14 LORD HUNT OF WIRRELL (recalled) 15 Questions by MR JAY 16 MR JAY: Lord Hunt, you're returning to give evidence so 17 you're still under the oath you gave -- I think it was 18 31 January. 19 You kindly provided us with a further witness 20 statement, which runs to best part of 50 pages. You've 21 signed and dated it. It's dated 8 June. Is this your 22 formal evidence for this module of our Inquiry? 23 A. Yes, it is. 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Lord Hunt, thank you very much. You 25 also, as the previous witness, have obviously done an 41 1 enormous amount of work on the proposal that you wish to 2 discuss, and I'm grateful to you. 3 A. Thank you. 4 MR JAY: Lord Hunt, can we be clear where we are in terms of 5 the current state of play? In paragraph 2 of your 6 statement, you refer to a comprehensive process of 7 internal consultation with the staff of the PCC and also 8 your fellow commissioners. Not everything that follows 9 bears their imprimatur or carries their hearty 10 endorsement. We understand that. 11 Have you been in consultation with proprietors and 12 editors and if so, what have been the results of that 13 process? 14 A. Yes, I have. I was pleasantly surprised on 15 December 15 that when asked whether there were any of the editors or 16 publishers who disagreed with the initial proposal, 17 no one put up their hand, and I do believe -- and 18 I think particularly at the moment perhaps I ought to 19 stress -- that since I started on this job, as 20 I describe it, the independent chairman of an 21 independent body, I do believe that the press have come 22 a considerable way, first of all to accept the idea of 23 a regulator, in my view for the first time ever; 24 secondly, a regulator with teeth and the ability to 25 fine; thirdly, to bind themselves under contract to 42 1 create such a new body with a fresh start and it's just 2 appropriate, I think, to recognise the distance that the 3 press has come, albeit, of course, faced by unacceptable 4 and disgraceful behaviour by a comparatively small 5 number of journalists than others. 6 Q. You made the point in those opening remarks and you pick 7 up on the same points -- or one of the points you've 8 made in paragraph 8 of your statement and you say there 9 that you don't believe true self-regulation has ever 10 really been attempted, at least so far as the press is 11 concerned. Therefore the system which we're looking at 12 is the first occasion on which regulation has been 13 attempted. Would you agree though that over the last 20 14 years or so -- or nearly 20 years -- the press have been 15 calling the present system a system of regulation? 16 A. That's a matter for others. Certainly I never saw it 17 and I think at my last appearance, when you asked me to 18 give evidence, I did say that I had said at the outset 19 that I did not believe the Press Complaints Commission 20 had any regulatory powers and I was again surprised to 21 find that virtually everyone agreed with me, including 22 those within the PCC. Although they play a key role in 23 dealing with complaints, it was never as part of 24 a regulatory structure. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: In those circumstances, do you think 43 1 that anybody who sought to describe the PCC as 2 a regulator was simply misleading everybody? 3 A. I think they -- I'm speaking as a lawyer with 4 a speciality in regulatory matters. I don't see it as 5 a regulator, but I can understand other people being 6 under the expression that it was. I'm not sure we ever 7 defined "regulation" with any great skill. 8 MR JAY: In terms of the attributes of any system of 9 regulation, properly so-called, you would want to see 10 a proper complaints system with sanctions; is that 11 correct? 12 A. Yes. The original proposal to which I referred when 13 I last gave evidence was to have two arms: a standards 14 and compliance arm alongside a complaints and mediation 15 arm, but with the flexibility perhaps to embrace 16 a further third arm, which I think has been described as 17 an arbitral arm. 18 Q. Indeed, indeed, and the other attributes of a system of 19 regulation properly so called is that it needs to be 20 independent of the pods it's regulating; is that right? 21 A. Yes. I feel that very, very strongly indeed. To have 22 authenticity as well as influence and ability to 23 regulate, the regulator has to be independent, and what 24 I've sought to do in my statement is to stress that 25 I certainly have taken, nor do I now take, any push or 44 1 steer from the industry or anyone who appointed me on 2 how I should proceed. What I tried to be is the 3 independent chairman of an independent body with a blank 4 piece of paper to work out how I would suggest that an 5 appropriate regulatory structures should be fashioned. 6 And I hope my ideas have been helpful to this Inquiry, 7 but I now very much wait to hear what this Inquiry 8 concludes. 9 Q. What would you, from your experience to date as an 10 independent regulator, want to see changed in the 11 proposal to deliver the best quality independent 12 regulation? 13 A. Well, that's my 47-page statement. Many attributes, 14 I think, have to be embraced if we really want to pass 15 that test of an independent regulatory structure. 16 Q. Well, the proposal is what we see in your 17 47-page statement. It's whether there are any changes 18 you would want to make to that proposal to deliver the 19 best quality independent regulation from the perspective 20 of a lawyer who has plenty of experience to date as an 21 independent regulator. Do you see that? 22 A. Yes. First and foremost, I would want to see 23 independent people. I find it very difficult to decide 24 how to define an independent person, and I've had that 25 discussion with many people, but I think I conclude it 45 1 must be someone of independent mind, who doesn't have 2 history or baggage or conflicts of interest. So it must 3 be truly independent, and independent-led. 4 But equally to be a self-regulatory structure, it 5 must draw its strength from knowledge and expertise 6 within the industry combined with that independent 7 element. But equally it must have sanctions, it must 8 seek to ensure that its conclusions are adhered to, but 9 above all, I think any new structure must change the 10 culture -- the culture and ethical standards of the 11 press. I think we have a very good basis in the 12 Editors' Code, which starts off with the words -- which 13 are part of the code: 14 "All members of the press have a duty to maintain 15 the highest professional standards." 16 It goes on in the preamble to refer to the most 17 ethical standards, and certainly in all the discussions 18 I've had with victims, groups and people throughout the 19 industry, there is a wish to see the culture and ethical 20 standards of the press improved and strengthened. 21 Q. Although that code has been in being for over 20 years 22 now and has not brought about the cultural changes 23 you've referred to, self-evidently, otherwise we 24 wouldn't be here. Why do you think that is? 25 A. Well, I want to take you through the areas where you 46 1 think it has not been followed but certainly Article 10, 2 clandestine devices and subterfuge -- what I think you 3 may be referring to were in direct breach of clause 10. 4 Equally on misleading, which has been another subject, 5 again in breach of clause 1. This is not a static 6 document, but it's recently been improved, particularly 7 by now setting out that where the public interest has 8 been discussed and accepted as a reason for breaching 9 the code, there must be a trail as to how and with whom 10 that was established at the time. That only came in on 11 1 January, so I think there has been a wish continually 12 to improve the code. 13 Q. That wish has existed over the last 20 years, but 14 admittedly with perhaps greater appetite in recent times 15 than in more ancient times, yet we still have the 16 position now where the culture, practices ethics and of 17 the press said by some to have been found wanting. The 18 question is: how and why is it we find ourselves in that 19 position, notwithstanding what you've read out in the 20 code? 21 A. Because I think we need a regulator. 