APPENDIX 106
Memorandum submitted by Mr Peter Bradley
MP
I was delighted to learn that the Culture, Media
and Sport Select Committee is to undertake an inquiry into the
effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission.
Further to our recent conversation, I enclose
copies of correspondence which passed between myself and the Press
Complaints Commission first about the Sunday Times serialisation
of Jonathan Aitken's memoirs in 2000 and more recently about the
Daily Mail's serialisation of Lord Archer's diaries [not
printed].
In both cases I argued that Clause 16 of the
PCC's Code of Practice, which purports to prevent payments by
newspapers to criminals, had been breached.
In the case of Jonathan Aitken, it remains my
view that the Clause had been flouted in both spirit and letter.
In Lord Archer's case, it had certainly been breached in spirit.
However, in both cases the PCC rejected my complaint.
Worse still, particularly in the Aitken case, it resorted to what
in my view amounted to extraordinarily specious arguments in order
to defend both the actions of the newspaper and its own decision.
I also enclose a copy of my recent letter to
the code of Practice Committee in which, in the light of my experiences,
I propose a series of recommendations as to how, if the PCC is
committee to its Code, it might sensibly amend the draft of Clause
16 [not printed].
However, I have had my doubts as to whether
the PCC is serious about its responsibilities in policing a "voluntary
regulation" of the press. My experience is that it serves
the press rather better than it serves the public. It fulfils
the function of a trade association defending the interests of
its members which, after all, make up its membership, nominate
many of its Commissioners and provide its funding. Under those
circumstances, it is difficult to see how the PCC can be truly
independent. It certainly cannot be seen to be so.
It is now some 13 years since David Mellor memorably
warned that newspapers were "drinking in the last chance
saloon". In the 12 years of its existence, the PCC has done
little to rein in their worst excesses. Indeed, it has bought
the odd round itself.
Perhaps the most startling feature of the correspondence
which I now enclose [not printed] is the PCC's apparent
inability to distinguish between the public interest on the one
hand and that which may be construed to be of interest to the
public on the other.
Indeed, it is the artful facility with which
some newspapers merge one with the other which provides them with
the spurious justification for many of their indefensible invasions
of privacy of individuals. It is bad enough that newspapers believe
that they can rely on this defence. That their regulatory body
more often than not accepts it is of considerable concern.
I believe that the PCC has outlived its usefulness
if ever it had any. It should be replaced by a truly and transparently
independent body with a statutory power not to censor but to apply
as soon as possible after an offending publication the kinds of
public censure and financial penalty to newspapers which will
deter them from the kinds of excesses with which we have become
all too familiar in recent times.
The first task of any such body would be to
draw up a charter which, unlike the PCC's Code, would be unambiguous
in its requirements and straightforward to enforce.
For the sake of completeness, I should point
out that I made a third complaint, in May this year, about a flagrantly
inaccurate report in the Sunday Express. The PCC, which
upheld my complaint, were very helpful in this case. However,
by the time its decision had been issued, ten weeks had passed
and the newspaper's note of regret had become irrelevant.
I hope that the above and my enclosures are
of interest to you and would be more than happy to elaborate on
them should you find that helpful.
20 December 2002
| 
