House of Commons Amendments

Session 2012 - 13
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

Consideration of Bill: 18 March 2013
1071

Crime and Courts Bill-[Lords], continued

the power where appropriate to require remedial action for breach of standards

and the publication of corrections and apologies. Although remedies are

essentially about correcting the record for individuals, the power to direct a

correction and an apology must apply equally in relation to—

(a)
individual standards breaches; and

(b)
groups of people as defined in criterion 11 where there is no single

identifiable individual who has been affected; and

(c)
matters of fact where there is no single identifiable individual who has

been affected.

16
In the event of no agreement between a complainant and a subscriber, the

power to direct the nature, extent and placement of apologies should lie with

the Board.

17
The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material,

by anyone, at any time although (in its discretion) it should be able to offer a

service of advice to editors of subscribing publications relating to code

compliance.

18
The Board, being an independent self-regulatory body, should have authority

to examine issues on its own initiative and have sufficient powers to carry out

investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches of the code and

failures to comply with directions of the Board. Those who subscribe must be

required to cooperate with any such investigation.

19
The Board should have the power to impose appropriate and proportionate

sanctions (including but not limited to financial sanctions up to 1% of turnover

attributable to the publication concerned with a maximum of £1,000,000) on

any subscriber found to be responsible for serious or systemic breaches of the

standards code or governance requirements of the body. The Board should

have sufficient powers to require appropriate information from subscribers in

order to ascertain the turnover that is attributable to a publication irrespective

of any particular accounting arrangements of the publication or subscriber. The

sanctions that should be available should include power to require publication

of corrections, if the breaches relate to accuracy, or apologies if the breaches

relate to other provisions of the code.

19A
The Board should establish a ring-fenced enforcement fund, into which

receipts from financial sanctions could be paid, for the purpose of funding

investigations.

20
The Board should have both the power and a duty to ensure that all breaches

of the standards code that it considers are recorded as such and that proper data

is kept that records the extent to which complaints have been made and their

outcome; this information should be made available to the public in a way that

allows understanding of the compliance record of each title.

21
The Board should publish an Annual Report identifying—

(a)
the body’s subscribers, identifying any significant changes in

subscriber numbers;

(b)
the number of—

(i)
complaints it has handled, making clear how many of them are

multiple complaints,

(ii)
articles in respect of which it has considered complaints to be

without merit, and

(iii)
articles in respect of which it has considered complaints to be

with merit, and the outcomes reached,


in aggregate for all subscribers and individually in relation to each

subscriber;

(c)
a summary of any investigations carried out and the result of them;

Consideration of Bill: 18 March 2013
1072

Crime and Courts Bill-[Lords], continued

(d)
a report on the adequacy and effectiveness of compliance processes

and procedures adopted by subscribers; and

(e)
information about the extent to which the arbitration service has been

used.

22
The Board should provide an arbitral process for civil legal claims against

subscribers which—

(a)
complies with the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”);

(b)
provides suitable powers for the arbitrator to ensure the process

operates fairly and quickly, and on an inquisitorial basis (so far as

possible);

(c)
contains transparent arrangements for claims to be struck out, for

legitimate reasons (including on frivolous or vexatious grounds);

(d)
directs appropriate pre-publication matters to the courts;

(e)
operates under the principle that arbitration should be free for

complainants to use;

(f)
ensures that the parties should each bear their own costs, subject to a

successful complainant’s costs being recoverable (having regard to

section 60 of the Act and any applicable caps on recoverable costs);

and

(g)
overall, is inexpensive for all parties.

23
The membership of a regulatory body should be open to all publishers on fair,

reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.’.

Simon Hughes

Edward Miliband

Ms Harriet Harman

Mr Elfyn Llwyd

Mark Durkan

Caroline Lucas

Total signatories: 7

Naomi Long

NS7


To move the following Schedule:—

‘Royal Charter of Recognition Body

(a) Recognition Criteria


The following requirements are the recognition criteria for the Scheme of

Recognition established under Article 4 of, and Schedule 2 to, any Charter—

1
An independent self-regulatory body should be governed by an independent

Board. In order to ensure the independence of the body, the Chair and members

of the Board must be appointed in a genuinely open, transparent and

independent way, without any influence from industry or government. For the

avoidance of doubt, the industry’s activities in establishing a self-regulatory

body, and its participation in making appointments to the Board in accordance

with criteria 2 to 5; or its financing of the self-regulatory body shall not

constitute influence by the industry in breach of this criterion.

2
The Chair of the Board (who is subject to the restrictions of criterion 5(d), (e)

and (f)) can only be appointed if nominated by an appointment panel. The

Consideration of Bill: 18 March 2013
1073

Crime and Courts Bill-[Lords], continued

selection of that panel must itself be conducted in an appropriately independent

way and must, itself, be independent of the industry and of government.