22 Q. In terms of the mix then between independent people who 23 are outside the press and people within the press who 24 will meet the self-regulatory aims of the 25 organisation -- because I suppose you say without having 47 1 people from within the press, the organisation, the 2 regulator cannot by definition by self-regulatory -- how 3 do you see that balance being met in terms of two 4 important areas of the new system: first of all, the 5 editors committee -- or the Code Committee, pardon me -- 6 where there are a majority of serving editors still 7 under the new system, and the complaints arm, where 8 there are a minority of serving editors? How and why is 9 that desirable? 10 A. Well, the great value of editors is that they are 11 dealing with the situation as it is, right at the heart 12 of the industry, and they have a valuable input. But 13 I concluded that rather than try and bring the Editors' 14 Code Committee within the structure of the new 15 independent self-regulatory regime, it is better for 16 them to continue with their work on the Editors' Code 17 Committee, accepting as they now have that there should 18 be a lay element. But within the regulatory structure, 19 the board which Lord Black has been referring to, the 20 trust board, that will not have anything other than 21 a majority of independent people on it, and that will be 22 the key decisionmaker in some of the areas that we've 23 been talking about. 24 Q. The complaints arm will have serving editors, won't it? 25 A. Yes, and speaking as the chair of the Press Complaints 48 1 Commission, we find that everyone -- all 17 of 2 the Commissioners who sit to adjudicate on complaints -- 3 does put everything at the door before they come in and 4 certainly the editors that I've heard speak are as 5 critical often of journalists as the independent 6 members. The discussions do not divide between 7 independent members and editorial members. It's 8 a valuable discussion with no prediction as to where 9 people are coming from but a united consensus on where 10 we should be going. 11 Q. The issue may be as much one of perception than anything 12 else, but would you agree that it's important if one 13 wants to have a system which is seen to be independent 14 that one avoids, if at all possible, having editors 15 judging in their own cause, because although naturally 16 they recuse themselves from their own cases, as it were, 17 they're nonetheless adjudicating on a system which 18 concerns them because the decisions may have an impact 19 on their own cases in the future. 20 A. Yes. It's a perception which has to be met head on. 21 When I was given the task of working up the right 22 regulatory structure for solicitors and barristers in 23 the legal services bill -- and indeed by the Law 24 Society -- there was a view that solicitors and 25 barristers should not be involved in adjudicating on 49 1 complaints. But actually, I think in the long run 2 everybody decided there has to be a balance. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But there's an enormous difference 4 there, isn't there? Because there are 40,000 solicitors 5 and there are, I don't know, several thousand 6 barristers, I can't remember, 14,000, 15,000 barristers, 7 and therefore it's not difficult to find a barrister or 8 a solicitor who's not at all affected by the subject 9 matter of a particular concern. You're talking about 10 30, 40 editors. 11 If you said to me there ought to be working 12 journalists, those working in the industry, then the 13 parallel is much, much stronger, but if you say, "No, we 14 are going to take this comparatively small group of very 15 powerful people and we're going to then make them 16 judges", isn't that different? I mean, I'd be 17 interested for your help. 18 A. I think my figures are 118,000 solicitors and 10,000 19 barristers, but the point is still as valid. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh well, whatever. You make it even 21 stronger for me then. 22 A. Yes, if I've got it right. 23 When I went to see the chief executive of IPC 24 Media -- I think I've got the name right -- she said to 25 me: "Are you saying that my 60 editors must each 50 1 individually complete a form to say that they ..." Now, 2 that's just 60 editors in one very small part of what 3 we're talking about. I don't think the number of 4 editors is a key factor. It's the decision-makers that 5 I've been seeking to see at the publisher level, who 6 have a whole range of editors. 7 Now, of course, the large newspapers do have 8 comparatively few, but regional, local newspapers, there 9 are huge numbers of editors, and I find with the local 10 and regional newspapers in particular that they do want 11 the editors to be involved, because at the end of the 12 day quite often the editor will be one of the few people 13 employed in that newspaper or periodical. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: There's a problem, isn't there, 15 because whereas you might have no difficulty at all in 16 having the editor of the Southampton Echo sitting on 17 a decision involving the Yorkshire Post, if that would 18 ever happen -- I immediately make it clear that I'm 19 casting no aspersions on the Yorkshire Post -- the 20 position of the very, very large newspapers is rather 21 different, and whether it's News International or 22 Associated Newspapers or Trinity Mirror, enormous 23 players in the field are quite different from the other 24 group of editors to whom you've just referred. 25 A. I agree, and with regard to solicitors, there are 80,000 51 1 of those 118,000 solicitors who are in very small little 2 firms, but if you just take the magic circle of five 3 firms, those chief executives have a huge amount of 4 influence within the system. So I'm not sure that there 5 aren't too many lessons to be learnt from comparisons of 6 that nature. What I'm trying to do all the time is to 7 reflect a balance between the regional and local 8 newspapers, between the national newspapers, between 9 online and between the magazine and publications 10 industry generally. The regulator that's going to 11 emerge must reflect all these elements and I think to 12 exclude or bar editors would be a step backwards. 13 MR JAY: In paragraph 9 of your statement, Lord Hunt, you 14 say -- this is page 00801: 15 "Self-regulation can be effective only in an 16 industry that possesses the necessary ethos, structures 17 and systems to ensure that an agreed level of standards 18 is maintained." 19 Do we, at the moment, Lord Hunt, have an industry 20 which, in all its manifestations, possesses that 21 necessary ethos, structures and systems? Do we 22 currently have such an industry? 23 A. In the main, yes, but there are parts of the industry 24 that have been found wanting. And indeed, the most 25 critical people I meet are those in the industry, 52 1 particularly journalists and editors, who really are 2 rather ashamed of what some parts of their industry have 3 done and want to see it put right, which is why 4 I believe there is such a consensus now on the need to 5 move forward, subject to what this Inquiry may conclude. 6 Q. Isn't it the premise of paragraph 9 -- to this extent we 7 can agree with it -- that if we were to have an industry 8 that did possess the necessary ethos, structures and 9 systems to ensure that an agreed level of standards was 10 maintained, then self-regulation would be effective, but 11 given that we don't have an industry which currently, in 12 all its manifestations, possesses that necessary ethos, 13 et cetera, self-regulation is unlikely to work? 14 A. No. I believe that self-regulation can and will work, 15 provided you have the necessary agreement on the right 16 way forward and provided you have a regulatory structure 17 which means something. 18 Q. How will the new regulatory structure ensure that the 19 right internal checks and balances are in place? 20 A. This is probably one of the key features, so far as I'm 21 concerned, that I have found on the part of the 22 publishers a wish and a willingness to sign up to 23 a system which puts the responsibility for the necessary 24 ethos, structures and systems fairly and squarely in 25 their area of responsibility. And I greatly welcome 53 1 that. I find it interesting to note that perhaps that 2 hadn't always been the case, but when I put it to 3 publishers, that they should have an internal system of 4 standards setting, compliance, complaints handling and 5 mediation, they accepted it, but very few had actually 6 put it into effect. 