1 Tuesday, 10 July 2012 2 (10.00 am) 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I have misstated the position in 4 relation to Associated Newspapers Limited, for which 5 I apologise. I intend now to hand down a ruling dealing 6 with the way forward in connection with the issue that 7 has been raised. 8 MR JAY: Sir, we're continuing with Lord fr. 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you very much. 10 LORD HUNT OF WIRRELL (continued) 11 Questions by MR JAY (continued) 12 MR JAY: May we look now at paragraph 42 of your statement, 13 our page 00812, where you deal with the issue of 14 coverage. You say that universal application is utopian 15 but the credibility of the new system could be fatally 16 undermined if any genuinely big fish seek to escape the 17 net. Northern & Shell, I suppose, would be a genuinely 18 big fish, would it? 19 A. I think I mentioned yesterday that there was a previous 20 large publisher who had threatened to withdraw. I am 21 not sure it's a good idea to try and concentrate on one 22 or the other when they have all told me that they are 23 ready, willing and able to sign up. 24 Q. I'm just seeking to define your terms. I mean, there 25 are bigger fish in the pond, but it's pretty big, 1 1 Northern & Shell, isn't it? It would meet this 2 criterion? 3 A. Well, I've met their editors, I've met Richard Desmond, 4 I've met Paul Ashford, and I'm impressed with their 5 determination now to move ahead with the new body and to 6 make a fresh start. 7 Q. Have you had anything in writing -- 8 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: With great respect, Lord Hunt, that 9 doesn't actually answer Mr Jay's question. Mr Jay's 10 question was, I think, comparatively straightforward: do 11 you agree that Northern & Shell are big fish within the 12 terms that you seek to identify in paragraph 42 of your 13 statement? 14 A. Yes. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Thank you. 16 MR JAY: Have you had anything in writing from them on 17 Lord Black's proposal, in particular, whether all 18 aspects of that proposal are acceptable to 19 Northern & Shell? 20 A. I have seen a letter, just seen a letter, where 21 Northern & Shell express doubt as to whether the press 22 card solution is the right way forward. This echoes 23 something that -- someone I also respect, Dr Moore, had 24 made the point to me that any system of licensing or 25 press cards is something that he too would find 2 1 difficult to accept, but the letter from 2 Northern & Shell reiterated the point that they are 3 ready, willing to sign up to the new body. 4 Q. May I ask you, to whom was that letter addressed? 5 A. To the -- my recollection is it was to the Press Card 6 Authority. 7 Q. And its approximate date? 8 A. Last week. I don't have it with me, but I can arrange 9 for you to have a copy. 10 Q. Well, the Inquiry will have to consider that issue, but 11 of course if they don't sign up and the devil is in the 12 detail, then immediately the credibility of the new 13 system would have been fatally undermined. That must 14 follow, mustn't it? 15 A. Yes. Mr Jay, you've asked me whether a statute-backed 16 system might not achieve the same outcome as a voluntary 17 contract-based system. Well, the answer is yes, on 18 paper it might. But from day one, I believe it would be 19 a fundamentally different beast from the one I'm 20 proposing and I would turn the question around. Any 21 system founded in statute would be adversarial, and 22 I could expand on that as and when you would like me to 23 do so, but on balance I far prefer going down the 24 contractual route. 25 But as Dr Moore pointed out to me, the jury -- and 3 1 indeed if I'm allowed to add, also the judge -- is still 2 out on that issue. 3 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes, well, you're absolutely right 4 about that, but why would a system necessarily be 5 adversarial simply because it was underpinned by 6 statute? 7 A. Yes, it's the question of what does "underpinning" mean. 8 The system which would be based in statute would, I'm 9 sure, inevitably cost more. It would have to be funded 10 by the hard-pressed taxpayer, by complainants or by an 11 industry in decline. Its boundaries would be set. 12 No one would ever join it voluntarily so it could take 13 little or no account of rapid technological and social 14 change, and unlike the contract-based system which I'm 15 advocating, which could be up and running in a matter of 16 months, any statutory underpinning would take years. 17 I confidently predict that, and what in the meantime are 18 we to do? 19 MR JAY: May we look at those? Why would it inevitably cost 20 more? That would depend on what it did, wouldn't it? 21 A. I suppose I'm just giving you the benefit of my 36 years 22 in Parliament. I've never known a statute underestimate 23 the cost of any system it seeks to impose. I've no 24 need, I hope, to go into the Dangerous Dogs Act or the 25 Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act or indeed the Industrial 4 1 Relations Act, which was on the statute book when 2 I first entered politics. 3 There are numerous examples, whereas if I put 4 anything across, it is that I'm enthusiastic to proceed. 5 I think we have a wonderful opportunity to get this 6 system up and running, and my fellow commissioners on 7 the PCC have given me authority to say to this Inquiry: 8 if we receive a green light, we will immediately move to 9 set up the new body. 10 Q. In terms of funding, is there anything wrong in 11 principle with a system which has a mixture of state and 12 industry funding? 13 A. Yes, because as Ofcom has discovered, state funding is 14 always limited and usually cut. My greatest arguments 15 when I was a departmental minister were never with the 16 Opposition; they were always with the Treasury. 17 Q. If we're talking about a system which, on any view, 18 would cost less than £10 million a year, or, on your 19 calculation, significantly less than that, and the 20 funding pot were derived from a mixture of state funding 21 and industry funding, would there really be a debate 22 over quite small amounts of money? 23 A. I believe whenever a penny of public money is spent, 24 there comes into play a system of, quite rightly, 25 scrutinising the validity of every penny. Of course, 5 1 under corporate governance that should happen anyway, 2 but in corporate governance it does not require an 3 appearance before the public accounts committee and 4 indeed an accounting officer who can be subjected to 5 very close scrutiny. I just want the voluntary system 6 to move ahead by consensus, by agreement and by 7 contract, not requiring public subsidy. 8 Q. It might be said that public subsidy, or at least 9 a degree of such subsidy, is a virtue insofar as (a) it 10 contributes to the pot, and (b) insofar as there is 11 a public element, it is subject to public 12 accountability, if necessary before a committee in 13 Parliament, so that rigour is maintained over the level 14 of spending. Do you agree with that? 15 A. Most of it, yes. My concern, really, on behalf of the 16 taxpayer, so to speak, is to see some meat on the 17 arbitral arm, which is as yet unclear as to how that 18 would benefit the taxpayer by moving a system of 19 compensation away from court-dominated and 20 lawyer-dominated argument, and I personally find the way 21 the Calcutt privacy committee was looking at some form 22 of tribunal-based system -- and indeed a number of 23 commentators saying that there would be a senior figure 24 but flanked by a member of the public, an independent 25 person and by someone who represents the industry -- if 6 1 that could be done, I think that would justify the 2 taxpayer investing in such a scheme for the benefit of 3 the public, but at the moment I can't see that I could 4 persuade the taxpayer, and indeed the public, that they 5 should dip their hands in their pockets at this 6 particularly difficult time to find money to finance the 7 regulation of the press. 