be the agenda for the
day when you have got other very big and important questions.
I am not pleading poverty here, I am just saying that you can
only do what you can do. We thought, possibly naively, that, by
telling Parliament about this back in 2006 and calling for the
custodial sentence, we could close the thing down. I think they
still can, but it is taking too long.
| 