7 Q. Given that Sir David Calcutt's report was, as it were, 8 in the last-chance saloon and reviewing the history 9 since 1947 there have been three, if not four occasions 10 before Sir David Calcutt where opportunities were 11 missed, why should the press, which still exhibits, on 12 your account, deficiencies as regards the culture, 13 practices and ethics, be given a further last chance? 14 A. I don't think it's ever been given a last chance. I've 15 had the opportunity of meeting and discussing with most 16 of the members who are still alive of the Calcutt 17 committee and asking them about the recommendations of 18 the 1949 Commission and indeed the recommendations of 19 the 1962 Commission, and I was surprised to find that 20 the whole idea of a contractual basis wasn't raised. So 21 no one thought up what seems to me to be an obvious 22 course of action, that the publishers should contract to 23 create a proper regulator. 24 Now, that is in effect carrying out some of the 25 recommendations of the 1949 Commission. I'm not sure to 54 1 what extent this Inquiry has heard evidence from media 2 or press historians, but certainly several members of 3 the Calcutt committee have told me that they're not 4 quite sure why they didn't consider this, because it 5 does seem to be an option that ought to be on the table 6 and that it is now is on the table gives us a real 7 opportunity for the first time to put things right. 8 Q. The earlier commissions and committees you're referring 9 to were all thinking in terms of a regulator which had 10 some form of a statutory underpinning. They didn't 11 think in terms of express commercial contracts maybe 12 because the existing system they were looking at was 13 based on implied contracts. 14 But why isn't the system of commercial contracts yet 15 another variant of the last-chance saloon? Why 16 shouldn't we move straight to a system which has been on 17 the table in various forms now for over 60 years, namely 18 a system which has some form of statutory underpinning? 19 A. I do think it's a common misunderstanding about the '62 20 Royal Commission, so I brought with me the extract from 21 command 1811, which is the September '62 Royal 22 Commission report, where they say in paragraph 325, 23 whilst detailing the recommendations -- they then go on 24 to say: 25 "We do not think that the absence of an enabling 55 1 statute need necessarily be fatal to the activities of 2 such a body." 3 And continue, I quote: 4 "Much of its power could rest upon a contractual 5 basis." 6 So the '62 Royal Commission did actually suggest 7 a contractual basis but no one seems to have picked that 8 up. 9 MR JAY: Is that a convenient -- 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. We have in fact seen the Royal 11 Commission. Thank you. 12 (3.25 pm)break 13 (A short break) 14 (3.35 pm) 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 16 MR JAY: I think, Lord Hunt, following on what you said 17 before we broke for our short break, there should really 18 be two saloons. The saloon which has been called 19 "last-chance saloon" should be called "penultimate 20 chance saloon" and your contracts are last-chance 21 saloon, and if that doesn't work, where are we then? 22 A. I think I made a terrible error last time in referring 23 to the sword of Damocles. I'd forgotten that Cicero was 24 using that as an example of how there can be no 25 condition of happiness where there is still some fear 56 1 hanging above you, and I suppose in a way that's always 2 going to be there. It's just I don't think anyone has 3 really tried an internal regulatory system policed, 4 monitored and enforced by a professional oversight body. 5 Perhaps this is too legalistic on my part, but I don't 6 think it's been tried. Now, whether you put that in 7 a saloon or out in the public arena is a matter for your 8 judgment, but I think that the key test here is the 9 test: will this restore trust and confidence on the part 10 of the public? 11 Q. You don't think the public would say, "Well, this, in 12 effect, is a cop-out. We've had similar palliatives 13 over the last 60 to 70 years and they've failed. We 14 have reached the end of the road and that means some 15 form of statutory under pinning"? You don't think that 16 would be the likely public response to anything less 17 than that from this Inquiry, wouldn't you say? 18 A. I think there is pride in the British press amongst the 19 public, but outrage at the way some parts of the press 20 have behaved, but I don't think you could summarise the 21 view of the -- I was taken -- if I may, for a moment, 22 just give one example. I was taken a little bit by 23 surprise -- on 21 June, I had the honour to be 24 introduced to Aung San Suu Kyi, who is taking her seat 25 in the Burmese Parliament at the moment and I was 57 1 introduced to her as chairman of the press in the United 2 Kingdom. She looked me straight in the eye and said, 3 "You must be so proud." 4 I suddenly thought: yes, I am very proud. But that 5 pride doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the activities of 6 a small minority, but I do think there is still that 7 pride. 8 Q. So you feel that the public would wish to give the press 9 another chance? Is that it? 10 A. Yes, so long as it's a free and responsible press, not 11 just a free press but a press that accepts its 12 responsibilities, and I've found a willingness -- and 13 I think Lord Black epitomised that, and I stress again, 14 as I said in my first response: I do believe the press 15 has come a long way under Lord Black's leadership. He's 16 now putting forward a potential solution, subject very 17 much to what this Inquiry may decide. 18 Q. The issue of responsibility is one you take up quite 19 clearly in the last sentence of paragraph 9 of your 20 statement at page 00802: 21 "Self-regulation requires the industry to recognise 22 that the still considerable freedoms it enjoys are 23 a privilege, not an unassailable right ..." 24 So freedom of the press is not absolute, you're 25 saying there. 58 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. "... requiring journalists to behave responsible within 3 certain generally observed behavioural norms and 4 precepts." 5 So I suppose the issue is: what comes first? If 6 journalists did adhere to those behavioural norms and 7 precepts, then it may be more arguable that 8 self-regulation is the appropriate regulatory system, 9 but if journalists are falling too far short of 10 appropriate behavioural norms and precepts, then it 11 might be said that something stronger is required. 12 Would you agree with that analysis? 13 A. Yes, but at the moment I'm suggesting the "something 14 stronger" is for the first time ever a self-regulatory 15 structure chair by an independent person with an 16 independent majority. I don't think we need 17 a cumbersome, slow, expensive press law. We need a sort 18 of -- as I say, a professional oversight monitoring and 19 enforcing the standards that I believe the vast majority 20 of journalists accept. 21 Q. In paragraph 13 of your statement, Lord Hunt, you refer 22 to the formidable corpus of legal and regulatory 23 structures and strictures. Are you conceding there that 24 a considerable degree of statutory regulation already 25 exists? 59 1 A. Not statutory regulation, but a considerable amount of 2 caselaw and statute law exists of which journalists have 3 to be aware. Last time I did refer to McNae's 4 "Essential Law for Journalists" and I've seen many 5 volumes on privacy law, various decisions of various 6 courts which do set out a number of safeguards for the 7 public, of which journalists have to be aware. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Why is it stronger or weaker if it's 9 one way or the other? Isn't it just appropriate that we 10 have a system of regulation that encourages the good, 11 discourages the bad, and venerates the proper expression 12 of free speech? 13 A. Yes. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Providing we achieve those ends, 15 whether it's come through a statute or contract or 16 because everyone's said, "Truly we will this time", why 17 does it matter? 