8 Q. You have a fundamental objection as well. You say: 9 "Any statutory system would be adversarial." 10 You may mean "confrontational". But might it be 11 said that that's the wrong characterisation? It would 12 be wholly independent, it would be wholly at arm's 13 length from the regulated entities, and although that 14 may create a degree of constructive tension, to use 15 someone else's phrase, that is desirable rather than 16 undesirable. Would you accept that? 17 A. Not -- not -- not really. I think it's up to others to 18 judge. Perhaps I'm too close to this subject, but I do 19 know that there are a number of Parliamentarians who are 20 intent on clipping the wings of the press, and we've 21 heard from a number of senior political figures at this 22 Inquiry. All of them have made it clear that they would 23 support statutory intervention against the press only 24 reluctantly and only as a last resort, which is why I'm 25 pleading for an opportunity to make progress now. 7 1 Q. But doesn't that statement, though, from 2 Parliamentarians who have testified -- and 3 ex-Parliamentarians -- indicate that they wouldn't in 4 fact clip the wings of the press if a statute were 5 introduced because they are so respectful of the 6 principle of freedom of the press? So doesn't that 7 point the other way? 8 A. Well, I do speak as a former deputy chief whip and I can 9 assure this Inquiry that there's nothing very edifying 10 or democratic about MPs voting for a measure that deep 11 down they believe to be wrong and ultimately 12 unnecessary. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, if that's right that they do 14 consider it ultimately unnecessary -- and of course, 15 ultimately, this whole issue will revert back to the 16 politicians. You say, "If we receive a green light, 17 we'll set up a new system"; I'm afraid I don't have 18 coloured lights in my armoury. I will provide a report 19 which will make a recommendation but it won't be my 20 decision, as I'm sure you appreciate. 21 A. I do appreciate, sir, but I do think you have an 22 unrivalled opportunity now to set the agenda. Whether 23 others will accept that agenda -- and I hope I can 24 influence you in what that agenda should be. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand. Just on the 8 1 adversarial side, isn't there some value to be obtained 2 from a system that is inquisitorial? In other words, 3 whether you have a mechanism that is resolving disputes, 4 it doesn't necessarily have to be adversarial; it can be 5 whoever is responsible for resolving the dispute, as it 6 were, taking up the cudgels, rather as these inquiries 7 or inquiries under the Inquiries Act have undertaken. 8 I'm not suggesting you want a system like this, but it's 9 a different process. 10 A. Yes. 11 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could that work? 12 A. I just -- my basic premise is that I believe the 13 sensible approach would be to avoid all government 14 involvement in this process. That's my instinctive 15 reaction but I recognise there are others who will come 16 to a different conclusion. But I certainly don't like 17 the idea of setting up what, in effect, would be 18 censorship and licensing powers over a constituent part 19 of the press to a body vested with responsibilities for 20 the whole of the press. There are a number of elements 21 here which I find very difficult to absorb at a time 22 when I see the way ahead so clearly. 23 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, I hope I've made it clear that 24 I have absolutely no truck with anything that's going to 25 lead to censorship. That I don't mind revealing 9 1 immediately. I think I've said it many times. Yes? 2 MR JAY: I must say, juridically, Lord Hunt, I have 3 difficulty with even grasping your fear. If the 4 statutes -- and it would be in the primary 5 legislation -- said in terms that the regulator would 6 expressly have no role over matters of taste, decency 7 and editorial content, save as expressly provided for, 8 and that would be specifically in the areas of 9 correcting inaccuracy, dealing with harassment and 10 intrusions into privacy, then this wouldn't be 11 censorship; it would be merely doing that which your 12 contractual system aims to do in any event. I don't 13 even see how the concern can sensibly be articulated, 14 with respect. Do you see my slight frustration on this? 15 It's tilting at a windmill, frankly, which simply 16 doesn't exist, with respect. 17 A. I certainly don't want to be quixotically chivalrous, 18 but I think you have in fact answered your own question 19 because you raised so many issues in the question. 20 Taste and decency are not part of the regulatory process 21 that I'm envisaging. Certainly editorial content 22 vis-a-vis the editorial code is a key feature of any 23 cultural change that needs to take place, but it doesn't 24 need a statute to back it up. Do we really need a press 25 law to highlight the need for a cultural change, 10 1 which -- I find everyone to whom I've spoken accepts the 2 need for that cultural change. 3 Q. Okay, if you forgive me, I'm going to move on from that 4 point. But would you agree with this point: that if, 5 for the sake of argument, this Inquiry were to recommend 6 some form of contractual solution, Lord Hunt, but before 7 that moment publishers have not signed up to the system 8 because they might be awaiting the outcome of this 9 Inquiry and its report, isn't there then a danger that 10 the more difficult members of the constituency, as it 11 were, would say, "We're not going to sign up to 12 Lord Black's proposal as currently constituted; we're 13 going to sign up to a weaker version, a softer version", 14 and at that point there would be nothing anyone could do 15 about it. Would you agree? 16 A. Well, there's always opportunity to do something about 17 it. The only time you can't do anything is what you've 18 got a law, a statute, on the statute book, which is 19 completely inflexible. 20 But if I may for a moment take the Irish Press 21 Council as an example, that was set up before the 22 Defamation Act. Is there any reason why we shouldn't 23 now proceed to set up this new body? I'm just at a loss 24 to understand why we can't make progress but I'm only 25 here to make a proposal, not to make decisions. 11 1 Q. But I think you're saying, Lord Hunt, that in fact the 2 publishers are almost pen poised, ready, willing and 3 able to sign up almost tomorrow the current version of 4 the Lord Black proposal. Is that your understanding? 5 A. Yes, but the problems are caused by -- am I allowed to 6 say "the lawyers"? Who may well say, "Before you sign, 7 you need a bit more detail on this or a bit more detail 8 on that." The publishers that I've met just want to get 9 on with it. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Problems with lawyers. Yes? 11 MR JAY: Paragraph 46 now of your statement, Lord Hunt. Our 12 page 00813. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You plead: 15 "The new regulator must invest significantly in 16 improving the mediation service it offers." 