Press Regulation: Where Are We Now?

Select Committee on Communications

PRESS REGULATION: WHERE ARE WE NOW?

Evidence Volume

Contents Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) ...... 2 Financial Times – written evidence (PRG0010) ...... 21 The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) ...... 25 The Guardian – supplementary written evidence (PRG0007) ...... 37 Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) ...... 38 Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) ...... 75 IMPRESS (The Independent Monitor for the Press) – written evidence (PRG0003) ...... 88 IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) ...... 93 Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) ...... 107 Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – supplementary written evidence (PRG0014) ...... 122 Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – further supplementary written evidence (PRG0016) ...... 126 Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009) ...... 128 Media Reform Coalition – written evidence (PRG0012)...... 134 Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006) ...... 136 Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) ...... 146 The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013) ...... 156 Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004) ...... 179 National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002) ...... 192 National Union of Journalists and Media Standards Trust – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) ...... 198 Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001) ...... 199 Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) ...... 206 Press Recognition Panel – supplementary written evidence (PRG0008) ...... 221 Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58) ...... 226 Society of Editors – written evidence (PRG0005) ...... 236 Society of Editors and The Guardian – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) ...... 238

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

Further to our chat on Tuesday and my meeting with Lord Clement-Jones on Wednesday 28th January, can I ask you and Lord Best to let the rest of the House of Lords Communications Committee know about the work we are doing to try to bring the two sides of the Press debate together when it comes to free, fast track, Leveson style arbitration as a method of resolving media disputes.

Early Resolution CIC, of which I am Managing Director, was set up as a not-for-profit company in the summer of 2011 to assist litigants in media cases to resolve disputes quickly, fairly and cost effectively through arbitration. In 2012, Sir Charles Gray, our Chairman and a former High Court libel judge, gave evidence to Sir Brian Leveson’s Inquiry. In November 2012, Sir Brian recommended that one of the key elements in any new press regulatory system should be ‘free’ arbitration so that those attacked in the press could obtain access to justice and swift relief.

As I told Lord Clement-Jones last week, we hope to be able to submit the attached Pilot Arbitration Service to those potential regulators who may or may not wish to seek recognition from the Recognition Panel. As I said yesterday we hope that our Pilot Arbitration Service will effectively be “Recognition Ready”, so that any Regulatory Body which takes it on will know that it is workable and Leveson compliant and could form the basis for a “Cyclical Review” or report on the “fairness, effectiveness and sustainability” of a Regulator’s arbitral process (cl. 7 of Schedule 2 of the Royal Charter). We will also be seeking support for the Scheme from those bodies who are already involved in the Press Regulation debate and interested in progressing matters.

I therefore attach, the Early Resolution Pilot Arbitration Scheme, our Business Plan for the Pilot Scheme and a list of those judges/silks who have agreed to arbitrate claims for ER and its Arbitration Service. I was hoping to be able to send you a flow chart to show how (a) a dispute might go to substantive ‘free’ arbitration or (b) qualified preliminary issue ‘free’ arbitration (where the Defendant believes the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process). Unfortunately, we, Sir Charles Gray, Robert Clinton and I did not have time or the software skills to finish a flow chart yesterday! We are though still working on it and hope to have it finished soon. In this context, I think, we are well ahead of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, mentioned by IMPRESS, in being able to offer a quick, fair and cost effective Arbitration Service to a press regulator or anyone else wanting to offer ‘free’ arbitration.

We hope the Committee finds the attached documents helpful and interesting in the current debate and worth mentioning in the Communications Committee’s Report.

5 February 2015

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

Early Resolution Pilot Scheme for ‘free’ arbitration

Executive Summary

A) The object of the pilot scheme The object of the ‘Arbitration Pilot Scheme’ is to see if free arbitration, as recommended by Leveson LJ, is a quicker and cheaper way of resolving media disputes and providing access to justice than traditional High Court litigation. The pilot scheme will also indicate whether or not ‘free’ arbitration gives rise to an increase in speculative or vexatious claims.

B) Length, management and funding The Arbitration Pilot Scheme for publication proceedings1 would operate for 12 months. It would be run by ER as a not-for-profit, professional body working for a potential/actual Press Regulator. Members of that Press Regulator could be contractually obliged to offer the Pilot Arbitration Service to claimants where voluntary settlement of a dispute was not possible. For it to work effectively and its “fairness, effectiveness and sustainability” to be measured properly, it would require the approval and cooperation of those judges handling High Court media cases so that the incentives to offer free arbitration as set out in s.40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 come into effect irrespective of whether a defendant is a member of an approved Press Regulator or not.

C) High Court proceedings or free arbitration At present, publication proceedings are started in the High Court on payment of a fixed fee of over £1,000. Under ER’s Arbitration Service and Pilot Scheme, any defendant could offer a claimant free, fast track arbitration as an alternative to High Court litigation. Members of a Press Regulator are likely to be contractually obliged to offer ‘free’ fast track arbitration where voluntary settlement cannot be achieved. Once a claimant accepted free arbitration as an alternative to High Court litigation, ER would send out a questionnaire to both parties to find out what was preventing voluntary settlement. ER would then help the parties draft a suitable arbitration agreement, which is likely to identify the key issue to be determined. ER would also help the parties select an Arbitrator, negotiate the Arbitrator’s fee and agree instructions to the Arbitrator. In return ER would receive payment of the HMG’s “small administration fee”2 – payable by a claimant – and an equivalent sum from a defendant.

D) Proceedings and ability to offer ‘free’ arbitration All defendants in defamation or privacy disputes (including broadcasters, book publishers and website owners/Internet Service Providers)3 would be able to offer ‘free’ fast track arbitration under ER’s Arbitration Service to claimants in order to determine as quickly as

1 “Publication proceedings” – with the possible exception of harassment proceedings – are defined in s. 42 (4) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 2 HMG’s “small administration fee” as set out in the postscript to Criteria 22 (see Schedule II below) is for the Recognition Panel to determine but might be a fee in the region of £300-£500. 3 See Note 3 below

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) possible the key issue in publication proceedings4. This would save the cost of a High Court claim form, the drafting of pleadings and limit the recoverability of a successful claimant’s legal costs5. It would also enable both parties to benefit from the costs incentives of fast track arbitration.

E) Co-ordinating arbitrations and registering with Early Resolution It is essential that a single independent arbitral body co-ordinates all disputes between parties who have agreed to free, fast track arbitration rather than go down the more traditional route of High Court litigation. ER would be prepared to undertake the task of organising and arranging arbitrations on a cost only basis. ER would propose inviting all publishing/ broadcasting organisations to register their support for its Arbitration Service.

F) Publication proceedings questionnaire If one or both parties to a publication dispute approached ER with a request to arrange an arbitration, ER would immediately send out to the parties a Questionnaire returnable in 7 working days. This would invite answers from the parties to the following questions:-

1. Have the parties complied with the Defamation Pre-Action Protocol? 2. Is there agreement between the parties as to the meaning of the words complained of? If so, what is the agreed natural and ordinary meaning of the words? If not, what is the natural and ordinary meaning for which each party contends? 3. What is/are the key issue(s) which are currently preventing settlement of the dispute? 4. Is the proposed defendant willing to offer ‘free’ arbitration or only qualified ‘free’ arbitration. (In the latter case, the Defendant believes the claim is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and should be struck out as a preliminary issue. The arbitration is only ‘free’ if the claim is not struck out and the Arbitrator finds it is bona fide and should go to a substantive arbitration paid for by the Defendant. If the claim is struck out, the Defendant will ask the Arbitrator to order the Claimant to pay the Arbitrator’s costs and a contribution to the Defendant’s legal costs. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant will have to pay the costs of the preliminary hearing on an indemnity basis and then the costs of the Arbitrator in determining the key issue at a substantive arbitration.)

G) Claims for the misuse of private information In actions for misuse of private information the questionnaire which ER sends out will be similar but there will be specific questions relating to the law of privacy e.g.:

4 See Schedule 1 below for key determinative issues in publication proceedings 5 Claimants would only be able to recover their costs where they a) needed legal advice, b) they were clearly successful and c) it was just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case for them to do so.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

• does the information in question qualify as “private” information belonging to the claimant; • can the defendant establish that it was in the public interest or for the public benefit that the information in question be published • is the proposed defendant prepared to offer ‘free’ arbitration or only qualified ‘free’ arbitration to resolve the dispute.

H) Liability to pay the costs of an arbitration An essential feature of the ‘free’ arbitration service recommended by Leveson LJ and included in ER’s Arbitration Service is that, provided that the claim is bona fide, the defendant undertakes to pay the costs of an independent arbitrator. The defendant further agrees not to seek to recover any legal costs from the claimant even if the claimant is unsuccessful. The arbitration should take place as fast as possible probably within 28 days6. The principal issue which will most frequently arise for decision will be the meaning of the words complained of. Once meaning is established, the parties will frequently be able to negotiate a settlement often with an “offer of amends” under s.2 of the Defamation Act 1996. The advantage of this scheme to the claimant is that he or she will have access to justice and, even if unsuccessful, will not normally have to pay any legal costs of the defendant – a form of “qualified one way costs shifting” as recommended by Jackson LJ in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs in 2010.

I) Incentives for claimants to agree to arbitrate media disputes Section 40(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides that a claimant, who unreasonably refuses an offer of free arbitration from a defendant, will risk not recovering any legal costs from the defendant. Section 40(2)7 provides that the claimant will only be entitled to recover court costs if either (a) the issues raised could not have been resolved by using arbitration or (b) it was just and equitable in all the circumstances to award costs against the defendant. J) Defendant only pays for determining the key issue in the proceedings Under ER’s free fast track Arbitration Service, it is a condition precedent that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious. As long as it is genuine, the defendant pays for the arbitrator to determine, in 28 days, the key issue(s) in the dispute and this/these are set out in the instructions sent to the arbitrator just before the arbitration hearing. After that, the parties have up to 14 days to try to reach a settlement which might include an offer of amends, a Part 36 offer or the claimant withdrawing the claim. If a voluntary settlement is not reached within that period, either party may seek a “further binding ruling” from the arbitrator. The cost of any such further and/or final arbitral ruling is in the arbitrator’s discretion but could be awarded against a claimant8 particularly if a defendant has made a protective Part 36 offer which is not beaten.

6 As stated in the Defamation Pre-Action Protocol, “time is always ‘of the essence’ in defamation claims so fast track arbitration is vitally important. 7 See Schedule II below 8 See Note 4 below for Part 36 offers and the consequences of refusing a good Part 36 offer.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

K) Advantages of “fast track” arbitration in relation to costs and damages The advantage of ER’s fast track Arbitration Service for a defendant is that, by offering such arbitration and agreeing to pay for the determination of the key issue(s) within 28 days, a claimant’s costs will be kept to a minimum and a defendant reserves the right to make an offer of amends, with a discount on damages9 if the arbitrator rules that the words are more damaging than the defendant intended or can justify. Vindication is therefore quick. There are normally no pleadings – rather each side answers a straightforward questionnaire – and hugely expensive interlocutory hearings, involving technical pleadings in the High Court, are avoided. Further, under the terms of the arbitration agreement, a defendant who has paid for the cost of the arbitration would only have to pay a successful claimant’s legal costs where it would be equitable in all the circumstances of the case, for him/her to do so10.

L) An offer of qualified ‘free’ arbitration and applications to strike out An offer by a defendant of qualified ‘free’ arbitration, indicates that the defendant believes the claim is not bona fide and intends to apply to strike out the claim as a preliminary issue on the grounds that it is an abuse of process. Such an application will invariably be made at the start of the dispute before substantial costs are incurred and would act as a Leveson type filter system. If the application succeeds, the arbitrator may order the claimant to pay the arbitrator’s costs. Ordinarily this will only happen if the claimant has received a clear written warning from the defendant to that effect.

M) Penalties for offering qualified ‘free’ arbitration where claim genuine Where a defendant refuses to offer ‘free’ arbitration and only offers qualified ‘free’ arbitration but the claim is subsequently held to be neither frivolous nor vexatious nor an abuse of the process, the defendant will normally be ordered to pay the costs of the claimant on an indemnity basis as well as the costs of the arbitrator and be exposed to a possible order to pay aggravated damages for its conduct of the claim.

N) Arbitration Pilot Scheme Practice Direction & s. 40 of the 2013 Act In order to ensure the efficacy of the Pilot Scheme and to encourage free arbitration, ER respectfully suggests that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (“CPRC”) should consider introducing a Practice Direction designed to encourage the parties to use the free arbitration route. ER therefore believes that it would assist the pilot scheme if the key costs provisions of s.40 of the 2013 Act11 are replicated by the CPRC in a new Arbitration Pilot Scheme Practice Direction or as part of CPR 44.

O) Arbitration agreements: specific cases, paper applications and rulings

9 See Jimmy Nail v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1708 and discounts on damages. 10 See footnote 5 above 11 Currently s.40 may never come into effect because of sub-section 40 (6) (see Schedule II below). This is in spite of the section with its costs incentives being approved and passed by Parliament.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

It is likely that in a number of cases either the claimant or the defendant or both may be unfamiliar with the relevant law and/or with practice and procedure. In order to alleviate this problem, ER would on receipt of a completed questionnaire draft an Arbitration Agreement and in an accompanying letter suggest what might be the key issue to be determined through arbitration. This draft agreement will also include provisions as to the arbitrator’s powers, procedural matters including time limits and those provisions which are binding on the defendant in order for it to be ‘free’ arbitration. ER will also let the parties know what the Arbitrator’s fees are likely to be so the Defendant can finalize these with the Arbitrator. ER will also, as necessary, help the parties with instructions to the Arbitrator. Most applications would be done on paper without a hearing and arbitrators would give reasons for their rulings. The parties would be made aware of the appeal procedures in the Arbitration Act 199612.

P) Selecting an arbitrator from ER’s list & lay assessors ER maintains a list of leading current practitioners and retired judges all of whom have been selected as highly experienced in media law and therefore suitable to act as arbitrators in this field13. The arbitrator would be selected by mutual agreement from ER’s list. Failing agreement the arbitration agreement would provide a “first preference” formula for appointing an arbitrator from ER’s lists. It would be open to either party to apply for the appointment of two independent lay assessors14 who would be able to assist the arbitrator on particular issues which arise in the case in question, in particular cases involving “meaning” or “public interest” or if the words are even defamatory.

Q) Powers of the arbitrator and “exemplary” or “aggravated” damages The arbitrator would have no greater powers than those set out in s12 and s13 of the Defamation Act 2013 to order publication of a summary of his/her findings or remove material from a website. As regards a Pilot Scheme Practice Direction replicating parts of the 2013 Act, ER does not believe that the “exemplary damages” sections, 34 to 36, should play any part in the Practice Direction or Pilot Scheme15. Defendants who force a bona fide claimant through an unnecessary filter process (see paragraphs 12 above) would though leave themselves exposed to the possibility of an order for aggravated damages (see paragraph 13 above) and having to pay indemnity costs for an unsuccessful strike out application.

12 See Sections 67,68, 69 and 70 of the Arbitration Act 1996 13 See note 5 below on how media fast track arbitration might replicate ‘statutory adjudication’ in the construction industry. 14 See Note 6 below 15 See Note 7 below

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

General notes on the Pilot Scheme

• ‘Free’ arbitration, saving costs and a filter system for vexatious claims ‘Free’ arbitration – criteria 22 of the Royal Charter – is currently a major sticking point between the Press and its acceptance of the Royal Charter. The Press is concerned that the flood gates will be opened to frivolous or vexatious claims if newspapers, particularly regional newspapers, have to offer ‘free’ arbitration to complainants – in short, that local accuracy and/or privacy complaints, which should be dealt with under the Code of Practice, will turn into claims for damages. This is because they fear that a ‘free’ entry system, with a claimant risking nothing in bringing a claim for damages could encourage large numbers of spurious claims. On current assumptions the Newspaper Society believes this could cost the regional press £2m per annum. ER has therefore devised an Arbitration Service and Pilot Scheme which will filter out – as recommended by Leveson LJ – vexatious or frivolous claims and leave a newspaper able to seek to recover the cost of the arbitration if it genuinely believes the claim is an abuse of process. Further by concentrating on determining the key issue in the dispute within 28 days both sides’ costs are kept to a minimum. From ER’s experience, this fast track system leads to a huge saving in costs so that a defendant can, where appropriate, make a suitable ‘offer of amends’ while a claimant can back off if the words are not as damaging as originally thought. Under the ER scheme, there are real disincentives for claimants not to bring frivolous claims and real incentives for defendants to offer ‘free’ arbitration to determine a key issue and settle the dispute rapidly before legal costs escalate. Fast track arbitration within 28 days, will, ER believes, lead to huge savings in complex and tricky media disputes.

• Key issues in libel proceedings and the importance of “meaning” From ER’s experience, libel proceedings very often turn on what the words complained of actually mean to the average reasonable reader, whether they are genuinely defamatory as opposed to vulgar abuse or inaccurate, if they are “in the public interest” and whether they are a matter of honest opinion or a statement of fact. Set out in Schedule 1 are key determinative issues in publication proceedings which are susceptible to being arbitrated under a 28 day free fast track arbitration system. Once determined, the parties from ER’s experience rapidly reach agreement in resolving the dispute. Meaning disputes often turn on whether the meaning is one of a) “guilt”, b) the words suggest there are “reasonable grounds to believe the claimant has done something wrong”, or c) that the claimant “should simply be interviewed in connection with something”. These are often referred to as Chase level 1, 2 or 3 meanings. Once the meaning of the words complained of and other technical, but key issues such as “are the words honest opinion or a statement of fact”, have been resolved (see Schedule I below), it should be relatively straightforward for the action to be settled through an ‘offer of amends’, Part 36 offer, discontinuance of the claim by the claimant or service of a defence. ER’s fast track Arbitration Service does therefore concentrate on determining the key issue(s) which prevent the dispute from settling and then giving the parties an opportunity to settle the matter voluntarily.

• Arbitration for defendants & Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights In order to be ECHR Article 6 compliant and non-discriminatory against any particular class of defendant and because claimants cannot be forced down an Alternative Dispute Resolution route (see the last paragraph in the Defamation Pre-action Protocol and Halsey – v- Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA 3006 Civ 576), the pilot scheme should be

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) open to everyone. Litigants would choose whether to go down the High Court route or the ‘free’ arbitration route. There must though be strong incentives/disincentives for everyone to make the pilot scheme work. ER believes that the incentives for defendants to offer free arbitration, as set out above, should be available to all defendants in publication proceedings, not just to those members of the press, who subscribe to some new approved Regulator.

• Part 36 offers and limiting cost orders The qualified one way costs shifting process, which would apply during the first 28 days of the fast track arbitration process, would not prevent a defendant making a Part 36 offer at the outset so as to prevent a claimant recovering any legal costs. If the claimant received less than what had been offered under Part 36, some or all of the damages would have to go to pay the successful defendant’s legal costs (analogous to CPR 44.14). However, a defendant could never recover more in legal costs than what might be awarded to a claimant in damages. This would replicate the system in personal injury cases and leave a bona fide but unwise claimant protected against what might otherwise be a very substantial costs order if a Part 36 offer had been turned down at the inception of the proceedings or after the arbitrator’s ruling on a key issue.

• “Fast track” arbitration Publication proceedings must be resolved quickly, fairly and cost effectively if they are to comply with the recommendations of Jackson LJ and Leveson LJ. In this context, ER believes that the media can and should learn from the dispute resolution system introduced into the construction industry following a report in 1994, which led to the introduction of “statutory adjudication” in construction industry disputes. Under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, professional adjudicators are now appointed to resolve disputes within 28 days. This system of dispute resolution has been enormously successful. ER therefore believes free “fast track arbitration” in publication proceedings could in many respects mirror construction industry 28 day “statutory adjudication”.

• Lay assessors and s. 70 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ER has adapted s.70 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to allow parties to defamation or privacy disputes to ask for two lay assessors to join the arbitrator in deciding, for example, what the words mean, if they are defamatory, or if they are in the public interest in privacy cases. The lay assessors are chosen by the arbitrator and each side is asked to check that they know of no conflict of interest. The lay assessors then meet with the arbitrator to determine the key issue[s]. Their remuneration is negotiated by the party requesting their participation in conjunction with the arbitrator and the lay assessors. This system is designed to introduce a mini-jury element into the proceedings as used to be the case in libel actions. It has been remarkably successful from ER’s experience.

• Exemplary damages ER is concerned that those sections of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which refer to exemplary damages and are punitive in nature, may not be ECHR compatible and will sooner or later lead to an application to the ECtHR. ER therefore believes they should not form part of any Practice Direction and the only penalty for forcing a claimant to go through an initial hearing on admissibility should be a possible award of aggravated damages and indemnity costs.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

Schedule I The following are likely to be key determinative issues in publication proceedings and are therefore susceptible to being arbitrated under a 28 day fast track free arbitration system involving ‘one way costs shifting’ at the start of any proceedings:-

• Whether the Claimant is identifiable from the publication • Whether the publication is defamatory of the Claimant (as opposed to being inaccurate) • Whether the statement complained of has or is likely to cause serious harm. • If the Claimant can make out an innuendo meaning to the words complained of • What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of (e.g. Chase level 1,2 or 3) • Whether the words constitute ‘honest opinion’ or are a statement of fact • Whether an honest opinion is based on a fact contained in a privileged statement • Whether the words complained of were, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest and the publisher believed that to be the case • Whether a statement complained of was an accurate and impartial account of a dispute which the Claimant was involved in and the defendant believed was in the public interest • Whether the publication complained of is part of a peer-reviewed scientific or academic journal • Whether the words/information complained of is a ‘response to an attack’ • Whether the words complained of were part of a fair and accurate report protected by absolute or qualified privilege • Whether the publisher was actuated by malice • Whether a ‘duty and interest’ situation arises in relation to what has been published • If the action is against someone not domiciled in the UK or EU • Whether the Claimant, if normally resident outside the United Kingdom, has suffered serious harm to his/her reputation in the United Kingdom from the words complained of, • What sum in damages should be awarded to the Claimant if, having agreed liability, the parties cannot agree on the quantum of damage, and • Any other issue that the parties have agreed should be arbitrated under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Arbitrator has, in his/her absolute discretion, agreed to arbitrate. The above issues might also be the kind of key determinative issues which can arise in slander and/or privacy actions. The “public interest” and any parallel analysis test are also issues which could be undertaken as part of an arbitral process with written submissions from both parties.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

Schedule II Leveson recommendation on arbitration 22. The Board should provide an arbitral process in relation to civil legal claims against subscribers, drawing on independent legal experts of high reputation and ability on a cost- only basis to the subscribing member. The process should be fair, quick and inexpensive, inquisitorial and free for complainants to use (save for a power to make an adverse order for the costs of the arbitrator if proceedings are frivolous or vexatious). The arbitrator must have the power to hold hearings where necessary but, equally, to dispense with them where it is not necessary. The process must have a system to allow frivolous or vexatious claims to be struck out at an early stage.

Royal Charter on self-regulation of the Press Recognition Criteria 22. The Board should provide an arbitral process for civil legal claims against subscribers which:- a) complies with the Arbitration Act 1996 or the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (as appropriate); b) provides suitable powers for the arbitrator to ensure the process operates fairly and quickly, and on an inquisitorial basis (so far as possible); c) contains transparent arrangements for claims to be struck out, for legitimate reasons (including on frivolous or vexatious grounds); d) directs appropriate pre-publication matters to the courts; e) operates under the principle that arbitration should be free for complainants to use¹; f) ensures that the parties should each bear their own costs or expenses, subject to a successful complainant’s costs or expenses being recoverable (having regard to section 60² of the 1996 Act or Rule 63 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules³ and any applicable caps on recoverable costs or expenses); and g) overall, is inexpensive for all parties.

Footnote ¹“The principle that arbitration should be free does not preclude the charging of a small administration fee, provided that: (a) the fee is determined by the Regulator and approved by the Board of the Recognition Panel; and (b) the fee is used for the purpose of defraying the cost of the initial assessment of an application and not for meeting the costs of determining an application (including the costs of the arbitration)”.

Crime and Courts Act 2013 s.40 Awards of costs (1)This section applies where— (a) a relevant claim is made against a person (“the defendant”), (b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and (c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material. (2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that— (a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant. (3) If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that— (a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or (b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs. (4) The Secretary of State must take steps to put in place arrangements for protecting the position in costs of parties to relevant claims who have entered into agreements under section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. (5) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court. (6) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

BUSINESS PLAN FOR ‘FREE’ ARBITRATION PILOT SCHEME

• Early Resolution CIC Early Resolution CIC (ER) is an independent, not-for-profit company set up by Sir Charles Gray, the retired High Court libel judge and Alastair Brett, former Legal Manager of The Times and Sunday Times, to help litigants locked in expensive libel disputes to resolve their differences quickly, fairly and cost effectively. Robert Clinton, former Senior Partner of Farrer & Co, is the third director. All three directors have extensive experience of libel and privacy actions. Alastair Brett, who is Managing Director, pioneered “Fast Track Arbitration” as a way of resolving CFA-driven libel actions, while at Times Newspapers Ltd.