18 A. Oh, I do disagree, sir, if I may. I think as soon as 19 you start to move towards a statutory regulator -- I do 20 recall, sir, last time you referred me to the 21 Constitutional Reform Act and in particular clause 3, 22 subsection 6, saying the Lord Chancellor must have 23 regard to the need to defend the independence of the 24 judiciary. If I recall, sir, you put to me: why can't 25 we have a similar provision so far as the independence 60 1 of the press is concerned? If I may continue, I have 2 spent some time reading back the debates which occurred 3 over the independence of the judiciary. And what effect 4 did it have? Because the very following year, in 2006, 5 the Home Secretary, John Reid, attacked a judge pretty 6 severely. Vera Baird, who was a minister in the 7 Department of Constitutional Affairs, attacked, on many 8 questions, the judge on particular. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I don't think she was. She might 10 have been Solicitor General. 11 A. At the time, on 16 June 2006, she was Parliamentary 12 Undersecretary of State at the DCA. It was before she 13 was promoted, and she said, "I'm critical of the judge 14 for three reasons", and she set out her three. Judge 15 Cutler, Secretary of the Council of HM Circuit Judges, 16 said, "Why is no one speaking on behalf of the judges?" 17 And then if one looks then later on 18 July, the 18 Lord Chief Justice condemned the attacks on judges as 19 intemperate, offensive and unfair. So what effect did 20 that provision have? 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I'll tell you the effect it 22 has, that actually what you've just identified is the 23 value of free speech, whatever the judges might think 24 about it. But the effect that it did have is that 25 nobody can say that a statute -- statute -- has cut down 61 1 the independence of the judiciary, whatever comment 2 politicians might make about it. And your concern, as 3 I understand it -- and it may be more than 4 philosophical -- Lord Black's was very philosophical. 5 But your concern is that a statute, once it's started to 6 even talk about providing a framework within which the 7 press can be regulated, is itself impacting on the 8 freedom of the press. That, I understand, is the 9 argument. If I've misunderstood t please correct me. 10 A. I think, sir, what I was referring to was: what effect 11 did this statute have on, say, the Lord Chancellor? 12 Because -- we're just looking at it in this particular 13 context but there are many others I could quote. The 14 Lord Chancellor, in giving evidence to the 15 Constitutional Affairs Committee on 4 July 2006, said 16 that this particular case "has had an impact on 17 undermining confidence in the judiciary". 18 This is the Lord Chancellor. I just feel that when 19 you move from the independence of the judiciary, which 20 I uphold and would fight to the death to uphold, to 21 independence of the press, you move into a completely 22 different structure. If it doesn't work for the 23 judiciary in the way that I would like it to, it's 24 hardly going even to get off the ground in respecting 25 the independence of the press. 62 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, if it means: are you going to 2 be able to stop ministers complaining about what's 3 written about them in the press, I think not, in the 4 same way that we've been unable, if we've even tried -- 5 which I doubt -- to stop ministers complaining about 6 judicial decisions. We've complained that the context 7 of our decisions is not correctly identified and 8 therefore people get the wrong impression, but free 9 speech is there to correct all that. 10 The purpose of the statute is to cope with what 11 I understood was the concern about creeping legislation. 12 Once you've started a bit, then it's easy to do a bit 13 more, and all of a sudden what looks benign, by creeping 14 legislation, becomes something that's not at all benign. 15 Therefore I'm saying -- or I'm asking; I'm not deciding, 16 as yet -- the equivalent of section 31 of the 17 Constitutional Reform Act, and 36 and all the rest of 18 them, if applied to the press underlines a Parliamentary 19 commitment to a free press which presently does not 20 exist. That's the point. 21 A. Yes, I readily understand, and if one seeks to try and 22 entrench the independence of the press, one is really 23 fighting with, I suppose in many ways, amendment 1 to 24 the -- the First Amendment to the American constitution. 25 If one reads the First Amendment, which is, I suppose, 63 1 parallel to the sort of statutory underpinning of the 2 independence of the press, it is -- it goes far further, 3 and I just think as soon as you open this arena for 4 Parliamentary scrutiny and control through legislation, 5 primary and secondary, you open up the opportunity, 6 really, of confusing a quite simple problem that has 7 needed -- like a hole in the head needs statutory 8 regulation and does desperately need some form of 9 regulation which it's never had. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I understand article 1 does go 11 further and raises all sorts of other different issues. 12 MR JAY: On that argument, I think, Lord Hunt, one would 13 never have any form of statutory regulation because it 14 would always be wrong in principle, wouldn't it? 15 A. No, I think the press is -- as we remind ourselves every 16 day, in the UK is pretty unique. I don't think there's 17 a similar press regime anywhere else in the world, which 18 criticises ministers, judges, everyone else, and long 19 may that last, but let us have a change in the culture, 20 a change in the ethics and the standards of the press, 21 which I think the overwhelming majority of the press 22 want to sign up to. 23 Q. I think you're agreeing with me then that on this line 24 of argument, one would never have a system of statutory 25 regulation in whatever form, since it would always be 64 1 inimical to the principles you've just expounded. 2 Wouldn't that be so? 3 A. Well, in the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act, 4 there is reference to a code. It may well be -- and 5 I introduced it last time and you'll be hearing from 6 Professor John Horgan a little later that week -- it may 7 well be that the defamation bill could have 8 a recognition of a code, or indeed, as in the European 9 Court's judgment in the Mosley case, specific reference 10 to the Editors' Code. 11 That, to my mind, is not a statutory regulatory 12 system, which, in the case of the press, I wouldn't 13 advocate but I await the decision of this Inquiry. 14 Q. Can I ask you, please, about paragraph 20 of your 15 statement now. I haven't asked you about bills before 16 Parliament mutating and ending up having damaging 17 consequences. You told us a bit about that on the last 18 occasion, but out of fairness to you, is there anything 19 you wish to add to that point? 20 A. Except just to point out that secondary legislation does 21 require primary legislation. It is now accepted that 22 Parliament should not give the executive unfettered 23 power to introduce secondary legislation, so every 24 regulation or every element of secondary legislation has 25 to have a derivation and an authority in an Act of 65 1 Parliament, and I thought that perhaps those who 2 advocate "Well, it can all be dealt with by secondary 3 legislation" do not sometimes understand that the 4 Henry VIII principle of allowing the executive to do 5 whatever it likes is inappropriate and would not be 6 accepted. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Of course one couldn't, and the great 8 value of primary legislation is that it can define 9 exactly what is permitted or not permitted in secondary 10 legislation. 11 A. Yes. Yes. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand that. 13 MR JAY: Paragraph 20, where you refer to your time having 14 been spent meeting victims who've suffered at the hands 15 of the press. You say you've been saddened and 16 sometimes appalled by some of the stories you've heard 17 and then you say: 18 "I'm sorry to say in some of the most high-profile 19 cases, the treatment they received from the PCC also 20 fell short of what a genuine regulator could, should and 21 would have done in a similar situation." 22 I'm not going to give examples. Some of your 23 conversations may have been confidential but I think we 24 can imagine the sort of individuals you spoke to who 25 gave you those views. 