17 To what extent is this investment covered by 18 Lord Black's proposal and the proposed budget for a new 19 model? We had the figures yesterday: 1.95 million for 20 the PCC as is, 2.25 plus an enforcement fund for the new 21 regulator as will be. Is there enough money for this 22 significant investment you're referring to? 23 A. Yes. May I add to what I said yesterday? I was asked 24 how many complaints had been resolved since I was last 25 here and I gave the figure of 260. I was asked whether 12 1 that was to the satisfaction of the complainant and I'm 2 told by my colleagues in the Press Complaints Commission 3 that 77 per cent of complainants have returned forms 4 saying they're very satisfied. But I should point out 5 that during that period we have actually received 2,900 6 complaints and issued 1,011 rulings, and also pointed 7 out, particularly to those who want to object to the 8 postman delivering the newspapers, that certain 9 complaints fall outside our remit. But I'm not sure 10 there is a depth of understanding of the valuable work 11 still being done by the Press Complaints Commission 12 that -- my eight staff have said to me they would be 13 very happy if anybody wished to visit the Commission to 14 see how this ongoing work is proving to be so 15 successful. 16 But of course we can invest more in mediation, and 17 that's very much their wish, as long as -- and they are 18 united on this -- please don't extend compensation as 19 one of the options, because that would get in the way of 20 mediation. 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I just understand the numbers 22 and what the number 260 means or whether it was just an 23 error. When you say you've issued 1,011 rulings or 24 2,900 complaints received and you've had 77 per cent of 25 complainants who have returned forms saying they're 13 1 satisfied, is that 77 per cent of 1,000, 77 per cent of 2 3,000? What are we talking about? 3 A. No, it's 77 per cent of the 260. The 1,011 rulings will 4 include decisions where there's no breach of the code, 5 where there is a breach of the code, where matters 6 proceed to adjudication. If I erred, it was in 7 answering the question, which I thought was: how many 8 complaints have been resolved? 9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. Well, I'll consider 10 whether it's appropriate to visit the PCC. At the very 11 beginning of this exercise -- it seems a very long time 12 ago -- I did visit a number of newsrooms and I'll think 13 about that. Thank you. 14 MR JAY: Can I ask you about one aspect of the Irish system, 15 which you touch on in paragraphs 47 to 49 of your 16 statement, page 00814. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. This is a point of principle, really. In the Irish 19 statute, which is the defamation bill 2009: 20 "The court may take into account, amongst other 21 things, the extent to which the person adhered to the 22 codes of standards of the Press Council and abided by 23 determinations of the press ombudsman and determinations 24 of the Press Council." 25 So, in other words, someone who signed up to the 14 1 regulatory system may well be in a better position than 2 someone who's not; is that right? 3 A. Why correct, yes. 4 Q. But the point of principle is this, I suppose: why, in 5 a defamation case, should a responsible publisher be 6 treated differently depending on whether he or she or it 7 was or was not a member of the relevant Press Council? 8 A. I think there are a number of questions relating to the 9 Irish model, and I did my best to seek to understand any 10 questions in my mind when I went to Dublin. I don't 11 believe the Irish model would work as a sufficient 12 incentive. Self-regulation should, in my view, be 13 a sufficient incentive, but nonetheless, all the big 14 players have signed up, and so this model can work and 15 there are benefits which could read across, which 16 I think could be justified, such as linking 17 a Reynolds-style defence to membership of a recognised 18 regulatory structure. I don't see any unfairness in 19 that. It is a recognition that that is the right thing 20 to do. 21 Q. I suppose my point is that, judged objectively, the 22 behaviour of the non-regulated person is exactly the 23 same as the behaviour of the regulated person, but the 24 regulated person has an additional advantage in relation 25 to a defence which it can deploy in court proceedings, 15 1 but if there is no objective difference between the 2 behaviour of person A, who is regulated, and person B, 3 who is not regulated, why is the former in a better 4 position? 5 A. Because there is a behaviour one wishes to encourage, 6 and that behaviour is to subscribe to an ethical code, 7 to a code which is clearly laid out, and relates to 8 every part of the actions of the publisher, so isn't it 9 a good way forward to encourage everyone to sign up? 10 Which is really back to my contract-based solution. 11 Q. I suppose the justification may be one of two things. 12 Either it could be said as a matter of principle: 13 because the person has signed up to a code, although its 14 behaviour in the individual case may be exactly the same 15 as the non-regulated person's behaviour, it's 16 demonstrated a commitment to a standard of ethical 17 comportment, which requires recognition. I suppose that 18 may be one justification. 19 The other may be a purely pragmatic one: that you 20 want people to join the system, and rightly or wrongly, 21 this is one carrot which entices people so to join. 22 Would that accurately summarise the issue, do you think? 23 A. I think it demonstrates that there is a very strong case 24 for a significantly greater alternative dispute 25 resolution offering within the regulatory structure, 16 1 whether it's arbitration or mediation, and that was the 2 main conclusion I came away with from Dublin, but there 3 is no direct read across, and much will depend on the 4 Defamation Act next year when it finally emerges. 5 Q. If we look at one other possible carrot or stick, 6 however you want to characterise it. Paragraph 50 of 7 your statement, 00815. When you say that "the question 8 of whether or not a publication has signed up might also 9 be taken into account by the courts when making awards", 10 you're referring to awards of damages. Do you have in 11 mind the ability to award exemplary damages if you're 12 not a signed-up person? Or what do you have in mind 13 there? 14 A. I think this is not an area where please rely on my 15 expertise, but all I'm really making the point here is 16 that I think this is an additional method of taking into 17 account good behaviour. No doubt we may come on to my 18 concept that there should be a badge or kite mark 19 associated with those publications online and in the 20 press who subscribe to the code. 21 Q. So paragraph 51 is really a marker? You're asking us to 22 think about the detail? 23 A. 51 or 50? 24 Q. 50, pardon me. 25 A. Yes, it's a suggestion, but -- 17 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: It's been suggested that when 2 I raised this question that I'm seeking to punish those 3 who aren't in a system. That's not the purpose at all, 4 and one has to be very careful that somebody who is 5 libelled or whose privacy is invaded is just -- has been 6 just as libelled and their privacy has just as much been 7 invaded whether it's been by a good publisher or by a 8 "bad publisher". The issue that I was raising -- and if 9 you have any comment, I'd be very interested to receive 10 it -- was whether one couldn't say that it was relevant 11 to the assessment of culpability for the purposes of 12 damages that a publisher did have a system of checks and 13 balances internally for the way in which they decided 14 what stories to publish and could demonstrate that they 15 had such a system, one way of which being that they were 16 part of a regulated regime. Not necessarily the only 17 way, but the easiest way. 18 A. Yes, I agree with every word you've just said. 19 I wouldn't want to divert you into any other route than 20 finding a way of recognising good behaviour but 21 certainly I would not want to influence judicial opinion 22 on what constitutes a libel or slander or an unjustified 23 invasion of privacy. But I'm hoping that the system 24 which I'm seeking to set in place would mean 25 a substantial reduction in those cases. 