• The object of the Pilot Scheme The object of the Pilot Scheme is to see if ‘free’ arbitration is a quicker and cheaper way of resolving media disputes than traditional High Court litigation. The other key object of the Scheme is to see if fast track arbitration gives rise to an increase in the number of speculative or vexatious claims against the media. The Pilot Scheme would be available to the press, broadcasters, book publishers, ISPs and website owners, indeed to any publisher prepared to offer ‘free’ arbitration16. For it to work effectively, it would require the judges to implement the provisions of s.40 of the Crime and Courts Act or the Civil Procedure Rule Committee of the High Court (CPRC) to introduce a Practice Direction giving incentives for litigants to go down the arbitration route rather than the High Court route17.

• Operational model for the scheme and ER’s role Under board direction from Sir Charles Gray and Robert Clinton, Alastair Brett as Managing Director of ER – given his past experience of setting up arbitrations – would run ER’s Arbitration Service and the Pilot Scheme. If he were to need assistance, other independent libel specialists have indicated a willingness to help run the Pilot Scheme. In helping to set up and arrange fast track arbitrations, ER would offer the following services:- • A Press Regulator or either party to a dispute could approach ER and obtain guidance on how ‘free’ fast track arbitration would work in any particular case. Once approached, ER would direct parties to an updated/enhanced website and/or send out an explanatory letter setting out the arbitral procedure and its benefits together with a list of ER’s approved arbitrators. Both parties would be asked to agree, in principle, to fast track arbitration and asked who their preferred arbitrator would be. • Once both parties had agreed in principle to ‘free’ fast track arbitration and indicated their preferred arbitrator(s), ER would send out a confidential questionnaire to both parties asking them to set out and identify the essential

16 Please see the Early Resolution Pilot Scheme for ‘free’ arbitration 17 Please see paragraph 14 of the Early Resolution Pilot Scheme for ‘free’ arbitration and s. 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

elements in the dispute and indicate what was preventing settlement18. ER would also make inquiries about the availability of the preferred arbitrator(s) and his/her charges and convey this to the parties. ER would then invite them to agree an arbitrator. If this was not possible ER would select an arbitrator based on his/her availability and according to the parties’ declared preferences. • On receipt of the completed questionnaires, ER would help the parties or their solicitors to identify the issue(s) which need to be determined in order to enable the parties to reach a settlement. ER would ascertain the arbitrator’s fee within certain fixed parameters and notify the Defendant. ER would then ask if either party wanted two lay assessors to help the arbitrator determine the key issue e.g. “meaning” of the words complained of. ER would then send a draft arbitration agreement to both parties for signing. • Once the arbitration agreement had been signed, the Defendant would pay the arbitrator’s fee. (If requested, the arbitrator would nominate two lay assessors and send their details to both parties to make sure there were no conflicts of interest.) • Once the arbitrator (and two lay assessors) had been appointed each side would within 14 days have to agree joint instructions to the arbitrator and send their written submissions on the issue to be determined plus any evidential documents and legal authorities (an “Agreed Bundle”) to the arbitrator. • The arbitrator on his/her own (or with two lay assessors) would then determine the key issue at an arbitration hearing within fourteen days of receiving an Agreed Bundle from the Claimant or the Defendant including both parties’ written submissions. Within seven days of determining the key issue, the arbitrator would send both parties a copy of his/her ruling. (Very occasionally there might have to be a hearing with live evidence being given but most arbitrations would be on paper – see below for hire of premises). • On receipt of the arbitrator’s ruling, the parties would have 14 days to agree a settlement. If that was not possible either side could restore the arbitration for a “final ruling” with either or both parties having made a Part 36 or a “without prejudice save as to costs” offer or an offer of amends. Alternatively, the claimant might decide to discontinue the claim given the determined meaning. • The costs of any “consequential or final ruling” would be ‘at large’, just as the costs would be ‘at large’ where the Defendant had only made a qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration’. While the cost of any “final ruling” by the arbitrator would have to be paid up front, the arbitrator could award the costs of any qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration or “final ruling” application against either party19.

• The cost of a typical ‘substantive’ arbitration

18 See Appendix which is largely based on the complaint requirements set out in s. 2 of the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. 19 The costs consequences of losing a conditional offer application are set out in paragraph 13 of Early Resolution’s Pilot Scheme for ‘free’ arbitration

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

Just as mediators and construction industry adjudicators set out their hourly charges for typically 5 hours reading and then a one day mediation, so ER would indicate the likely charge for each arbitrator doing up to 2 hours reading of the papers and then 2 hours determining the key issue and writing a reasoned judgment – approximately half a day’s work on paper. Depending on seniority and experience and the amount of reading/complexity, this is likely to cost between £2,000 and £4,000 plus VAT. The cost of arbitrating a qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration i.e. a ‘preliminary issue’ strike out arbitration on the grounds that it is vexatious and frivolous, is not estimated to take more than some 3 hours and would not exceed £2,000 plus VAT.

• One way cost shifting and ‘free’ arbitration Defendants participating in the Pilot Scheme would pay the arbitrator’s fees up front. This cost would be irrecoverable except where the Defendant argues that the claim is vexatious and/or frivolous and so makes a qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration, conditional on the claim being declared bona fide. Under ER’s Pilot Scheme, a Defendant can therefore filter out frivolous claims. If the arbitrator finds that the claim is an abuse of process, the claim can be struck out and the arbitrator’s costs awarded against the claimant. If the claim is not struck out, the defendant can be ordered to pay indemnity costs in relation to that preliminary issue and the claimant can then seek an order for aggravated damages for having been put through an unnecessary step in having to prove that the claim was not an abuse of process.

• Administrative costs of setting up an arbitration Typically, setting up an arbitration as outlined above – where both parties are represented by solicitors – should not take more than 5-7 hours of ER’s time. Where one party is a litigant in person this could be longer and where the Defendant only makes a qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration20 – with the Defendant applying, as a preliminary issue, to have the case struck out as an abuse of process – the time to set up the arbitration should be less than 4 hours. For the duration of the Pilot Scheme, ER is prepared to cap the administration costs of setting up a substantive arbitration at £1,000 and each offer of qualified ‘free’ arbitration at no more than £600. Half of the administration costs of setting up an arbitration would come from the claimant (see paragraph 7 below) and half from the defendant. From experience, ER expects to spend a considerable amount of time helping parties with a dispute only to find that the dispute never actually goes to arbitration and it receives no remuneration at all.

• Source of funds to set up arbitration In the footnote to Recognition Criteria 22 in the Royal Charter for Press Regulation, the Government has indicated that a “small administration fee” can be charged to a claimant so long as the fee is approved by the Board of the Recognition Panel. ER believes that this small administration fee could be in the region of £300 to £500. ER is therefore considering

20 Please see paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Early Resolution Pilot Scheme for free arbitration and the filter system set out therein

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) approaching the Recognition Panel for ‘informal’ approval that the “small administration fee” for setting up a substantive arbitration might be £500 for a claimant and a similar amount for the Defendant. Likewise approval for a “small administration fee” of £300 from a Claimant, and a similar amount from a Defendant, might be sought from the Recognition Panel for setting up a preliminary issue, qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration. ER will keep time records of setting up each arbitration for the purposes of a final report on the actual time spent helping the parties and the final cost of ‘free’ fast track arbitration in media disputes.

• Cost of setting up and arbitrating an average substantive arbitration From experience, ER believes that the key issue in most media disputes – often “meaning” or whether the words have actually caused ‘serious harm’21 – can be determined on paper with the likely arbitrator’s costs set out in paragraph 4 above and the administration costs in setting up the arbitration set out in paragraph 6 above. (If either party wants the arbitrator to be assisted by two lay assessors, this is likely to cost that party an additional £200 to £300.) ER therefore believes that the likely cost of setting up and conducting an average substantive arbitration on paper, not including each party’s own legal costs, will be in the region of £3,000 plus VAT for the arbitrator’s fees plus a further £1,000 for administrative charges of which £500 would be payable by the claimant and £500 by the defendant. ER is not registered for VAT. An average substantive arbitration is therefore likely to cost a defendant £4,100. The cost of arbitrating a qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration i.e. a strike out application, is likely to be £2,400 (arbitrator’s fee) and £300 (administration fee) making a total of £2,700 initially payable by the defendant but recoverable if the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

• Volume of complaints and overall costs to the Press of ‘free’ arbitration It is an unknown factor how many ‘Code complaints’ might turn into claims for damages. From an analysis of claims against regional newspapers and Alastair Brett’s past experience at Times Newspapers, ER believes that the likely number of bona fide disputes going to substantive arbitration – where the claimant has to pay £500 to get started – is unlikely to be more than 30 per annum. This suggests that the overall cost of arbitrating some 30 substantive claims is likely to be £108,000 in arbitrators’ fees and a further £15,000 in ER’s administration costs in setting up those arbitrations. In addition there might be up to half a dozen disputes where the defendant only makes a qualified offer of ‘free’ arbitration and seeks to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. These 6 cases could cost a further £14,400 in arbitrators’ fees and a further £1,800 in administration costs, adding a further £16,200 to an approximate bill of £123,000 for 30 substantive arbitrations. ER therefore estimates that the overall cost – not including any award of damages or individual party’s legal costs – of participating in the Pilot Scheme and offering ‘free’ fast track arbitration is unlikely to exceed £140,000 per annum with very considerable savings in damages and costs currently awarded against the Press/defendants.

• ER, its premises, phone lines and internet website

21 Please see Schedule 1 to the Early Resolution Pilot Scheme for free arbitration for those disputes susceptible to fast track arbitration

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015)

ER has a central London postal and phone line address at 218 The Strand, opposite the Royal Courts of Justice. This is The National Mediation Centre, run by Jonathan Dingle FRSA, who has already agreed to let ER hire rooms “at cost”. He would be happy for ER to make clear that 218 The Strand is where arbitrations will take place (most will actually be done on paper without need for an oral hearing). Documents can be left at 218 The Strand and ER can be contacted there for the purposes of arranging arbitrations. Alastair Brett is easily contactable by telephone and runs the ER website which is about to be updated and significantly enhanced if ER were chosen to run the Pilot Scheme. It already includes a list of approved arbitrators in this specialist area of law and will set out the Pilot Scheme questionnaire and a typical arbitration agreement. ER’s website also advertises telephone numbers of those firms of solicitors specializing in media law and are happy to assist parties as and when necessary22.

• Set up costs and other disbursements over a 12 month Pilot Scheme ER is a not-for-profit company and has minimal overheads. At no extra cost and in the public interest, ER would write a detailed report at the end of the Pilot Scheme analysing the overall cost and benefits/drawbacks of the Scheme. Setting up the Pilot Scheme will, however, need the backing of the relevant High Court judges and/or High Court CPRC. There will be ‘start-up’ costs principally in publicizing the Scheme and inviting publishers and broadcasters including website owners to register with ER as supporters of and/or participants in the Scheme. ER estimates that it would cost approximately £10,000 plus VAT to publicize the scheme and between £5,000 and £7,500 for it to update and enhance its website. This would enable those interested in ‘free’ fast track arbitration to see how it works, the advantages of going down this route as opposed to High Court litigation, the inevitable cost to a claimant of triggering ‘free’ arbitration (the Government’s “small administrative fee”), the ER questionnaire, a sample arbitration agreement and who the approved arbitrators are on ER’s books together with the names, telephone numbers and addresses of firms of solicitors who might be able to assist in this specialist area of law23.

22 The cost of running and maintaining the website is off-set by a small advertising charge for those firms of solicitors or mediators wanting to advertise on the ER website 23 It is hoped that the Pilot Scheme will demonstrate that media disputes can be resolved just as quickly and cheaply as “statutory adjudication” can and does help resolve disputes in the Construction Industry in 28 days.

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) APPENDIX

Questionnaire to be completed for free fast track arbitration

In strictest confidence and solely to help Early Resolution CIC (ER) identify the key issues for fast track arbitration, please would you answer the following questions about the dispute. If you are being advised by solicitors please ask them to answer the questions or help you with them. Your answers will be treated in strictest confidence; they will not be passed on to the other side or to any arbitrator and are ‘without prejudice’ to your case. They will help ER identify the issue(s) which need to be resolved in order for the parties to make progress and settle the dispute. (If any of the questions cannot be answered in the space below, please set out your answers on an attached sheet)

• Please state where the words complained of appeared and on what date? Publication/broadcast:-……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Date:- …………………………………………

• Are you being advised by solicitors or a barrister? If so, please name the individual solicitor/barrister handling the case and give his/her address and telephone number: ………………………………………………………...... …….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………...

• Have you complied with the Defamation Pre-Action Protocol? Yes / No / Why not……………………………………. Don’t know about it. (Please circle your answer) Has the other side complied with it? Yes / No / Why not ……………………………………………………………………………….

• Please set out the actual words complained of (or an attached sheet, if insufficient room):- ……………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

• Please set out the “meaning of the words complained” as you believe they would be understood by an average reasonable reader/viewer. (Please be as succinct as possible but if there is more than one possible meaning, please set out each meaning you believe the words could reasonably bear on an attached sheet):- ………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

• Please set out any factual inaccuracies and/or opinions which are not supported by facts in the words complained of:- ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

• Please set out the relief/damages/order which is sought and would resolve this dispute:- ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………...

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) • Please explain in your own words (but as shortly as possible), why you have been unable to resolve this dispute (Please attach any inter-solicitor correspondence or letters between you and the other side which will help explain where the problem(s) lie):- ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………......

Early Resolution CIC – written evidence (PRG0015) EARLY RESOLUTION

LIST OF RETIRED JUDGES AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL FOR LIBEL/PRIVACY DISPUTES

Sir Brian Neill (retired Court of Appeal judge)

Sir Charles Gray (retired High Court judge and Chairman of Early Resolution

Patrick Milmo Q.C.

Richard Rampton Q.C.

Desmond Browne Q.C.

Andrew Caldecott Q.C.

James Price Q.C.

Adrienne Page Q.C.

Gavin Millar Q.C.

Antony White Q.C.

Hugh Tomlinson QC

Mark Warby Q.C.

Stephen Suttle Q.C.

Heather Rogers Q.C.

Manuel Barca Q.C.

David Price Q.C.

Matthew Nicklin Q.C.

Justin Rushbrooke Q.C.

Godwin Busuttil (and the possibility of other senior juniors at 5RB, 1 Brick Court, Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers)

Financial Times – written evidence (PRG0010)

It has been brought to my attention that the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications is conducting an inquiry into the effectiveness of self-regulation by the press since the closure of the Press Complaints Commission. I understand that IPSO, IMPRESS, the Recognition Panel, and Hacked Off have given evidence or are due to do so in the coming weeks.

As you may be aware, the role of independent Editorial Complaints Commissioner – governed by an independent Appointments and Oversight Board – is the arrangement that the Financial Times Ltd has put in place to manage readers’ complaints, and to provide for alternative dispute resolution in the rare cases that it might be appropriate.

I attach for your information the Financial Times public statement on its position. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0b5f6282-c592-11e3-a7d4- 00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CBKtpQXO http://aboutus.ft.com/2014/09/05/update-on-independent-system-for-editorial- complaints/

If the Committee would find it of assistance, I would be glad to provide written evidence of my first four months in the role. Should the Committee wish to invite oral evidence, James Lamont (Managing Editor) and I would be more than happy to attend in-person.

17 January 2015

Financial Times – written evidence (PRG0010)

April 17, 2014 12:03 pm Letter from the Editor By Lionel Barber, Editor New feature Financial Times statement on press regulation

The Financial Times stands for an independent press, free of economic and political interference. We therefore support efforts to create a more robust system of independent regulation for the industry in the wake of the Leveson inquiry.

After careful consideration, the FT has decided to put in place a system which is accountable, credible, robust and highly adaptable to meet the pace of change in our industry. We believe this approach is consistent with our record of journalistic excellence and integrity, and it builds on our already strong system of governance designed to maintain the highest possible ethical standards. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F2%2F0b5f 6282-c592-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html&text=Letter%20from%20the%20Editor%20- %20FT.com&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F2%2F0b5f6282- c592-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html%23axzz3CBKtpQXO&related=fttheworld&via=FT The FT has established a track record for treading its own path at a time of wrenching change in the news business. We have consistently taken decisions which have marked a break with established industry practice when it is the right thing to do for our readers and business. Our approach reflects the FT’s standing as an increasingly digital news operation with a global footprint. More than three-quarters of our readers are now outside the UK. Our main competitors are global news organisations, each of which applies its own system of independent regulation. There is no industry standard.

The FT has been a longstanding member of the Press Complaints Commission, which is due to expire shortly. Readers will therefore no longer have recourse to the PCC as an independent service for dealing with complaints. In its place, we will set up a new mechanism to handle reader complaints in the event that they feel our internal procedures fail to provide an adequate response or redress.

Two points are relevant here. First, our record at the PCC in recent years shows that in the overwhelming majority of cases the FT has been exonerated from criticism. Second, the FT is always willing to deal with complaints expeditiously and, if warranted, publish a clarification, correction or apology.

Nevertheless, we recognise that we need to provide additional reassurances in the post-PCC world. We will therefore be creating a new position of editorial complaints commissioner. The remit and reporting line will be set out in a public advertisement in due course. The successful candidate will be appointed by a three-person committee and will be independent of the editor.

Financial Times – written evidence (PRG0010)

In addition, the FT will continue to provide platforms for readers to comment on articles and participate in discussion with our reporters and commentators. We believe our conversation with readers around the world is important. Understanding what they need and value is vital to our success as a news organisation.

The FT will continue to engage with our peers in the industry. Every newspaper and news group must make their own choice regarding regulation. At this point, we have decided to plot our own course. We are committed to best practice and determined to uphold the high standards that have served the FT and our readers so well over the past 126 years.

Update on independent system for editorial complaints

Following this letter to readers in April, The Financial Times Limited (FT) has appointed Greg Callus as its editorial Complaints Commissioner. The role will ensure a continued means of dealing with reader complaints following the closure of the Press Complaints Commission. His remit is to support the FT’s existing framework for handling editorial complaints, independent of the editor. Where any complaint under the FT Editorial Code is not resolved by FT’s senior editors, he will review the matter and recommend appropriate redress, including in the form of clarifications and corrections.

Callus has been appointed by the FT’s new Appointments & Oversight Committee. Its members are Baroness Wheatcroft (Chair), professor Ian Hargreaves and Financial Times CEO John Ridding. The Complaints Commissioner’s work will be reviewed by the committee, whose role is to uphold the FT Editorial Code with a view to maintaining journalistic integrity, and overseeing the work of the commissioner.

Baroness Wheatcroft, Chair of the Appointments & Oversight Committee, said: “Greg Callus is a distinguished candidate with extensive experience and a deep commitment to responsible journalism, matters of public interest and lawful freedom of expression. This important new job requires authority, a strong sense of fairness and impeccable judgement, all qualities that Greg clearly demonstrates. His understanding of UK and international media law and practice will be crucial for this role.”

Greg Callus commented: “The FT is one of the world’s great news organisations and its record of dealing with complaints, both internally and before the Press Complaints Commission, is enviably good. Nothing is more important to a democracy than a free and vibrant press. We all want journalism to be fearless and independent but also faithful to the truth, and ethical in its execution. I care deeply about both parts of that equation, and look forward to working alongside the Financial Times in this new role as its Complaints Commissioner.”

The Complaints Commissioner and the Appointments and Oversight Committee will be employed on a fixed term basis and the Complaints Commissioner’s appointment will be reviewed annually by the chair. A quarterly report on the commissioner’s activity will be published on FT.com.

Find more information on Greg Callus and the Appointments & Oversight Committee.

If you wish to request a clarification or correction, please email [email protected].

Financial Times – written evidence (PRG0010)

If you wish to make a complaint about any of our editorial content or journalistic activity, please contact [email protected].

Where any complaint under the FT Editorial Code is unable to be resolved by FT’s senior editors, the Complaints Commissioner will review the matter and recommend any appropriate redress.

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41)

Evidence Session No. 2 Heard in Public Questions 22 - 41

TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Lord Best (Chairman) Baroness Bakewell Lord Clement-Jones Baroness Deech Lord Dubs Baroness Fookes Baroness Hanham Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Lord Horam Lord Razzall Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury ______

Examination of Witnesses

Alan Rusbridger, Editor, the Guardian and Bob Satchwell, Executive Director, the Society of Editors

Q32 The Chairman: I welcome Bob Satchwell and Alan Rusbridger. Thank you both very much for joining us. The session will be broadcast, so you will be on the public record. We are going to handle today’s session slightly differently; instead of directing questions equally to both of you, we are going to divide the questions between you, if we may. Different questions will come from my colleagues to each of you. Perhaps you can begin by introducing yourselves for the record and saying where you are coming from on this big issue of press regulation. Alan Rusbridger: I am Alan Rusbridger. I am editor-in-chief of the Guardian. So far we have been on the sidelines of this. We have not joined IPSO. We have had our own system of independent regulation at the Guardian for 17 or 18 years and have recently boosted it with a separate review panel, so I think we have a pretty robust system—probably the most independent system that any newspaper offers at the moment. We are waiting to see the progress that Sir Alan makes, which he talked about in the previous session, before considering whether we should join IPSO. Bob Satchwell: I am Bob Satchwell. I am executive director of the Society of Editors, a former editor of a regional paper and a senior executive in Fleet Street before that. The Society of Editors has about 400 members from all parts of the media, not just newspapers and magazines but digital and broadcasting. We are the servants of the industry, in the sense that our membership has probably as many different views from all parts of life as there are publications. Quite frequently they do not agree. In fact, earlier this week we managed to get virtually the whole of Fleet Street and a lot of other papers to agree on one

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) subject, but it was highly unusual to get unanimity in that way. Basically, where we come from on IPSO is that by far the majority of our members have signed contracts with it. Therefore I guess we support the idea of IPSO, but we are totally independent of it and play no formal part in it—or in any other kind of regulation, for that matter. The Chairman: Our first two questions are exclusively for Alan Rusbridger.

Q33 Lord Horam: Above all, we are trying to get clarity about the present situation, which seems to have become rather opaque over the past few months. What is the Guardian’s position, post-Leveson, on press regulation in general terms? Alan Rusbridger: We think that Leveson got many things right, but that the period after Leveson was a pretty unhappy one in terms of how the structuring of the discussions about what should happen happened. We disagreed with the mechanism of the royal charter to try to get around the enforcement of the carrots and sticks. Lord Horam: Why was that? Alan Rusbridger: Why did we disagree? I did not like the idea of the royal charter. Lord Horam: Why? Alan Rusbridger: Because it seemed to be an unusually opaque bit of constitutional nonsense that did not sit well with press freedom. As far as anyone could explain how a royal charter worked, it was essentially the Privy Council, which is the Government of the day— Lord Horam: Your view was fairly general, was it not? Alan Rusbridger: It was fairly general. We did not like the royal charter, nor were we satisfied, for the reasons Sir Alan Moses has just described to you, that IPSO was entirely independent in the way we would hope. The majority of the titles of what used to be called the broadsheet press are not in IPSO at the moment, but they wish Alan Moses well in trying to get the things through that he just talked about. Lord Horam: As you may have heard him just say, he thought it would be good from the public’s point of view if there were one regulator. Alan Rusbridger: I agree with that. Lord Horam: If he proved with a case that he was genuinely independent and established a good track record, would you join IPSO? Alan Rusbridger: If he came to me or to you and said that he thought he had solved the problems that really worried us, I or my successor would sit down with the Scott Trust and say, “Should we now join?”. I would not want to give that commitment here and now. Lord Horam: What about IMPRESS? Is that an alternative? Do you see the point of it? Alan Rusbridger: In many respects they are remarkably similar. Lord Horam: IMPRESS and IPSO? Alan Rusbridger: Yes. The idea of how you structure a regulator and what it does—it has a code, a committee, mediation, arbitration and investigatory powers—is broadly similar in both cases. The main difference to my mind is that IMPRESS started with the idea of a charter. I notice that Jonathan Heawood is now a bit more ambivalent about that. At the moment I do not want to join IMPRESS alone, because by doing so you would trigger a lot of carrots and sticks that most people are pretty unhappy about. At the moment you would

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) also be tying yourself to the royal charter, so it is a better position for us, the FT and the Independent to wait and see what Alan Moses can do with IPSO. Baroness Deech: Do you object to all royal charters or just the way this particular one was formulated? In your evidence to Leveson, I think that you were in favour of financial incentives. I wondered if you had changed your mind. Alan Rusbridger: The problem is that what Leveson was trying to solve was what became known as the Desmond problem; everyone was terribly worried that Richard Desmond would not join in, so we were trying to jointly think of a system whereby with particular regard to the law of libel, the costs of which can be horrendous, there would be advantages the people who were in and disadvantages of people who were out. I still think that that was a good idea in principle. It got complicated in two respects. First, how do you embed that and give it legal force? The charter was one way of trying to do that. Secondly, I do not think it was drafted very well. Something went wrong and the thing that was supposed to be the great incentive, which would make them want to join, most members of the International Media Lawyers Association do not see as particularly attractive. It failed both in the grand idea of how you would enforce it and in the drafting of the carrots and sticks. Baroness Deech: I take it from what you said that it is this particular Royal Charter that you dislike, or is it royal charters in general? Alan Rusbridger: In the autumn I become principal of Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford, which is governed by royal charter, and I think that is a wonderful thing. However, I am not sure that the press, which is supposed to be independent of power, sits very easily with the idea of a royal charter, which is essentially the Privy Council of the day. I have had arguments with lawyers saying that this is no different from statute, and I have read the arguments about the two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, it seems to be a foot in the door with which politicians were trying to exert some form of control over the press, which I did not like.