66 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I ask you this question, 2 though: have these extended beyond people who've given 3 evidence to the Inquiry? 4 A. Yes, sir, because I have met groups and individuals who 5 have not given evidence to the Inquiry. But I did make 6 it my business to meet as many as I possibly could of 7 the victims who have given evidence. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But you make a very important point. 9 It would be quite wrong for anybody to think that the 10 people who have given evidence to the Inquiry are the 11 only ones who have complaints against the press. There 12 are out there a large number of other people with 13 similar complaints, which we could have -- they might 14 tell different stories, so we could have filled this 15 Inquiry with days and days more. Do I correctly 16 understand what you're saying? 17 A. Yes, sir. In fact, since I gave evidence to this 18 Inquiry, I think we have dealt with an enormous number 19 of complaints within the Press Complaints Commission and 20 I've also met groups who have given what they believe to 21 be evidence to show that there are groups in society and 22 groups generally who are not treated properly by the 23 press. I found discussions with, say, the Samaritans to 24 be enormously helpful in understanding the importance of 25 listening to groups like the Samaritans, particularly 67 1 when we look at the Internet and what is appearing on 2 the Internet at the present time and we have to work out 3 ways to overcome the dangers that they highlight. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That might also mean not merely 5 looking at what's happening on the Internet but looking 6 at what groups have to say about the way they are 7 portrayed in the press. 8 A. Yes. 9 MR JAY: You tell us that the victims you've spoken to by 10 and large have not lost faith in the press. Have they 11 lost faith in the PCC as currently constituted? 12 A. Yes, they've told me that. Although the 260 complaints 13 we've dealt with since January -- I've looked at the 14 returns, because we ask everyone to say what they felt, 15 and over 80 per cent of those who have had their 16 complaints dealt with have expressed satisfaction with 17 the way in which their complaint has been dealt with. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could you explain to me by what you 19 mean by "dealt with"? Does that include those who have 20 complained and you've directed them back to the 21 newspaper and then mediated something, or is it only 22 those who actually get through to the stage of 23 adjudication? 24 A. No, I'm talking about all complaints, and generally 25 speaking, the majority of complaints are resolved 68 1 through mediation, and quite often the complainant will 2 be satisfied that their complaint has been dealt with 3 properly without the need to press for adjudication. 4 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: What proportion of those people who 5 actually complained were rejected as not falling within 6 the grounds of the code? Well, how many more people 7 were there, because they're obviously not included in 8 your number. 9 A. I would want to ask, but as I understand it, a very 10 small number would be turned away, because at the 11 moment, without this new regulatory system and without 12 being satisfied, as the new regulator would have to 13 satisfy themselves, that there are properly internal 14 procedures for dealing with complaints, we do not brush 15 aside complaints and direct them towards the editor 16 without taking them up in the first place. That is 17 something which I think would be new and would be 18 welcome, and indeed the publishers have said that they 19 would want to make sure that there was a proper system 20 of dealing with complaints within each of their titles. 21 As I understand it -- just take one section -- there 22 are 15,000 editors of regional and local newspapers and 23 magazines, so we are dealing with a huge number of 24 publications. Generally speaking, I'm sure that most of 25 them would prefer to deal with the complaints directly 69 1 themselves without first having to be made aware by the 2 PCC that a complaint has been lodged. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: 15,000 editors? 4 A. I asked before, that whereas the small number that was 5 earlier quoted may be the number of editors in major 6 newspapers, there are, as I demonstrated through 7 IPC Media, 60 editors there. There are hundreds and 8 thousands of editors of smaller publications, at 9 local/regional papers and magazines. 10 MR JAY: You travelled to Ireland in early May of this year. 11 You say you learnt some valuable lessons there. Could 12 you summarise, please, Lord Hunt, the lessons that you 13 did learn from that visit? 14 A. Well, you're quite right. I found it fascinating and 15 I have established a very good working relationship with 16 Professor John Horgan, who was present at each of my 17 meetings there, and I found that there are some lessons 18 to be learned from the Irish system, but there are some 19 considerable differences which exist, and I have sought 20 to set those out in my statement. 21 Q. In your own words, could you summarise for us the 22 lessons you learnt and then the differences? 23 A. Well, so far as the Irish system is concerned, the Act 24 itself does lay down certain specifics about the Irish 25 Press Council which I'm not sure would be translated 70 1 into our defamation bill. It does achieve universal 2 coverage. The self-regulation itself, they believe, is 3 a sufficient incentive and I see potential benefits in 4 having similar legislation here linking a Reynolds-style 5 defence to membership of a recognised regulatory 6 structure but I wouldn't advocate a perfect replication 7 here of the Irish Press Council or the Defamation Act 8 2009. 9 Q. We'll look at the detail of that as we go through your 10 evidence, Lord Hunt. Can I ask you, please, about 11 paragraph 26 of your statement where you start to give 12 a brief overview of your recommendations. You point out 13 the current system is non-contractual or rather operates 14 on the basis of implicit contracts -- that analysis is 15 no doubt correct -- save for an informal system that's 16 endured surprisingly well. I put this to you: if the 17 suggestion is the publishers would be willing to sign 18 a contract and be compelled into doing things that they 19 would not otherwise agree to, why would they do that? 20 A. There is a willingness to set up, for the first time, 21 a proper regulatory structure. I can't really speak as 22 to whether that willingness was there before, had the 23 notion been put forward, but certainly in the past, even 24 though there may or may not have been an implied 25 contract -- I personally don't think there was -- there 71 1 had been occasions on which several publications have -- 2 in particular at the time of the Calcutt committee's 3 report on privacy, one major newspaper threatened to 4 withdraw from the Press Complaints Commission and were 5 eventually persuaded not to do so, so it's never really 6 been put to the test. 7 So I don't think it's a case of just looking at one 8 large newspaper publishing house; I think one has to 9 look over the whole scene and set up a system where it 10 would not just not be possible for anyone unilaterally 11 to withdraw. 12 Q. Under the new system, enforcement is via court action if 13 necessary. How likely is it that the regulator would be 14 willing to take court action to enforce a contract in 15 this way, and what would the implications be for 16 relations between the regulator and the publishers if 17 such a step had to be taken? 18 A. Well, I -- I -- I have reserved my position on the 19 drafts which have been put forward. I haven't reached 20 any conclusion on the draft contract, the draft 21 regulations, the draft articles, nor have I been asked 22 to do so. I await the view of this Inquiry. 23 One can only speculate as to what the relationship 24 would be in the circumstances you describe. I started 25 off, perhaps too idealistically, in hoping that we might 72 1 have a short, simple, easy-to-understand contract. 