APPENDIX 28
Memorandum submitted by the Newspaper
Publishers Association
INTRODUCTION
The Newspaper Publishers Association (NPA) welcomes
the opportunity to respond to the invitation to submit evidence
to the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee for its investigation
into Privacy and Media Intrusion.
The NPA represents the UK national newspaper
industry, including Associated Newspapers Ltd, Express Newspapers,
Financial Times Ltd, Guardian Newspapers Ltd, Independent News
& Media (national titles), News International plc, Telegraph
Group Ltd & Trinity Mirror (national titles).
The NPA and its members are committed to the
maintenance and support of self regulation as the only acceptable
way in a democracy of regulating the editorial content of newspapers
and magazines. We believe that this statement is justified by
the performance and growing authority of the self regulatory system
over the last decade, a system which is equally available to all
those who receive the attentions of the newspapers, whether rich
or poor, powerful or weak, in the public eye or not.
The NPA's members are committed to maintaining
and helping to finance, through Pressbof, the independent Press
Complaints Commission, with its majority of lay members. NPA members
are dedicated to ensuring their editors understand and obey the
PCC Code of Practice and any breaches are regarded as being extremely
serious. The finances provided also enable the PCC to publicise
its services to a wider public and our members further contribute
free advertising space in their publications to enable that process
to be effective.
THE SELF-REGULATORY
SYSTEM
The NPA views are formulated within the framework
of not whether there is a need to protect privacy of all citizens,
but which is the best and fairest means to do so.
Our statement concerns the performance of the
system of self-regulation regarding privacy compared with the
drawbacks that any privacy legislation would inevitably bring
in its wake.
Consideration of privacy must address two fundamental
points. Firstly that, in practice, privacy laws would do nothing
to protect the privacy of ordinary people; they would simply be
used by the rich and powerful, or the corrupt, to stop newspapers
printing uncomfortable truths. The second point concerns the broader
issue that privacy laws would undermine the freedom of the press
which is a basic pillar of democracy.
The system of self-regulation has three key
components, each of which can demonstrate its own important and
effective contribution to the overall working of the system. They
are the Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof) the Press
Complaints Commission (PCC) and the Code Committee.
Pressbof is the fund collecting body which provides
the finances to ensure that all complainants can have their grievances
heard and solved justly by the PCC at little or no cost to themselves.
It is effective in its role, not least because of the senior industry
representatives on the board representing both newspaper—national
and provincial—and magazine sectors.
The PCC has the independent role, secured through
a majority of non-industry commissioners and an outside Chairman,
to ratify and administer the Code of Practice, to hear and to
address the complaints of all members of the public who feel they
may have been subject to intrusion, misrepresentation or inaccurate
reporting. The recent choice of our former Ambassador in Washington,
Sir Christopher Meyer as Chairman further demonstrates the Industry's
understanding of the need for a strong, capable and independently
minded person to lead the PCC in its important work.
Vital to the independence of the lay members
is that they are themselves appointed by an independent body called
the Appointments Commission. Chaired by the Chairman of the PCC,
the current members are Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC, the former
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr David Clementi, former
Deputy Governor of the Bank of England and Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill,
Chairman of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
The maintenance and development of the Code
of Practice is conducted by the Code Committee, a body comprising
senior editors of national and regional newspapers and magazines.
The level of seniority and demonstrated commitment enables the
resultant Code to provide the essential standards which both the
industry and the public can understand and accept.
The PCC will no doubt provide evidence of its
successful performance, in particular the improvement in reporting
standards since the introduction of the Code in 1991; and the
establishing of the Complainants' Charter which has helped to
speed up the handling of complaints.
Whilst privacy complaints provoke most publicity,
the great majority of complaints to the PCC are not about privacy
but include accuracy of reporting, although improvements to reducing
the latter have been made.
The vast majority of complaints dealt with by
the PCC come from "ordinary people" not in the public
eye rather than from celebrities or people in public life and
despite perceptions to the contrary, most complaints concern the
regional rather than the national press.
The ability of the self regulatory system to
provide to ordinary people a fast, accessible, relatively simple
and straightforward process to resolve their complaints at practically
no cost, contrasts very sharply indeed with privacy legislation
which would inevitably be complex, provide a field day for lawyers
and would, in practice, be inaccessible except to those who could
afford it.
The PCC and the Code it administers recognise
that from time to time the public interest will justify close
and "intrusive" questioning and reporting. Examples
of when it is in the public interest include when a newspaper
is exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour, when it is protecting
the public health and safety, and when it is seeking to stop the
public being misled by the statements or the actions of individuals—particularly
those in a position of public trust or power—or organisations.
As a general point, the importance of freedom of expression is
itself in the public interest.
In balancing the need for privacy against the
need for freedom of expression, the Code is consistent with the
terms of the European Convention on Human Rights which states
"Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private life,
home, health and correspondence. A publication will be expected
to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without
consent."
Turning to the available sanctions, we believe
they are adequate and appropriate. Failing to abide by the Code
can lead to widespread criticism, not just outside the industry
but from within it. Many journalists have obedience of the Code
written into their contract's terms of employment. Editors regard
the Code extremely seriously. Breaches can lead to disciplinary
action, complaints upheld by the PCC require a critical adjudication
from the PCC to be published which demonstrates to readers the
editor's failure on this occasion to abide by his or her own rules,
since it is the industry's Code which is being breached.
There is a view that monetary sanctions should
be imposed by the PCC. This view is fundamentally flawed and betrays
a lack of understanding of why the current system works. If fines
were imposed, they would inevitably cause lawyers to become involved,
particularly if the fines were potentially heavy. With lawyers
would come complexity, delay and an undermining of the effectiveness
of the system. The consequent costs would be a major deterrent
to complainants and would reduce the accessibility of the system
to people without large resources.
We believe that the system to which editors
and publishers have voluntarily signed up has shown that it does
work and will continue to do so.
SUMMARY
Given the large number of titles, readers and
material published every day in a highly competitive market-place,
it is inevitable that the system will sometimes be found imperfect.
The industry is always open to suggestions for improvement. Of
course there will be people who will feel they have been treated
badly. However, we believe that the Code of Practice, which has
itself been toughened up on various occasions as the need arose,
and the present system of self regulation are the best means of
maintaining the correct balance of the right to privacy against
the need for freedom of expression.
The alternatives are unacceptable in a democracy.
The NPA has noted, with great appreciation,
the remarks of your Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, Ms Tessa Jowell, published in one of our member's titles
in a comment on the Communications Bill; "The free press
will remain free. And we will defend to the death newspapers'
right to be opinionated and controversial, free of government
or regulator control. We strongly believe in a press in which
a variety of opinions are freely and fearlessly expressed and
news is reported accurately. The Government remains committed
to the self-regulation of the press through the Press Complaints
Commission."
The NPA echoes that sentiment wholeheartedly.
7 February 2003
| 