Q34 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: My question is also to the Guardian. You have mentioned your panel. Can you explain to us how you handle complaints from readers? If they are unhappy about your initial response to their complaint, to whom can they appeal? What did you think about Sir Alan’s idea of compulsory arbitration? Alan Rusbridger: The way that the system works at the moment is that there is an office that is open five days a week, run by an independent readers’ editor. I cannot alter a word that he writes. I cannot appoint him or sack him—all that is done by the Scott Trust—so I have no control over him. He has guaranteed space in the paper every day and can write a column once a week that, again, I cannot touch. That seems to me to be a very open, robust and independent system, which does not exist on any other paper apart from the Observer. We have bolted on to that a review panel chaired by John Willis, the distinguished TV director, with Geraldine Proudler, a lawyer, and Elinor Goodman, a former political journalist who sat on the Leveson committee. They will meet once a month and review. So if anyone is unhappy with Chris Elliott’s findings, they can go to him. They will get space in the paper and we would have to print any of their findings. So the sorts of things that IPSO would be able to do, such as compelling us to report an adverse adjudication or a finding of the review panel, would fall to the review panel itself.

Q35 Baroness Fookes: This question is to you Mr Satchwell, as the representative of the Society of Editors. The Leveson report made a number of recommendations. What would you regard as the most significant?

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Bob Satchwell: For me, the most important was that he said that the best solution to the problems he had been looking at was that the industry should set up a body itself. That is what it has in fact done and you have just heard from Sir Alan about how it is working now, for most of the press. Obviously, Leveson ideally wanted to have one regulator. That is probably what everybody would like, but one advantage of our press in this country is its diversity in every way. It has diversity of opinion; that is at the heart of press freedom. I do not have a problem with the fact that some newspapers may not be in it. I hope that they might join into one body in the end, but it is their right, as editors and publishers, to join or not. That is a slight aside, but another point that Leveson was getting at was to try to achieve—I think everyone agreed that it needed to be achieved—a change in culture and, to some extent, practice. Bear in mind that an awful lot of editors and publishers across the country felt that they were being dragged unfairly into what was a fairly narrow area of serious complaint. A lot of regional paper editors, but not just them, were certainly concerned that they had been tarred with a brush. On the other hand, what Leveson quite clearly exposed was a need for greater governance within some newspapers and within the regulatory system, as it was, given the problems of the PCC. It was obviously significant that he was suggesting the expansion of the work of the PCC into a wider area. In fact, he was very clear that he was not making adverse comment on the work of the PCC as a complaints handler; it was the need to have ability to investigate serious and repeat problems that needed to be addressed. That is being addressed by IPSO, within the governance arrangements which the IPSO contract has on how newspapers must record everything they do in the way of complaints handling and be audited by IPSO. That goes right up to the top of each newspaper group by having a very senior person being responsible for reporting back on their work. Those points were important and have been accepted, but more importantly this should be looked at in terms of that cultural change. Already, just the Leveson process and what has happened since— and, I might say, all the debates about the setting up of IPSO—have had a significant effect on the culture within newspapers in terms of management and newsrooms. Baroness Fookes: Do you think that change in culture will hold over a period of years? Bob Satchwell: Yes, I do, as there has been that history. Leveson made his famous comment that he did not want his report to gather dust on some academic’s shelf. I had some disagreement with that, given the fact that if you look back at all the inquiries that have happened over 60 or 70 years, none of them wanted to go any further than setting up what was in the end the PCC. That was the furthest it got, but none of them wanted to go into what some people have described as crossing the Rubicon of having a compulsory regulator, or indeed any involvement of the state. He was trying to suggest that that could be solved, but it remains a very dangerous issue in the industry. Alan just said that there were issues with the way the solution—the Royal Charter—was suggested. It was suggested as a way out for everybody, but I had always thought that a Royal Charter was something that people applied for. Whether it was people wanting to protect animals or children, or even to set up an Oxford college, I thought that they asked for a Royal Charter to protect that organisation. This Royal Charter was imposed on the press without their involvement. Baroness Fookes: So from your point of view that was the intervention of government, which was anathema?

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Bob Satchwell: It was the beginning of the intervention of government. More worryingly, people have argued that there is the safeguard of the two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament, but I could see that as being not a safeguard but a real danger. It is not without possibility that one day in the future, some much less benign form of Parliament and Government could easily change the whole process of press regulation to make it very harsh and statutory indeed. That is where the danger came. It is about getting those sorts of fingers into it. Part of it is that our constitution is balanced in so many different ways, and that would put an extra imbalance into it. The Chairman: Can I just remind colleagues to declare any interests that they might wish to before they speak?

Q36 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I declare an interest that I was the former Attorney- General, and then the shadow Attorney-General, who was responsible for this area for some four or five years. Taking up the last point, do you therefore argue that IPSO is Leveson-compliant? Bob Satchwell: That is for IPSO to say, rather than me. I am not formally involved in it. It is for the people who drew up the very complicated contract. It is certainly compliant in the sense that people might look at all the different angles of Leveson to say whether it is compliant or not, and just because you have had a lot of recommendations from Leveson does not mean that every last dot and comma of his recommendations should be taken on board. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am just trying to better understand because, as you know, this Committee is seeking to inquire into this issue so that we can better understand it and the public can have it illuminated for them. I know that you have read Leveson in some detail in relation to your responsibilities, so I am sure that you absolutely understand the principles that he set out in order for IPSO or any other regulator to comply with the independence that he argued was fundamental to a proper regulatory system. Bob Satchwell: Thank you for your confidence. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: What I want to understand from you, speaking on behalf of editors, is whether you contend that, in terms of those principles of independence, you would argue on behalf of those editors that IPSO complies with the fundamental independent principles enunciated by Leveson or not. Bob Satchwell: I think it is independent, yes. [The industry is represented but it is in a minority at all levels. Other members are independent minded, strong individuals. The industry knows that it has to listen to Sir Alan and it is.]

Q37 Lord Clement-Jones: I think you have made it pretty clear that you support IPSO and the reasons why. In a nutshell, whether it is the detail of Leveson or the essence of Leveson, you are saying that it meets the criticisms that Leveson made, broadly, and therefore you support it. Of course, the issue for many people is the fact that it does not have any link to the question of recognition. Through the Royal Charter, you have explained, in a sense, why. Why is the Royal Charter something that IPSO will shy away from in seeking recognition? Bob Satchwell: Again, that is a matter for IPSO and its board. Lord Clement-Jones: Except that it is responding to its members, is it not? I think Sir Alan made it clear that this was theology that he was not really concerned with expounding; it was the members who were more interested in that.

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Bob Satchwell: Put it this way: if you look at it from the other direction, if IPSO were to go down that route, unless there were some major changes in thinking, it could fail. As I said, my first concern was that loophole about statutory intervention. The second idea, which I find very strange, is [the difficulty of] finding, if you can, someone of an independent mind and the character and standing of Sir Alan—I had no involvement in that process either, but he has already shown in these very early days his independence of thought and strength of character—and his having to be examined once every three years by people who perhaps do not have his standing and certainly do not have his experience. There is a danger that you cannot get people of that independent character to sit if they have to be re-examined. Lord Clement-Jones: What baffles some of us is that when we look across the Irish Sea, we see that all your members who publish in Ireland are members of the Irish press council. They are all subject to recognition by the Minister of Justice in Ireland, which is political recognition, essentially. But here all your members are complaining about a system of a Royal Charter, which is far more benign, potentially. Bob Satchwell: Many of us on this side of the water have difficulties with the Irish system for that very reason. Lord Clement-Jones: Yet so many of your members have signed up to it. Bob Satchwell: Only in the sense that that is the only way they can operate in that part of the British Isles. [There was also in the background potential punitive sanctions regarding libel etc if they did not join the system.] Lord Clement-Jones: So the politicians here should have been rather tougher with you and your members at the time? Is that really what you are saying? Bob Satchwell: It may be a fault of some parts of the Irish press to have allowed that to happen. Lord Clement-Jones: We have all been far too soft over here compared to the Irish? Bob Satchwell: No, the Irish press may have been far too soft [in their resistance to political or government involvement]. Alan Rusbridger: Can I say something about the objection to the royal charter? It has been described by Sir Alan Moses as theological, and I think that that is not a bad word. If you believe that the press is an independent realm, institution and organisation, and that there has been a 300-year fight to establish that, there is a kind of theological objection to Westminster, Whitehall or anyone else imagining that they have or should have any power over the press. I will give you two little examples that have cemented my view over the past couple of months. There is a Home Office consultation document about the sanctity of sources. There are various professions, institutes and organisations that have relationships: doctors with patients, clients with lawyers, priests with communicants and journalists with sources. Those things are considered sacred by those professions and have been for decades, if not centuries. There is a paragraph in a Home Office consultation document today, to which the possibility of objection is in about five minutes time, in which a Home Office official has decided to waive those privileges. In future, the police, on the authority of another policeman, will be able to interfere in the confidentiality of sources. Actually, that applies to MPs as well. That, as Bob says, gets every journalist completely united in wanting to defend the sanctity and independence of the press.

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Another thing happened during Snowden, when I was asked to appear before the Home Affairs Committee and was asked whether I was sufficiently patriotic. I suggested to the editor of the New York Times that she might like to come with me, because we had handled similar material. She looked at me as though I was mad even attending a Committee—or being hauled before a Committee—and said, “I could not possibly come to appear with you, even though I would like to discuss these issues and sit beside you, because I would never dream of doing that in Congress. It would never happen”. I remember the behaviour of some politicians during Snowden, which I know was a controversial thing, but these are the moments when theology is tested, with demands for the police to be involved and the Commons to interrogate editors. I am trying to explain to you why this is a kind of theological issue to the press. I am sure that the charter was a benignly intended instrument to try to solve the issue of statutory control, but it seemed to many of us like the thin end of the wedge. Lord Clement-Jones: We are duly grateful for your agreeing to appear here, despite the theology from across the Atlantic. How can you explain colleagues across the Irish Sea with the same cultural background—after all, for most of that 300 years the press was a British press prevalent in Ireland, with Dean Swift et cetera—yet they accepted that sort of recognition system, which is far further along the theological path than a Royal Charter amendable only by two-thirds of Parliament. Bob Satchwell: I represent editors. I believe that editors should make their own decisions. Clearly those in Ireland did. I would also say that Ireland is different: it is a different culture, its journalists are different. In some ways they are fiercer than some UK journalists about these issues, but that is what they accepted and it was [partly the remit of] the way the negotiations were set up. The Irish press council perhaps drove it as well. I certainly do not think that you can apply any one system elsewhere to another country. It would be disastrous to have some of the systems that are around in Europe. I would be very happy to have the United States example over here, but it is very difficult to put a different country into the same context.

Q38 Baroness Hanham: Can I bring us back to something that may be a little less exciting: the position of the local press? This Committee has been very interested in that subject and has done a report on it with regard to investigative journalism. I was wondering whether we could talk for a moment or two about how you, Mr Satchwell, think that the local press will be, or are already, affected by membership of IPSO? Is it any different from any other part of the press? When we have thought about that, could we then look at something specific: the cost of arbitration, how that is of concern to the local press and how it sees having to deal with that? If you were able to expand on that, we would be grateful. Bob Satchwell: As you know, a number of local and regional papers have been under extreme pressure commercially in recent years. Even the bigger ones are smaller entities than any national newspaper. So it can be very difficult to have a phalanx of people looking at complaints and so on, certainly for a small weekly paper. When I was editing a regional paper in Cambridge, we had a system but it was not absolutely formalised. Therefore, it could have shaken. That was one of the points that came out of Leveson that made me think. I had thought 20 years before that we had a robust system, but actually it was not as robust as it could have been. Just having that robust system of IPSO, which they have now signed up to, obviously puts pressure on them because they do not have so many people

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) around. The costs of membership of IPSO, as you probably heard before I came in, are higher than those of the PCC, which also has an implication. Baroness Hanham: Is there a sliding scale of subscription costs? Bob Satchwell: I do not know what the subscriptions are, because that is subject to commercial confidentiality. That is a special arrangement that they make with IPSO. I think that the precise system is based on revenue, but I do not know the precise figures. They are concerned about it taking extra work and cost to do things, but they are taking that on board in a robust way and that will be very good, often for the obvious reason that their readers are sometimes more annoyed than the readers of a national paper might be, as they feel closer to it. It is the old observation that people are more likely to complain to their friends, if you like, so there are a lot of complaints. Most of the things that went to the PCC and that go to IPSO are about accuracy involving an individual. One of their worries about the finances concerns the issue of arbitration. Certainly, most of those complaints have been dealt with in the past by the PCC and by IPSO at no cost to the complainant and, obviously, the commercial organisation of the paper. However, if you have a compulsory arbitration system, it may not sound that expensive but it would be an extra cost to them, especially if they then had to pay the costs of the complainant and so on. That is where they are concerned. They are looking at very tight, relatively small budgets where the slightest hiccup could make the difference between a paper living and dying. Baroness Hanham: Do you think there is any movement in this, or is it a fait accompli: they are going to be signed up to whatever that system is, with its associated costs? Bob Satchwell: All the major groups and regional newspapers are signed up, as are magazines, which have similar economic issues to take care of. They are signed up to six- year contracts, so obviously they have taken that on board very carefully. It is the extra push that could be the problem. It would not take an awful lot to lead to a paper becoming so unviable that it had to close.

Q39 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Can I, in the first instance, put this to Mr Rusbridger? This question is about exemplary damages and the provisions of the Crime and Courts Act. I realise that at the moment there is no approved regulator. Is it your understanding that if there were to be one—for example, suppose that IMPRESS were to become the regulator— do you understand from the provisions of the Act that the Guardian might in certain circumstances be vulnerable to exemplary damages? Alan Rusbridger: As far as I understand it, the exemplary damages, the so-called sticks, apply regardless of recognition. That is different from costs, although I think the exemplary damages are in there. My learned friend appears to be nodding, so I think I have got that bit right. The carrots come in once there is recognition of a panel and recognised regulator, but the sticks are there regardless of recognition. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: I am being a bit slow. Just so I am absolutely clear, if there were an approved regulator available for anyone to join, the stick would relate to costs, would it? Alan Rusbridger: There are two different kinds of sticks. There are the exemplary damages, which apply anyway, which I think was a mistake. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: So does the stick of exemplary damages apply regardless of whether there is—

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Alan Rusbridger: You are quite right to be looking at my learned friend, because she will nod. I am pretty sure that I am right in saying that the exemplary damages— Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: So the exemplary damages stick applies, regardless of whether there is an approved regulator? Alan Rusbridger: There is ambiguity about that. The thought was that if you joined the regulator there might be some immunity from exemplary damages, but the lawyers who I have spoken to are not sure that that is a very sound protection. It seems to be at the discretion of the judge. If the regulator found you guilty of a breach, it would then be open to the courts to impose exemplary damages. The degree of immunity from exemplary damages that we had thought might be granted by becoming part of the regulated regulator is not there. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: In the case of costs, there would have to be an approved regulator before that stick came into effect. Alan Rusbridger: That is right. As I say, again, the advice of our lawyers—and Gill Phillips is a member of the International Media Lawyers Association, so I think it is a common view in Fleet Street and in regional newspapers—is that the carrots were poorly drafted. If they were intended as an incentive to persuade people into the regulatory system, they have failed because people do not believe in them. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Are they not clear enough in the Act? Alan Rusbridger: They are not very juicy carrots. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: It is the juiciness rather than the clarity, is it? Alan Rusbridger: I think the regional papers feel that this could land them with a bunch of expenses that they do not welcome. There is a feeling that it is extremely complex—that the BBC website’s newspapers are all going to be treated differently by the courts. A large part of it is at the discretion of the courts, and the carrots seem to favour claimants more than defendants. So there is a lot of uncertainty about how they would work. The media lawyers feel that they were not given a chance to advise. The carrots that Leveson imagined were better than the carrots that we have ended up with. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: You are nodding, Mr Satchwell. Do you agree with what has been said? Bob Satchwell: In effect. In a sense it comes down to the fact that, although I am not a lawyer and it baffles me, I thought that we were all supposed to be equal under the law but this would create an unequal legal regime. People who for whatever reason had not joined the approved regulator would be treated differently; they could commit the same “offence”, as it were, and it would cost an awful lot more. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: So you are critical of these provisions, are you? Bob Satchwell: Yes. Alan Rusbridger: I think you heard Sir Alan Moses, a Court of Appeal judge, say that they were not even clear to him.

Q40 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I want to make sure that I understand the information that you are giving the Committee, Mr Rusbridger. First, you think that Leveson was correct in the structure that he put together. Secondly, you think the current system that is being operated by IPSO is not Leveson-compliant. Thirdly, you would have preferred the Leveson

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) framework to a charter. Fourthly, the carrots given by Leveson were clear and more attractive. Have I understood you so far? I will go on to ask you a question if I have understood you correctly. Alan Rusbridger: Is your first question whether I think Leveson was correct in whole or this bit of it? Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It went through a number of iterations. Leveson then had to create a new structure that would be capable of delivering a more robust and effective regulatory framework. I have taken it, from the evidence that you have given us, that you thought that Leveson had got the balance for that framework, while it was not perfect and some things could have been changed, about right. Alan Rusbridger: When you ask that question, you are going beyond just the carrots and sticks? Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Yes. Alan Rusbridger: In the space of a year, Leveson got to the heart of most of the problems and came up with most of the answers. When we met as a body of editors in the weeks following Leveson, in the space of one breakfast we agreed all the significant points; there were about five that we wanted to talk about. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The problem that we have now is that the approach crafted then—the charter and everything that came before— was of itself not Leveson-compliant, so we have now got into this hybrid. Correct? Alan Rusbridger: If Leveson-compliant means compliant with everything that Leveson recommended, it is not Leveson-compliant. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Exactly. I am just trying to follow where the Guardian is now. Has the Guardian tried to create, within its own framework, a framework that is trying to be Leveson-compliant: that is, Leveson mark 1 as opposed to Leveson mark 2, with the charter? Alan Rusbridger: Yes. I did not take Leveson to be the scriptures. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, but we are talking about the fundamental principles that he was trying to enunciate. Alan Rusbridger: But if you say that he was trying to find something that was robust and independent, I think the jury is out as to whether it is as independent as Leveson would have wanted. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We now have this situation, do we not? We have the legislation that was created and the new structure that has come on board; and, as of yet, there has been no judicial legal service body training material pronouncement as to how the courts should interpret all or any of this to date. Alan Rusbridger: Yes. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: But we may have that and, if and when we do, some of the things you are worried about could be clarified. Yes? Alan Rusbridger: Yes. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Once it is, if it was in fact clarified to be nearer to the Leveson model, that would solve many of your problems.

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Alan Rusbridger: Yes. Leveson’s analysis of the old PCC was right. The things that worry Sir Alan and worry us about the new IPSO body is that it shares some of the deformations of the old PCC. The situation is quite retrievable, but when Sir Alan says, “Give us a bit of time”, that is what we are all waiting for. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Just tell me if I am not getting it right. At the moment, it looks as if the Guardian is saying, “I am between the devil and the deep blue sea. I cannot join IPSO because it is non-compliant with some of the fundamental principles. I cannot possibly do that unless Sir Alan Moses is able to wave his magic wand, persuade everyone to behave well and change it fundamentally”. Neither do we know how many people are going to join the new body and whether that will work. Are you waiting to see who joins IMPRESS as well? Alan Rusbridger: I would not hold my breath to see if anybody is going to join IMPRESS, because of the things that I have mentioned so far. As the editor of the Guardian, I feel that I have two things that perhaps other members of the press do not. One was that we wrote about phone-hacking and the victims of it expect the Guardian to keep up the pressure. I respect their position. I do not agree with everything that Hacked Off has done, but nor do I abuse them or regard them as a terrible enemy. They are trying to make constructive suggestions, but the Guardian has an obligation to respect the people who were the victims of the thing that we exposed. Secondly, at the Guardian I bear strongly in mind that in looking into phone-hacking the old PCC criticised the Guardian, not the News of the World. That was a terrible indictment of the old PCC, so I am not going to jump into a new system until I am absolutely convinced that it is different from the old system. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I wonder whether I could trespass a little more on the Committee’s and your patience. What are the fundamental things that you think any independent regulator must have before you believe that we would be where we should be on press regulation? Alan Rusbridger: We need to hear from Sir Alan and his board whether they feel that they have the freedom from the industry to do the things that they feel they should do as a regulator. That is to do with funding, do with appointments, with rules and regulations, with the code, with his feeling that he can do proper investigations without going through the eight or nine hoops that he talked about earlier. It is to do with all the articles, memorandums and the regulations which he says are so complex that even he cannot understand them. If the chair of the body is saying that there are certain things that he regards as pretty fundamental, we should listen to him and his board with respect.

Q41 Lord Razzall: This is for the Society of Editors. I suspect that it is a fairly soft ball after the previous questions. I assume that you agree that your members might be concerned about the effect of a plurality of regulators, both for them and their readers. You can just say yes. Bob Satchwell: Yes. I think everyone agrees with that. The ideal would be to have one. That is not just for our sake; it is for the public. The Chairman: One year on, where do we think things will have reached? Can I try this particularly on you, Alan Rusbridger? Is it your hope, somewhere deep inside, that a year from now you would find that IPSO was a body that you would like to join, that there would be harmony across the whole of the press, that all publishers would be part of one regulatory body, recognised or not under the charter? Would you feel that that was a place that you would be glad to be in a year from now?

The Guardian and Society of Editors – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Bob Satchwell, a year from now, would you be at your happiest if the whole of the world of publishers was within one regulatory system, that being a reformed IPSO? Alan Rusbridger: I have always believed that it is better for the press all to be together in one body. I sat on the code committee until I resigned over that terrible report that the PCC produced. The healthiest solution would be for the industry to make the concessions to Sir Alan and his board that they want, so that you have a comprehensible, robust, independent, simple-to-understand regulator. If you had that, I think that the Guardian and the FT—well, I cannot speak for the others; I think the Guardian would probably consider joining. We would be in a healthier situation where we had a stronger regulator that would apply to the whole of the press. That would be the desirable thing in a year’s time. Bob Satchwell: The whole history of press regulation, going back to the PCC and the Editors’ Code, has been dynamic; there has been change all the way through. There was a change after the Editors’ Code was first set up, and then major change after the death of Princess Diana. A huge change came about then. Lots of other things have happened in the way that the press understood the need, for all sorts of ethical and commercial reasons, to behave in a different way. That is already showing now, post-Leveson and post the creation of IPSO. In a year’s time, when the members of IPSO have had to be audited, they may well learn some new things. I do not believe that they will be resistant to all change. When I came in at the end of Sir Alan’s evidence, he was talking about the code committee, for example. That is a major change. That is what people could not understand about the old system, in a way—that the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee was not part of the PCC. It was separate, and then that committee handed over the regulatory activity to the PCC. Eventually, it was changed so that the code had to be approved by the PCC. Now it is not only going to have lay members on that committee; it will have to go back to IPSO for approval. If IPSO or its board does not approve it, it will have to go back to the editors. So I think there will be lots of room for change over that time. As I say, I hope we will see a continuation of these cultural changes that have happened, which will hopefully prevent some of the things that have happened in the past. The signs are there now. The Chairman: Thank you both very much. Is there anything you would like to add as a final thought to us? Bob Satchwell: No, thank you. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for joining us. It has been extremely helpful. Thank you.

The Guardian – supplementary written evidence (PRG0007)

Follow up to session on Press Regulation

Further to the question from Lord Sherbourne to Mr Rusbridger during yesterday’s session on press regulation about the commencement of exemplary damages and costs, I write to clarify how Guardian News & Media understands the law as it stands in this area.

Exemplary Damages

As the Committee will be aware, the relevant clauses in relation to exemplary damages are set out at Sections 34 to 39 of the Crime and Courts Act. The relevant provisions on the commencement of Sections 34 to 39 are set out in Part 3 of the Crime and Courts Act, specifically Section 61 (7):

(7) Sections 34 to 39 come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which a body is established by Royal Charter with the purpose of carrying on activities relating to the recognition of independent regulators of relevant publishers (as defined by section 41).