18 1 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: But the snag with the system that 2 you've suggested is that it's quite difficult to see how 3 the law could take account of what was simply a private 4 arrangement between members of the press. That's the 5 issue. There has to be some touchstone which the law 6 can recognise. 7 A. Yes. I agree. That is really what I would very much 8 want to see, that touchstone recognised by the law. 9 MR JAY: You say that, don't you, towards the end of 10 paragraph 49. You would like to see recognition in the 11 statute, but there is a fundamental difference of 12 principle between recognition and creation? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. We're not going to go back into the philosophical 15 debate. We've flogged that one. May we move on, 16 though, to pick up a point which you raised in relation 17 to the badge system? It's paragraph 53 of your 18 statement. It's a form of kite mark, I suppose. People 19 wear it with pride. May I ask you, please, to explain 20 why you think that would be an advantage? 21 A. I've just had a very productive meeting with 22 representatives from the BSI, and I found there that we 23 were discussing the same agenda and I certainly believe 24 a proposed badge would be crucially important, greatly 25 increasing the credibility and visibility of the system 19 1 and restoring public confidence as well as promoting 2 accountability in the industry. Adherence to the new 3 regulator just really has to be demonstrated much more 4 visibly -- with much more visibility than it is at the 5 present time. 6 Q. Wouldn't some publications almost wear the absence of 7 the badge as an insignia of pride, if I can put it in 8 those terms, that they are metaphorically cocking 9 a snook at the system and saying, "We aren't signed up 10 to this, it's an old boy's network" -- or whatever 11 disparaging term they choose to deploy -- "Read us 12 because we are outside the system"? Isn't there that 13 risk? 14 A. Yes. It doesn't mean we change our minds about how the 15 system should be fashioned, because in my experience 16 there are always those who wish to make a feature of the 17 fact that they do not subscribe. 18 Q. Looking at the public as a whole, is it your view that 19 the public would be more likely to read or want to read 20 the badged publication as opposed to the unbadged 21 publication? 22 A. I would want to encourage that. 23 Q. I'm sure, but would they? 24 A. One thing which I had been contemplating is that at some 25 stage we ought to have a public consultation, but I felt 20 1 that to do anything in that direction would be wrong 2 pending the result of this Inquiry. But certainly my 3 experience in meeting people is that there are very few 4 I've met who would say that they would prefer to read 5 a publication which had no badge of respectability, 6 accuracy or adherence to the Editors' Code. But they 7 exist, I'm sure. 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. But not in huge numbers. 10 Q. Well, I'm sure some publications would take a pride in 11 it and it's possible even to name one or two, but I am 12 not going to now. We all have in mind one in 13 particular, but let's move on. 14 A. Well, Shrewsbury School has produced a lot of good 15 papers. The magazine to which you might be referring is 16 just one of them. 17 Q. May I move on now, please, to paragraph 62 of your 18 statement, Lord Hunt, at page 00818. You're dealing 19 with the Editors' Code. You make the perfectly fair 20 point -- and others have picked up on this and will 21 elaborate it next Monday -- that: 22 "Much of the language of or in the code is negative, 23 detailing what journalists must not do." 24 And you believe the regulator must do yet more 25 positively to promote recommended practice across the 21 1 industry. So are you saying that the code could be 2 improved not merely to identify that which is bad but to 3 accentuate that which is good? 4 A. Yes. This was very much a feature of the work that 5 Sir Ian Kennedy did with the General Medical Council and 6 indeed the Law Society has done: concentrate on what 7 makes a good doctor or a good solicitor, rather than 8 seeking to identify the features of someone who could be 9 described as a bad doctor or bad solicitor. I would 10 like to see much more positive emphasis in the code. 11 Q. Do you feel that a Code Committee, however designated, 12 substantially comprised of editors, would achieve that 13 aspiration? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And why do you say that? 16 A. Well, I have attended meetings of the Code Committee and 17 I'm impressed by their determination to set the gold 18 standard, to set a code which everyone can subscribe to 19 and which can justify the preamble, which is part of the 20 code, that all members of the press have a duty to 21 maintain the highest professional standards. 22 Q. These are all statements of aspiration. Have you 23 explained, though, your idea to editors, that that which 24 is necessary is not merely the denigration of the bad 25 but the upholding of the good? Have you grappled with 22 1 this particular point? If so, what has been editorial 2 reaction to it? 3 A. Well, I have discussed it with a number of editors who 4 do not seek to contradict, but I'd be unfair on them if 5 I didn't say they felt there were other priorities. 6 Q. Another point you make is the expectation that editors 7 on this committee will leave their baggage at the door, 8 as it were, if I've correctly summarised what you -- 9 it's not quite how you put it, to be fair to you. It's 10 paragraph 68. You say: 11 "They must undertake to divest themselves of all 12 sectional and/or special interests and considerations in 13 their work for the regulator." 14 That, of course, has been the position to date, 15 hasn't it? 16 A. We're not talking about the Code Committee any more; 17 we're now talking about the complaints and mediation 18 arm? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. But it applies equally to the Code Committee, doesn't 22 it, the same principle? 23 A. Yes, I think that in the handling of complaints and 24 mediation, that is where I can testify that I find the 25 contribution of the editors in dealing with each and 23 1 every complaint which has been adjudicated on where 2 I have been in the chair -- the contribution is 3 exceedingly valuable and you cannot predict, because of 4 their background, where they will be coming from, nor 5 indeed where they feel that the adjudication should go, 6 and I am very impressed with their contribution. 7 May I just point out that the majority of the 8 editors on the Commission represent not only local and 9 regional press, press outside London, but also magazines 10 and agencies, so there is a broad spread. As we dealt 11 yesterday with the numbers of editors, there are huge 12 numbers of editors now, and indeed one argument, if 13 you're coming on to other suggestions as to how we 14 proceed -- just to take in isolation what is referred to 15 sometimes as a London-centric problem is to 16 misunderstand the nature. About 50 per cent -- 17 45 per cent, 50 per cent -- of all the complaints we 18 receive are against local or regional newspapers and 19 magazines. 