Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Press Complaints Commission—Written evidence
Introduction
1. In response to the call for evidence made by the Joint Committee on Privacy and
Injunctions, I make the following submission in my role as Director of the Press
Complaints Commission. I am authorised by the Commission to make the submission
on its behalf.
2. In this paper I will give a brief overview of the Commission’s work. I will also answer
those specific questions laid down in the Joint Committee’s call for evidence which
relate to the Press Complaints Commission. Bearing in mind that the Joint
Committee has expressed a preference for short submissions I intend not to include
excessive information. But if members of the Committee believe that further details
about any point relating to the work of the PCC are required, I would be happy to
provide them.
3. As Committee members will know, the Commission’s role is being looked at in
connection with several parliamentary or judge-led Inquiries at the moment. In
particular, I have recently submitted on behalf of the Commission a 400-page
statement to the Leveson Inquiry; a second statement about possible reform of the
PCC will be submitted to that Inquiry in due course once a sub-committee of the
Commission (the “Reform Committee of the Commission”) has examined and
discussed proposals internally. I say this to emphasise the fact that the Commission
wishes to remain at the heart of the debate about press regulation in this country; and
is in the process of actively examining how its role might evolve further.
4. Indeed, the PCC has always been committed to improvement and evolution – the
Commission’s history shows very clearly that renewal and reform are not areas from
which it has shied. That said, finding the ‘perfect’ mode of regulation for the media is
not as straightforward as has occasionally been presented and the positive aspects of
the current model are often overlooked. I believe it important that the existing
benefits should not be discarded and instead should be built upon to create an
improved system. The new Chair, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has publicly declared that he
is arriving at the PCC with a “blank sheet of paper” in the area of structural reform.
5. In my submission to the Leveson inquiry I summarised some of the key strengths of
the existing system. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I repeat the bulk of that
summary here:
i. The PCC offers a complaints service that is free, and accessible to all. There is no
financial burden on complainants or tax-payers. There is no need to retain a
lawyer to make a PCC complaint.
ii. The service is fast. Investigations take an average of 33 working days. Some
complaints are resolved within hours of receipt. Complainants, especially those
with concerns about inaccuracy, want swift and public redress. Corrections,
apologies and rights of reply are promptly negotiated on their behalf. The
prominence of correction and apologies is now a matter agreed in advance with
the PCC and the complainant, something not available to those who issue High
Court proceedings.
iii. The system aims so far as possible to be non-adversarial, and can be used by
vulnerable or distressed people without exacerbating the possible harm to them.
864