As this clauses makes clear, exemplary damages will come into force 12 months after the day on which the Recognition Panel – being the “body… established by Royal Charter with the purpose of carrying on activities relating to the recognition of independent regulators of relevant publishers” - begins its work, regardless of whether a regulator of relevant publishers came before it to formally seek recognition.

Given that the Recognition Panel came into force on 3rd November 2014,24 that means that the exemplary damages clauses are due to come into force on 3rd November 2015.

Costs

The basis on which costs will be awarded is set out at section 40 of the Crime & Courts Act. The commencement of the costs awards is set out at sub-section 6 of s40, which states that:

6) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.

As such, in the absence of a regulator, whose membership includes a “relevant publisher” – the terms of which are clearly set out at section 41 of the Act, subject to exclusions, again, clearly set out at Schedule 15 of the Act – coming before the Recognition Panel to successfully seek recognition, there is no date set for the s40 Costs clauses to come into force.

I hope this is useful clarification of what is certainly a confusing piece of legislation. Do let me know if there is anything further I can help to clarify.

21 January 2015

24 http://pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/word/?page_id=272

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

IPSO is clearly not independent

Report in draft, Jan 2015 –please check http://hackinginquiry.org for latest version

One of the questions that the Committee has said it is exploring in its assessment of the current situation is whether IPSO is independent.

This cannot be determined by assertions from the press industry or from IPSO that it is independent, nor from assertions by Hacked Off, victims or other sceptics that it is not. It can only be judged based on an objective analysis according to rational and reasonable criteria.

Because regulatory independence (along with effectiveness, although the former is a prerequisite for the latter) has been such a problem with all previous attempts at press self- regulation including latterly the Press Complaints Commission, Sir Brian Leveson devoted weeks of evidence-taking and several chapters of his report to this question. The outcome was two-fold:

• A set of criteria by which independence can be assessed (all of which are reproduced unchanged in the Royal Charter).

In establishing those criteria he made the natural assumption that a regulator which purported to be independent would be in control of its own rules and constitution. He rejected the IPSO model whereby the constitution, rules and regulations are entirely controlled by the industry, when he rejected the “Hunt-Black” plan during the Inquiry. IPSO is essentially the Hunt-Black plan. This has been set out by the Media Standards Trust in their analysis http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Could-Hunt-Black- pass-Royal-Charter-test-1-3-13.pdf.

• An entirely independent body (the Recognition body), established with no links to industry or Government, tasked with auditing and evaluating a regulator according to those criteria.

Leveson recommended that that body be established by statute but as a concession to the press the Prime Minister instead proposed that it be established by a Royal Charter. The press industry accepted the idea of a Royal Charter (PressBof proposed a draft Charter and even went to court in the effort to have it accepted). It was also accepted by the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. And it was accepted by leading victims of press abuse and their representatives (whom the main party leaders had all promised on oath at the Inquiry to consult), subject to the conditions that:

• The Charter faithfully reproduced the criteria from the Leveson Report with no cherry- picking, dilution, undermining or gold-plating, and • That the Government had no power through the Privy Council to interfere without a Parliamentary super-majority (or legislation to remove that safeguard).

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) The fact that the Recognition Body is established by Royal Charter and not by statute makes no practical difference to the audit and recognition regime proposed by Leveson.

Leveson made the point that – given the history of press abuse and of regulatory failure – the public would never, and indeed ought never to, trust an industry self-regulator which was not subject to this independent inspection at the outset and then periodically.

Opinion polls – commissioned by by Media Standards Trust – bear this out overwhelmingly. This public, overwhelmingly in favour of meaningful reform from mid-2011, has shown no sign of changing its view despite the barrage of hostile propaganda in the newspapers about the Leveson Report and the Royal Charter (which are characterised as being assaults on press freedom), and about IPSO, which has been incorrectly presented as ‘truly independent’ and ‘fully Leveson-compliant’.

The Test of Independence

The criteria that Leveson set down for independence relate to • the appointment process of the Board by an Appointments Committee, • the membership of the Board, • the membership of the Appointments Committee itself, • how the Appointments Committee is itself appointed • the arrangements for funding, and • where responsibility lies for the Standards Code.

In his report Leveson made clear that the constitution, rules and procedures of the regulator should be in the hands of the self-regulator and not of an industry body such as PressBoF (which controlled the PCC). http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/MST-IPSO- Analysis-15-11-13.pdfIn the course of the Inquiry PressBoF Chair Lord Black submitted industry plans for a new regulatory system and the judge found that these plans failed to deliver independence from the industry. The judge noted in particular the role of the proposed PressBof successor body, the ‘Independent Funding Body”:

‘The powers of the Independent Funding Body, which run throughout this proposal, undermine claims to independence of the regulatory system’ (p.1,630)

And for this reason the Hunt-Black plan:

‘fails to offer genuine independence from the industry’ (p.1,750).

Leveson could not understand why PressBoF (or the Industry Funding Body as it was called in Lord Black’s plans) retained so much power, or indeed why such a body was necessary at all.

‘In my opinion there is no need for such a body [as PressBoF] to exist at all’ (p.1,761-1,762).

He concluded that:

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

‘the extent of industry control within the proposed [Lord Black] system is a fundamental flaw’ (p.1,750).

In short, no one could be in any doubt that the judge presiding over the public inquiry concluded that the existence of PressBof, or any body like it, was not compatible with the independence of press self-regulation and therefore with its ability to deliver impartial service to the public.

Despite this, the leading newspaper companies behind IPSO have created the Regulatory Funding Company (RFC), a committee of senior industry figures very similar to PressBof, and the RFC actually enjoys greater influence over IPSO than PressBof did over the PCC.

The MST Analysis (http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/ 11/MST-IPSO-Analysis-15-11-13.pdf) sets out the vast range of powers invested in the RFC in clear breach of Leveson’s recommendations.

It should be noted that while this report identifies a few areas where IPSO arrangements are a modest improvement on those of the PCC, in this area - control by the industry - the position has deteriorated since the PCC.

The powers of the Regulatory Funding Company are as follows

Powers over funding • Membership fee: the RFC decides what each regulated entity pays (Scheme Membership Agreement, Article 1.1 & Article 24) • Membership fee collection: the RFC collects the levy from the participating news organisations (IPSO, Articles of Association, Schedule: 1.34) • IPSO budget: the RFC sets the overall budget of IPSO annually, not by 4-5 year settlements as Leveson recommended (RFC Articles of Association 24.4) • Initial budget: the RFC determines the initial budget of IPSO (RFC Articles of Association 24.4 & Schedule: 1.10) • Increases in budget: the RFC decides on increases in the budget, and, in addition, any special funding required (RFC Articles of Association, 24.4)

Powers over appointments • Regulatory Board: the appointment of the five industry members of the regulatory board of IPSO needs to be agreed with the RFC (IPSO Articles of Association 22.5) • Pay of the Board: the RFC determines the pay of the directors of the Board (IPSO Articles of Association 24.2) • Complaints Committee: the industry members of the Complaints Committee need to be agreed with the RFC (‘Regulations’ 34, and Articles of Association 27.4) • Pay of Complaints Committee: the RFC determines the pay of members of the Complaints Committee (IPSO Articles of Association 27.6) • Pay of Appointments Panel: the RFC determines the pay of the ‘independent’ members of the Appointment Panel (IPSO Articles of Association 26.8)

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) • RFC members’ independence: membership of the RFC (or a regulated entity) is not considered to compromise an individual’s independence (IPSO Articles of Association 19.5)

Control over the Standards Code • RFC subcommittee: the IPSO Code Committee will, like the previous Code Committee, be a subcommittee of the RFC (RFC Articles of Association 2.2 & 10.9)

Control over the Regulations (and indeed over the IPSO articles and other matters) • Regulations veto: the RFC has a veto over changes to the regulations (Scheme membership agreement Article 7.1)

Power over Investigations * Funding investigations: the RFC determines the amount paid into the enforcement fund which pays for investigations (Scheme Membership Agreement Article 10)

Power over Sanctions * Writing sanctions guidance: the RFC writes the Financial Sanctions Guidance which determine the amount of any fines (Scheme membership agreement Article 1.1)

Power over Arbitration * Arbitration veto: the RFC has a veto over the very existence of any arbitration scheme (Scheme Membership Agreement 5.4.3)

Control of Voting • Determining votes: rather than one publication one vote, the number of votes of each publisher is determined by how much it pays towards the RFC, which is determined by the RFC. The secretary of the RFC then has discretion over the allocation of votes, and the criteria by which this allocation is made

Sir Alan Moses, independence and the RFC

It follows from the above that so long as the RFC exists in anything like its present form, IPSO, despite its name, cannot remotely be described as independent of the industry. In fact it is less independent than the PCC was, and sadly the consequences of such industry control, in terms of the conduct of editors and journalists, are well known.

Sir Alan Moses, the IPSO chair, has spoken of his desire for changes to the organisation.

If he seeks genuine independence of the kind that is capable of commanding public confidence (and of the kind that was found necessary by leading judge at a public inquiry and endorsed by both Houses of Parliament), his first step must be the removal of RFC control of the IPSO constitution, standing orders, terms of the contract, and procedures. Full control of the IPSO articles, financial sanctions guidance, regulations and those parts of the contract which do not deal with the collection of subscriptions must be transferred to the IPSO Board (with the proviso that the articles are amended to require IPSO to consult the public and the industry on equal terms on any changes).

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) These, it must be stressed, are only the first steps that would be required. Others would have to follow.

Yet our understanding is that Sir Alan Moses and IPSO have not even suggested taking such action.

And the simple fact that, if he wants to change IPSO in any substantive way, Sir Alan must go cap-in-hand to the RFC, a panel of senior newspaper industry executives, is sufficient proof of his lack of independence. Such is the power of the RFC, moreover, that it would retain the power to reverse any concessions it made at some future date.

In the absence of that, Sir Alan Moses has suggested that what would be required is an agreement from the RFC to agree to changes in the constitution, standing orders, terms of the contract, and procedures/regulations sought by the board.

There are fundamental flaws in this approach: Sir Alan Moses has made clear that he has not been given any “carte-blanche” and is having to negotiate each and every change he wishes to see. This is the antithesis of independence from the industry and demonstrates the total control that the RFC exercises. There is nothing to stop the RFC from changing the rules again and imposing them on IPSO, or threatening to do so unless the board complies. It is likely that the RFC will concede a small number of minor changes and proclaim through the press “megaphone” that all is solved.

The criteria of independence

Beyond the matter of RFC power, clear tests exist which can be used to determine the independence or otherwise of a press self-regulator. These are the seven specific recommendations of the Leveson Report,which most closely relate to independence. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229039/ 0779.pdf). They are incorporated, in identical terms, in the Royal Charter that was approved by the House of Commons. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254116/ Final_Royal_Charter_25_October_2013_clean__Final_.pdf) They are set out below. The highlighted areas are those in which IPSO falls short. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254116/Final_ Royal_Charter_25_October_2013_clean__Final_.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploa ds/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229039/0779.pdf 1. An independent self-regulatory body should be governed by an independent Board.

In order to ensure the independence of the body, the Chair and members of the Board must be appointed in a genuinely open, transparent and independent way, without any influence from industry or Government.

For the avoidance of doubt, the industry’s activities in establishing a self-regulatory body, and its participation in making appointments to the Board in accordance with criteria 2 to 5; or its financing of the self-regulatory body, shall not constitute influence by the industry in breach of this criterion.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) 2. The Chair of the Board (who is subject to the restrictions of criterion 5(d), (e) and (f)) can only be appointed if nominated by an appointment panel. The selection of that panel must itself be conducted in an appropriately independent way and must, itself, be independent of the industry and of Government.

3. The appointment panel: a) should be appointed in an independent, fair and open way; b) should contain a substantial majority of members who are demonstrably independent of the press; c) should include at least one person with a current understanding and experience of the press; d) should include no more than one current editor of a publication that could be a member of the body.

4. The nomination process for the appointment of the Board should also be an independent process, and the composition of the Board should include people with relevant expertise. The appointment panel may only nominate as many people as there are vacancies on the Board (including the Chair), and the Board shall accept all nominations. The requirement for independence means that there should be no serving editors on the Board.

5. The members of the Board should be appointed only following nomination by the same appointment panel that nominates the Chair, together with the Chair (once appointed), and should: a) be nominated by a process which is fair and open; b) comprise a majority of people who are independent of the press; c) include a sufficient number of people with experience of the industry (throughout the United Kingdom) who may include former editors and senior or academic journalists; d) not include any serving editor; e) not include any serving member of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales, the European Parliament or the House of Lords (but only if, in the case of the House of Lords, the member holds or has held within the previous 5 years an official affiliation with a political party) or a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Scottish Government, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Welsh Minister; and f) in the view of the appointment panel, be a person who can act fairly and impartially in the decision-making of the Board.

6. Funding for the system should be settled in agreement between the industry and the Board, taking into account the cost of fulfilling the obligations of the regulator and the commercial pressures on the industry. There should be an indicative budget which the Board certifies is adequate for the purpose. Funding settlements should cover a four or five year period and should be negotiated well in advance.

7. The standards code must ultimately be the responsibility of, and adopted by, the Board, advised by a Code Committee which may comprise both independent members of the Board and serving editors. Serving editors have an important part to play although not one that is decisive.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) The Media Standards Trust (http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/MST-IPSO-Analysis-15-11-13.pdf) has examined these matters in detail and demonstrated how IPSO fails to meet any of these criteria. This is a view shared by the editor of the UK Press Gazette, which is the industry trade journal.

The MST analysis was published in draft in July 2013 (based on draft IPSO articles and regulations) and in final form in November 2013, and circulated to all those in the industry, and it has never been rebutted by IPSO, the RFC or any of the industry’s lawyers.

The failure of independence in IPSO appointments

When the MST analysed IPSO’s paperwork in November 2013 it identified among the factors that led to the breach of recommendations 1 to 5: that the IPSO board would be appointed by a body, the Appointments Panel, over which the industry had too much influence, by virtue of the requirement that the RFC “vet” the “industry candidates”. • That the RFC would have sole power over the pay of the Board and Appointments Panel.

Now that the appointments process has taken place, it is clear – despite the secrecy that has clouded the process - that the position is even worse, in four respects.

1. The problem of “Industry representatives” in the system

Leveson was clear that the self-regulator should include a minority of members who had industry experience, but they were not to be industry representatives as their responsibility is to the public, not to the industry. This was to apply to the Board, the Complaints Committee and the Appointments Panel. However throughout the process of establishing IPSO the members of these bodies with industry experience have been described as “industry representatives”. It is impossible for IPSO to be Leveson-compliant while its board contains any members who were appointed as “industry representatives”.

IPSO may protest that while the industry may consider such board members to “industry representatives”, IPSO does not consider them to be so and has argued that they make no distinction.

Yet the IPSO website states: (https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/whoweare.html)

The Board The IPSO Board has twelve members including the Chairman. A majority of the members are independent (7) which means they have no connections with the newspaper and magazine industry. The other members (5) represent the newspaper and magazine industry. The Complaints Committee The IPSO Complaints Committee also has 12 members, again including the Chairman. A majority of the members are independent member (7) which means

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) they have no connections with the newspaper and magazine industry. The other members (5) represent the newspaper and magazine industry.

While the significance of the word ‘represent’ in this context is apparently lost on IPSO, it is unlikely to escape the general public. They will see that almost half of both these bodies explicitly represent the interests of the industry they are supposed to “independently” regulate.

2. The problem of the industry veto on appointments

In the appointments process, the “industry representatives” on the appointments panel were given a veto on all appointments because the appointments had to be made by consensus – in practice, unanimity. Therefore the RFC – who nominated these members onto the Appointments Panel - had a veto on all appointments as well as being able to vet the “industry nominees”.

3. The problem of the lack of a susbstantial lay majority

The Leveson criteria specify that the Chairman as well as the Board need to be appointed by an appointments panel with “a substantial majority of members who are demonstrably independent of the press”. IPSO and RFC claim that the Board was so appointed because Sir Alan joined the Panel for the final stage, thus the Panel comprised four “independent members” and two veto-wielding “Industry representatives” and that this was a substantial majority. However the Chair was appointed by a Panel with the smallest possible majority of 1 (3 to 2) which cannot conceivably considered to be “substantial”.

4. The problem of the secret “dis-application” of the Nolan principles of merit, fairness and openness in the appointment and operation of the IPSO Appointments Panel

It has become clear that the Appointments Panel was constituted in a wholly unsatisfactory way. Their posts were not advertised, nor were they appointed transparently, as would be normal in accordance with the Nolan Principles.

The body which appointed the Appointments Panel was hand-picked by the industry, published no records of its meetings, far less any register of interests, and was itself awash with conflicts of interests in relation to those they appointed to the Appointments Panel.

The Appointments Panel itself published no records of its processes, nor any register of interests of its members so any conflicts of interest of its members were never made public.

Article 26 of IPSO’s published articles (https://www.ipso.co.uk/assets/1/IPSO_Articles_of_Association.pdf) required the appointments panel to be appointed in accordance within the “Appointments Principles” appended to the Articles (these included Merit, Fairness and Openness). Yet this requirement was secretly ‘dis-applied’ when it came to the appointments of the “Initial” Appointments Panel – a manoeuvre that only came to light thanks to research at Companies House.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) They have never published this change – which was approved by the 3 interim directors of PCC-IPSO (Lord Hunt, Lord Grade and Peter Wright) – but it can be found only if any member of the public or of this Committee searches at Companies’ House and pays the requisite fee.

Neither RFC nor IPSO, despite its protestations of transparency, have ever been willing to answer questions on this matter. Interviews they have given in the media, and in oral evidence to select committees, have wrongly given the impression that the Nolan principles applied to this part of the process The press – which would consider this unacceptable in any other regulator, has failed not to publicise the true position IPSO have failed to publish the “special resolution” on its website.

The details are set out in the Appendix.

In consideration of these four points, three facts should be borne in mind.

First, none might be fairly characterised by its defenders as minor or technical.

Second all four have exactly the same effect: they add to the control over IPSO and its activities that is enjoyed by senior industry figures. Not one of them tends to reduce that control. This is no accident.

Third, they fly in the face of both the spirit and the letter of the recommendations of the Leveson Report. Those who designed IPSO have no contrition in relation to the wrongs of the past, and no desire to give the public meaningful protection against a repetition of those wrongs. Instead, right down to the minutest point of detail, they seek to obstruct change and retain their control.

Summary on independence of IPSO

In summary, the MST analysis puts it well:

IPSO falls far short of many of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, particularly with respect to:

· Independence

At almost every level the regulator is dependent on the industry, such as to give the industry significant influence and even control over the regulator. This control and influence is exercised through a new company called the ‘Regulatory Funding Company’ or RFC. The RFC has a substantial role not just in funding but in appointments, regulations, investigations, sanctions, arbitration, and voting. It is not clear why the RFC should have any functions beyond calculating, gathering and distributing membership fees

….

The most substantial failings of IPSO are with respect to its lack of independence – especially from the newspaper industry – and its failure to provide access to legal redress for ordinary

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) people. IPSO will be reliant on, and directed by, the largest publishing groups in the industry – through the Regulatory Funding Company (RFC). IPSO’s budget, its rules, its code, its sanctions, its investigations, will all be controlled by the RFC. It will not be able to offer an arbitration service, or make changes to the system of regulation, without the agreement of the RFC. This does not constitute independence from the industry. Rather, it constitutes acute dependence on the industry.

It has been rightly said that the Independent Press Standards Organisation breaches its own supposed requirement for accuracy in the very first word of its name.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) Appendix

The secret changes to the IPSO appointment rules which remove the application of the Merit, Fairness and Openness

The Special Resolutions (submitted privately to Companies House by the PressBof/RFC/PCC/IPSO in November 2013) do three things

5. They set up a “Initial Appointments Panel” to appoint the first board (the articles provide that the Appointments Panel should nominate members to the board for them to appoint)

6. Disapply some of the rules that would apply to the establishment, composition and functions of the Appointments Panel from applying to the Initial Appointments Panel

7. Re-apply some of the rules governing the establishment, composition and functions of the Appointments Panel to the Initial Appointments Panel, while taking care not to reapply others. Among those not reapplied are the need for the Initial Appointments Panel to be established in line with the Appointments Principles (Merit, Fairness, Openness) as well as any requirement to declare, authorise and register conflicts of interest.

Contents

R) The Special Resolutions with analysis S) The effect of the Special Resolutions on Articles 26 and 22 of the IPSO constitution T) The Appointments Principles – which have been disapplied to the process of appointing of the Initial Appointments Panel

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) A) Special Resolutions

1 That the name of the Company be changed to "Independent Press Standards Organisation C I C"

2 That the Company become a community interest company

3 That the Company's Articles of Association be altered to take the form of the Articles of Association set out in Annex 1 to this resolution (the 'New Articles') which are hereby adopted by the Company in substitution for and to the exclusion of all previous Articles of Association of the Company

That, notwithstanding the provisions in the new Articles

4.1 The initial Appointment Panel on adoption of the New Articles ('the Initial Appointment Panel') shall not be appointed in accordance with Article 26 of the New Articles but shall be appointed by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. The Initial Appointment Panel shall be deemed to have been appointed as the Company's Appointment Panel in accordance with the New Articles This disapplies the whole of Article 26 to the appointment of the Initial Appointments Panel, including critically (26.1) the requirement to comply with the “Appointments Principles” (merit, fairness and openness). Unlike other elements of Article 26, the Special Resolution does not reapply it. The 6 members of the Foundation Group (Trevor Kavanagh, Simon Jenkins, Lord Chris Smith, Lord Robin Butler, Lord Nicholas Phillips and Sue Tinson) can appoint the Initial Appointments Panel can do as they wish.

4.2 The Initial Appointment Panel shall appoint a Chair of the Board in accordance with the Appointment Principles, as defined in the New Articles This changes nothing. This rule already applied to the work of any Appointments Panel (from Article 22.2 for example) and this merely applies this to the work of Initial Appointments Panel which is invented in this resolution.

4.3 The salary and other terms of appointment of the Chair shall be decided by the principal funder of the Company on the advice of the Initial Appointment Panel It is not clear who the “principal funder of the Company” is, as this is not defined in the Resolution or in the Articles. But it makes clear that IPSO is not in charge of its own salary and terms but rather this is in the hands of the “principal funder” which we assume to be PressBoF until RFC is formed. This undermines the independence of IPSO. The PressBoF/RFC even gets to decide how long the Chair is appointed for whereas the Articles (22.3) provide that the Board decides the length of appointment of future chairs.

4.4 The newly appointed Chair shall be deemed appointed in accordance with Article of the New Articles This merely enables the Initial Appointments Panel to appoint the first Chair rather than nominate it to the Board (which does not exist).

4.5 On appointment of the new Chair, the current Chair of the Company shall cease to hold that office (unless reappointed by the Initial Appointment Panel) but shall remain a Director of the Company.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) So Lord Hunt stays on as a director of IPSO until the whole board is appointed at which point he goes (as per Special Resolution 5). This stay of execution is worth £15,000 per month to Lord Hunt (he is paid £180,000 pa) so it is no surprise that he signed this resolution. It is a surprise that this was permitted given his financial vested interest.

4.6 The Initial Appointment Panel, together with the newly appointed Chair, shall appoint eleven more Directors of the Company in accordance with the Appointment Principles who, together with the newly appointed Chair shall comprise the 'New Board'. [This changes nothing. This rule already applies to the work of the Appointments Panel (from Article 22.2 for example) and Special Resolution 4.6 merely applies this to the work of Initial Appointments Panel which otherwise has no rules since it is invented in this resolution]

Four of the eleven Directors so appointed shall be appointed for initial terms of one year, four shall be appointed for initial terms of two years and three shall be appointed for initial terms of three years. [This provides that the terms of Article 22.7 are applied to the Initial Appointments Panel which otherwise has no rules since it is invented in this resolution].

Advertisements for candidates may be published by the Initial Appointments Panel before appointment of the new Chair.

4.7 Before appointing Industry Directors, as defined in the New Articles, the Initial Appointment Panel shall take account of the views of the principal funder of the Company as to the suitability of candidates and shall seek to ensure the matters described in Article 22.5 of the New Articles This ensures that the industry influence over the board – specifically prohibited by Leveson – is retained for the work of the Initial Appointments Panel as it is for the Appointments Panel. It is not clear who the “principal funder of the Company” is. One assumes it is the RFC but why not say so as the Articles do? It is noteworthy that the Special Resolutions are careful to re-impose the industry influence on the IAP, but not the requirement to work on the basis of merit, fairness and openness.

4 8 The New Board shall be deemed to have been appointed in accordance with the New Articles provided that its composition is in accordance with the provisions set out in Articles 22.1, 22.5 and 22.6 of the New Articles This applies Article 22.6 to the Initial Appointments Panel which means that they must be appointed by consensus. Because there are two “industry” members of the Initial Appointments Panel, they have a veto over who is appointed to the board. It is again noteworthy that the Special Resolutions are careful to re-impose the industry veto on the IAP, but not the requirement to work on the basis of merit, fairness and open-ness.