20 My head of complaints reminded me that often local 21 and regional newspapers will go down the road of 22 identifying victims of sexual-oriented crime -- perhaps 23 sometimes that is the essence of the complaint of the 24 member of the public -- and identifying addresses. 25 That's always quite a key part of our work. So 24 1 I wouldn't want to try and put across that we are just 2 dealing with problems amongst larger newspapers in 3 isolation. 4 Q. Thank you. 5 Moving forward through your statement, paragraph 77, 6 when you talk about -- this is our page 00823: 7 "All regulated publishers will be expected to put in 8 place effective internal compliance procedures. There 9 should be a named senior member of staff responsible for 10 overseeing standards within each publisher." 11 How do you believe that that will be brought about, 12 Lord Hunt? 13 A. Initially by agreement -- and some have taken this step 14 already -- but certainly it should be a matter for the 15 contract and for the regulator, and we would want 16 a requirement to provide accurate, comprehensive 17 information reporting on the internal compliance and 18 complaints-handling mechanism. 19 Q. In your discussions with publishers, have many or most 20 of them accepted that there are issues, problems in 21 relation to the culture, practices and ethics of the 22 press which this Inquiry has demonstrated and/or 23 otherwise been established to their satisfaction? Or 24 are many or most of them saying that these are isolated 25 matters which really have been overstated, overblown by, 25 1 for example, this Inquiry? 2 A. I think there's a ready acceptance that there is 3 a perception that the culture, ethics and practices of 4 the press need to be improved. The publishers I meet 5 accept that perception and want to do something about 6 it. 7 Again, I mustn't go too far back, but when I had the 8 responsibility of setting up the Nolan Inquiry into 9 conduct in public life, I remember Michael Nolan 10 reminded the world that it was the perception that was 11 the problem, not the actual bad behaviour, and I think 12 the same is present today. 13 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Well, it's not merely the perception. 14 Whatever might have been the position in relation to 15 Lord Nolan, there's certainly a fair amount of evidence 16 I've heard which suggests that this perception is 17 entirely well grounded. 18 A. Yes, I think that my example would be to exclude any 19 criminal activities, any activities which are directly 20 contrary to the law, in particular the criminal law, but 21 I was with Mr Jay referring to the perception that 22 there's something wider and deeper in the culture, 23 ethics and practices of the press, which I don't think 24 is justified, but that perception has to be tackled. 25 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could I take you down a slight 26 1 tangent in relation to the criminal law? Would you 2 agree that it isn't entirely satisfactory simply to say, 3 "Well, if an offence has been committed, that's a matter 4 for the police and nobody should be concerned with 5 that"? 6 A. I strongly agree. I'm enthusiastic to see the Editors' 7 Code becoming very much part and parcel of the ethical 8 code which governs the whole industry, and I think here 9 we have a very good start, and therefore any -- and 10 I know there are disagreements about whether journalism 11 is a profession or an industry or a trade. Whatever it 12 is, those journalists I meet want to subscribe to the 13 highest possible professional standards and are 14 embarrassed by the fact that those standards are not 15 observed by what I would refer to as a small minority. 16 But that gives rise to the perception which I think 17 Mr Jay was asking me about. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. Sorry to go down a side road. 19 MR JAY: May I move forward to what you say in relation to 20 whistle-blowing, paragraph 92. Each regulated 21 publisher, you say, should be required by the new 22 regulator to provide an externally run whistle-blowing 23 service for all employees, but this would require 24 prescription under the terms of the PIDA, so it would be 25 some form of statutory underpinning but by secondary 27 1 legislation of a regulator which had already been 2 created by agreement. Have I correctly understood it? 3 A. I want anyone who feels that the code is not being 4 observed, that they are being asked to do something 5 contrary to the code as well as the criminal law, that 6 there should be the opportunity to communicate on 7 a strictly private and confidential basis with the 8 regulator to share the problem. But equally, I would 9 hope that the industry had provided that individual with 10 a mechanism within the organisation to do that first. 11 Q. On a related theme, may I go back to a point which was 12 touched on yesterday, that when one is looking at press 13 representation, either in the trust board or in the Code 14 Committee or in the complaints body, one is looking 15 always, on Lord Black's model and your proposal as well, 16 at editors. There's an absence of any reference to 17 journalists. You say, I think, journalists can come in 18 through the lay representations provisions, but isn't 19 it, as a matter of principle, desirable that there 20 should be representation of journalists, possibly on the 21 board but certainly in the complaints-handling wing of 22 the regulator and also in the Code Committee wing of the 23 regulator? 24 A. Yes, I have had representations from the Chartered 25 Institute of Journalists and the National Union of 28 1 Journalists that there should be more representation and 2 that's certainly something the industry should consider, 3 but I wouldn't want to dictate how they should respond 4 to that request. 5 Q. At the moment, we see from Lord Black's proposal that 6 consideration has already been made to that possibility 7 and journalists are not going to be represented; it's 8 only going to be editors. Shouldn't there be 9 a mandatory requirement that we see the largest group of 10 journalists, which I understand to be the NUJ, clearly 11 represented on not the trust body -- but that could be 12 open for debate -- but the Code Committee and the 13 complaints-handling wing? That would offer a fresh and 14 a different perspective, perhaps, from that which we 15 would see from editors, wouldn't it? 16 A. I find it very difficult to answer this question because 17 I'm seeking to retain my independence from the industry 18 response. But I did set out, right at the start, in 19 that document I presented to a range of people, not just 20 editors but over 50 people representing the industry. 21 I did hallmark editors as key, and I think editors are 22 key. The extent to which other sections of the industry 23 are represented I think must be a matter for the 24 industry, and I realise that there are areas of 25 divergence between Lord Black's proposal and my 29 1 proposal, but that's for others to judge, and I do 2 include this whistle-blowing as a possible trigger for 3 a standards investigation, whereas I see that's not -- 4 and there are other -- I also believe critical 5 adjudications should be flagged on the front page. 6 What I don't want you to feel is that I'm just 7 accepting whatever the industry comes forward with, but 8 I do think editors are key and they set the standards 9 and they set the ethical code and that's where I think 10 the very foundation of the new structure that I'm 11 proposing must be based. 