2 That's still, I think, my position. I don't see the 3 need for great, huge, extensive provisions. I want to 4 set up an independent self-regulatory structure which 5 can then work out with the industry the best way 6 forward, rather than being too inhibited by detailed 7 provisions, but I'll very open to any suggestions that 8 may be made on that subject. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So you've not commented upon the 10 precise details that Lord Black's enunciated to us. 11 You've deliberately not seen that as your role and 12 you've not discussed them with, for example, any of the 13 people that you've been consulting with? 14 A. Well, there have been a number of drafts. I saw some 15 early drafts when I again reiterated my wish for 16 a short, sharp, simple, easy-to-understand contract. 17 I haven't given any view on the latest drafts, nor have 18 I seen all of them. I felt it was -- I was hoping that 19 you, sir, would give a view on the right way forward. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, in due course I certainly shall. 21 MR JAY: Can I understand, though, what your preference 22 would have been? You've obviously been able to have 23 a look at the latest iterations of Lord Black's model in 24 terms of the contractual structure, the regulations and 25 the articles of association. Is it your position, 73 1 Lord Hunt, that a shorter, simpler model would have been 2 preferable, therefore giving the regulator and the 3 regulated entities greater leeway subsequently to decide 4 what to do? 5 A. Mm, yes, but it is for the industry to come forward with 6 their proposals. I suppose in many ways I set out an 7 agenda in that two-page document. I set out in simple 8 terms the powers that the new independent 9 self-regulatory structure should have. I think it's 10 remarkable that Lord Black has been able to get 11 agreement across the industry, because I am aware that 12 there are differing views in all parts of this great 13 newspaper and magazine industry but I haven't reached 14 a conclusion because I was hoping to receive some 15 guidance, because we are dealing with a completely new 16 area. This is going to be the first time ever 17 a contract-based -- as recommended by Shawcross -- 18 a contract-based regulatory structure is going to be set 19 up. 20 Q. Is your fear, though, that if the contractual 21 stipulations and associated regulatory stipulations are 22 very detailed -- as indeed it's fair to say they are in 23 the proposals we've been examining this morning -- it 24 may be less likely that every single entity within the 25 press as a whole will sign up to them? 74 1 A. Well, there's no point if there's disagreement. We have 2 to see agreement across the industry. But I would far 3 prefer it to be on the simple objective of creating, for 4 the first time ever, a self-regulatory structure, shared 5 by an independent trust board, but I recognise that this 6 is the first time we've ever attempted this, and 7 I suppose we'll never know unless we give it a go. 8 Q. That may be right, Lord Hunt, but I think my question 9 was more that for whatever reason -- and frankly, I can 10 see for good reason -- we've reached the position now of 11 a quite detailed set of proposals in terms of the 12 contract, the regulations and the articles of 13 association. Having reached that position, is your fear 14 that it's in fact less rather than more likely that 15 everybody will sign up to these proposals because of the 16 level of detail we see in them? 17 A. Well, in the last few weeks I've seen virtually all the 18 publishers and they have all expressed a willingness to 19 sign up. 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: That's the publishers. You don't see 21 editors? 22 A. I see their -- I have concentrated in particular in 23 talking to the publishers. I did, of course, discuss 24 and I still discuss with key editors who take a lead in 25 putting forward views, and the editor of the Independent 75 1 on Saturday asked the public to express their views in 2 his editorial on Saturday. So one must conditionally 3 have discussions, but I was particular concentrated -- 4 if we are to have an internal standards setting and 5 complaints-handling mechanism within every publisher, it 6 must be the publisher who is willing to set that up. It 7 is then for the publisher to decide how the internal 8 structure should work with his or her editors. 9 MR JAY: Are you personally satisfied that the detailed 10 proposals which we've seen and scrutinised deliver the 11 best quality independent regulation system? 12 A. Yes, because I am advised that it fulfils the objectives 13 which I set out on 15 December. The key area, though -- 14 and I think that is where many people will be looking to 15 this Inquiry for guidance -- is on this third arm, the 16 arbitral arm. Everyone wants to see a quick and easy 17 way of resolving disputes without overoccupying the time 18 of lawyers and courts, but I don't think yet anyone has 19 come forward with the solution. I think people are 20 looking to this Inquiry to give guidance. I think it's 21 much easier to determine standards and compliance and 22 handling complaints, and as you know, I don't think 23 adding compensation to the list of powers of the 24 complaints-handling body would be a good idea because 25 I want to see complaints continue to be mediated. 76 1 Q. The issue in relation to the arbitral arm, as you well 2 know, is it requires some form of statutory 3 underpinning, that commercial contracts by themselves 4 are insufficient. You appreciate that? 5 A. Yes, and Lord Lester's bill originally did set out a way 6 in which that could be done. The government have not 7 yet incorporated the wording that Lord Lester of Hearne 8 Hill suggested but it may have the opportunity of 9 reconsidering that, particularly when the bill comes 10 before the House of Lords later this year. 11 Q. Paragraph 27 of your statement. You refer in the second 12 bullet point to funding. Can I ask you please about the 13 relationship between the industry funding body and the 14 trust board of the regulator. Do you feel that that 15 provides sufficient autonomy for the trust to do its job 16 properly? 17 A. I don't really want the regulator to be involved in the 18 detail of how the funding is allocated between 19 individual publishers, individual newspapers and 20 magazines and online. I think for the regulator to have 21 cognisance of that would lead to different pressures 22 being put on the regulator. I would far prefer the 23 independent self-regulatory mechanism to be funded but 24 not to go into detail about how that funding should be 25 arrived at. That will be a matter for the industry. 77 1 Q. So the industry then will have control over the total 2 amount of the pot, would it, Lord Hunt? 3 A. No, because, as you know, I have set out in my statement 4 what I think will be the cost of the new structure, and 5 as I understand it, the industry feels able, provided it 6 gets general acceptance, to supply sufficient funds to 7 meet that budget. 8 Q. I put the point to Lord Black and I put it to you as 9 well: we know how much the PCC costs at the moment. 10 It's just short of 2 million. The new body will cost 11 2.25 million a year, plus the enforcement pot, which 12 will start at 100,000. Is that really sufficient, given 13 all the extra work which the new regulator is being 14 asked to undertake? 15 A. Yes, because I anticipate that the emphasis on internal 16 standard-setting and complaints-handling will result in 17 a more oversight body than presently is constituted. 18 Therefore, you're quite right; there are additional 19 responsibilities in the standards arm, in particular if 20 there is a serious or systemic breach, but the onus of 21 complaints-handling should be much more the 22 responsibility of individual newspapers and magazines 23 than it is at the present time, and I've found there's 24 a general acceptance by the industry that that should be 25 the case. 78 1 Q. That goes back to an earlier point. It assumes that 2 there's already a culture change within all the relevant 3 press organisations to ensure that both internal 4 governance is improved but that there are fewer breaches 5 of standards to enable internal systems to deal with 6 them. Wouldn't you agree with that? 7 A. Yes. Certainly I've not come across anyone who has told 8 me that it's impossible or too difficult to organise the 9 necessary internal standards compliance and 10 complaints-handling. There are differing views as to 11 how independent the complaints-handling would be, but 12 certainly I've found, especially in the local and 13 regional press, that they would far prefer that 14 complaints are dealt with direct with the complainant 15 and resolved quickly. 