4 9 The Directors who are in office on the date on which these special resolutions are passed ('the Interim Board') shall continue to hold office as the Company's Directors until the date on which the New Board is appointed Article 15 of the New Articles (Quorum for Board meetings) and Article 22 of the New Articles (Methods of appointing Directors) shall

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) not apply to the Interim Board. The quorum for board meetings of the Interim Board shall be two or one third of the total number of Directors of the Company, whichever is the greater

5 That upon the appointment of the New Board any Director who is a member of the Interim Board but who has not been appointed to the New Board by the Initial Appointment Panel shall resign as a Director of the Company, but he or she may continue to hold office as a PCC Commissioner if so requested by the New Board

6 That no term of office served by any person before adoption of the New Articles shall be a term of office for the purposes of the New Articles

7 That the New Board shall, as soon as practicable, appoint a Complaints Committee in accordance with New Article 27. Advertisements for Complaints Committee members may be published by the Initial Appointment Panel before appointment of the New Board

8 That the Editors' Code of Practice set out in Annex 2 to this resolution is hereby adopted on behalf of the Company and shall be deemed adopted by the Directors of the Company in accordance with paragraph 1 22 of Schedule 1 to the New Articles. This resolution shall not prevent the New Board from adopting any amended version or replacement of that code

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

B) Articles 26 and 22 of the IPSO articles and how they are impacted by the Special Resolution https://www.ipso.co.uk/assets/1/IPSO_Articles_of_Association.pdf

APPOINTMENT PANEL AND COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

26 Appointment Panel

26.1 There shall be an Appointment Panel established in accordance with the Appointment Principles Disapplied by Special Resolution 4.1 and very carefully not reapplied.

26.2 The Appointment Panel shall comprise

26 .2.1 3 Independent members (one of whom shall be appointed chair of the Appointment Panel),

26.2.2 2 members who have recent senior experience in publishing, of whom one shall be a serving editor of a body that is or could be a Regulated Entity, and

26 2 3 the Chair of the Board, other than when the Appointment Panel is appointing the Chair of the Board The whole of this section was disapplied for the establishment of the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Spec Res 4.1. And it was not replaced by any new rules, so it seems Trevor Kavanagh, Lord Phillips & colleagues were simply told or decided what numbers to appoint.

26.3 Members of the Appointment Panel shall be appointed by the Board for terms of up to 6 years and may be appointed for different terms with a view to ensuring that not all members of the Appointment Panel retire at the same time. Notwithstanding Article 17, no member of the Appointment Panel shall be appointed unless the decision on his or her appointment has been reached by consensus Disapplied for the establishment of the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Spec Res 4.1 so the Foundation Group has the freedom to do as it chooses with regard to how long members are appointed (and potentially paid for).

26 4 A retiring member of the Appointment Panel may be reappointed in accordance with the Appointment Principles Disapplied for the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Spec Res 4.1.

26 5 No member of the Board shall serve on the Appointment Panel except the Chair of the Board when nominating other Directors Disapplied for the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Special Resolution 4.1. But special resolution 4.6 provides that the Chair to join the Initial Appointments Panel when nominating other Directors”.

26 6 No serving member of the House of Commons, the United Kingdom Government,

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive shall serve on the Appointment Panel Disapplied for the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Special Resolution 4.1. The Foundation Group could have appointed the Prime Minister

26 7 The proceedings of the Appointment Panel shall be governed by the provisions of the Articles governing the proceedings of the Board so far as applicable and not superseded by regulations made by the Board The fundamental rules of process for any organisation found in Articles 12-21 are disapplied for the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Special Resolution 4.1. So Sir Hayden Phillips and his colleagues can do what they like in respect of procedures (except of course for ensuring the “industry representatives” have a veto and that the Industry is consulted on appointments of some of the Directors). There are thus no quorum requirements and no requirements for calling meetings. Crucially there are no rules for the Initial Appointments Panel on declaring or authorising conflicts of interests, and there is no requirement for a register of interests.

26 8 The members of the Appointment Panel (other than any that are Connected with one or more Regulated Entities) are entitled to such remuneration as may be approved by the Regulatory Funding Company in respect of their service as members of the Appointment Panel provided that no relationship of employee and employer shall be created between any of the members of the Appointment Panel and the Company Disapplied for the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Special Resolution 4.1 and provided for again, so it is entirely opaque as to who decided that Hayden Phillips should be paid £1,000 per day (and his colleagues £500 per day) by the industry and who paid him before 29th November (when the RFC was founded), and after 29th November 2013.

APPOINTMENT AND RETIREMENT OF DIRECTORS

22 Methods of appointing Directors This is not disapplied per se, but because the power of appointment (rather than just nomination) is given to the “Initial Appointments Panel”, the Special Resolution needs to cover some of these items.

22.1 The Board shall comprise 12 Directors of whom

22.1.1 7 (including the Chair of the Board) shall be Independent Directors, 22.1.2 5 shall be Industry Directors, 22.1.3 none shall be serving editors of bodies that are or could be Regulated Entities, and 22.1.4 none shall be serving members of the House of Commons, the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive This is reapplied to the “Initial Appointments Panel” by Special Resolution 4.8

22.2 The Chair of the Board shall be nominated by the Appointment Panel in accordance with the Appointment Principles This is not reapplied to the “Initial Appointments Panel” in order that it can appoint rather than nominate the first Chair.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

22.3 The Chair of the Board shall be appointed by the Board for terms of 3 years and may serve only two terms unless the Appointment Panel and the Board authorise one or more further terms This is not reapplied to the “Initial Appointments Panel” so the power to determine the term of appointment of the Chair is (by virtue of Special Resolution 4.3) now claimed by the “principal Funder” of IPSO.

22.4 All other Directors shall be nominated by the Appointment Panel (incorporating the Chair of the Board) in accordance with the Appointment Principles This is not reapplied to the “Initial Appointments Panel” in order that it can appoint rather than nominate the first board

22.5 In nominating Industry Directors, the Appointment Panel shall take account of the views of the Regulatory Funding Company as to the suitability of the candidates and shall aim to ensure

22.5.1 that there are at all times at least five Directors who have recent senior experience in publishing, and 22.5.2 that each of the following publishing sectors is represented on the Board by virtue of at least one Director having recent senior experience at a publisher operating in the given sector

(a) national mass circulation newspapers (b) national broadsheet newspapers (c) Scottish newspapers (d) Regional newspapers (e) magazines

This industry influence (prohibited by Leveson) over appointments is reapplied to the Initial Appointments Panel by Special Resolution 4.7 and (just to make sure) 4.8. In contrast the requirement for the Initial Appointments Panel to work according to Appointments Principles of merit, fairness and openness is NOT reapplied.

22.6 No person shall be nominated by the Appointment Panel unless in the view of a consensus of the members of the Appointment Panel

22.6.1 he or she is a person who can act fairly and impartially in the decision-making of the Board and, 22.6.2 if he or she is to be an Industry Director, he or she has a genuine understanding and knowledge of the press industry, gained though working in it at a senior level

This rule which gives the “industry representatives” (a term which breaches Leveson) a veto over appointments (another breach of Leveson) is reapplied to the Initial Appointments Panel by Special Resolution 4.8. In contrast the requirement for the Initial Appointments Panel to work according to Appointments Principles of merit, fairness and openness is NOT replied.

22.7 The Appointment Panel shall only nominate as many individuals as there are places

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) on the Board and the Board shall appoint each nominee as a Director. This is not reapplied to the “Initial Appointments Panel” that it can appoint rather than nominate the first board

22.8 Except as provided by Article 22 9, Directors shall be appointed for terms of 3 years

22.9 The Board may make some appointments of Directors under Article 22.7 for terms of between 1 and 4 years in order to ensure that there is sufficient continuity on the Board Special Resolution 4.6 (2nd sentence) applies this to the “Initial Appointments Panel”

22.10 No Director (other than the Chair of the Board) may serve more than two consecutive terms of office and no Director who has served two consecutive terms may be appointed for any subsequent term of office until at least 12 months after the end of his or her last term

C) The Appointments Principles (secretly disapplied to the appointment of the IPSO Initial Appointments Panel).

Schedule (to Articles) ‘Appointment Principles’ means

Merit: successful candidates shall be those whose skills, experience and qualities have been judged best to meet the needs of the Company in respect of the relevant post,

Fairness: the selection process shall be objective, impartial and applied consistently to all candidates. Each candidate shall be assessed against the same published criteria, and

Openness: information about the requirements of the post and the selection process shall be publicly available and all appointments shall be advertised publicly in a way that is designed to attract a strong and

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) IPSO: Governance Issues

Report in draft, Jan 2015 –please check http://hackinginquiry.org for latest version

1) IPSO’s board was appointed by an Appointments Panel which was not appointed fairly, openly or on merit. See separate briefing on Independence of IPSO.

2) The Appointments Committee failed to publish a register of interests or any record of its proceedings.

3) Prior to IPSO’s launch, IPSO’S board (or a sub-group) appointed the Complaints Committee of IPSO. There is no record of how this was carried out (whether the industry representatives had a veto due a requirement for consensus), and no record of what interests were declared by the IPSO board in respect of personal or professional relationships they had with successful or unsuccessful candidates for these important and remunerated posts.

4) The IPSO register of interests only requires board members to declare “any remuneration from newspaper/magazine within the last five years”. It does not require the publication of any remuneration prior to this, nor any previous, recent or current roles representing the industry on an unpaid basis.

The previous roles of Peter Wright and William Newman (see below), which are mentioned in their biographies, may not be noticed from an inspection of the Register of interests by the public, by complainants, or possibly by their colleagues at IPSO.

5) The former managing Editor of the Sun, and Hillsborough coverage apologist, William Newman, was appointed to the Board of Ipso – a body supposed to serve the public.

Mr Newman was specifically named, as the then Managing Editor of the Sun under Kelvin McKenzie, in the Report of the Hillsborough independent Panel in September 2012 for an unsigned and impersonal letter he sent in 1989 a few days after the tragedy to bereaved families and survivors of the disaster, rejecting their complaint about the infamous “The Truth” front-page of “The Sun”. One extract reads:

Mr Newman’s letter arrived at the homes of the bereaved as funerals were being arranged. It defended the ‘substance’ of the published allegations as factual, patronised the judgement of the bereaved as ‘clouded by grief’ and presented the newspaper as a truth seeker with a public interest ‘responsibility ... beyond the city of Liverpool’. There was no apology other than a dismissive comment that the presentation of the story could have caused offence.

The relevant passages are set out in full at Appendix A.

Even the Sun’s own Ombudsman criticised the article.

This was the reaction of Margaret Aspinall, chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-campaigners-former-sun- mans-7196744):

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

“Given what the families - and indeed the city of Liverpool - have gone through at the hands of some of the press, HFSG fully supported Lord Justice Leveson’s original recommendations for a fair, independent and effective system of press regulation. “For the Hillsborough families now going through the ordeal of the new inquest, this feels like a fresh insult. It tells us that lessons have certainly not been learned by the press, despite their claims to the contrary. “Mr Newman had a key role in defending the outrageous coverage of the Sun of the Hillsborough Disaster and in the abject failure of the newspaper to properly apologise when it was clear they had printed hurtful lies and not ‘the truth’. “That is why his appointment to the board of the new regulator is totally unacceptable to us and we believe will undermine public confidence in it. “The HFSG believes that the Appointments Panel which put this name forward needs urgently to reconsider its decision if this new body is to have any credibility.”

IPSO will not say whether the Appointments Panel were aware of this and appointed him anyway, or whether he failed to disclose it.

6) IPSO appointed Peter Wright to the Complaints Committee. IPSO has not disclosed the extent of his links with the RFC or the industry.

Mr Wright’s biography is set out by IPSO here https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/whoweare.html and his entry in the register of interests is here https://www.ipso.co.uk/assets/1/Register_of_interests_for_Complaints_Committee.pdf

Mr Wright was an interim director of the PCC and IPSO. So when he was appointed by the Board of IPSO (the directors) they were appointing one of their predecessor directors. This hassnot been made clear. In addition, in that role he was party to the private changing of the appointments rules of the IPSO appointments panel (see (1) above and the paper on IPSO independence). None of this is mentioned in his declaration of interests or biography., which mention only a role at Associated Newspapers.

7) IPSO appointed Peter Wright to the Complaints Committee despite evidence that he withheld information about phone-hacking from the PCC when he was a member.

Mr Wright was a member of the PCC when it published a report in 2009 criticising the Guardian for its articles which alleged that there was more than one rogue reporter (the then Royal Editor Clive Goodman) involved in phone-hacking, and more than a handful of cases. It has since been revealed that, prior to that report, Mr Wright had been told by Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail journalists that their phones had been hacked by the News of the World. This was clear evidence and a very big story for a newspaper, given that these targets would have been of no interest to the Royal Editor of a rival newspaper. Mr Wright and the journalists, including Dennis Rice, the then Mail on Sunday investigations editor, chose not to publicise this information until Mr Rice sued the News of the World in 2011.

These concerns were raised by Nick Davies in his book when it was published in July 2014, and was covered by the Guardian on 1st August 2014 and subsequently that month.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) IPSO will not say whether they appointed Mr Wright to the Complaints Committee in the knowledge of this or whether Mr Wright failed to disclose it to them.

8) Peter Wright has been able to participate in a complaint in which he had multiple vested interests.

Dennis Rice was recruited by the then Mail on Sunday Editor, Peter Wright, to be the newspaper’s Investigations Editor in 2005 and worked at the paper until 2008. Between 2008 and 2012 (when Mr Wright stood down as MoS editor) Mr Rice worked for Associated as a freelance reporter.

Mr Wright and Dennis Rice are both leading opponents and critics of the Leveson Report, the Royal Charter and of Hacked Off.

Mr Rice recently submitted a complaint against the Press Gazette, related to an article that dealt with the dispute between Mr Rice and a journalist involving the circumstances under which Mr Rice’s phone was hacked by the News of the World.

Mr Wright failed to recuse himself from the Committee, which decided in favour of Mr Rice, either on the basis of his relationship with Mr Rice or on the basis of the recently publicised question of his conduct over the phone-hacking scandal.

It is further believed that Mr Rice’s complaint against the Press Gazette engaged the activities of those, such as Hacked Off, opposed to the “anti-Leveson” lobbying activities of the Press industry, including obviously of Mr Wright. If this is the case, it is not clear how it could have been felt appropriate for Mr Wright to assist in determining the complaint.

The minutes of the meeting record that Mr Wright merely “noted that he had formerly employed the complainant but had not been in contact with him for several years.”

According to the minutes the Committee “agreed that this did not constitute a conflict of interest that should prevent his consideration of the complaint.”

That is a remarkable decision. No other serious regulator would allow someone to sit in judgement on a complaint submitted by a former employee, or which involved a complaint involving parties well known to be opponents of a Complaints Committee member’s lobbying activities.

This link had been published in Nick Davies’ book Hack Attack in July 2014, and in the Guardian articles of August 2014. The substance of those allegations are that in 2006, he knew that Mr Rice’s phone had been hacked by the News of the World, that this brought into doubt the News of the World’s assertion that it was only their Royal Reporter who was involved; and that Mr Wright hid the extent of hacking from the public and from IPSO’s predecessor, the PCC in 2008-11. Mr Davies, and Roy Greenslade both allege that Mr Wright should have disclosed to the PCC the fact that the extent of phone-hacking went well beyond “Royal targets” before the PCC published a 2009 report defending the News of the World “One Rogue Reporter” line, and criticising the Guardian for suggesting otherwise.

The Guardian articles are set out in Appendix B.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) Appendix A

Hillsborough

The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel

September 2012

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf

Excerpts

Summary of Chapter 12 – page 24-5

Chapter 12. Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations In the days after the disaster the media, particularly the press, published allegations and counter- allegations apportioning blame. This came to a head on 19 April when a number of newspapers, The Sun being the most prominent, reported serious allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool fans before and during the unfolding tragedy.

…

• In a letter revealed to the Panel, within days of The Sun’s article its Managing Editor [William Newman] wrote to people, including bereaved families, who had complained about the allegations. While regretting the presentation of the article, he refused to apologise for its ‘substance’, claiming it was factually accurate. Subsequently the coverage was condemned by the Press Council.

“The Truth” (page 344) ….

2.12.31 The greatest prominence given to the story was in The Sun whose editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, cleared the front page and under the banner headline ‘THE TRUTH’ published three bullet points: ‘Some fans picked pockets of victims; Some fans urinated on the brave cops; Some fans beat up PC giving life kiss’.

2.12.32 The Sun’s coverage was unequivocal:

Drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims of the Hillsborough soccer disaster, it was revealed last night.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) Police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon by a hooligan element in the crowd.

Some thugs rifled the pockets of injured fans as they were stretched out unconscious on the pitch.

In one shameful episode a gang of Liverpool fans noticed that the blouse of a girl trampled to death had risen above her breasts. As a policeman struggled in vain to revive her, the mob jeered: ‘Throw her up here and we will **** her’ ...

One furious policeman who witnessed the disaster on Saturday stormed: ‘To paint all the Liverpool fans lily-whites is wrong.

‘As we struggled in appalling conditions to save lives, fans standing further up the terrace were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead.’

2.12.33 According to a ‘high ranking police officer’, the ‘fans were just acting like animals. My men faced a double hell – the disaster and the fury of the fans who attacked us’.

The Sun’s response

2.12.34 The Sun’s publication was immediately condemned at many levels, particularly on Merseyside. Bereaved families and survivors wrote letters to the newspaper challenging the veracity of the story and its presentation as the definitive version of events. Within days the Managing Editor, William Newman, replied to bereaved families. His letter was neither personalised nor signed. 2.12.35 Mr Newman stated that the newspaper had ‘received many letters from Liverpool regarding our follow up story to the Hillsborough tragedy’. He continued:

We are sorry that, possibly clouded by grief, many have not understood that it is The Sun’s duty as a newspaper to publish information, however hurtful and unpalatable it may be at the time.

On reflection, we accept the way in which the article was displayed could have given cause for offence. For that we apologise. For the substance we do not.

We cannot possibly apologise for facts and to do so would be an abdication of our responsibility to a wider public beyond the city of Liverpool. If the price of a free press is a boycott of our newspaper, then it is a price we will have to pay.

2.12.36 Mr Newman stated that ‘not for the first time’ The Sun had been ‘singled out’ and he referred to ‘identical reports’ in three other newspapers. Claiming the moral high ground he stated that ‘only by revealing the full truth ... we can try to make sure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again’ thus ensuring that ‘95 innocent men women and children will not have died in vain’.

2.12.37 He offered ‘heartfelt sympathy’ to the bereaved and the injured, noting that the Press Council was investigating newspaper coverage of Hillsborough and The Sun would ‘accept and publish their findings’.

2.12.38 Mr Newman’s letter arrived at the homes of the bereaved as funerals were being arranged. It defended the ‘substance’ of the published allegations as factual, patronised the

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) judgement of the bereaved as ‘clouded by grief’ and presented the newspaper as a truth seeker with a public interest ‘responsibility ... beyond the city of Liverpool’. There was no apology other than a dismissive comment that the presentation of the story could have caused offence.

2.12.39 On Tuesday 9 May 1989 The Sun published a brief commentary from its followed what it claimed had been ‘a major inquiry into the coverage of the Hillsborough disaster after complaints from readers’.

2.12.40 Mr Donlan had inquired into the ‘circumstances of the reporting and presentation of the story’, finding against its presentation. His report stated:

The Editor is on record as saying that the newspaper had a duty to publish the facts about supporters’ misbehaviour, no matter how hurtful and unpalatable at the time.

This is accepted, but it must be pointed out that the report – similar material appeared in other papers – did not justify the headline The Truth. Allegations can never be projected as facts. It is for Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry to examine the evidence and decide what happened at Hillsborough.

It should not have been published in the form that it appeared.

2.12.41 Mr Donlan’s report, while accepting the ‘form’ of the coverage and challenging the use of ‘The Truth’ banner headline, did not comment on the factual accuracy of the allegations, nor their origins. Mr Newman sent a photocopy of its Ombudsman’s

The Press Council

2.12.42 The 36th Annual Report of the Press Council, The Press and the People, provided a seven- page review of coverage of the disaster under the broad heading

2.12.43 This followed a ‘general inquiry into the photographic coverage of the tragedy in the press’ derived from ‘349 written complaints from a total of 3651 signatories’ naming ‘35 newspapers’, national and regional. There were also complaints from MPs and five organisations including the FA and Liverpool City Council.

2.12.44 The Press Council extended the scope of its inquiry to ‘embrace all press coverage’, responding particularly to the coverage in The Sun. Editors were informed of the complaint to solicit replies. The Press Council ‘accept[ed] the assurance of many editors that they considered carefully how far it was right to publish photographs that might serve the public interest ... but would also distress survivors and the families and friends of those who were killed and were likely to be offensive to other readers’. In most cases, however, ‘editors were justified in publishing’ the photographs.

2.12.45 While acknowledging that many fans compressed against the perimeter fence ‘were recognisable and in attitudes of distress’, and there was ‘no means of telling how many of those shown died’, the publication of these photographs was ‘justifiable’ on the basis that ‘serious public interest was served by their publication ... despite the added distress it would cause’.

2.12.46 Photographs that focused on ‘a single individual or a very small group crushed against the fence’ were an ‘intrusion into personal agony and grief too gross to be justifiable’. There was

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) no justification ‘for publishing individual pictures of men or women who were known or thought to be dead or dying’.

2.12.47 In a section of the report entitled ‘On TRUTH’ the Press Council addressed the multiple complaints received about the 19 April edition of The Sun. It found the coverage ‘generally one- sided, offering no counter to the allegations it included’. It was ‘unbalanced and its general effect misleading’.

2.12.48 The front page, ‘THE TRUTH was insensitive, provocative and unwarranted. The Sun’s own ombudsman declared that the article should not have been published in the form in which it appeared’. The Press Council condemned its publication.

2.12.49 Given The Sun’s unwavering defence of the facts on which its ‘Truth’ edition relied, and the comparable coverage in other newspapers, the Panel sought access to documents that would add to public understanding of the origins and presentation of the severe, generalised allegations made against Liverpool fans.

Conclusion: what is added to public understanding (page 366)

• On 19 April, four days after the disaster, The Sun newspaper published a front-page story under the banner headline, ‘THE TRUTH’, alleging that Liverpool fans had assaulted and urinated on police officers resuscitating the dying, stolen from the dead and verbally sexually abused an unconscious young woman. Although less prominently, and often with a lesser degree of certainty, other regional and national newspapers published similar allegations. • In a letter revealed to the Panel, within days of The Sun’s article its Managing Editor wrote to people, including bereaved families, who had complained about the allegations. While regretting the presentation of the article, he refused to apologise for its ‘substance’, claiming it was factually accurate. Subsequently the coverage was condemned by the Press Council.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) Appendix B

Mail did not reveal to PCC or Leveson that News of the World hacked staff Four Mail on Sunday journalists were told by the police in 2006 that their mobile phones had been hacked

DMG Media editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, says he cannot recall whether he knew about hacking of staff member's phones. Photograph: Chris Ratcliffe/Rex Features

Roy Greenslade Friday 1 August 2014 19.56 BST

Vital evidence about phone hacking was withheld from the Press Complaints Commission when it held its inquiries into the News of the World's interception of voicemail messages.

The PCC was not informed by the Mail newspaper organisation that four of its Mail on Sunday journalists had been told by the police in 2006 that their mobile phones had been hacked.

Peter Wright, the then Mail on Sunday editor, was made aware of the hacking but did not publish the fact at the time, and it remained a secret for eight years until it emerged in evidence at the recent hacking trial.

Wright, personally a member of the PCC from May 2008, took over the place held by his boss, the Daily Mail's editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, who had served on the body from 1999 to April 2008. Two reports about hacking issued by the PCC in 2007 and 2009, which reinforced News International's "rogue reporter" defence, were compiled in ignorance of crucial information from the Mail group. Nor was the hacking of the four staff mentioned in evidence to the Leveson inquiry given by Wright and Dacre in 2012.

Guardian journalist Nick Davies, in his new book Hack Attack, explores the implications of the long silence, which he maintains was in effect supportive of "the lies" told by Rupert Murdoch's organisation.

It allowed Murdoch executives to get away with their cover-up by pretending that hacking was restricted to just eight victims, who were identified at the original trial of the News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman, and the paper's contracted private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire.

Three of them were royal aides. The other five were model Elle Macpherson, publicist Max

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) Clifford, MP Simon Hughes, football agent Sky Andrew and Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association.

But the Mail on Sunday kept quiet about the four staff who were hacked – investigations editor Dennis Rice, news editor Sebastian Hamilton, deputy news editor David Dillon and feature writer Laura Collins.

The paper's managing editor, John Wellington, spoke to Rice and Collins in October 2006 – two months after Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested – about the police having informed him that their mobile phones had been hacked between April and July 2006. Wellington then told his editor, Wright, what had happened.