12 Q. But you've only spoken really to proprietors and 13 editors. You defined your own terms by saying the 14 editors are the key, but journalists would say, "Well, 15 we are the keys, and there are many more of us than 16 editors." You've created a system which is 17 self-defining, self-limiting, and really 18 establishment-minded, haven't you? Isn't it essential 19 that you burst it open, not to have the majority of 20 journalists -- I'm not suggesting that; others might, 21 however -- but to have some mandatory representation by 22 journalists, really to shake the cage, which is what 23 this industry arguably needs, Lord Hunt; isn't that 24 fair? 25 A. Well, I think anyone who's had my experience with 30 1 journalists would know that journalists feature right at 2 the heart of my career and my experience. It's only on 3 very rare occasions that I have the opportunity to talk 4 to editors. Most of my discussions have taken place 5 with journalists, and indeed the National Union of 6 Journalists laid on a public meeting, which I attended, 7 which I found to be one of the most useful meetings, 8 mainly because it came on at the time I was seeing 9 Chris Jefferies and talking through with him how we are 10 going to resolve matters. 11 Please don't feel that I am overinfluenced by 12 editors, but they are the leaders and they are widely 13 respected within their publications, and often, sadly 14 because of the decline of the industry, they remain the 15 main individuals who are responsible for editorial 16 content in the local and regional press. 17 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I understand that, but could I just 18 pick you up on something you said just a moment ago? 19 You made it clear that you're not necessarily just 20 accepting whatever the industry comes forward with, and 21 that, of course, is an important mark of independence, 22 not just for independence sake but because you're 23 bringing a fresh mind to it. But doesn't that mean that 24 your observation in the same answer, that the extent to 25 which other sections of the industry are represented 31 1 must be a matter for the industry, doesn't really work? 2 Aren't you able to say, "Well, actually, I want an 3 independent operation, I'm going to be independent, and 4 I think it needs this, that and the other"? 5 A. I agree. 6 MR JAY: Well, there's a mismatch then between what 7 Lord Justice Leveson was putting to you and your 8 position. If it's a matter for the industry, one ends 9 up with a system which principally they want but of 10 course they'll understand that they have to move 11 a certain distance to arguably a more liberal position, 12 otherwise they face the clashing of the sword of 13 Damocles on their heads. But if you have a system which 14 the public want or might meet a more objective standard 15 of desirability, then you need some other entity to 16 create that and we're back to our statute, aren't we? 17 A. Oh no, I don't think we're back to the statute, but 18 I recognise that all these points are right at the heart 19 of what I'm soaking to propose, that the new body, the 20 fresh start, should be seen as just that. It's not 21 a PCC2 or PCC Plus. It is a new body and it does have 22 to be staffed, manned and worked by an amalgam of the 23 best possible independent people, chosen and appointed 24 by a widely recognised, completely independent process, 25 and representatives of the industry who are clearly seen 32 1 as such and represent all the best parts of the 2 industry, and I detect, certainly from the Society of 3 Editors, that they feel there is widespread support for 4 what is proposed by Lord Black. I just keep repeating, 5 perhaps too often, that the industry has come a very 6 long way. 7 When I had my meetings with journalists -- and one 8 of the main editors asked me to meet all his 9 journalists -- at what is known as quite a testing time 10 for any individual -- and it's a great privilege to be 11 asked to speak to all the journalists. I did that. The 12 main problem they identified was that it was very 13 difficult to visualise a new body which would seek to 14 regulate such a diverse industry as the full newspaper 15 and magazine industry. But no one said, "Don't try", 16 but everyone's aware that it's going to be a difficult 17 and challenging process. 18 Q. Can we look at the complaints function of the new 19 regulator. You make it clear, Lord Hunt, in 20 paragraph 101 of your statement that in your view, the 21 existing complaints function of the PCC is very 22 effective, from which starting point I suppose is might 23 be said that very little needs to be done to the current 24 complaints system to make it entirely fit for purpose; 25 is that right? 33 1 A. Well, I feel strongly that the complaints should be 2 directed at the newspaper first. I've had some very 3 fruitful discussions with publishers on that point. Of 4 course people who are aggrieved should have an immediate 5 point of contact and the newspaper or magazines should 6 alert them to the direct telephone number, the direct 7 email address to which an aggrieved person, even before 8 a story has appeared but after a reporter or 9 a photographer had been involved -- they should have the 10 opportunity of getting straight through, and I think 11 that would be a major improvement. 12 At the moment, although it's -- important people 13 should still have the option to come to the regulator 14 first if they want to, that is at the moment the present 15 position. I do believe that as publications improve 16 their internal systems, perhaps appointing readers 17 editors, publicising contact details more effectively, 18 encouraging feedback and so on, that will encourage 19 readers and publications to build constructive 20 relationships directly. 21 Q. In terms of what the new regulator would be doing, you 22 describe what the PCC currently does at paragraph 104 as 23 a process of brokered or proxy negotiation, not 24 mediation. Do you see that? 25 A. Yes. 34 1 Q. Is that what you think should happen under the new 2 system? 3 A. Well, I -- face-to-face mediation, for example, at the 4 PCC is very rare. I think it is a process that has 5 brought some notable successes in the past and I think 6 it would be very valuable for the new body to develop 7 that work further, and I think there are a number of 8 ideas of that nature which I would want to see take 9 place. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Is this brokered or proxy negotiation 11 driven by the person from the PCC who is operating it or 12 is it simply a postbox? I don't mean that term too 13 derisively, but I am concerned that individuals who 14 complain do not have the knowledge, the understanding, 15 the background to take on a newspaper that is well used 16 to this sort of problem, and therefore may rather more 17 easily be -- I was going to say "fobbed off", but let me 18 be more polite -- be more prepared to accept a solution 19 where somebody who understood what had gone on would 20 say, "No, that's not good enough." I'm just keen to 21 know whether the PCC sees itself as passing the 22 complaint on and making sure there is communication, or 23 whether it sees itself also as advising a person who is 24 complaining about how far they can and perhaps should go 25 in relation to a particular complaint. 35 1 A. Well, sir, I think you would find, if you were to sit 2 with our team who answer the telephone, that they do 3 guide, they do help, they do advise as to the best way 4 forward, and they do refer a complaint to the 5 publication and do so with the necessary background 6 expertise. But I have found in my visits particularly 7 to local and regional press that they would far prefer 8 the individual to have telephoned them first, 9 particularly in cases of clear inaccuracy. I've heard 10 from those local and regional press: "Please, just tell 11 us and we'll sort it and we'll sort it quickly." 