Harding: 'We should have covered hacking harder, earlier'

James Harding, the editor of the Times, told the Leveson inquiry today that the newspaper should have covered the phone-hacking scandal "harder" and "earlier" but publisher News International had "poured cold water on it".

Defending his newspaper's approach to covering the story, Harding said that once revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone had been published by the Guardian, the Times had put it on the front page "day in and day out" for three weeks.

He also said that at no point during that period had either James or Rupert Murdoch "raised a finger to object".

But he did level blame at News International at large, telling the inquiry that along with the police it had stifled the story.

"I certainly wish we got on the story harder, earlier. The reality is News International and the police poured cold water on the story at the time. It was only later that we could fully get to grips with it," he said.

Harding also confirmed that the Times had been "one of a number" of newspapers offered the MPs expenses data in 2009, but had refused the offer because of concerns over the legality of paying for stolen goods.

The data was subsequently purchased by the Telegraph for £150,000. Giving evidence to the inquiry last week, former Telegraph editor Will Lewis confirmed that it had been asked to pay £10,000 up front for a sample of the data.

Harding said today that the Times "in general doesn't pay for stories", adding that he was uncomfortable in particular with the requirement for an upfront payment for a sample.

"On that occasion we took the view that we should not be in the business of paying for stolen goods.

"We felt that there was not necessarily a public interest defence for that."

He added later though that "it may the case that hindsight is a wonderful thing" and acknowledged that "there may have been a public interest defence in that case".

"If there is a lesson there, it was that you have to have a set of rules in a newsroom, but you also have to be willing to break them for a story that is overwhelmingly in the public interest."

Seeming to show regret for the decision to pass on the expenses data, he added: "We should have made an exception."

Harding was asked at length about possible regulatory reform for the industry, and stressed that he was wary of any form of statutory intervention.

"I would not wish to see any element of statutory regulation of the press ... Independent regulation is essential, what I don't like is the idea of it being enacted by parliament.

"Once you have that on the statute book, any future infraction by the press, it gives the politicians the opportunity to say Leveson's work was good but we are just going to amend it here and here."

Harding also told the inquiry that he had attented several meetings with David Cameron at Downing Street, but none with either James or Rupert Murdoch.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).