Rice recalls that he was first called by the police, who told him he had been hacked 80 times, before he discussed it with Wellington. He later discovered that his office computer had also been hacked. Collins, in a 2011 article about the incident, wrote: "We were advised to change the security settings on our phones … It was a shocking revelation."

But the four were not required to be prosecution witnesses against Mulcaire. Wellington, who remained unaware of the computer hacking, said the police approached the paper so that its staff could change their mobile pin numbers. In his book Davies argues that the Mail's silence "was particularly weird" because of Dacre's being a PCC member when the commission's first report was compiled. And Wright was on the commission when the 2009 report was written, a report that was critical of the Guardian's revelations of widespread hacking and which was later withdrawn when the paper's reports proved to be true.

During his evidence to the Leveson inquiry, Wright said: "The PCC did ask News International whether it went beyond Clive Goodman. They assured the PCC it didn't. We didn't have really a proper means of testing whether there was any substance to that assurance."

But Wright did not mention the phone hacking of his own staff, which was itself suggestive that hacking went beyond Goodman, who was interested only in royal stories. In fact, the hacking involved both royal and non-royal stories.

It is understood that Wright cannot recall whether or not he informed Dacre about the hacking at the time. For his part, Dacre cannot recall whether he knew of it and therefore cannot remember whether or not he spoke about it to his PCC colleagues.

Two Mail group executives said they could not understand why the silence was considered to be strange. They both said the fact that five of the people named at the trial of Goodman and Mulcaire were non-royals showed that hacking went wider than Goodman's royal brief. Therefore, the hacking of their own staff was not of special significance.

They strenuously denied claims that Wright and Dacre had purposely withheld information, arguing that it was an inconsequential matter. The then PCC director, Tim Toulmin, is adamant that he was not informed by Dacre or Wright about the hacking of their staff's phones. He said: "I am clear that it wasn't mentioned. You telling me is the first I've heard of it."

It is broadly accepted that for the Mail on Sunday to have gone public in 2006 about the hacking by Mulcaire might have prejudiced his trial. But once Mulcaire and Goodman were

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) sentenced to jail in January 2007, the sub judice rules no longer applied and there was no reason for the story not to be published.

The three Mail on Sunday victims contacted by the Guardian – Rice, Collins and Hamilton – appear unsure why the truth did not emerge. One suggested that the Mail on Sunday and the News of the World often made joint bids for stories and the Mail would not wished to have imperilled that relationship.

Another argued that the Mail editors were concerned not to add to what they considered to be an anti-popular journalism furore around the hacking scandal.

One former Mail on Sunday staffer, speaking on a confidential basis, said he was "not greatly surprised" that the paper managed to keep the lid on the truth. He said: "At the Mail, we were expected to keep quiet about things."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Peter Wright was wrong to have stayed silent about his staff being hacked

Roy Greenslade Tuesday 12 August 2014 17.16 BST

Peter Wright's letter to the Guardian - as published today - contends that I was wrong to say he withheld vital information from the Press Complaints Commission and the Leveson inquiry.

But I cannot let that pass, especially since it has gained him a headline on the Press Gazette's website. He is wrong about me being wrong. Consider first his defence for keeping quiet about the fact that he knew in October 2006 that at least four of his staff had been the victims of hacking by the News of the World.

At the time, the NoW's royal editor, Clive Goodman, and its contracted investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, were on bail on charges of intercepting mobile phone voicemail messages.

Fleet Street was alive with gossip about the possible extent of phone hacking. Were there other hackers? Who had been hacked? How often had it occurred? There were plenty of rumours but few incontestable facts. Hard evidence was in short supply.

The PCC was under pressure to find answers to those questions. Its chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer, and director, Tim Toulmin, understandably felt they could do no more than keep a watching brief until the Goodman/Mulcaire case had concluded.

Once Goodman and Mulcaire admitted their guilt in November 2006, Meyer issued a statement announcing that the commission would "examine any material relevant to the industry's code of practice that has come to light as a result of the prosecution."

Surely, a newspaper editor knowing what the world did not then know - that his reporters had been hacked - should have understood that he was party to "relevant material."

In his letter, he excuses his failure to go public with the information because "it was already known" that Mulcaire had hacked the phones of five non-royals (the presumed interest of

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) royal editor Goodman). So, he continues: "It was hardly surprising he should have hacked phones of staff on a rival newspaper." Really? Does anyone agree with that? At a time of massive speculation about the scale of hacking, an editor with knowledge of it thinks it reasonable to keep mum. This, remember, is the Mail on Sunday, a paper that during Wright's editorship trumpeted its commitment to fearless disclosure in the public interest.

Even if you accept Wright's version of events, it is clear that he made a judgment call in refusing to go public about the hacking of his own staff. And that judgement call was wrong.

Now let's turn to another belief-beggaring matter. Wright was not on the PCC at the time. But his immediate boss, the Mail group's editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, was.

Why did Dacre not mention the hacking to Meyer and Toulmin and his fellow commissioners? According to what I was told by the designated spokesman for Dacre and Wright when writing my article, Dacre cannot remember whether Wright told him about the Mail on Sunday staff being hacked. And Wright, for his part, cannot remember whether he told Dacre or not.

Does anyone who knows the close relationship between Wright and Dacre readily accept that Wright kept that information to himself?

If he did, it was an extraordinary decision to withhold such an astonishing turn of events from his boss (and friend). Astonishing because, at the time, no-one knew that Mulcaire had hacked other journalists. It was therefore hugely relevant material.

If, in fact, Wright did tell Dacre, then it was Dacre's duty to inform the PCC for the same reason - it was germane to the PCC's inquiry.

On 30 January 2007, after Mulcaire and Goodman had been sentenced to jail, Toulmin wrote to all the PCC's commissioners to ask for their comments on the hacking affair. Dacre would have had an opportunity at that point to enlighten his colleagues of the Mail on Sunday hacking.

The PCC investigation was foiled because the NoW's editor, Andy Coulson, resigned immediately after Goodman and Mulcaire were jailed and the PCC agreed that he would no longer be required to answer questions.

One question he would have been asked concerned the extent of hacking, about which the PCC was in the dark. The chairman, director and commissioners were entirely unaware of the fact that other journalists had been hacking victims and they were to remain in ignorance for years afterwards.

On 2 May 2007, at a routine PCC meeting attended by Dacre, the draft report was discussed in some detail and amended after comments. At least one commissioner evidently asked whether Coulson should have been contacted despite his resignation. Toulmin explained why this had not been done and others agreed it would not have been reasonable to do otherwise. Still, there was no mention of the other examples of hacking.

In April 2008, Dacre stood down as a commissioner to become chair of the editors' code committee and the following month the silent Wright joined the PCC.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011) He may well have thought it unnecessary to mention hacking at that time. But matters changed in July 2009, when the Guardian's Nick Davies revealed that News International had paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims.

That led to the infamous PCC report of November 2009 in which the commission - with Wright on board - stated:

"The PCC has seen no new evidence to suggest that the practice of phone message tapping was undertaken by others beyond Goodman and Mulcaire... It follows that there is nothing to suggest that the PCC was materially misled during its 2007 inquiry. Indeed, having reviewed the matter, the commission could not help but conclude that the Guardian's stories did not quite live up to the dramatic billing they were initially given."

In his letter to the Guardian, Wright argues: "Had it occurred to me, when the PCC was discussing the fresh allegations made by the Guardian in July 2009, that the hacking of our journalists' phones was anything other than a minor part of the series of offences for which Goodman and Mulcaire had already been convicted, I would happily have shared it with other commissioners."

Again, even if we accept that he is right to deem the Mail on Sunday hackings "a minor part", they were surely a relevant part. They were additional proof that hacking not only extended beyond royals, but involved the message interception of other journalists' phones.

They were, most importantly, extra proof of the veracity of Davies's articles throughout the months of 2009 about the scale of hacking, which was then being so vehemently denied by the News of the World.

Now for the contemporary point. Wright, as emeritus editor of the Mail group, has been the leading light in the foundation of the PCC's replacement, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso).

So a man who spent years withholding significant information from one regulatory body is now the architect of another (much disputed) regulatory body. Does his record really suggest a willingness to shed light into the dark corners of Fleet Street?

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

Preliminary Analysis of the Adequacy of the Complaints Procedure of IPSO

Draft version – at January 2015 [This has not yet finished its external review] Please check http://hackinginquiry.org for final version

The “Son of PCC” regulator, IPSO, was presaged in July 2013 when its draft articles were published. But this was not for any consultation with the public who it was supposed to serve. Its launch was then postponed on several occasions, finally taking place on 8 September 2014.

Because it was essentially the same organisation as the PCC - with the same company number, the same premises, the same approach to complaints and the same staff, it was expected (and boasted about being able to) start work immediately. But this has not been the case.

Even after its launch IPSO kept a very low profile indeed as set out in this blog-post. For 3 months it showed almost no sign of life. Finally, on 23 December 2014, it issued its first five “rulings”. These were accompanied by a press release stating that it had received 3,000 complaints in its first three months.

An analysis of its activities suggests that the complaints handling may be even worse than the PCC.

• IPSO has produced no explanation as to what has happened to the other 2,995 complaints. • The PCC was heavily criticised for not publishing more details of complaints data, and code breaches. However, compared to IPSO, the PCC was drowning in data with monthly summary tables like these, listing hundreds of complaints, showing how they had managed to avoid adjudicating most of them. Nowhere do IPSO say how these supposed 3,000 complaints have been whittled down to a mere handful of rulings. • The PCC made an art-form out of avoiding assigning any code breaches to any newspaper. Even in the most obvious cases of a code breach it would refuse to adjudicate or record a code breach if it had been able to negotiate a correction with the complainant in an “attritional” process. It looks as if the PCC is taking the same approach. • The PCC was criticised for failing to report on complaints, code breaches and adjudications in a way that was broken down by title. It finally did this at the ery end its existence. There is no sign of IPSO doing this. • Unlike the PCC, IPSO requires the complainant to first seek a remedy from the newspaper concerned. There is nothing wrong with this in principle o provided that this is not a way in which code breaches go unrecorded. But there is no sign of any mechanism for newspapers to be required to record the resolution of complaints they resolve this stage, let alone report them to IPSO so that IPSO can track code breaches. o provided that the complainant is clearly told that they have the option of conducting this first phase through IPSO and that they are told that if they are

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

not happy at any stage they can be referred to IPSO. Several newspaper fail to do this and so the complainant is effectively cut off from the services of IPSO at source o provided that - when a complaint subsequently reaches IPSO after being unresolved at the “local” stage - IPSO then adjudicates the complaint and does not seek to start the resolution process again in an attempt to wear down the complainant and avoid recording a code breach. Unfortunately it appears that none of conditions (a), (b) and (c) apply and the system is thus appears even worse than that of the PCC.

• The adjudications they have published so far suggest that its complaints committee will be less fair to complainants than even the PCC. The rest of this paper looks for early signs of fairness, consistency and effectiveness from IPSO in its rulings.

Following from the 5 cases of December 23rd, on 16th January 2014, IPSO published another seven rulings. All 12 of the rulings are available on the IPSO website (although annoyingly they are undated).

Of the twelve rulings so far, only one complaint was upheld (A Man v Edinburgh Evening News) and two were upheld in part. The other nine complaints were not upheld.

Many of the decisions are uncontroversial dismissals of obviously misconceived complaints.

We would, however, draw attention to a number of points arising from these rulings:

A) IPSO considers a correction that makes matters worse and has to be taken down, to be a “sufficient remedy”

• A Man v Edinburgh Evening News. The complaint concerned a photograph of the complaint’s house on the front page of the newspaper, referring readers to pages 4 and 5. These pages contained an entirely unrelated article about a man convicted of sexual offences. The story about the house appeared on pages 6 and 7. The complaint was upheld under clause 1(i) (accuracy). The newspaper had published a “clarification” on page 2 which had not been agreed with him and whuch to his further distress included the complainant’s name. The newspaper agreed to remove the correction from its website. This is, presumably, because it recognised that not only was the “clarification” inadequate, it actually made matters worse. Bizarrely, IPSO decided that an inadequate, exacerbating attempt at correction was satisfactory and IPSO did not uphold the complainant’s complaint that this was a further breach of the Code in respect of there being an adequate correction or remedy.

B) IPSO does not consider an error over the marital status of a Muslim woman and a separate error which gave rise to a false inference that she could not take care of her children to be “significant error” under the code.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

• =: This complaint concerned an article entitled “Father jailed for seven years after abducting his two children”. The complaint was made on behalf of the mother who said that the report was unduly intrusive and inaccurate. With regard to intrusive IPSO said that the paper was entitled to report information given in open court. The newspaper had inaccurately stated that the mother was divorced and that there were protracted and complex custody proceedings (suggesting that that there was room for argument over her parenting abilities) – when in fact the mother was married and there was no lengthy custody battle. The lengthy legal proceedings were about access arrangements which is an entirely different matter and carries no imputation of poor parenting However, IPSO surprisingly decided that these inaccuracies were “not so significant as to raise a breach of Clause 1” (although the newspaper corrected them on the online edition). One might assume that stating that a named woman, in some religious communities, was divorced when in fact she was married and that wrongly suggesting that there was a debate to be had about whether she was a suitable custodian of her children, would be considered “significant errors” by a fair tribunal. But this is not a fair tribunal – it is IPSO, which like the PCC, bends over as far as possible to back its paymasters and those who control its processes. C) IPSO does not consider a plain error of fact in a headline to be significant inaccuracy and to require correction – when it occurs in a national paper but not a local paper.

• Littler v Sunday Express. This concerned a headline “Alice Killer found dead” – reporting the death of a person suspected – but not proven or convicted - of killing schoolgirl Alice Gross. The Committee accepted that the headline was inaccurate and rejected the newspaper’s justification which was that he was a killer of someone else in another country some years previously. But IPSO said that, because it was read in the context of the rest of the article (which did not explicitly state that he was the killer) there was no breach of clause 1. This is a strange approach as it would suggest that either IPSO considers an isolated inaccuracy in a headline to be less significant than one in small type, deep in the story, or that IPSO considers an error in the body of the story to be insignificant if the headline gets the fact correct. Just as curiously, it is difficult to reconcile this with a decision in another case in this batch, where an error in the headline was considered to be significant even though it was rebutted by the text of the article.

This was the decision in Hutchins v Wiltshire Times: The complaint concerned a headline “Melksham teacher banned after sending sexual messages to pupils”. In fact, the messages had been sent to only one pupil. The Complaints Committee regarded this as a significant inaccuracy, even though the fact messages had been sent to just one pupil was made clear in the rest of the article. The newspaper was also criticised for adding a footnote attributing its online correction from “pupils” to “pupil” to a request by the complainant rather than an error on its part. It is not at all clear why a large national title like the Sunday Express whose group editorial director Paul Ashford sits on the Board of the Regulatory Funding Company (which controls the rules and funding of IPSO with a vice-like grip [link to MST], and sets the pay of the Complaints Committee members), should be treated more leniently than the poor old Wiltshire Times.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

D) IPSO appears to have already abandoned the Leveson doctrine of equal prominence for corrections and reverted to the PCC approach of due prominence i.e. tucked away somewhere.

• Victims and the public have always objected to the burying of corrections on page 94 phenomenon. They also tend to object to burying corrections in small type in a corrections and clarifications column on page 2 if the victim/compliant wants equal prominence. The public believe in front page corrections for front page code breaches. Leveson also argued for equal prominence of corrections and apologies.

But without any consultation with the public, readers, victims or complainants IPSO has already elided to adopt the PCC orthodoxy which as criticised in Leveson by rejecting equal prominence and saying that corrections should by default go in an established corrections and clarifications column even if this is less prominent than the original code breach and even if the complainant is not happy about it.

In the case of Wilson vs Daily Record, IPSO has decided the throw the doctrine of "equal prominence" out of the window. It has reverted to the PCC/industry talk of “due prominence” and indicated that by default that will mean an established C & C column.

In the course of that ruling the outcome of which is not material to this issue, "An established corrections column serves several important purposes: it signifies a commitment to accuracy; it provides information to readers about how to make complaints; and if it appears consistently, it contributes to the prominence of corrections by ensuring that readers know where to find them. …Absent an established column, the Committee did not consider that the publication of a correction two or three pages further back in the publication than the original error constituted due prominence."

Most complainants believe that C& C column can correct the accuracy record where there has been no code breach or no complainant, but otherwise the complaint should have the option of an equal prominence correction.

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

IPSO and Transparency

Report in draft, Jan 2015 –please check http://hackinginquiry.org for latest version

• They have been established since September 2014. They have only published 2 sets of Board minutes – the last one from October [Still the position as of March 10th 2015]

• The Complaints Committee has been operating since September. Only one set of minutes (October) has ever been published [Update: As of March 10th no minutes for any meetings in 2015 had been published]

• Its controlling and funding body, the RFC, does not publish any minutes of its meetings.

• The RFC which controls the funding, rules and constitution of IPSO, and the Editor’s Code, has a website http://www.regulatoryfunding.co.uk containing only the list of its members. The link to its articles of association has never worked. So the only way these can be seen is by buying them from Companies House.

• The RFC website contains only this statement:-

The Regulatory Funding Company (RFC) is charged with raising a levy on the news media and magazine industries to finance the Independent Press Standards Organisation. This arrangement ensures secure financial support for IPSO, while IPSO’s complete independence is at the same time guaranteed by a majority of lay members, and is a further sign of the industry's commitment to effective self-regulation.

In respect of the assertion of IPSO’s independence, The PCC which was heaviliy criticised by the Leveson Report and generally admitted, even by the industry, to be insufficiently independent of the industry, had a majority of lay members, and was less controlled by PressBoF than IPSO is by the RFC.

• The Editors’ Code Committee, a subcommittee of RFC dominated by Editors, which imposes the Code on IPSO, announced on its website in October 2010, that it had decided to publish Minutes of its meetings online. However, since IPSO was created by the RFC only one meeting’s minutes have been published, in May 2014. [Update at March 10th 2015 this remains the case]

• The Editors Code Committee, a subcommittee of the RFC, dominated by Editors, which imposes the Code on IPSO, launched a public consultation in December 2012 which closed in April 2013. It has never published the results.

• According to documents lodged at Companies House, the articles of IPSO were changed secretly in November 2013 to remove the Nolan requirements of Fairness, Merit and Openness for the appointment of the IPSO Appointments Panel.

• IPSO claimed in December to have received 3000 complaints at a time when only 5 complaints had been adjudicated. There is no data on their website about the nature and fate of 2,995 of these complaints. The PCC was severely criticized for lack of

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

transparency. It nevertheless published monthly lists of hundreds of complaints. IPSO has published nothing of this nature.

• IPSO has failed to publish the set of changes it is asking the RFC to make to the IPSO articles and regulations

Hacked Off – written evidence (PRG0011)

Summary of the “costs and damages incentives” set out in Courts and Crime Act 2013 for publishers to join a Recognised Self-Regulator

Advantages for publishers who join a recognised regulator are shown in the outlined boxes

Legal Costs

Nature of Claim Present Publisher not a member Publisher member of recognised regulator and Result Position of recognised regulator Claimant uses the Claimant goes to low-cost arbitration court [Applies until a system regulator is recognised] Trivial, vexatious, Claimant pays Claimant pays Claimant pays Claimant pays manifestly publisher’s publisher’s costs publisher’s costs publisher’s costs unfounded or costs abusive claim or claimant unreasonable

Claimant wins Publisher pays Publisher pays Publisher pays No order for costs arguable case claimant’s claimant’s costs claimant’s costs – against publisher costs capped at reduced level

Publisher wins Claimant pays Publisher pays Each side pays their Claimant pays arguable case publisher’s claimant’s costs own costs – capped publisher’s costs costs at a reduced level

Exemplary damages

Litigation type Present position After 3 November 2015 Publisher a Member of Publisher not a member [Applies until 3rd November recognised regulator of recognised regulator 2015]

Defamation Awarded if defendant calculates Immunity Awarded if there was a that more to be gained than deliberate outrageous would be payable in damages. disregard of claimant’s rights. Award must be Privacy Not possible Immunity proportionate (means- tested).

March 2015

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

Evidence Session No. 3 Heard in Public Questions 42 - 67

TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Lord Best (Chairman) Baroness Bakewell Lord Dubs Baroness Fookes Baroness Hanham Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Lord Horam Lord Razzall Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury ______

Examination of Witnesses

Hugh Tomlinson QC, media law expert and Chair of the Hacked Off board, Joan Smith, Executive Director, Hacked Off, and phone hacking victim, and Dr Evan Harris, Associate Director, Hacked Off

Q42 The Chairman: Welcome, Joan Smith, Hugh Tomlinson and Dr Evan Harris. We thank all three of you very much indeed for joining us. You have picked up what we are doing; we are not trying to repeat Leveson and do a new inquiry, we are trying to find out exactly what is going on. We want to ensure that we and the world outside understand the current position exactly. We are very grateful to Hacked Off for giving us a lot of written evidence, too, which we can study at our leisure. It is much appreciated. We are being televised today. There will be a transcript of the proceedings, but you are on the record and because of that it would be helpful if you introduced yourselves one by one and said very briefly what your background is and where you are coming from in this inquiry. My final remark is that, having done that, we will go round the table and ask you various questions. Do not feel that all of you have to answer all the questions. Feel free to accept what your colleagues have said, if that suits. Perhaps Joan Smith you could start us off by telling us a bit about your background and how that fits into our inquiry. Joan Smith: Thank you. I have been a journalist for nearly 40 years. I started in local papers and worked briefly in radio. I went to the Sunday Times quite early in my career and did investigative journalism there. Later I became freelance and I have been a columnist on most national papers by now—the Guardian, the Independent, the Independent on Sunday—and I write for the Telegraph and so on. I have been involved in free speech campaigns for many years. I am also an author; I write novels and non-fiction. For four years

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

I chaired the PEN Writers in Prison Committee. We looked after people who had been imprisoned and their families, usually in about 50 countries at any one time, with regard to exercising their right to free expression. That is my background. I am now executive director of Hacked Off, but only since last summer. I got involved in Hacked Off because I was told by the police that my phone had been hacked in quite curious circumstances in 2004. I had had no idea about it. I was writing columns for the Times, and the police came to me in 2011, I think it was, and told me that while I was writing for the Times my mobile phone was being hacked by the News of the World because my then partner was a Minister. His daughter had been killed in a terrible skydiving accident in Australia and he went out there to organise her funeral. When he came back, the News of the World realised that we were in a relationship, although we were both divorced, and started hacking our phones. I was one of the first people to sue News International. As I say, I have been a journalist all my working life, and I am absolutely passionate about journalism and the role it plays in a democratic society. I am really distressed and angry about what happened in certain sections of the press, because the press should be holding the powerful to account. It should not become powerful and start abusing ordinary people whose children have been killed, and that kind of thing. I got involved in Hacked Off because I thought that here was a real chance to represent victims, ordinary people who had had these kinds of experiences and who have not had a voice in the past, not to stop journalism or anything like that but to get better journalism. Hugh Tomlinson QC: I am Hugh Tomlinson. I am a barrister, a human rights lawyer and the chair of Hacked Off. I was the lead counsel for the claimants in the phone-hacking litigation, and I have been involved in media law for many years. Professionally I have seen over the years how the media have abused their position, and particularly how victims have had great difficulty in making themselves heard and in standing up for themselves. I became involved in the established of Hacked Off originally to try to get a public inquiry into what had happened. In fact, the public inquiry was launched on the same day as the campaign was launched. It was the most successful political campaign I have ever seen. We then continued to monitor the inquiry and to try to represent the rights of victims in relation to press abuses. Dr Evan Harris: I was a Member of Parliament from 1997 to 2010, and during that time I specialised to a degree in human rights issues and free speech issues. I should declare that I was a colleague of Lord Dubs on the Joint Committee on Human Rights for several of those years, and I pursued that through founding the Libel Reform Campaign, which you will remember led to the reforming, liberalising Defamation Act 2013. I was responsible for abolishing the laws on blasphemy and criminal defamation through Parliament, and I am now a trustee of Article 19, which campaigns against impunity for those who would attack journalists and journalism throughout the world. I was brought in to help with the campaigning side of Hacked Off at the outset, partly because the victims and the organisation recognise that there is a history of failure of either independent inquiries or indeed Select Committee recommendations to be implemented, and because of the corrupt nexus between some politicians and some parts of the press. There is huge pressure on politicians not to do what has been recommended. We saw that with Calcutt, as John Major said very eloquently of the Leveson inquiry, so I have been asked to advise on how we can ensure that when a commitment is made to deliver the outcome of

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) a public inquiry it is actually delivered in the end and not allowed to fail yet again for the fifth or sixth time in 50 years. The Chairman: Thank you very much. I guess it is down to the chairman, Hugh Tomlinson, to answer this question, which is really just to give us the background for the creation of Hacked Off. You might just add what the constitution comprises that you have brought together. Hugh Tomlinson QC: I think I already mentioned that we were originally established as a campaign to set up a public inquiry into phone hacking, because that was obviously the tip of a very large iceberg, and I think it is now acknowledged that there was a lot of illegal activity going on in the press in the 1990s and early 2000s that had not been properly investigated. We originally campaigned for an inquiry. When the Leveson inquiry was established, we supported victims through that inquiry. Our constitution is that we are a not-for-profit company with a board of directors and a wide network of supporters, and a lot of people who have been victims of press abuse are associated with the organisation.