12 There is now this culture, which has improved beyond 13 measure, of a willingness to try and rectify any 14 immediate problems straight away, and therefore there is 15 no need for the public to be diverted via the PCC. 16 There should be a far better system of complaints 17 handling within the publication. 18 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I agree with that as well but that's 19 not quite what I was trying to drive at. 20 A. Please, if I haven't -- 21 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: My point is that the independent 22 member of the public simply won't know what he or she 23 can do, what it is appropriate to accept or not accept, 24 and so, for example, may accept that the publication 25 of -- I'll give an example that's been given in the 36 1 Inquiry -- a one inch by one inch comment on 2 page whatever it is actually is sufficient, whereas 3 anybody who understands what's happening and the nature 4 of the error that's made would be saying, "Actually, 5 I think you should be insisting on rather more than 6 that." 7 A. Yes, and where that -- as I understand it, that is 8 precisely the sort of advice that is given when somebody 9 contacts the PCC, but I do know that our highly 10 qualified staff would want there to be, alongside them, 11 a standards and compliance arm which is learning from 12 every case, and indeed setting standards which mean that 13 there will be a substantial reduction in the number of 14 complaints because the errors won't occur in the first 15 place. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 17 MR JAY: I just want to understand, Lord Hunt, how you see 18 one other important issue being resolved under the new 19 system. This is the point about prominence of 20 corrections and apologies, paragraph 110 of your 21 statement. Basically, you feel that there isn't a great 22 problem with the present system and four lines down, 23 your preference is therefore for the contract to allow 24 for the right of the regulator to dictate prominence of 25 any correction if and only if there's failure to 37 1 agree -- that's between the complainant and the 2 publisher, of course -- or a publication reneges on such 3 an agreement. But why shouldn't the regulator always 4 have power to dictates where a correction or apology -- 5 or an adjudication even -- should go in a newspaper? 6 Why should it be the first port of call for the parties 7 to agree? 8 A. I think that, to my mind, is the sensible way forward. 9 Demanding equal prominence in all instances is just 10 simply too prescriptive and the emphasis is the 11 prominence must be reasonable but it must be to the 12 freely expressed satisfaction of the individual and/or 13 organisation adversely affected by the original story. 14 But a critical adjudication is a different matter. 15 I think that's a meaningful and highly visible sanction 16 in a competitive industry. I don't think anyone likes 17 to have to publicise to their readers and rivals that 18 they've been caught asleep at the wheel, and I think 19 therefore my view is that there is a case for all 20 critical adjudications to be flagged up on the front 21 page or home page of the publication concerned. I think 22 that would increase the effectiveness of the 23 adjudications and the awareness of the new regulatory 24 system. 25 Q. Your starting point always, if I may say so, Mr Hunt, is 38 1 what might be acceptable to the publishers. After all, 2 they're buying into this system. Why shouldn't it be: 3 it's always for the regulator to decide; who cares what 4 the publisher thinks? If the regulator publishes an 5 adjudication, it says, "You publish this on a particular 6 page, there's no argument about it", and if a complaint 7 is made and something less than an adjudication arises, 8 again, it's for the regulator to decide. 9 Why are we giving such weight to the feelings, the 10 view of the publisher at every stage? 11 A. I thought I said prominence must be reasonable and it 12 must be to the freely expressed satisfaction of the 13 individual and/or organisation adversely affected by the 14 original story. That's the hallmark of the way in which 15 complaints are handled. 16 Q. But it may be the hallmark of good regulation that the 17 upshot is not to the freely expressed satisfaction of 18 the regulated person. It may be deeply disappointing to 19 the regulated person, but the regulated person has to do 20 as its told. That's the advantage of a truly 21 independent system where the regulator is at arm's 22 length from the regulated entity and moreover can wholly 23 dictate what the regulated entity has to do. But your 24 system always has a tinge of what the regulated entity 25 might want, because you're using terms like "freely 39 1 expressed satisfaction". What's their satisfaction got 2 to do with it? 3 A. Freely expressed satisfaction of the public? 4 Q. No, of the regulated -- 5 A. My words were: 6 "Prominence must be reasonable and it must be to the 7 freely expressed satisfaction of the individual and/or 8 organisation adversely affected by the original story." 9 Q. So the publisher is not within this -- 10 A. No, it's what the individual and/or organisation wants 11 who are adversely affected by the original story. And 12 I realise that there is some divergence from what the 13 industry is suggesting, particularly so far as critical 14 adjudications are concerned. I want those to be flagged 15 up on the front page and I think that is what the public 16 would want. 17 Q. Mm. 18 A. So it's always a balance. I think the whole system I'm 19 suggesting is constantly trying to balance, but it is 20 a system that is so far untried and untested, 21 I recognise that. 22 Q. I'm not sure all your ideas have been reflected in 23 Lord Black's proposal, have they, in terms of -- 24 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I think Lord Hunt has said in terms 25 they haven't been, but that's where we are. 40 1 MR JAY: Thank you. Moving forward, the issue of 2 third-party or group complaints. Paragraph 115 and 3 following, particularly paragraph 117. What exactly is 4 your proposal here, Lord Hunt? 5 A. On third-party complaints? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. Well, the PCC's policy on dealing with third-party 8 complaints has evolved over time and I think the true 9 position is often misunderstood. As I set out in the 10 submission, our first-party rule is not substantially 11 different from the rules on standing promulgated by all 12 tribunals. The PCC does generally take forward 13 complaints about matters of fact for which there is no 14 first party or for which the information needed to reach 15 a determination is already in the public domain. 16 Now, in circumstances where there is an individual 17 involved and that individual has not complained 18 or perhaps pursuing an investigation or negotiating 19 a remedy could be potentially intrusive to that person 20 or impose other difficulties, complainants are now 21 offered the opportunity to argue that there is an 22 exceptional public interest, meaning the Commission 23 should take forward an independent, own volition 24 investigation. 25 In practice, the PCC rarely chooses to proceed in 41 1 such cases but I think the current position is sensible. 2 But I think the new regulator, the new body, should 3 clarify the policy and make an increasing effort to 4 communicate it effectively. That's what I'm suggesting. 