3
The appointment panel—

(a)
should be appointed in an independent, fair and open way;

(b)
should contain a substantial majority of members who are

demonstrably independent of the press;

(c)
should include at least one person with a current understanding and

experience of the press;

(d)
should include no more than one current editor of a publication that

could be a member of the body.

4
The nomination process for the appointment of the Board should also be an

independent process, and the composition of the Board should include people

with relevant expertise. The appointment panel may only nominate as many

people as there are vacancies on the Board (including the Chair), and the Board

shall accept all nominations. The requirement for independence means that

there should be no serving editors on the Board.

5
The members of the Board should be appointed only following nomination by

the same appointment panel that nominates the Chair, together with the Chair

(once appointed), and should—

(a)
be nominated by a process which is fair and open;

(b)
comprise a majority of people who are independent of the press;

(c)
include a sufficient number of people with experience of the industry

who may include former editors and senior or academic journalists;

(d)
not include any serving editor;

(e)
not include any serving member of the House of Commons, the

Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National

Assembly for Wales, the European Parliament or the House of Lords

(but only if, in the case of the House of Lords, the member holds or has

held within the previous five years an official affiliation with a

political party) or a Minister of the Crown, a Scottish Minister, a

Northern Ireland Executive Minister or a Welsh Government

Minister; and

(f)
in the view of the appointment panel, be a person who can act fairly

and impartially in the decision-making of the Board.

6
Funding for the system should be settled in agreement between the industry

and the Board, taking into account the cost of fulfilling the obligations of the

regulator and the commercial pressures on the industry. There should be an

indicative budget which the Board certifies is adequate for the purpose.

Funding settlements should cover a four or five year period and should be

negotiated well in advance.

7
The standards code, which is the responsibility of the Code Committee, must

be approved by the Board or remitted to the Code Committee with reasons. The

Code Committee will be appointed by the Board, in accordance with best

practices for public appointments, and comprised of equal proportions of

independent members, journalists and serving editors. There will be a biennial

public consultation by the Code Committee, the results of which must be

considered openly with the Board.

8
The code must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the

interests of the public (including but not limited to the public interest in

detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety, protecting public health

and safety and preventing the public from being seriously misled), the need for

journalists to protect confidential sources of information, and the rights of

individuals. Specifically, it must cover standards of—

Consideration of Bill: 18 March 2013
1074

Crime and Courts Bill-[Lords], continued

(a)
conduct, especially in relation to the treatment of other people in the

process of obtaining material;

(b)
appropriate respect for privacy where there is no sufficient public

interest justification for breach; and

(c)
accuracy, and the need to avoid misrepresentation.

8A
A self-regulatory body should provide advice to the public in relation to issues

concerning the press and the standards code, along with a service to warn the

press, and other relevant parties such as broadcasters and press photographers,

when an individual has made it clear that they do not welcome press intrusion.

8B
A self-regulatory body should make it clear that subscribers will be held

strictly accountable under the standards code for any material that they

publish, including photographs, however sourced. This criterion does not

include advertising content.

8C
A self-regulatory body should provide non-binding guidance on the

interpretation of the public interest that justifies what would otherwise

constitute a breach of the standards code. This must be framed in the context

of the different provisions of the code relating to the public interest.

8D
A self-regulatory body should establish a whistleblowing hot-line for those

who feel that they are being asked to do things which are contrary to the

standards code.

9
The Board should require, of those who subscribe, appropriate internal

governance processes (for dealing with complaints and compliance with the

standards code), transparency on what governance processes they have in

place, and notice of any failures in compliance, together with details of steps

taken to deal with failures in compliance.

10
The Board should require all those who subscribe to have an adequate and

speedy complaint handling mechanism; it should encourage those who wish to

complain to do so through that mechanism and should not receive complaints

directly unless or until the internal complaints system has been engaged

without the complaint being resolved in an appropriate time.

11
The Board should have the power to hear and decide on complaints about

breach of the standards code by those who subscribe. The Board will need to

have the discretion not to look into complaints if they feel that the complaint

is without justification, is an attempt to argue a point of opinion rather than a

standards code breach, or is simply an attempt to lobby. The Board should have

the power (but not necessarily the duty) to hear complaints—

(a)
from anyone personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of

the standards code; or

(b)
where there is an alleged breach of the code and there is public interest

in the Board giving consideration to the complaint from a

representative group affected by the alleged breach; or

(c)
from a third party seeking to ensure accuracy of published

information.


In the case of third party complaints the views of the party most closely

involved should be taken into account.

12
Decisions on complaints should be the ultimate responsibility of the Board,

advised by complaints handling officials to whom appropriate delegations may

be made.

12A
The Board should be prepared to allow a complaint to be brought prior to legal

proceedings being commenced. Challenges to that approach (and applications

to stay) can be decided on the merits.