Q43 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: Obviously you are a very successful campaigning group, but in the interests of transparency we are quite interested to know how you are funded. Is it through crowdsourcing and not just the victims? We would be grateful for as much information as you can give the Committee. Hugh Tomlinson QC: We are funded from a variety of sources. We have some grants from grant-giving bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. We have donations from a wide variety of individuals. As you say, we have crowdsourcing, fund-raising events and donations from individuals that are large and small. We try to be as transparent as we can about our funding, but unfortunately as you might expect, when individuals are named as our donors they get attacked in the press. That has happened on many, many occasions, and as a result some individuals who donate money to us say, “We don’t want our names to be made public”, and we respect those confidences. Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: I see. Thank you. Dr Evan Harris: When some people get damages from suing the newspapers for these abuses, they often pass them on to us, so in part because of what has happened we are funded by Mr Murdoch and others. We probably ought to be grateful for that in a way, but we would rather it did not happen in the first place. Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: But do you have to publish accounts? Dr Evan Harris: Yes, we do. We file with Companies House. We are under an obligation to respect the confidentially of donors who ask for it, otherwise we would be breaking the law. As I say, we set out the breakdown. We have 100,000 supporters online, and when we go to them we get several thousand pounds. Just to come back to the Chairman’s first question, this is a unique campaign—you mentioned that it was successful—because in any other campaign on regulatory failure or industrial-scale industry wrongdoing, the people at the forefront of the campaign are, as well as parliamentarians, the press. This is unique in that not only do the press not report on their misbehaviour generally, with a few notable exceptions, but they intimidate people who put their head above the parapet. It is therefore triply unique and difficult to do what we have done, and we have had to become thick-skinned, but we urge everyone, especially

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

Parliament, to recognise that if you only read the newspapers about us or, more importantly, about the issues at stake, you are not going to get a fair representation of the issues, as you are probably aware. That is why we welcome your interest in going deeper into the issue than simply seeing what is said in the papers. Lord Dubs: Is not what you are saying about people who are donors feeling too intimidated to say who they are a rather shocking indictment of what is going on? Hugh Tomlinson QC: It is a shocking indictment. On a number of occasions there have been leaks. People have said, “Oh, these people are donors to Hacked Off”, including some very well known individuals, and then there have been articles in the newspapers going into their background and attacking them. It is a shocking indictment, and one of the things that we are concerned about in particular is that the press abuse their power to defend their own position in that way. Lord Dubs: Does that go for all the press, or are there some better ones among them? Hugh Tomlinson QC: No, it is obviously only certain sections of the press. It does not apply to every newspaper. Dr Evan Harris: We are pretty sure from what we know of individual journalists that they are acting on instruction. You will be talking to the NUJ later, and it generally supports our position. In no way are we hostile either to the freedom of the press or to journalists at the coalface. Indeed, much of what Leveson recommended would give them things like a confidential hotline and conscience clauses, which we support but the editors do not. When several of the witnesses at Leveson put their heads above the parapet they were libelled in the Daily Mail. Sheryl Gascoigne won damages for being libelled in an article that said, “Look who is popping up at Leveson to give evidence”. It does deter people. Steve Coogan is down as a donor. He matched some public donations, and he said he could do that only because there is no more that they could do to him. We will see if that is correct. Joan Smith: It is also worth saying that some journalists say privately that they feel bullied and pushed into doing illegal and unethical things, and some will privately say that they support some or all of our aims, but it is quite unusual for journalists to put their head above the parapet. I think I am quite unusual in being somebody who will make this critique of the press and say, “I want a better press”.

Q44 Lord Razzall: I am going to ask three questions, which I think we all know your answers to because we have read your written material, but bearing in mind that we are being broadcast this is an opportunity for you to put this on the record. Perhaps, Mr Tomlinson, you would be the appropriate person to answer my question and to put on record a summary of your views. First, obviously looking from the point of view of victims, who you are representing, what was your assessment of the recommendations made by Leveson? Secondly, what were the subsequent interpretations of those recommendations? Thirdly— we have recently had some written evidence from you—how would you describe the behaviour of the press since Leveson and the creation of IPSO et cetera? I think we know your views, but it would be useful if you could put them on the record. Hugh Tomlinson QC: We thought that Lord Justice Leveson had reached a very careful, balanced conclusion. On one hand, he had decided not to impose statutory regulation on the press. Of course, broadcasters are subject to statutory regulation, but there has always

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) been a concern about regulation of the press by statute. On the other hand, he had recognised the failures of self-regulation, so to square the circle he introduced a system that I like to call an auditing system. He said to the press, “You set up your self-regulator, but it has to be independently audited to see whether it is actually effective”. He set down a number of criteria that such a body had to meet. That seems to us a very careful and sensible balance that balanced on the one hand the rights of victims and on the other hand the obvious free speech rights of the public and the press. We thought that Leveson had done a very good job in the circumstances. Your second question is about the subsequent interpretation. When the report was published, all the party leaders announced that with certain very small qualifications they agreed with its recommendations, but the Prime Minister had an issue with using statute to do that. Although we did not agree with the Prime Minister, our position was that if it could be done equally effectively without statute, we had no objection to doing it in that way. The model of the royal charter was devised on the model of the BBC, because the BBC has a royal charter and people think that the BBC is an obviously independent media organisation. The royal charter sets up the independent recognition body, which was crucial to Leveson’s recommendations, in such a way that the recommendation criteria which Leveson laid down have to be satisfied by a self-regulator that is recognised. Although we would have preferred it to be done by statute, because Leveson made it clear that that is what he preferred, in the end we supported the royal charter route. So far so good, in the sense that it has not gone as quickly as we would have liked, but that body has been set up. There is a press recognition body in place—I know you have heard evidence from it. The thing that we are very disappointed about is that the press have chosen to ignore not just the recommendations of the inquiry but the will of Parliament in implementing those recommendations. They went to the Leveson inquiry and said, “This is our proposal for reformed press regulation: the so Hunt-Black plan”. Leveson said, “No, that is not good enough”. He analysed it with great care in his report. They have done exactly the same; they have in effect done what Leveson said that they should not do and have now said, “We won’t go along with the recommendations of the inquiry. We won’t apply for recognition”. That is very disappointing, and we hope that they will see the error of their ways, but ultimately if they do not, action will have to be taken. Dr Evan Harris: Before Joan comes in, I shall fill in one bit before she deals with the attitude of the press now. The royal charter was a concession to the press. Mr Letwin came up with it after discussions with the press, and the press said, “Yes, it won’t cross the Rubicon, because a charter is not statuted and cannot be amended in Committee and at Report, or at Third Reading in your House, so politicians won’t be interfering with the criteria”. Indeed, they put in their own royal charter, so they cannot have a theological objection to royal charters. The royal charter came from a concession to them, which they endorsed. What they have clearly objected to is a royal charter that delivers the Leveson recommendations, because their royal charter was the Hunt-Black one. We feel very strongly, because we had a meeting with politicians, which we publicised, where we asked them whether they would accept a royal charter. The victims spoke for themselves—the McCanns and the Dowlers— and they said that they would accept one only if it did not dilute or cherry-pick from the Leveson recommendations, otherwise what was the point of running a year-long public inquiry with the authority of that judge? That was what the royal charter that was passed delivered. It was not Leveson-lite. In fact, the criteria map across exactly to the Leveson

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) recommendations; it is not true what you may have heard: that they are different. They are not different—and you will hear witnesses later who will analyse this in even greater detail. So we are very disappointed that the press now say that they do not accept a royal charter, when they agreed to a royal charter as a compromise for the press because it did not involve statute. It is very clever, but it is disappointing. Lord Razzall: But that is a structural point, and I well understand the Hacked Off arguments and those made by others that the proof of the pudding is in the eating as to how the press are behaving and will behave. I will be interested in what Joan has to say on that. Joan Smith: One thing that we are doing in the Hacked Off office is to read the print editions of all the papers every day and monitor them for any change in behaviour and whether there are fewer breaches of the code. What is frankly astonishing is how little the newspapers have changed. I have just brought a little selection of articles. Here we have a notorious headline from the Sun in the summer, “Magaluf girl”, about a young British woman who was 19. She was very drunk in a bar and was offered a prize if she had sex with roughly 24 men. Somebody in the bar filmed this without her knowledge and posted the film on the internet, where it was viewed only about 15,000 times—although that is bad enough. Then it was put on the front page of the Sun. I have covered up her photograph, but the Sun covered only her eyes, and in hours she was identified and her name and her background were all over the internet. We managed to track down not her family but friends of her family, who said that she comes from a very religious family, who were very shocked, and that she was absolutely distraught about what had happened. There is a very obvious privacy issue here; the young woman was drunk because she did not know that she was being filmed. She should not have ended up on the front page of the Sun. Lord Razzall: What happened with that complaint? Joan Smith: I am not sure that she made a complaint. What happens with some of these people is that they are so distressed that they put their heads down. You will all remember the Christopher Jefferies case—and Christopher is our patron. Here is “Slaughtered in paradise by a Brit”, which is another horrible story. This is the Sun again, although the Sun is by no means the only culprit. It is a story about two young British backpackers who were murdered very horribly in Thailand in the summer, and the girl was raped. The story talks about how their friend is wanted. It does not stand it up—it simply says, “We want to speak to this chap”. We are in touch with this family as well, and they are so upset that they have been treated like this. Of course, now the Thai police have charged two Burmese migrant workers with murder. The boy is home, but they are so distressed that I do not think they have made a complaint. Lord Razzall: They have not complained either? Joan Smith: No, I do not think so. On this story, there was a complaint. As you will know, there are provisions in the Editors’ Code about the treatment of suicide. One thing that it absolutely says is that you must not speculate on the reasons for suicide. This is the Sun again, although a number of newspapers had this one, including the Daily Mail, whose headline was, “Man who feared travellers were surrounding his home shoots dead wife and himself”. This is a tragic story about an elderly couple. The woman was very ill and the husband shot her and killed himself. There as an application from a young traveller, Zoe Lee, to set up one caravan in a field with which her family had had associations for years. Four different papers covered the story. The Telegraph had a headline about a devoted husband

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) who was fighting a gypsy camp next door and was driven to murder and suicide. There was a complaint in this case, which got somewhere. Lord Razzall: Can you remember how the complaint was dealt with? Joan Smith: I think it was upheld. Can you remember, Evan? Dr Evan Harris: When there are complaints, there are small online corrections. Neither the PCC nor IPSO accept Leveson’s judgment on equivalence. Hugh Tomlinson QC: It is important to understand that in that case there was no evidence at all that the Traveller caravan had anything to do with the suicide. It was just pure speculation, which was repeated as fact by a number of newspapers. Joan Smith: I have masses of these stories, but this last one is notorious. The headline is “Boy, 4, has mark of devil”. This is the famous “devil-boy” story from the Sun in the summer. This little boy is only four and has a very serious medical condition. The Sun paid his parents to photograph him with a bare torso, showing a strange mark. I think you could actually have complained on grounds of accuracy, because I would like to see the Sun’s evidence that there is such a personality as the devil who goes around putting marks on children. In fact, Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative MP, made a complaint about the treatment of children. The little boy’s name was given, his school was identified and his face was not pixelated. A four year-old child cannot consent to this kind of intrusion into his privacy. This will be in online editions for years and years. This was actually the first resolution that appeared on the IPSO website, so it was dealt with under the PCC rules because the story appeared just before IPSO was set up. Basically, a resolution appeared on IPSO’s website, and it turned somersaults to avoid finding a code breach. The Sun published an absolutely tiny apology on page 2. It says: “The newspaper agreed to publish the following statement on page 2”—remember that the story is on page 1 and page 5. It says: “The Sun is proud of our record standing up for children and we believe we make a real difference. We have listened to the concerns about a story we ran on 29th July headlined ‘Boy, 4, has mark of devil’ and we accept that, on this occasion, we didn’t get it right. As a result, we have tightened our procedures on all stories involving children, including the issue of paying parents”. There was then a link on page 2—a single paragraph to the resolution going into the background on IPSO. But in no sense is that anything like the prominence that the story got, and it does not recognise the damage that had been done. Dr Evan Harris: The Editors’ Code says that parents must not be paid for stories about children unless it is manifestly—or a word like that—in the interests of the child. So you do not have to interpret the Editors’ Code, you just have to read it, and the Sun is on the Editors’ Code committee. It is extremely problematic. As it happened, most people think on looking at the photo that it is a hairdryer burn from the inner workings of a hairdryer. That clearly raises issues. We see this pattern time and again of people being paid for stories that feature their children.

Q45 Baroness Hanham: In your Hacked Off campaign for full industry participation in the charter, which I think you said had substantial benefits for new publishers, are you actually in favour of the potential regulators seeking recognition under the royal charter from the Press Recognition Panel? I understand that neither has done so at the moment. What benefits do you see for one main organisation to be working under the royal charter, which I see that they are not? The Press Recognition Panel was appointed in November. In spring

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

2015 it plans to start consulting about how it should go about its tasks, and what it should do, in dealing with applications for recognition under the royal charter. It may not have a lot to do at the moment, but there we are. It wants to be in a position to receive positive applications. So, first, what is your view about whether the organisation should work under the royal charter—what do you see as the advantage—and what do you think will happen subsequently? Hugh Tomlinson QC: We have no doubt at all that an effective and independent press self- regulator should be applying for recognition under the royal charter. Those are the fundamentals of the Leveson system. There are a number of reasons for that, but the most important reason is that Leveson laid down certain criteria according to which the effectiveness and independence of a self-regulator should be measured. Those are the criteria in the royal charter, and for a regulator to be effective and independent it must comply with those criteria. IPSO does not comply with them, and I think that Sir Alan Moses has admitted that. What complying with those criteria means is that the self-regulator actually has powers to do what a self-regulator needs to do; it acts independently of the people whom it is regulating; and it commands public confidence. The public know that, if you get a regulator that is approved under the charter, it is one that is truly independent and effective. Those are very important advantages. Leveson subtly built into his system some sticks and carrots. Something that we have so far not mentioned, but which is quite important from my perspective as a lawyer, is that there is a terrible difficulty for both press and difficulty about litigation, because lawyers are ridiculously expensive and litigation takes a long time. The question is how you get over that, and Leveson’s idea was to have a system of arbitration that could be cheaper, quicker and more effective and would help both victims and poor publishers. It would mean that bullying oligarchs who were trying to attack the press would be forced into the system of arbitration. People are put into the system of arbitration through the provisions of the Crime and Courts Act that deal with legal costs. If there is a regulator in place and you are a member, if the person who is suing you does not use the arbitration system, they do not get their costs. Equally, if you are not a member, you end up paying your costs whatever happens. We have set it out in a table, copies of which have been supplied to the Committee, and I shall not go into it in detail now. But that system of incentives is intended to encourage people to be in the regulator but also to protect regulated publishers from bullying by rich claimants. Apart from the public and the publishers, there are also advantages for journalists. One of them is that Leveson said that there should be a whistleblowers’ hotline to go to the regulator. The point has already been made that journalists are very often pushed by their management to do things that they do not want to do. You heard it in the evidence on the phone-hacking trials. The idea of a hotline is that they can go to a regulator and say, “Look, I am being asked to write this kind of article, to stake this person out and to steal their information, and I do not want to do it. What can I do?” IPSO is supposed to have a hotline, but it does not. It says in its founding documents that it will have one, but it does not. Dr Evan Harris: In January 2013, Lord Hunt said that there would be a hotline—that is, 18 months ago—and in July 2013, when IPSO’s articles were drafted, Mr Vickers, who I think you are hearing from, said, “This is going to have a hotline”. You can buy a hotline service from Public Concern at Work; it is not difficult. Yet four months after IPSO was formed, a journalist whom I spoke to yesterday said that he tried to get confidential advice from IPSO and that there was no one there who could provide that—no one in the building. This is four

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) months on. That is one example why we do not think that IPSO, despite the personalities involved, who can be quite engaging, is serious even about what it said that it would do. Joan Smith: There is also the question about the editors’ code. If we had a proper independent regulator that was independently audited, one thing that it might have to do is allow people other than editors to be involved in drawing up that code. It is really important that journalists who are working every day looking for stories and dealing with members of the public should be included in drawing up the code that they have to work by. Hugh Tomlinson QC: On the second question, the Press Recognition Panel chaired by my colleague David Wolfe is a unique body in British public life. It is completely insulated from any kind of outside influence; it is not allowed to have politicians on it, and it has a system to ensure that there will be no political influence over it, and no influence from outside bodies such as the press. The purpose of that is, as I have said before, that it is an auditing function. You want your auditor to be completely independent of outside pressures, and the Press Recognition Panel, although it has been slow in being set up, has been set up in exactly the right way. All its mechanisms are in place. That body can uniquely say to a regulator, “Yes, you’ve got this right”, or, “No, you haven’t got that right”, from a completely independent perspective. That is crucial. Dr Evan Harris: One extra point that I would like to add to that is why this point is critical. The panel does not allow politicians on its appointments panel or on the process that appoints the appointments panel, whereas the IPSO scheme was designed by two party- political Peers, who have been named. They are entitled to do it, but the system should not allow politicians to be involved in such a system. Even worse, it cannot be said that the Press Recognition Panel and the royal charter is in any way subject to political influence, because unlike the BBC royal charter there is no financial negotiation or renegotiation of the charter; it is for ever. It is the only royal charter where the Executive are barred from acting in the Privy Council without a two-thirds parliamentary majority and the unanimous support of the independent recognition panel, which was appointed without any politicians on the appointments panel or the appointers of the appointments panel. It is more independent, therefore, than judges, because there is a politician at the beginning of the process, for the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Q46 Lord Horam: I want to ask you about IPSO and IMPRESS. I understand well enough what you will say about the present situation, but you will have seen that Alan Moses, the chief executive of IPSO, came before us last week. He gave us evidence and told us what IPSO was doing. You will have heard what he said about the need to improve various aspects of IPSO. Taking IPSO for the moment separately from IMPRESS, is there any way in which the IPSO regulator could meet the requirements that you think are reasonable in these circumstances? Hugh Tomlinson QC: Sorry, it is not a question of what we think is reasonable; it is a question of what Sir Brian Leveson, after having heard evidence for over a year, thought was reasonable. He put down a set of criteria, and at the moment IPSO cannot meet those criteria, because it has not been appointed in the right way, and its constitution is repugnant. As I said before, its constitution is exactly what Sir Brian Leveson said should not be done; it is under the control of an industry-funding body that has a veto over the way in which it works. Of course, it could be reconstituted and its rules could be rewritten from the start, and its appointment procedure could be redone from the start.

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

Lord Horam: As you will be aware, Sir Alan Moses said that he was rewriting the rules and redlining various things. Hugh Tomlinson QC: We have the greatest respect for Sir Alan Moses, who was a fine judge and a man put in a very difficult position. He is bound by a set of rules that completely circumscribe what he can do. Unless those rules are changed fundamentally and IPSO applies for recognition, and is subject to the independent scrutiny, which is crucial, only then can it be the regulator that we all want to see. Lord Horam: So from what you are saying, there is no way that it could ever be— Dr Evan Harris: There is one way. What Sir Alan Moses could do is to ask the Regulatory Funding Company—this would be the simple thing to do—for control of their articles and regulations and of every part of the contract except how much the regulated entities pay, because Leveson said that clearly the industry was funding it so it should decide how much the nationals and regionals contributed. It should have full control, and then it could change its own rules. Then all that it has to do is to change its rules to comply with the Leveson recommendations, which have been set out by the Media Standards Trust. To his credit, Sir Alan has accepted that in 26 areas out of 38 IPSO does not meet the criteria at the moment. He has not yet indicated that in the name of transparency he is going to publish either the changes that he would ask the Regulatory Funding Company to make—because it is the only body that can change the articles—or that he is asking it to transfer control of the articles to the regulator, as no other regulator has the regulated entities controlling its regulations and constitution and those parts of the contact that they make with those people. But he has not done that. Lord Horam: Thank you for that on IPSO. What about IMPRESS—does that impress you more? Hugh Tomlinson QC: IMPRESS is a body that has some very distinguished journalistic supporters. It is trying to set up a truly independent self-regulator, and we say good luck to it. If it is able to apply and obtain recognition, it will then be the independent, effective self- regulator that Leveson envisaged. Then we would hope—if IMPRESS or another such body were to be set up—that the national newspapers would see that that was the only way forward and would join that body. Lord Horam: What do you feel about the independents, such as the Financial Times and the Guardian? As you know, the Guardian came to us and said that it had a watertight system that worked properly, and it could not see why it should do anything more. Hugh Tomlinson QC: These are not people who are, say, are acting in bad faith—the Independent, the Financial Times and the Guardian. But I am a barrister, and I am subject to professional regulation. I do not think that I break the rules, but I have an independent body that decides whether I am complying with them or not. It seems perfectly proper to us that however much those newspapers try to obey the rules, they ought to be, along with the other newspapers, subject to the rulings of a truly independent self-regulator. Lord Horam: And if they are not and if they carry on as they are, the situation that led to the creation of Hacked Off could happen again? Hugh Tomlinson QC: It certainly could happen. Obviously, the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times were not the newspapers that gave rise to the crisis in the first

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50) place. There are other newspapers that are much more problematic. However, I have absolutely no doubt at all that if the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Mirror and the other newspapers that have caused the difficulties do not in the end subject themselves to an independent self-regulator, exactly the same problem will arise. One or two members of this Committee will have memories that perhaps go even further back than mine, and they will remember David Mellor and the last chance saloon. So this was a situation that we went through once before, in the early 1990s, and the newspapers then said, “Of course we’ll put everything right and set up this wonderful new body called the PCC, and it’ll all be fine”. That as we now know was a complete disaster. I regret to say that despite the best efforts of Sir Alan Moses, unless IPSO subjects itself to the recognition panel, that is exactly what will happen again.

Q47 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Can I ask you whether you think that the Crime and Courts Act and the sticks and carrots over exemplary damages and costs are potentially helpful? Hugh Tomlinson QC: It is certainly potentially helpful. The idea is to encourage publishers to join to gain advantages from being in a regulator that they would not have if they were outside. That is very helpful. The strange thing is that the original proposal to have an arbitration system originally came from the newspapers, because the newspapers themselves recognised that the legal costs were completely out of control and legal cases were potentially hugely expensive, and the best way in which to deal with that was to have a low-cost arbitration system. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: So you think that it is potentially effective? Hugh Tomlinson QC: It is potentially effective. Of course, if a newspaper wants to take the costs hit and stay outside the system it could do that—but if those incentives are in place, once an independent regulator is set up, it is potentially effective. I shall just mention one other point that may be useful. One or two people have said that those incentives are in some way unlawful, but I have absolutely no doubt that they are lawful. The exemplary damages provisions were designed by the Law Commission in effect to be compliant with Article 10, and are very carefully calibrated. I have no doubt either that the costs provisions, and that kind of incentive, are the proper way in which to encourage people to subject themselves to regulation. Dr Evan Harris: Can I just make the point about who wins out of this? It is good to note that with the cost protection and the immunity from exemplary damages that the Crime and Courts Act delivers to people inside a regulator, it is a win-win-win-lose situation. It is a win for the industry, because they never have to pay costs if sued, because they are either in arbitration or they have full cost protection if sued by an oligarch. It is a win for the journalists, because they can write closer to the edge without the chill of the legal costs, which many of you will know from libel reform debates are one of the biggest things that the last Act did not deal with. It is a win for the public, because they can use arbitration and they get cost protection if they are suing someone who refuses to offer arbitration. The loss is for the lawyers, who lose out—and that is why, when people say that the Media Lawyers Association does not like the arrangement it is not a surprise, because they do not get paid under this system. It is cheaper.

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

Q48 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I just wanted to ask a general question. We are aware that those who set up IPSO would have had the opportunity to take advice from the best media lawyers available—Paul Vickers himself as the legal director. Do you think that there was any way in which a competent lawyer could have structured IPSO in the way that it has been structured if they were minded to comply with the Leveson principles at all? Hugh Tomlinson QC: I think there is a very short answer to that question: it is no. I have no doubt that IPSO was designed in such a way as to provide the maximum influence for the industry over the operation of the regulator. It was not designed to comply with the Leveson recommendations.