5 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I'm sure you've had the opportunity 6 to see the evidence I've heard. I've heard from 7 immigrant groups, from transgender groups, from other 8 groups, and indeed I'm pressed to hear from disabled 9 groups, but it's the same point and I recognise it very, 10 very clearly: that they feel that there is simply no 11 mechanism through the PCC whereby they can get redress 12 for what are considered to be egregious distortions of 13 fact and unbalanced stories. 14 Of course, one has to allow for freedom of 15 expression but there is some way between freedom of 16 expression on the one hand, simply so expressed, and the 17 type of complaint that you will have seen I have heard, 18 and in respect of which there are many other submissions 19 that I have received. 20 A. Yes. The notion of group complaints is a tricky one, 21 I accept that, and there's a delicate balance we have to 22 try and achieve because it wouldn't be in the public 23 interest to open up the possibility of allowing the code 24 to be systematically abused by those whose principal or 25 sole aim is to restrict freedom of expression. But 42 1 having now held many meetings with individuals and 2 organisations from all sections, including several who 3 have given evidence to this Inquiry -- I know that many 4 people are concerned that clause 12 of the code, 5 discrimination, relates only to individuals, but I think 6 we've already within the PCC taken a more flexible 7 position than many people would recognise. 8 Of course, much of the problem can be addressed by 9 means of clause 1, where a first party is not necessary, 10 but I believe that when a body of evidence has mounted 11 suggesting that any publication has been engaged in 12 repeated or systematic vilification of any vulnerable 13 group, the new standards arm might well have a role in 14 publishing clear guidance. I accept that. 15 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Yes. 16 MR JAY: So you're really arguing for the maintenance of the 17 status quo, save that the new standards arm may have 18 a role if it thinks the problem is systemic; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes, a clear pattern of complaints might reasonably be 21 taken as possible evidence of a systemic breakdown in 22 standards, and the regulator could regard this as 23 a sufficiently serious issue of public interest to 24 justify a pre-investigation by the standards arm, and 25 the complaints arm would draw any such pattern of 43 1 complaints to the attention of the standards arm where 2 appropriate. 3 Q. At the end of the five years of your commercial 4 contractual regime, Lord Hunt, what's to stop the 5 industry en masse agreeing to new contracts which are 6 much less stringent? 7 A. Well, I have already made it clear to those who are 8 looking at the contractual terms that I never really 9 liked the idea of five years. I want a binding 10 contract. I'm told, however, to take a period of five 11 years would be a sensible way forward, but I would add 12 the word "rolling", so there is always a five-year 13 commitment. But as I understand it at the moment, no 14 further work is being done in developing the contracts 15 pending the result of this Inquiry, which is a very fair 16 position for the industry to take, but I'm just keen to 17 get on with this. 18 Q. Yes, whatever you get on with, though, Lord Hunt, would 19 have to be for a fixed-term because that's the legal 20 advice that Lord Black has received, and it's correct 21 advice. You can't have a contract which is indefinite 22 or indeterminate. At the end of the fixed-term, there's 23 nothing, is there, to stop the industry en masse getting 24 together and agreeing a less stringent regime, is there? 25 A. Well, I understand the very best brains are being 44 1 engaged on this and I would have thought you could have 2 a period of notice which would have to be given by 3 anyone or any party seeking to withdraw, and I suppose 4 any contract can be revisited, subject to what the 5 provisions allow, but I hadn't wanted to get into all 6 that. I just want to get on, set up the new body. 7 But you're quite right; we must make sure it can't 8 be suddenly -- it can't be met with a brick wall one 9 day. It has to be -- and I want to see a new body which 10 gathers strength over the years and establishes 11 a completely new and strengthened culture, which the 12 overwhelming majority in this great -- I would call it 13 profession -- want to see. 14 And so, I suppose in a way I seriously commend to 15 you the model I propose. I don't think it's perfect, 16 I don't think any model can be perfect, but what I can 17 do is to suggest and to assure you that this model would 18 mark a fundamental shift in the balance of power between 19 the regulator and the regulated, which I'm presently 20 encouraged to believe that the newspaper and magazine 21 industry is now willing to endorse. 22 Q. Of course, in five years' time, all of us will have 23 moved away from this, won't we? 24 A. Well, if I'm still here in five years' time, I would 25 hope that people will look back and see this Inquiry as 45 1 having set the agenda to which the industry has 2 responded constructively. This system can achieve 3 whole-hearted commitment by the regulated community, and 4 above all I believe it can restore trust in British 5 journalism. 6 MR JAY: Well, I think on that note, Lord Hunt, those were 7 all the questions I -- I'm mindful of the fact I've set 8 myself a timetable for today and I've now hit the end of 9 that time. 10 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right. Is there anything you feel 11 that you've not had the chance to develop that you 12 wanted to develop, Lord Hunt? 13 A. No, sir, but I would hope that perhaps there could be 14 some opportunity to share with the Inquiry the actual 15 workings and handling of complaints as they occur today. 16 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: I have had the benefit, as you know, 17 of an enormous volume of material from the PCC, which 18 admittedly hasn't included visual sight of people 19 working, but it's certainly included the paper 20 consequences of all they've done, so I'm very mindful of 21 what's been happening, unless you tell me something is 22 very different today than it was from last summer when 23 all this evidence was submitted. 24 A. It's just, sir, I felt that the questions about how 25 complaints are handled would be far better understood if 46 1 it was possible to see the way in which complaints are 2 handled at first hand rather than the documentation 3 relating to it. It's the one thing that really has 4 impressed me, which is why I'm determined that we will 5 maintain the existing complaints and mediation system. 6 It's the one thing that has impressed me about all that 7 has been achieved so far, and I have seen victims, and 8 the complaints, generally speaking, about the existing 9 system are that there aren't yet sufficient powers to 10 enable things to be done which should be done, and when 11 I've sat down with victims with this key question of: 12 "What can the new body do to ensure that what happened 13 to you will never be allowed to happen again?" -- that 14 has been the key question, and I think we are now poised 15 in being able to do something about it and to restore to 16 the regulator, which in my view is the regulator for the 17 first time ever, the ability to strengthen public trust 18 and confidence in British journalism. 19 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: All right. Thank you very much 20 indeed. We'll take a break. 21 (11.25 am) 22 (A short break) 23 (11.36 pm) 25 105