Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Martin Clarke, publisher, Mail Online, Edward Roussel, Digital Editor, Telegraph Media
Group, and Philip Webster, editor, Times Online—Oral evidence (QQ 1306–1383)
the material that we felt we could report, but there was other material that we could not. I
think most newspapers had to follow a similar practice.
Q1550 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: I suppose my question was a
slightly larger one, which is do you see any way of an earlier filter?
Philip Webster: To be honest, I do not. I do not see a way of stopping it. When
something like that happens, it is out, and no laws in the world will stop it once it is out
there. I cannot see how that could be done. In the same way, how do you regulate the
internet at all? The train has left, it is disappearing over the hill and we are all trying to catch
up with it. We are in a different world, and the world we inhabit now is different from
when the laws that are being talked about in this inquiry were drawn up. There is absolutely
no doubt about that.
Edward Roussel: I think you have raised an important point, which is that very large
databases are appearing online, and they are coming from a number of different sources,
often Government sources. That is exactly where newspaper groups add value, because it
takes significant resources to trawl through a database or databases such as those released
by WikiLeaks, extract the information that is in the public interest and make it available to
people in a way that is responsible—that does not put lives at risk but does inform the
public of that information that they should know about.
Q1551 Chair: Martin, do you want to add to that?
Martin Clarke: I was going to endorse that point. The internet has been probably
the greatest engine of democratisation and globalisation ever invented. I do not think they
are particularly bad things—I think they are good things—and they have brought some
wonderful benefits to the world, not least commercially. People get much more
comparative value because it makes it so much easier to swap skills and information.
However, it has disrupted, if not destroyed, several businesses. It has massively disrupted
our own, but it has equally disrupted the business of government in that it makes it almost
impossible now for governments to mediate or control the flow of information. Just as we
have had to adapt to a new reality and accept it, embrace it and make the best of it, I think
maybe authorities have to face up to the same realities. That does not mean you do not fall
back on good old-fashioned laws to make sure people do not break the law of the land, and
enforce laws of libel. In the case of WikiLeaks—it is the Americans’ problem, not our
problem—if somebody broke the law, maybe in terms of leaking state secrets, they should
maybe face the penalty for that. But in terms of the mechanics, as my colleague said, the
train has left the station.
Q1552 Lord Janvrin: Could you say something about your experience of dealing
with the Press Complaints Commission in the last few years, and whether you felt over- or
under-regulated from that quarter. What is your advice as to how the Press Complaints
Commission or a regulatory body might be designed for the future? Have you got any
advice from your particular viewpoint on whether there are regulatory areas that you think
ought to be concentrated on?
565