WRITTEN EVIDENCE
APPENDIX 1
Memorandum submitted by the Public Members
of the Press Complaints Commission
We are the public, or lay, members of the Press
Complaints Commission. There are currently eight of us: the longest
serving is Professor Robert Pinker, who is at the moment Acting
Chairman; the most recent recruit—Lord Chan—joined
only a few months ago in the autumn of 2002.
We have approved the PCC's comprehensive submission
to the Select Committee, which we strongly endorse. However, we
thought it would be useful—as lay members—to submit
further, brief evidence to you underlining issues to do with the
independence of the Commission.
This is, in part, to challenge the mistaken
view, sometimes deployed by critics of the PCC, that it is a body
"dominated by editors". This is incorrect.
There are certainly some editors on the Commission.
In any system of self regulation, clear input from the industry
being regulated is crucial. We value editors' input and their
insight into the practicalities of producing a newspaper or magazine.
They put their case robustly—and they keep very much in
their minds the issues of press freedom and freedom of expression.
But their voice is never dominant. Instead, the synthesis of their
views and our own majority opinion is the essence of the PCC's
effectiveness—robust, common-sense decisions, which place
the protection of the individual from media intrusion at their
heart, but which also take into account the realities of producing
newspapers and magazines day in, day out.
1. We are a majority of the Commission—nine
out of the 16 members. (We have one vacancy at the moment). The
Chairman—or currently Acting Chairman—is also always
a lay person totally unconnected with the press. We are therefore
always in the majority at Commission meetings when decisions are
made about whether or not a publication has breached the Code,
and whether the editor should be censured.
2. We are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds,
providing the Commission with varied experience and perspectives.
3. We are independently appointed—by
an Appointments Commission which also has a clear majority of
lay people on it. We serve for fixed terms, which are renewable
at the discretion of the Appointments Commission.
4. Lay members also play a decisive part
in the work of the PCC's Sub-Committees—which deal with
administrative and other matters. This includes a sub-committee
which comments on any changes to the Code of Practice before they
are presented to the full Commission for ratification.
5. On that point, the Code itself is ratified
by the Commission as a whole, with its majority of independent
members—which ensures that any proposals for change work
in the public interest.
6. Lay members are also continually involved
in the ongoing complaints workload of the Commission. A weekly
meeting to monitor the progress of all complaints takes place
under the Chairmanship of a designated senior lay commissioner.
This very direct lay involvement in, and supervision of, complaints
investigations is vitally important because it reinforces the
independent element of the decision making process. Indeed, in
this context we would also point out that the staff of the PCC
who undertake investigations into complaints are themselves also
all lay people: none of them has any interest in, or involvement
with, the newspaper and magazine industry.
In short therefore, lay commissioners direct
every aspect of the Commission's functions, specifically:
— deciding on breaches of the Code;
— monitoring the progress of complaints;
— input into the wording of the Code
and ratification of changes.
We would like to make a number of other observations
about the PCC and its work.
The first is to underline the Commission's role
as a conciliation service. The PCC's Complaints Officers do a
huge amount of often unpublicised work in resolving complaints
and settling problems amicably. That is the real achievement of
the PCC—along with the manner in which the Commission has
built up an authoritative, reasoned body of case law on a substantial
variety of ethical subjects. It is interesting to note—as
the PCC submission makes clear—how the Courts themselves
are drawing on that jurisprudence in interpreting the Human Rights
Act.
The second is to highlight our own role in assisting
the PCC in its public information programmes. We draw on our specialist
knowledge—in health, education, race relations, Church and
other issues—to help the Commission's staff promote their
work and the complaints process among different groups of people.
The third is to endorse the role that the minority
of newspaper and magazine editors on the Commission play in our
work. The PCC—like any self regulatory body—can only
survive if its decisions are rooted in common-sense practicalities.
The editors are there to remind us of that—which is vitally
important. They are also themselves very keen to ensure high standards
of reporting: editors are as quick to condemn other editors who
breach the Code as we are, and can sometimes be even tougher than
the lay members on erring colleagues. Editors whose newspapers
we are discussing—it is worth mentioning—take no part
in those discussions and must leave the relevant part of our meetings.
The fourth is to point out that at no time has
there ever been a division on the Commission between lay members
and editors. Our decisions have always been unanimous, underlining
the fact that our decisions are—at the end of the day—common
sense and practical ones.
The fifth is to highlight the strength of our
procedures. All complaints are seen by all members of the Commission—and
we can, and do, ask for more detailed paperwork, further investigation
or changes to a recommendation on any complaint. We can, and do,
refer a case that has concerned us to a full Commission meeting
for a discussion. This gives the lay members in particular very
considerable powers over procedure and process. No decision can
be made without our endorsement.
We hope that this brief submission goes some
way to underlining the independence of the Commission from the
newspaper and magazine industry—as well as the strength
that is drawn from a synthesis of a minority of editors and a
majority of public members.
We work with the secretariat to review systems,
and we support changes that improve the service, but we also believe
and can demonstrate that the system works well. The Code is strong
and we will not hesitate to make suggestions to the Code Committee
for further changes if necessary.
The Commission's role as a conciliator is highly
effective and should be better recognised. Our sanctions are powerful
ones. Services are deliberately designed to be of help to the
public—particularly the most vulnerable—without the
need for intervention on the part of legal or other representatives.
Procedures—taking complaints from individuals involved in
a news story rather than an inevitably arbitrary system based
on third party complaints—are clear and practical. The Commission's
programme of public relations and information is a thorough and
pro-active one.
We would also draw your attention to the Commission's
work in countries less privileged than we are in terms of our
history of press freedom; we attach great importance to this.
We note that the Chairman and members of the secretariat are invited
to advise other such bodies in other parts of the world, and,
in many cases, to help create such organisations in other countries.
We believe that the Commission successfully
holds that difficult balance between unconstrained press freedom
and the rights of the individual. This has to be striven for,
and, as lay commissioners, we understand our role is to be independent,
thoughtful and, where appropriate, challenging. Our view is that
the Commission's swift service, free to users, provides a valuable
example of effective self-regulation. We are satisfied that the
Commission provides an effective and accessible service.
6 February 2003
| 
