7 May 2003 – Sir Christopher Meyer, the new Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, has taken a typically Panglossian view of the PCC in his first major speech to the Newspaper Society. One might ask why, if all is really for the best in the best of all possible worlds, the number of complaints received by the Commission continues to rise? But it would be churlish not to welcome Sir Christopher and the modest changes to the organisation that he intends to set in train.

He clearly wants to see more transparency in the operations of the PCC, and places much emphasis on the influence of the lay majority, which he wishes to see increased (by one). But this begs the question of how and by whom the lay participants, and even the Chairman himself, are appointed. Sir Christopher says with disarming frankness: “Last year persons in grey suits invited me to put forward my name for the post of the PCC.” And apparently he sees nothing amiss in this procedure. This is not to denigrate Sir Christopher’s fitness for the post. He may well be the best man for the job. But it smells to high heaven of the old boy network and decisions taken in smoke-filled rooms – the very things for which the Wakeham regime was rightly criticised.

As to the lay membership of the Commission, this is an area in which his proposals do not go nearly far enough. In the interests of transparency and effective influence, it would be more fitting to invite nominations from bodies active in the field, such as the various consumer organisations, journalists’ unions, the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom – and even PressWise. And though it is obviously important for editors to be represented, consideration should be given to awarding some of these places to working journalists.

We welcome Sir Christopher’s proposal for an annual audit of the PCC’s activities by an independent panel. Unfortunately, he also proposes that such a panel should be appointed by the Commission itself, thus bringing into question its true independence. Similarly, his suggestion that the Code Committee should review its provisions once a year and, importantly, be receptive to suggestions from the public, is a good idea and long overdue.

The suggestion of a “newsroom handbook” giving guidance on the Code of Practice is similarly welcome. But why not go one step further and include a provision for working journalists that they can refuse assignments which breach the Code without incurring disciplinary action?

On one point we strongly disagree with Sir Christopher: his total rejection of any Commission power to levy fines or award compensation. He regards this as “heresy”, claiming that it would “invite the colonisation of the system by lawyers.” But it need not be so. A system of fixed fines and compensation payments for offences against the Code, graded according to the seriousness of the breach, would be simple and straightforward to implement. Other professional self-regulatory bodies have similar powers; what makes the press so different? Sir Christopher may have been told by editors that they regard the PCC’s sole sanction of a printed adjudication with awe and respect. But then, to quote Mandy Rice Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

Sir Christopher’s speech is a clear pre-emption of the report of the Select Committee on Privacy and the Media, which we await with interest. On reflection, and reading between the lines, there are indications that the new Chairman may be less satisfied with the status quo than at first appears. We wish him well, though it seems likely that PressWise will continue to be a burr beneath his saddle.

Bill Norris
Associate Director

(Bulletin No 83)