Paul Dacre calls for new certifying system for journalists

The editor in chief of the Daily Mail has called for a new system of certifying journalists, with tough sanctions for those who fall below acceptable standards or break the law.

Paul Dacre also called on the industry to introduce a transitional arrangement to replace the much-criticised Press Complaints Commission as soon as possible to show newspapers had "good intentions" to break from a past tarnished by allegations of phone hacking, corruption and computer hacking.

Outlining his vision of the future, Dacre said the new system of accreditation of journalists would act as a "Kitemark" for standards. He suggested that journalists not carrying an accredited card would be barred from covering events such as key government briefings or interviews relating to sporting fixtures.

A new ombudsman for standards should also have the right to recommend a journalist be struck off, just as doctors can be struck off by the General Medical Council, he said. "The public at large would know the journalists carrying such cards are bona fide operators, committed to a set of standards and a body to whom complaints can be made."

Over three and a half hours, an at times testy Dacre was questioned at the Leveson inquiry about the behaviour of his own staff in relation to a litany of stories that have been criticised by other Leveson witnesses, including ones on Madeleine McCann, Christopher Jefferies, Hugh Grant and the late Boyzone singer Stephen Gately.

He launched a robust defence of his decision to describe Grant's evidence as "mendacious smears", declaring that the actor's claim that a story about him may have been sourced from phone hacking was damaging to his newspaper.

"If I had allowed it to stand it would have been devastating for our reputation and it needed rebutting instantly."

Dacre repeatedly claimed that Grant had brought much of the attention he complained about upon himself. He said Grant "invaded his privacy with great proficiency" by frequently talking in public about private matters, including his desire to have a child. But he did accept that the behaviour of the paparazzi about whom Grant and others have complained was an issue. "I think there are broader issues that the industry needs to look at. The problem of paparazzi, that worries me – I think we need to try to look at that."

Dacre admitted that he knew the newspaper had used a private detective, Steve Whittamore, who was convicted in 2005 of illegally accessing confidential records such as ex-directory numbers.

He said he thought he became aware of the use of Whittamore "some time about 2004, 2005-ish" but said he was not aware of the extent of his use or that he might have been obtaining information illegally. Asked whether he thought it was acceptable to get hold of a person's "friends and family" telephone numbers, he said the information could have been obtained legally but Whittamore "was a quick and easy way to get that information".

He said he would now accept there was a "prima facie case that Mr Whittamore could have been acting illegally" but he did not accept this as "evidence our journalists were actively behaving illegally".

At times exasperated by the inquiry's line of questioning, Dacre pressed the point that he had demonstrated "huge willpower and vigour to stamp out and change of all of this", banning the use of detective agencies, writing the Data Protection Act into journalists' contracts and holding seminars for staff.

He told Leveson: "Goodness knows, I don't know what more I could have done." Dacre also mounted a staunch defence of Jan Moir, the columnist who was the subject of 25,000 complaints following a piece she wrote about the death of Gately.

"I would die in the ditch to defend any of my columnists' rights to say whatever they wish", he said, adding that she hadn't "a homophobic bone in her body". But he did observe that her column could have benefitted from some "judicious subbing [editing]" that day.

Dacre told the inquiry he had turned down an offer to edit the Times because it would have curbed his independence. He described Rupert Murdoch as a "great proprietor in his time" but said he would not have given him the necessary freedom. He said there was no doubt Murdoch "had strong views" which he expected to be followed by his editors. "The classic case is the Iraq war" and the "implacable support" he gave Tony Blair, said Dacre.

Dacre reserved the more forceful side of his personality for the issue of the importance of the press to society.

He said his paper had written hundreds and thousands of stories and the inquiry was alighting on a few negative examples. The British public were being given "a very bleak, one-sided view" of an industry that employs thousands.