16 Q. Can I ask you, please, about paragraph 28 of your 17 statement, where you say in relation to the board of the 18 new regulator that you would like to see one or two 19 industry representatives on it but there should be an 20 independent chairman and an independent majority. 21 Lord Black's model has three press representatives on it 22 who are not serving editors. Do you feel that's too 23 many? 24 A. Well, there are some differences between Lord Black's 25 proposals and my suggestions. I stand by my 79 1 suggestions, but I do believe the outline that 2 Lord Black has put forward is an extremely good starting 3 point, although I've always said that the contract 4 should be as sort and as simple as possible, so that the 5 regulator then has sufficient flexibility to adapt to 6 challenges presented by what is a dynamic and fluid 7 industry. But I certainly don't believe any final 8 contract should be signed until it has been forensically 9 examined by you, sir, and by your team, and I would also 10 like to study it myself to assess its fitness for 11 purpose. 12 Q. It's right that there are some differences between what 13 you're proposing and what Lord Black, with the 14 acquiescence or otherwise of the industry, has proposed. 15 I'm just seek to identify the key differences. One 16 difference relates to the number of industry 17 representatives on the trust board. You favour, in 18 principle, a fewer number, don't you? 19 A. Yes, and there are a number of other differences. For 20 instance, I think it's vitally important that there 21 should be a whistle-blowing hotline into the new 22 regulatory structure, in particular for someone employed 23 who feels they're being asked to do things which are 24 contrary to the Editors' Code. There should also be an 25 ability within the new structure to discuss points of 80 1 culture and ethical standards with any part of the 2 industry who wishes to seek advice. I would want to the 3 see, certainly in the early days, as flexible 4 a structure as possible. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: One of the concerns about which 6 I don't think my memory is letting me down relates to 7 a complaint by some journalists about being asked to 8 proceed in a way which they felt was unethical and being 9 told by the PCC that they had no right to complain. 10 A. Yes. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: And I suppose that is what you're 12 talking about by the whistle-blowers? 13 A. Yes. 14 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But do you have a comment then on the 15 whole question of third-party complaints and the need 16 for significant breaches of the code or substantial 17 public interest? Or do you think that puts it too high, 18 before a third party can complain or a group can 19 complain? 20 A. I'm assured by my colleagues in the PCC that they do 21 listen attentively to any third party who wishes to 22 bring forward a complaint at the present time, but often 23 the complainant may not wish to make a complaint but 24 there is a group or a third party wishing to complain on 25 their behalf. I think that will be a matter which 81 1 should and must occupy the new self-regulatory structure 2 as being right at the heart of what it needs to 3 establish if we are to see a change in culture and 4 ethics across the whole industry. There shouldn't be 5 artificial barriers to people who feel they have 6 a genuine grievance. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: The people who have given evidence to 8 me on this topic aren't so much complaining about 9 a particular person who might have had a complaint but 10 about the way in which whole issues are addressed, such 11 as disability, such as mental illness, such as -- 12 A. Yes. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, you've heard the examples. 14 Now, I appreciate that there is a line to be drawn which 15 permits even partisan comment, but you see such 16 complaints as fitting very firmly within the scheme that 17 you anticipate taking centre stage? 18 A. Yes, particularly article 1 of the Editors' Code, which 19 clearly says: 20 "The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, 21 misleading or distorted information." 22 And I think it is perfectly in order for a group or 23 an individual who feel that accuracy, code one, has not 24 been followed, to make the new regulatory structure 25 aware of their views. 82 1 MR JAY: Okay. Before we look at other areas of difference 2 between your proposal and Lord Black's proposal, there's 3 one area of similarity. This relates to the appointment 4 of the chair of the trust board. It's toward the end of 5 paragraph 28 of your statement, and you pick it up again 6 in paragraph 71. Your proposal is the same as 7 Lord Black's, although you refer specifically to 8 a shortlist which would be produced independently by 9 headhunters. A panel of four should make the final 10 decision, there would be two independent members and two 11 industry members of that panel, but there should be 12 unanimous decisions. 13 I don't think Lord Black referred to headhunters, 14 but in all other respects your proposal is the same as 15 Lord Black's. I must ask you this, Lord Hunt: you say 16 that this should be a thorough-going process modelled 17 upon best practice, but is it best practice to have this 18 sort of appointments system? Why not have an 19 appointments system which is independent of the industry 20 altogether? 21 A. Well, I certainly believe independent policing of 22 standards is in the public interest, and the new body 23 has to be clearly and demonstrably independent of the 24 industry it regulates and also of the apparatus of the 25 state, and I would hope that certainly the conclusion 83 1 will be to recommend an appointments system which will 2 entrench that independence. I feel that very strongly. 3 Otherwise the public will not have trust and confidence 4 in the new body. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But do you think the public is likely 6 to have trust and confidence in a body which gives to 7 the industry nominees a veto on the appointment of the 8 independent chair? 9 A. Well, I -- I was hoping you were going to provide the 10 answer to that question. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But you, in paragraph 71, suggest 12 that the answer is yes, because you propose that the 13 appointment must be unanimous. 14 A. Yes. It's because I've always started from the point of 15 view of consensus. I think the way ahead must be by 16 agreement and I would not want to get off to a bad 17 start, and I therefore put in the word "unanimous" 18 because I think everyone should agree. It does, 19 I recognise immediately, give a veto to the independents 20 and also to the industry -- 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But the independent people will 22 almost certainly want somebody who is independent. The 23 press people may want somebody who looks independent but 24 who is "one of us". 25 A. I have yet to find that degree of cynicism. 84 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, have you? 2 A. I believe that there are independent people who don't 3 necessarily want independent people, and there are 4 equally press people who don't necessarily want press 5 people. I just want there to be unanimity on the right 6 way forward, but I will be guided by you, sir. 7 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I'm prepared to accept that 8 people may consider me cynical as well. I just want to 9 be realistic and ensure that there is a system which 10 attracts public confidence. 11 A. Yes, yes. 12 MR JAY: The other point of departure between your proposal 13 and Lord Black's proposal, assuming I've correctly 14 understood Lord Black's proposal, which I believe 15 I have, is that you put forward the idea that the 16 independent chairman should be the chief ombudsman on 17 complaints and the principal arbiter of standards. So 18 are you saying, Lord Hunt, that the ombudsman in effect 19 is the first tier of the complaints committee, or is he 20 or she the appeal body? How is this working in 21 contradistinction to Lord Black's proposal? 