Appendix 2 - Letter from the Director
of the Press Complaints Commission
I have been asked by the board of the Press Complaints
Commission to write to you in response to the Select Committee's
recent report.
There is much in the report that the Commission welcomes.
In particular, the Committee's findings that there is no case
for a statutory regulator of the press and that a privacy law
would be undesirable are important statements of principle that
the Commission wholeheartedly endorses. As to its own performance,
the Commission was grateful that the Committee highlighted the
amount of pro-active and behind the scenes work that the PCC carries
out, and for its conclusion that this was some of the most valuable
work that it undertakes. The Commission recognises, though, that
there is still a job to do in raising awareness of the range of
services that it offers. Several initiatives have been planned
in order to achieve this, including publication of a new pocket
leaflet which outlines in a brief and accessible way how the PCC
can help people. This includes out of hours contact details for
Commission staff. It has been sent to civil servants, government
ministers, MPs, members of the devolved assemblies and many others
who advise or may come into contact with people who are in the
news.
Similarly, the Commission was pleased that the Committee
welcomed the extension of its remit to include audio-visual material
on newspaper and magazine websites. Since the publication of the
Committee's report, the PCC has made its first ruling on a complaint
about audio-visual material, upholding a complaint that mobile
phone footage taken during a lesson and published on a newspaper's
website intruded into the privacy of pupils while they were at
school. The Commission notes that the report raised the question
about whether the remit should go even further. The Commission's
flexible structure means that it will be able to adapt quickly
to any further developments in technology, and indeed it would
be surprising if this was the last occasion on which the Commission's
remit ever changed. We will keep the Committee notified of any
new moves in relation to online regulation.
The Report contained welcome support for the principle
of conciliating complaints, but suggested that the Commission
should make greater efforts to publicise breaches of the Code
that are settled without the need for an adjudication. The Commission
accepts this recommendation, and is looking into ways that this
could be achieved which do not undermine the advantages of having
a complaint resolved rather than adjudicated.
The Commission notes the Committee's findings on
both the Clive Goodman case and the Data Protection Act, and its
endorsement of the conclusions of the PCC's report into subterfuge.
There are two things to report. The first is that the Commission
has hosted a training seminar for national newspaper journalists
on undercover newsgathering. It invited Mick Gorrill from the
Information Commissioner's Office to speak on the Data Protection
Act. A similar event will be held in September for Scottish journalists
in Glasgow, where Mr Gorrill—who appeared before the Select
Committee—has again kindly agreed to speak. The Commission
will also shortly be offering in-house training to all major newspaper
publishers. The second thing to report is that the Commission
will be writing to newspaper and magazine companies in the autumn
to find out how they have responded to the recommendations in
the Commission's report.
Finally, the Commission was somewhat dismayed to
be criticised for its handling of the situation regarding photographers
and Kate Middleton, and for the publicity that the Committee chose
to give to this unjustified criticism. It was Commission officials
who took the initiative and proactively approached her lawyers
in January to offer to help. We had ourselves spotted that the
situation appeared to be troubling, even before the notorious
scrum on Miss Middleton's birthday. As a result, a series of conversations
followed with her representatives, during which the Commission
made clear that it was ready to act at a moment's notice. This
the Commission did as soon as it was requested to do so. The Commission
rejects the idea that it should intervene in cases without the
say so of the person affected. Apart from being objectionable
in principle, it would very quickly establish a two-tier service
which favoured celebrities and high profile people and which would
be impossible to enforce fairly. The Commission was also equally
disappointed that there was no recognition in the report of how
it has developed an effective system of handling pre-publication
concerns about newsgathering, which delivers results without the
need for a formal complaint.
However, that point aside, the Commission welcomes
the numerous constructive comments and suggestions contained within
the Report.
| 
