Reform of Press Complaints Commission to be debated at conference

Liberal Democrat Voice at Conference

On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | Live Twitter Stream | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home
Watch Live on BBC Parliament

The future of the Press Complaints Commission is up for debate at the party’s autumn conference in Liverpool. A motion from Truro & Falmouth echoes many of the criticisms made of the PCC by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in its recent report. The motion calls for a fully independent regulator to take the place of the current structure which is heavily staffed by people holding current senior newspaper roles.

The motion also supports a shift in the PCC’s role from handling individual complaints towards upholding and improving press standards more generally. That’s a question I wrote about in June,

A common thread running through the Press Complaints Commission’s defence of its work is that it has been primarily created to deal with individual complaints, rather than being a regulator whose role is to improve the press overall. That’s why, for example, the PCC emphasises the proportion of complaints made to it which are concluded with the complainant happy with the outcome rather than, for example, focusing on how widespread certain practices are and whether they are increasing or decreasing.

To give an example: if a blogger were to complain to the PCC about a newspaper taking their work and reusing it without credit, the PCC looks at just the individual case; even if it finds in favour of the blogger it doesn’t (except in exceptional cases) look at how widespread the problem is or attempt to track the frequency of the problem over time.

In defending this approach the PCC usually says that, first, these are the rules the industry has decided for it and, second, that its public opinion research shows there is very little public appetite for it to become a more general regulator (though others have a different take on public opinion).

It is a very different approach from that taken in other spheres. Imagine if, for example, the response of the industry regulator to cases of dodgy door to door sales by electricity companies had been, “We will deal with any individual complaints about specific sales people, but if there’s an overall problem with this in the industry that’s a matter for someone else”.

As you may guess from my example, I’m in favour of a greater emphasis on raising press standards more generally – and smart journalists should be too, because lack of trust in the press is one of the great problems newspapers face in trying to persuade people to pay for their output rather than taking free news from elsewhere.

The debate will be on the Sunday morning (19th September) of conference. The full text of the motion is below and we’ll be running a guest post from the PCC on it tomorrow:

Conference reaffirms its belief in the freedom of the British press and the valuable role it can play in holding people, politicians and businesses, to account.

However, conference believes that the freedom of the press should be exercised with greater responsibility and higher standards; and that this responsibility should respect not only the subject of an article but also the readership, who rely on the press to provide them with the facts of current events.

Conference notes a report by the Commons Culture Media and Sport select committee, published in February this year, that the Press Complaints Commission is widely viewed as ‘lacking credibility and authority’ among the public.

Conference further notes that:
a) Of the 17 members of the PCC, seven are serving editors or editorial directors.
b) A clear conflict of interest arises if a complaint is made against a publication whose editor is a PCC member, particularly if that editor is the PCC chair, as in 2008–09.
c) The PCC received more than 37,000 complaints from members of the public in 2009 – a sevenfold rise on the previous year.

Conference believes that for the Press to retain the confidence of the public, it is vital to have an effective and independent regulator that can deal robustly with any breaches of its own Code of Conduct.

Conference asserts that such a regulator should be entirely independent of serving editors, and should have the power to take disciplinary action, including financial penalties, against editors who breach the Code.

Conference affirms its support for a free and independent Press and believes that a stronger, more independent PCC will encourage better standards in the Press and help to protect both the public from unwarranted media intrusion, and the Press itself from a potential privacy law which could restrict Press freedom.

Conference therefore calls on the government to:
1. Make a clear commitment to reforming the PCC to make it independent of serving editors and give it more powers to take disciplinary action against editors whose publications breach the code.
2. Support the recommendation by the CMS select committee that the PCC should be renamed the Press Complaints and Standards Commission, and appoint a deputy director for standards.
3. Affirm their opposition to a privacy law that would restrict press freedom in Britain.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Conference.
Advert

4 Comments

  • Paul McKeown 16th Aug '10 - 4:10pm

    Sorry to go off topic, but does someone want to scotch that ridiculous rumour that Michael Crick is now trying to pass off on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/08/is_vince_cable_going_to_run_fo.html) that Vince Cable is to run as a joint Tory/LibDem mayoral candidate in London? I know Crick gave up all pretence ages ago to unbiased reporting on the coalition government, but even by his standards, he was drooling too much with poison pen in hand. Can someone official just kill this one, please, before it does any damage?

  • This is what I’d like to see happen regarding the PCC:

    1) Create a new backbench Commons Select Committee for the print and broadcast media (which by its very nature will contain NO government ministers);

    2) Give that committee powers of summons – i.e. like that of a court but greater – in that it can “send for papers and persons” – and compel them to appear before that committee;

    3) Make the Press Complaints Commission the investigative branch of that Parliamentary Committee and ultimately responsible to Parliament – similar to what the National Audit Office is for the Public Accounts Committee;

    4) Have a transparent system of complaints and redress where people, writers and publishers are clear about what standards are required in the publication of articles;

    5) Have a post of “Reporter General” who can adjudicate (in the same way the PCC does now) in all but the most serious of cases, and require publishers to set the record straight – as is now;

    6) Give the Reporter General the ultimate sanction is to refer such cases for a public hearing involving all parties – including editors, journalists and publishers;

    7) Where a journalist, editor or publisher disagrees with the ruling in 5, they can appeal to the Select Committee – who can then decide whether to hear or dismiss the appeal, and whether to allow the appeal or uphold the original decision;

    8) When the Select Committee has issued its report on a case, the publication will have to publish the summary ruling in full, provide appropriate links to the full ruling and comply with whatever decisions the Select Committee decide;

    9) Failure to comply with 8) would leave those concerned in contempt of Parliament;

    The grounds for this being that Parliament is the representative of the people, and that through Parliament the people should have a right to redress and to scrutinise publishers, editors and journalists on the content that they publish.

    It could also be incorporated into the reform of libel laws.

    What do people think?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 15th Aug - 10:53pm
    Martin As you do not get quite to the point of insulting people, I regard the comments you make worth noting. I think as one...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 15th Aug - 9:54pm
    The honest answer is, "We don't know". What we do know is that to rejoin the EU after Brexit would involve a host of EU...
  • User AvatarGlenn 15th Aug - 9:41pm
    A very brief few days of panic, followed by claims that transition arrangements mean we haven't really left yet, then a couple of more years...
  • User AvatarLittle Jackie Paper 15th Aug - 9:14pm
    Various - Isn't a problem here that there isn't really any such thing as the 'white working class' any more. At least not in any...
  • User Avatarfrankie 15th Aug - 9:12pm
    Paul, How can you doubt Brexit will be a success when you see the detailed arguments put forward by their leaders and the level of...
  • User AvatarMartin 15th Aug - 9:10pm
    If there is 'no deal' is a conjecture, taken literally the consequences would be rapid and calamitous. The only 'project fear' about it, is to...