22 A. Well, I reached this conclusion after my visit to Dublin 23 and also considering a number of other systems and 24 a number of other ombudsman, and I think the key to this 25 system working well will lie in the character and 85 1 personality of the person who is going to occupy this 2 key role, and I would therefore want them to have that 3 power and that influence. 4 Q. Is this person an ombudsman properly so called, or is it 5 someone who is just going to be regarded as very 6 important and key to the whole system? 7 A. Oh no, no, no, it's got to be someone who is seen by the 8 public as someone in whom they can have trust and 9 confidence to make the right decision. 10 Q. But an ombudsman properly so called? Because an 11 ombudsman, on the evidence the Inquiry we've received, 12 is usually independent of the body it's regulating, and 13 this ombudsman is not part of the system. Ombudsmen 14 also usually have power to award compensation. So it's 15 not, on our understanding, an ombudsman at all. I just 16 want to understand what your terminology amounts to, if 17 I may. 18 A. Well, during the course of that first independent 19 inquiry into the financial services ombudsman that 20 I did, I was introduced to the Society of Ombudsmen, and 21 I have to tell you they are so different depending on 22 which country they're in, which jurisdiction. I don't 23 think I can generalise, except to put forward my view of 24 what this ombudsman would be. 25 Q. Okay. Well, we don't see it mirrored in Lord Black's 86 1 proposal, but it may be that your proposal is better. 2 In order to test whether it is, can we just see what 3 this ombudsman is doing? Is he or she the first level 4 of the complaints system, as it were? I mean, 5 obviously -- 6 A. No, the first level must be the internal newspaper and 7 magazine. 8 Q. Yes. Putting that aside -- 9 A. If that can't resolve, then it moves into what I have 10 sought to describe as the complaints arm with its panel 11 of adjudicators: 13, eight independent, five from the 12 industry. 13 Q. Mm-hm. 14 A. And obviously that complaints arm would operate 15 alongside the standards arm, which would also have 16 a panel of experts, and if necessary, an investigation 17 by a panel of three -- 18 Q. We understand that. 19 A. So that is the structure. 20 Q. So where's the ombudsman fitting in in this structure? 21 A. Well, I see the ombudsman as being the independent 22 chairman of the whole structure. That is one solution. 23 That's one way forward. There are many others, but 24 that's the one that I thought would attract the maximum 25 support. 87 1 Q. Well, we may be playing with words, but the distinction 2 may be important. That, on our understanding of the 3 term, is not an ombudsman properly so-called, but 4 nonetheless the chair of the trust is occupying a very 5 important position in the whole structure. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. We can see it on Lord Black's charts. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. We may dispense with the label, but we understand the 10 importance of the role that person occupies. Can we at 11 least agree with that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You also suggest -- it's not explicit in Lord Black's 14 model, but it may be implicit -- that the new regulator 15 should require a communications function. This is 16 paragraph 36 your statement. What precisely do you have 17 in mind there? 18 A. In what respect? 19 Q. How is this communications function going to be 20 discharged and what is the need for it? 21 A. In relation to the ombudsman? 22 Q. No, in relation to the system as a whole. 23 A. Well, I see the ombudsman as certainly not being 24 a champion of the free press but believing in a free and 25 responsible press, and the job of the ombudsman is to 88 1 ensure that the responsibility element of the equation 2 is just as important as the freedom element, and the 3 system should operate on the basis that a free press is 4 in the public interests as long as it operates within 5 the code, and that's the way I look at the use of the 6 word "ombudsman" and indeed the purpose of the whole 7 structure. 8 Q. The next section of your evidence is effectiveness, 9 paragraph 35. You identify five principles -- these are 10 the Hampton principles -- and you add a sixth principle, 11 namely independence. We understand that. In agreement 12 with the public interest -- that's paragraph 37. We 13 understand that. 14 May I ask you, please, about the amendment of the 15 code which you refer to in paragraph 37, which I think 16 is fairly recent, if my recollection is right, 17 Lord Hunt. It requires editors to demonstrate the 18 public interest has been served and the amendment is, 19 and how and with whom that was established at the time. 20 How has this amendment been used or tested at all 21 since this introduction and what difference, if any, is 22 it making? Can you assist us with that? 23 A. I'm told it has made a considerable difference, in that 24 now, whenever public interest -- and it will be 25 comparatively rare that public interest is discussed in 89 1 this way -- I am told now that there is every effort 2 made to record exactly what is said and done at that 3 time. 4 I don't think it was an easy amendment for the press 5 to accept. There was considerable discussion about it, 6 but I think it's a reflection of the way standards have 7 improved and culture has improved that everyone felt 8 that this was a necessary amendment and it came in on 9 1 January this year. It's a little early still to 10 adjudicate on how effective it's been, but I think it's 11 a move -- certainly a move in the right direction. 12 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, one hopes it's never 13 challenged, because everybody does it properly. 14 A. Yes. 15 MR JAY: The next theme you take up -- this is paragraphs 39 16 to 41 -- is that of flexibility. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. The need to ensure that there isn't, as you say, the 19 time bomb of obsolescence built into the system. Are 20 you contemplating here simply this: that the system is 21 flexible enough to enable new entities to be 22 incorporated within it, either in terms of the criteria 23 for entry or the ability of those currently within the 24 system to amend its terms? Is that basically the issue 25 here? 90 1 A. Yes. 2 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Choose a time, Mr Jay. 3 MR JAY: I want to sort of leave -- I think we can break 4 now. I wanted to ration myself to an hour and a half 5 tomorrow morning with Lord Hunt, otherwise we're going 6 to be in danger of not completing the business of the 7 day, but I think I will be successful. 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: If you want to -- 9 MR JAY: No, I'm not that concerned now. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. 11 MR JAY: But I am asked to say that we're reading in 12 a number of statements today. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right, let's do that. 14 MR JAY: The list will be put on the website immediately. 15 I'm not going to read out the whole list now. There's 16 quite a lot of them. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. Could I just see the 18 list? 19 MR JAY: Certainly. (Handed) 20 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I hope it's not inconvenient for you 21 tomorrow morning. 22 A. No, no, not at all, sir. 23 MR JAY: These have all been circulated to the CPs. Any 24 about which there is some concern or dispute are not on 25 the list and will be taken up subsequently. 91 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I've seen this list. Yes, I agree. 2 Thank you very much. All the statements identified in 3 this document, the deadline for objections having been 4 4 pm on Monday, 2 July, will be deemed read into the 5 record of the Inquiry. Thank you very much. Tomorrow 6 morning at 10 o'clock. 7 (4.36 pm) 8 (The hearing adjourned until 10 o'clock the following day) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92