The Press Complaints Commission

Lord McGregor, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), in his address following Justice's 34th annual general meeting in July, raised the following questions. How does the PCC differ from its predecessor, the Press Council? What are its aims? And by what procedures does it hope to achieve them?
Royal Commission
The report of the third Royal Commission on the press in 1977 concluded that the Press Council 'has so far failed to persuade the knowledgeable public that it deals satisfactorily with complaints against newspapers, notwithstanding that this has come to be seen as its main purpose'. In practice, the sanctions that were available to the council amounted to little more than condemnation and publicity for an offending journalist or newspaper. Few critics were persuaded that a Press Council adjudication would serve as a deterrent against bad behaviour in the future.
Nevertheless, the Royal Commission shied away from statutory powers for enforcement of sanctions and recommended the retention of the voluntary press council, and that the council should draw up a code of behaviour on which to base its adjudications. That was in 1977. The council did finally adopt a code three months before the Calcutt committee recommended its abolition.
The Calcutt report was published in the summer of 1990 and proposed the setting up of a Press Complaints Commission in place of the Press Council which was accepted by the government and opposition. The commission would be given 18 months to demonstrate (that non-statutory self-regulation can be made to work effectively. This is a stiff test for the press. If it fails, we recommend that a statutory system for handling complaints should be introduced'.
The commission was set up at the beginning of 1991. A committee of editors, chaired by Patricia Chapman, editor of the News of the World, produced a 16-clause code of practice which the commission was to enforce. Newspapers and periodicals abandoned the waiver of their legal rights which the Press Council had demanded from complainants.
In this way, the industry moved forward from the old Press Council to a full self-regulatory system. All publishers and editors committed themselves publicly to their own code of practice and to the funding of a disciplinary body to enforce the code.
Characteristics
Two characteristics of the commission should be emphasised: first, it does not frame the code which it enforces, thus the responsibility for the rules by which it will be governed stays with the industry. Secondly, the composition of the commission reflects the realities of the publications which must observe the code. Thus the commission will only work effectively if its membership reflects the content and style of the whole population of newspapers and periodicals.
The procedures of the commission are uncomplicated. No oral hearings are held. All complaints and adjudications are dealt with on paper; and only those complaints which demonstrate a prima facie breach of the code of practice are accepted. The primary aim of the commission is to ensure that complaints are dealt with seriously and sympathetically by editors. Every relevant letter received is sent immediately to the editor and he or she is asked to resolve the difficulty if at all possible. In the first half of this year the commission received 753 communications.
The first step is to try to reconcile the complainants. Only if persuasion fails does the commission proceed to a formal adjudication. In such cases, members of the commission receive all the documents together with a draft adjudication which they will accept or amend at their monthly meeting.
Complaints
In the first six months 447 complaints were disposed of. Of these, one-fifth either fell outside the commission remit or were disallowed on the ground of delay; just over one-third showed no prima facie breach of the code and some 16% of the complaints were either too trivial to merit consideration or had already been remedied by the newspapers concerned. Of the remainder, rather more than 10% were remedied as a result of the commission's intervention; in respect of some 15%, complainants decided not to pursue them further and the commission adjudicated formally upon 18 complaints.
Of the remainder of the complaints received, the commission was still in July corresponding with the complainant or the newspaper; or the complainant had not yet responded to the commission's first letter; or complaints were held up because of legal action.
In addition to its duty to handle speedily and to judge fairly complaints which raise a prima facie breach of the industry's code of practice, the main aims of the commission are as follows.
First, to give advice to editors about both the interpretation of the code of journalistic ethics; secondly, to report to the industry any apparent ambiguities and shortcomings in the code disclosed in the course of the commission's work or by public and parliamentary comment; and thirdly, to secure support from the public, Parliament and the press for maintaining self-regulation of the press by achieving recognition that the commission is accessible and independent of press interes ts in its judgments.
Finally, the commission has the duty, under its articles of association, to promote generally established freedoms, including freedom of expression and the public's right to know, and the defence of the press against improper pressure from government or elsewhere.
The commission's first annual report in January 1992 will include an analysis of how newspapers have observed the formal adjudications of the commission. On this, the continuance of self-regulation will in large measure depend. The full text is obtainable from Justice, 95a Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1DT.