13
Serving editors should not be members of any Committee advising the Board

on complaints and should not play any role in determining the outcome of an

individual complaint. Any such Committee should have a composition broadly

Consideration of Bill: 18 March 2013
1075

Crime and Courts Bill-[Lords], continued

reflecting that of the main Board, with a majority of people who are

independent of the press.

14
It should continue to be the case that complainants are able to bring complaints

free of charge.

15
In relation to complaints, where a negotiated outcome between a complainant

and a subscriber (pursuant to criterion 10) has failed, the Board should have

the power to direct appropriate remedial action for breach of standards and the

publication of corrections and apologies. Although remedies are essentially

about correcting the record for individuals, the power to require a correction

and an apology must apply equally in relation to—

(a)
individual standards breaches; and

(b)
groups of people as defined in criterion 11 where there is no single

identifiable individual who has been affected; and

(c)
matters of fact where there is no single identifiable individual who has

been affected.

16
In the event of no agreement between a complainant and a subscriber (pursuant

to criterion 10), the power to direct the nature, extent and placement of

corrections and apologies should lie with the Board.

17
The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material,

by anyone, at any time although (in its discretion) it should be able to offer a

service of advice to editors of subscribing publications relating to code

compliance.

18
The Board, being an independent self-regulatory body, should have authority

to examine issues on its own initiative and have sufficient powers to carry out

investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches of the code and

failures to comply with directions of the Board. The investigations process

must be simple and credible, and those who subscribe must be required to

cooperate with any such investigation.

19
The Board should have the power to impose appropriate and proportionate

sanctions (including but not limited to financial sanctions up to 1 per cent of

turnover attributable to the publication concerned with a maximum of

£1,000,000) on any subscriber found to be responsible for serious or systemic

breaches of the standards code or governance requirements of the body. The

Board should have sufficient powers to require appropriate information from

subscribers in order to ascertain the turnover that is attributable to a publication

irrespective of any particular accounting arrangements of the publication or

subscriber. The sanctions that should be available should include power to

require publication of corrections, if the breaches relate to accuracy, or

apologies if the breaches relate to other provisions of the code.

19A
The Board should establish a ring-fenced enforcement fund, into which

receipts from financial sanctions could be paid, for the purpose of funding

investigations.

20
The Board should have both the power and a duty to ensure that all breaches

of the standards code that it considers are recorded as such and that proper data

is kept that records the extent to which complaints have been made and their

outcome; this information should be made available to the public in a way that

allows understanding of the compliance record of each title.

21
The Board should publish an Annual Report identifying—

(a)
the body’s subscribers, identifying any significant changes in

subscriber numbers;

(b)
the number of—

(i)
complaints it has handled, making clear how many of them are

multiple complaints;

Consideration of Bill: 18 March 2013
1076

Crime and Courts Bill-[Lords], continued

(ii)
articles in respect of which it has considered complaints to be

without merit; and

(iii)
articles in respect of which it has considered complaints to be

with merit, and the outcomes reached, in aggregate for all

subscribers and individually in relation to each subscriber;

(c)
a summary of any investigations carried out and the result of them;

(d)
a report on the adequacy and effectiveness of compliance processes

and procedures adopted by subscribers; and

(e)
information about the extent to which the arbitration service has been

used.

22
The Board should provide an arbitral process for civil legal claims against

subscribers which—

(a)
complies with the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”);

(b)
provides suitable powers for the arbitrator to ensure the process

operates fairly and quickly, and on an inquisitorial basis (so far as

possible);

(c)
contains transparent arrangements for claims to be struck out, for

legitimate reasons (including on frivolous or vexatious grounds);

(d)
directs appropriate pre-publication matters to the courts;

(e)
operates under the principle that arbitration should be free for

complainants to use;

(f)
ensures that the parties should each bear their own costs, subject to a

successful complainant’s costs being recoverable (having regard to

section 60 of the Act and any applicable caps on recoverable costs);

and

(g)
overall, is inexpensive for all parties.

23
The membership of a regulatory body should be open to all publishers on fair,

reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, including making membership

potentially available on different terms for different types of publisher.

(b) In addition to the matters set out above, the Board of the Recognition Panel shall grant

recognition to a Regulator if the Board is satisfied that the Regulator meets the recognition

criteria and that the Regulator meets the criteria of effectiveness, fairness and objectivity

of standards, independence and transparency of enforcement and compliance, credible

powers and remedies, reliable funding and effective accountability.’.

New Clauses standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown and relating

to Legal Aid

Restraint orders and legal aid

Secretary Theresa May

NC15

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation in England and

Wales: restraint orders) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).

(2)
After subsection (2) insert—



© Parliamentary copyright	Revised 18 March 2013