Q49 Baroness Fookes: What do you see as the future for Hacked Off? Is it short term, longer term? Joan Smith: It is very hard to work that out because this issue comes and goes in the public mind. Sometimes people say to me, “Whatever happened to the Leveson inquiry? Did we ever get regulation?” It is such a slow process. There have been six or seven such public inquiries, starting long before I was a journalist, so I never thought that we would get an independently audited self-regulator overnight. This time we have a chance, but we feel that we have a commitment to victims of intrusion and abuse to carry on the campaign if the major publishers do not join an independently audited self-regulator. So I think in some form the campaign has to carry on. It would be very nice for all of us if it did not. Dr Evan Harris: It is fair to say that, for us, it is not about the future of Hacked Off. The victims would like this to go away; they want to get on with their lives and there are other things for people working in the campaign to do. The question is how we achieve the Leveson report. If you remember, the Press Recognition Panel issues a report a year after it opens for business—so a year after this spring, probably—that will say whether it happens or not. We will send you a note about this because there is no time now, but Leveson said that if there is a failure, Parliament must not again allow this industry to escape—he quoted John Major in this—even a milder form of the same regulation that it insists is imposed on other industries, and that the will of Parliament must prevail because the public cannot be let down again. There are parts of the Leveson report where he says what should happen in those circumstances. What the victims have asked us to do, and a letter from them was circulated to you, is to say to the politicians who promised them—on oath, in the case of the Prime Minister at the Leveson inquiry—that they should deliver the Leveson inquiry. The politicians said face to face and in our presence to people like the McCanns, Christopher Jefferies and the Dowler family: “We will deliver Leveson’s recommendations”. All three party leaders said that. David Cameron said that he would do so if the report was “not bonkers”—and no one has suggested that it is bonkers. They have asked us, and we are asking you, to make sure that the politicians are held to those promises, because there is a real fear out there that this is one area where there is outstanding “corruption” in the system, whereby there is not even light-touch regulation for one industry after near unanimity in Parliament and a year-long public inquiry.

Q50 Baroness Bakewell: Given the evidence that you have since given, Joan, are you still acquiring new victims?

Hacked Off – oral evidence (QQ 42-50)

Joan Smith: Oh, yes. It is actually a very sensitive area of work, because we see what is happening to people. We sometimes blog about the most egregious cases. Then we try to contact people. Some of them are very distressed, and you have to talk to them. Their instinct is to hunker down and just hide, because people feel awful when this kind of thing goes on. You have to assure them that you will do not anything that they have not agreed to. One thing that struck me since doing this job is how much time I spend with incredibly distressed people: for example, the relatives of people whose children have been kidnapped or killed, or whose friends have been murdered and so on. Hacked Off tends to be portrayed as a celebrity-driven organisation. I actually spend a lot of time with ordinary people who have been thrust into the limelight by catastrophic and tragic events. Baroness Bakewell: Are you not pressuring them? Joan Smith: Oh, no. Baroness Bakewell: Because there might be a risk of that. Joan Smith: I am incredibly conscious of that. When I started my career as a very young journalist, one of the very first stories I covered was the Yorkshire Ripper murders. There was a 24-hour period in my life where I interviewed three women who had survived attacks by Peter Sutcliffe, although we did not know who he was at the time. Every time I did that, I would approach the person, say who I was and be up front about it. I would say, “I would like to talk to you. I know this is distressing. If you want me to go away, I will go away”. Nobody has ever said to me, “Go away”, because you empower people by saying, “I would like to hear your story. There is a purpose to it”. People feel a part of that. It is very important when we talk to victims that they feel part of this group of people. We can put them in touch with other victims as well who can talk about their experiences and make them feel less alone. The Chairman: We have gone way over time, as we thought we might. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you also for the written material which we have by us and will study with the greatest care. Joan Smith: Thank you for this opportunity.

IMPRESS (The Independent Monitor for the Press) – written evidence (PRG0003)

Introduction

IMPRESS: The Independent Monitor for the Press aims to advance press freedom and high ethical standards of news publishing by operating as an independent press regulator in compliance with the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press.

The IMPRESS Board was nominated by an independent appointment panel in December 2014 and meets for the first time on 12 January 2015. IMPRESS is in the process of formation. We expect to begin recruiting publisher-members after we have finalised the regulator’s constitution and procedures.

The IMPRESS Project has been supported so far by grants and donations from trusts, foundations, individual philanthropists and members of the public. In due course, IMPRESS aims to become sustainable through membership fees from publishers. In the meantime, we expect to secure further grants and donations, on the clear principle that no funder will have any authority over IMPRESS.

We welcome this opportunity to contribute to the House of Lords Communication Committee’s inquiry into press regulation. In this short submission, we set out the background to IMPRESS and our progress towards establishing an independent press regulator. We look forward to discussing our work and the situation more generally with the Committee on 13 January.

We will be represented at this session by Walter Merricks CBE, Chair Designate of IMPRESS; and Jonathan Heawood, Founding Director of The IMPRESS Project.

Background

After an open and detailed inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press, Lord Justice Leveson recommended that, in order to be effective, any press self-regulator must have the power to investigate code breaches and to impose sanctions. He also recommended that, in order to be credible, a press self-regulator should be independent from the news publishing industry. Its Board should have a majority of independent members and should have the ultimate authority for the regulator’s budget, Board appointments, code, investigations, sanctions and arbitration scheme.

Leveson also recommended a system of incentives, to create ‘carrots’ for membership of an independent self-regulator, and ‘sticks’ to deter non-membership and non-compliance. These incentives include protection against costs and exemplary damages in libel and privacy

IMPRESS (The Independent Monitor for the Press) – written evidence (PRG0003) actions, on the basis that the regulator should offer an independent and impartial arbitration scheme to resolve legal disputes without the need for court costs. These incentives create new opportunities for reporters to pursue hard-hitting investigations without the chilling effect of libel threats. They would also allow individuals like Kate and Gerry McCann, about whom certain newspapers have published untrue and harmful stories, to access means of redress without risking ruinous court costs.

To give effect to this system of incentives, the courts must have confidence in the regulator and its arbitration scheme. Leveson therefore recommended that the regulator should be periodically reviewed by an independent body to ensure that it has been properly constituted and is truly independent of the news publishing industry. This independent review should also give the public confidence that the regulator is operating in the public interest rather than the interests of publishers. This will make it more likely that the public will trust the regulator to resolve disputes.

This combined framework of recognition plus incentives mirrors the model of press regulation in Ireland, where the Defamation Act 2009 sets out certain minimum requirements for the regulator. In return for submitting to these requirements, news publishers benefit from advantages in libel actions.

In fact, the Irish model is more open to political interference than the Leveson model, as the Irish Defamation Act may be amended with a simple parliamentary majority and the regulator is recognised by the Justice Minister rather than an independent body. Nonetheless, all British publishers of Irish newspaper titles and editions submit to this system in Ireland. Leveson might be forgiven for having assumed that the same publishers would accept a similar – but less politicised – system in the UK.

However, the major British publishers have rejected the Leveson framework of recognition plus incentives, as embodied in the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press and the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Instead, a number of major publishers have created a regulator, IPSO, which does not meet the Charter criteria and has declared that it does not intend to seek recognition.

If the Leveson model of approved self-regulation is simply ignored, the public might well ask whether the framework of press regulation has advanced from the position that existed before the Inquiry. The external assurance of proper regulatory standards and performance was intended to be Leveson’s lasting legacy – one that he hoped would avoid the necessity for another Inquiry into press standards in the coming decades.

IMPRESS: The Independent Monitor for the Press

The IMPRESS Project was registered on 11 November 2013. Its Directors are Lisa Appignanesi OBE, author and former President of English PEN; Isabel Hilton OBE, journalist

IMPRESS (The Independent Monitor for the Press) – written evidence (PRG0003) and environmental expert; and Professor Alastair Mullis, Head of the University of Leeds Law School. It has been managed on a day-to-day basis by Jonathan Heawood, former Director of English PEN and co-founder of the Libel Reform Campaign.

The IMPRESS Project was launched in order to develop detailed plans for a regulator which complies with the terms of the Royal Charter. That regulator – IMPRESS: The Independent Monitor for the Press – is now in the process of formation. The Project has so far been funded by a mix of grants and donations from trusts and individuals who wish to help IMPRESS establish itself.

It is important to understand that The IMPRESS Project is not a regulator, but the incubator for a regulator. Its aim in establishing a regulator has been to ensure that press regulation is in future capable of upholding the public interest in both press freedom and ethical journalism.

As a first step towards forming a Charter-compliant regulator, the Directors of The IMPRESS Project appointed an Appointment Panel, with ‘a substantial majority of members who are demonstrably independent of the press’, ‘at least one person with a current understanding and experience of the press’ and ‘no more than one current editor of a publication that could be a member of the body’, in line with the requirements in Schedule 3 of the Charter.

The Appointment Panel was chaired by Aidan White, former journalist, long-time Director of the International Federation of Journalists and now Director of the Ethical Journalism Network. The Deputy Chair was Caroline Instance MCIPD, former Chief Executive of OPRA, the occupational pensions regulator. The other Panel members were Ashok Gupta, financial services expert; Richard Gurner, Editor of the Caerphilly Observer; Chris Kenny, then Director of the Legal Services Board; Tom Murdoch, charity lawyer; Damian Tambini, media policy expert at the London School of Economics; Salil Tripathi, journalist and human rights advocate; and Penny Shepherd, sustainable development expert. The composition of this Panel met the Charter criteria outlined above.

The Panel developed and implemented a ‘fair and open’ process in line with the Charter criteria. They sought to nominate a Board with ‘a majority of people who are independent of the press’, ‘a sufficient number of people with experience of the industry’, no serving editors and no politicians, in line with the requirements in Schedule 3 of the Charter.

As a result of this process, the Panel nominated Walter Merricks CBE as the Chair Designate of IMPRESS. Mr Merricks was the first Chief Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service, with responsibility for an organisation of 1,500 staff and a £90m budget. He is a member of the Gambling Commission and has been involved in dispute resolution and regulation in the fields of legal services, healthcare, insurance, energy and intellectual property, among others. He has also worked as a legal journalist and academic.

IMPRESS (The Independent Monitor for the Press) – written evidence (PRG0003)

Mr Merricks joined the Panel to nominate a further six Board members: Deborah Arnott, former broadcast journalist and now Chief Executive of the charity ASH; Iain Christie, barrister and Secretary of the Civil Mediation Council; Sue Evison, former Chief Feature Writer of The Sun; Máire Messenger Davies, former journalist and now Professor of Media Studies at the University of Ulster; David Robinson, Founding CEO of the life insurance company Bright Grey; and Patrick Swaffer, President of the British Board of Film Classification. The composition of this Panel meets the Charter criteria outlined above.

Over the coming months, the new Board will finalise the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the new regulator. They will then be able to register IMPRESS as a company limited by guarantee, with CIC (Community Interest Company) status. They will review the draft complaints procedures and contracts, in dialogue with news publishers. They will oversee the pilot arbitration scheme which has been developed in partnership with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. And they will decide whether IMPRESS should seek recognition under the Royal Charter, and if so, when.

The Board will also finalise a business plan for the regulator which will set out the likely fees for publishers of all sizes and any other sources of income. Any grants or donations which are necessary to establish the regulator will only be accepted on the basis that no funder will have any authority over IMPRESS.

In response to concerns that the Royal Charter might be modified by a future Parliament, the draft Articles of Association include a ‘sunset clause’, which would require IMPRESS to dissolve if the Charter or other laws were used to involve IMPRESS in any constraint on press freedom.

In response to concerns that publishers such as Private Eye might wish to stand outside the system of regulation altogether, and might therefore be chilled by the ‘sticks’ in the Crime and Courts Act, IMPRESS has suggested that its arbitration scheme may be open to non- members on a case-by-case basis.

IMPRESS expects to have a constructive relationship with IPSO. We anticipate ongoing dialogue about our mutual experiences in this unique field of regulation. We hope to share ideas and information, so far as possible, in order to advance the public interest in press freedom and ethical journalism. We are confident that the Board and staff of IPSO are as committed to these values as we are.

We are aware that many news publishers at both a national and a local level have been excluded from the post-Leveson process. Our consultation has revealed strong civic values among independent publishers. Small, hyperlocal publishers are increasingly filling the gaps left by larger companies as they close and consolidate local and regional newspapers. They are taking up the opportunities of new technology to produce and disseminate news at low

cost. Many hyperlocal publishers are pursuing lines of investigative journalism which are otherwise ignored by the mainstream industry. They have said that they would value protection against the chilling effect of libel threats, and advice on how best to serve their audiences through high ethical standards.

IMPRESS hopes to meet the needs of all news publishers as we develop a form of regulation which allows journalists to hold the powerful to account, and which allows the public to hold publishers to account. We believe that this will help to rebuild public confidence in journalism.

At a time when news publishers are under severe economic pressure from the challenge of freely available online news, independent self-regulation provides the opportunity to demonstrate the ‘added value’ of professional journalism. IMPRESS can thereby support the business model of news publishers. In the long term, this may prove extremely valuable to the news publishing industry and we look forward to working constructively with news publishers of all types.

9 January 2015

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

Evidence Session No. 1 Heard in Public Questions 1 - 21

TUESDAY 13 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Lord Best (Chairman) Baroness Bakewell Lord Clement-Jones Baroness Deech Lord Dubs Baroness Fookes Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Lord Horam Lord Razzall Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury ______

Examination of Witnesses Walter Merricks CBE, Chairman, IMPRESS, and Jonathan Heawood, Director, the IMPRESS Project

Q12 The Chairman: Welcome to both of you, Jonathan Heawood and Walter Merricks. Thank you very much for joining us from IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project. We are live, being broadcast, and there will be a transcript of what you say, so we are on the public record. I am going to ask my colleagues whether they have any interests to declare for the public record before we launch off. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I suppose I should formally declare that I was the shadow Attorney-General up until 2011 and the Attorney-General before that. The Chairman: Thank you very much. No other interests. Welcome to both of you. We look forward very much to learning what is happening with IMPRESS. We are not going to have a repeat of the Leveson experience. We are trying to put on the public record what exactly is happening in press regulation, and this event and our final report that will follow it are intended to inform parliamentarians, and indeed everybody else, in what is a rather cloudy world at the moment. We hope to bring clarity to it in the future. Thank you very much for joining us. Could you begin by telling us for the record, although we have had a very useful paper from you, who you are and what your special interests that have brought you to us today have been? Walter Merricks: I am Walter Merricks and I chair IMPRESS, or at least I have been appointed as the chair-designate of IMPRESS—IMPRESS, as a regulator, does not quite exist yet. I have been appointed by an independent process, which we will describe later on. I have a background in both regulation and having been an ombudsman in the financial

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) services world. I have been involved with nearly all the other private sector ombudsman schemes, apart from that which you yourself are involved in, Lord Chairman. I have also been involved in the regulation of a variety of different industries, so I am aware of all those and I can bring that experience to bear in this field. Jonathan Heawood: Thank you. I am Jonathan Heawood. I am the founding director of the IMPRESS project, which was established about 15 or 16 months ago as the incubator, the development organisation, for what will become in due course a regulator to be called IMPRESS. My background is largely in the media and the non-profit world. I worked at the Observer newspaper, edited the Fabian Review, worked at English PEN for many years campaigning for press freedom and free speech, and worked at a foundation called the Sigrid Rausing Trust. That is my experience.

Q13 The Chairman: Thank you very much. Could both of you tell us why IMPRESS was created and what its aims and objectives are? Jonathan Heawood: Shall I begin, as I was part of the creation, to talk about the background, and then perhaps Walter can talk about the aims in the future? The IMPRESS project arose out of a moment, which you have already been talking about in the previous session, in the middle of 2013 when it became very clear that the post-Leveson process had become, as you say, cloudy, to say the least. There was a royal charter in existence. There was a rival charter promoted by elements within the newspaper industry. There was large public confusion, and what had seemed like a very sensible and proportionate set of proposals that had come out of the Leveson inquiry seemed to be in the process of being lost. My initial thoughts about that were that there was a huge opportunity there in those proposals for the press, for investigative journalists, for those who are determined to root out injustice, corruption and hypocrisy by taking advantage of the benefits which the charter framework and the incentives would give them. I was concerned that publishers should have the opportunity to make the most of those opportunities. At the same time, I was concerned that if, between them, politicians and the industry managed to mangle that framework, there was a danger that in the next cycle, the next time there is a major scandal or public outcry in this area, something potentially more draconian, more statutory, with more direct political involvement, might be enforced on the press and I was very keen to avoid that risk. I felt, in light of experience and the fact that self-regulation has been shown demonstrably over 70 years to have failed in this particular industry, that it was worth at least exploring the possibility of putting something in place that did meet the Leveson requirements. The aim at that point was to develop a charter- compliant regulator, although not necessarily to seek recognition under the charter, which we can discuss later. Perhaps I should hand over. Walter Merricks: On the aims and objectives for the future, our aim is to become a regulator, a proper regulator, of newspapers or other publishers. We do see a gap in the market. There are a number of national newspapers that are not currently members of a self-regulatory organisation and there are quite a large number of small publishers of local, and indeed online publications, that are not, so there is already a potential gap in the market there. Our aim is to be a regulator, an independent regulator, complying with the principles in the charter, which we think are good principles and we would want to abide by those come what may.

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

Q14 Baroness Deech: How are you currently funded and how do you plan for your ongoing work to be funded? Walter Merricks: We are currently funded through a range of donations and grants from well-wishing trusts and individuals, because we are not a regulator that is currently able to charge regulatory fees to anybody. I should emphasise that I did point out that I am the chair-designate of a board that has not yet come into existence in a sense, because the first thing that my board is going to have to do is adopt a constitution and articles of association. We have a draft going, but the board wants to look at a number of details of those. We held our first meeting as a board yesterday, so we are on the case, but there is quite a way to go. In the meantime we are funded, as I say, not through regulatory fees, which in due course will be our source of funds, but through a source of grants and donations that have been largely the work of Jonathan finding people who are well disposed and supportive of the ideas that he set out. Baroness Deech: It is rather precarious, is it not? Perhaps you approach people who say, “Once you are set up and running I might fund you”, but of course you need the money right now. Walter Merricks: You are right. Baroness Deech: You must be spending a lot of time trying to raise it. Walter Merricks: We will need to depend on the good will of those who have been involved to date and, hopefully, others. You are right: we do not have a guaranteed source of funding at the moment, but I hope that we will have enough to keep us going and to do the work that we need to in order to get ourselves, first of all, into a state where we can be open for business to regulate publishers who want to be regulated by us. I think there is likely to be a market for those, and as we grow we will be able to charge regulatory fees and we will not need— Baroness Deech: Who will you charge fees to? Walter Merricks: We will charge regulatory fees to publishers who join us as bodies who are going to be regulated. Baroness Deech: So you are expecting to be funded by the publishers? Walter Merricks: In due course, we will be funded by the publishers in the same way in which other self-regulatory bodies are funded. Baroness Deech: Is that compatible with the much needed independence? Walter Merricks: It certainly is. It is an accusation that is thrown at many self-regulatory bodies or, indeed, statutory regulatory bodies. They are funded by those who are under their jurisdiction, but provided the framework of independence is built in, the funders should not have control over the activities of the regulator. That is, as others will know, the framework for ombudsmen and for most other regulators of industries in this country that are not going to be funded from the public purse. Baroness Deech: It occurs to me that there is no limit on the number of regulators who might be recognised in the end under our current scheme, and I suppose they are all going to be funded by the publishers who sign up to them. There is going to be a bit of a

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) competition because you will not be able to afford to run unless you get a significant number of publishers signing up to you. Walter Merricks: In the situation that has already been described to you, where there is no compulsion on anybody either to belong to a self-regulatory organisation or for a self- regulatory organisation to apply for recognition, all those are voluntary, with some incentives on people to take certain steps but they do not have to. That is the model that has been laid down. That is the framework under which we are operating, so there is no compulsion. In a world where there is no compulsion, people can do anything they like. You are right to say that the world may develop in a variety of possible ways. There could be many self-regulators or there could be a few. I am not in a position to say how the world will look other than how we will look. Baroness Deech: It just occurs to me that it might be financially driven in the end. A final quick question: how many staff do you have, apart from Mr Heawood? Walter Merricks: We have two other staff. Baroness Deech: Full time? Part time? Walter Merricks: They are full time, or virtually full time. Jonathan Heawood: Virtually full time. Walter Merricks: They are sitting behind me. The Chairman: Do you feel able to name the well-wishing trusts and organisations, with a rough idea of the percentages that they account for? Jonathan Heawood: Yes, they are all named on the website. I would say that about 65% of the income to date has come from charitable trusts or foundations; another proportion has come from a significant non-charitable trust, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust; and a proportion has come from private individuals, namely JK Rowling and David Sainsbury, who made personal donations. The balance has come from members of the public, who contributed via a crowd-funding campaign that raised in total about £21,000. About 60 individuals contributed to that campaign.

Q15 Lord Razzall: Could I come back to this issue of independence? You are entirely right that a lot of self-funded regulatory bodies are funded by the people who they regulate. Of course, they do not have the history that the press has in this area, where for many years it has been perceived that because the press are paying for the regulator, the regulator is not quite as objective as the regulator might otherwise be. Trying to press you a bit, assuming a world under which you do start regulating people and are funded by those you regulate, by what mechanisms and systems of governance are you confident that you are and can remain independent and answer the fears that people have, on the record, on the IPSO proposal? Walter Merricks: I would say that the process that has been followed to date to ensure that we are a body that is compliant with the royal charter requirements has given us a demonstrably independent board. I hope people feel that it has given it a demonstrably independent chair in me. The other members of the board have been recruited following a very independent process and having set up an independent appointments panel, and that has been following very much the requirements. The charter sets out a lot of requirements

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) for an organisation to be independent in the way it behaves and the will has to be there, but there are also fundamental requirements in the charter to make us do that should those fall upon us. Lord Razzall: Yes, of course, but as we know by and large the publishers are not happy with the proposals that came out of Leveson: the establishment of the royal charter. Walter Merricks: Some publishers are not. Lord Razzall: Some publishers. Most publishers are not. If you get to the stage where you are running out of money and a publisher comes to you and says, “We are perfectly happy for you to regulate us and we will obviously fund it but, on the other hand, we do want our editor sitting on your board”, and so on, what would your reaction be? Walter Merricks: It would be that that is not the way we behave and that is not part of the rules under which we are going to operate. We are going to set out what our rules are going to be, what it is going to cost to join us, and what requirements there will be on those under our jurisdiction to comply with, as any other regulator would. Lord Razzall: Basically, you are saying that anybody who agrees to be regulated by you has to sign up to the terms— Walter Merricks: To the terms, yes. Lord Razzall: —or you will not regulate them? Walter Merricks: Absolutely. Jonathan Heawood: Yes, because part of the benefit that they are receiving in return for that is the credibility of genuinely independent, impartial regulation after a period of complete crisis of confidence in the press, certainly in parts of the national press. I think there is a clear quid pro quo that in return for giving up a little control, they gain a huge amount of public trust. Lord Razzall: Good luck. Jonathan Heawood: Thank you.

Q16 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Can I ask a question about the potential recognition of IMPRESS by the press recognition panel? I got the impression from what Mr Heawood was saying that that was not necessarily an objective. You said that you may or may not seek recognition. My questions are: first, are you setting yourself up to meet the criteria that would achieve recognition if you were to apply for it? If you are doing that, why would you not seek recognition? Jonathan Heawood: Just to give a very straight, factual answer to part of the question, we have not yet sought recognition because, as Walter has made very clear, there has not been an entity that was in a position to seek recognition. There has been an incubator but not a regulator. In the longer term, I do not see any barriers to IMPRESS seeking recognition should its board in due course decide to do so. In our view, certainly in my view and those of the board members who have discussed this, there is an acceptance of the principles behind the charter framework. There is recognition that what came out of the Leveson process was a sound, proportionate response to the challenge. But, as you well know, as other members of the Committee well know, there is strong opposition to that framework within the

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) industry, some of that opposition on I think quite principled grounds, some of it on very commercially motivated grounds, but nonetheless very real. I think it would be perverse of us to go out there saying, “Here we are signing up to the charter come what may, take it or leave it”. There is much more benefit in going out in a consultative way, having conversations, seeking to understand people’s objections and concerns and, to the extent that we can, addressing those concerns and objections. If, at the end of that, there is some way of achieving the objectives of the charter framework in terms of the principles but without signing up to the charter, that is an option the board might consider. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Do I infer from that that although you might want to satisfy the criteria of the panel, the commercial considerations of those whom you want to sign up to you may influence you deciding not to satisfy those criteria? Given that that is because you want the people, bodies, members of the press who will be funding you to sign up, your structure and the criteria under which you operate will indeed be influenced by those you are seeking to sign up to you and, therefore, you are not independent. Jonathan Heawood: I think it would be right to say that this particular decision about seeking recognition would be taken after serious conversations with prospective members, based not on their commercial concerns—I am simply saying that they have commercial concerns—but on any principled reasons that they can give as to why it is the worst option to go down the charter route. I do not think that we think it is the worst option, but I know there are people out there who are concerned. It is about listening to their concerns and, where possible, addressing those concerns before forming a final decision. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: In an ideal world, would you like to be able to satisfy the criteria of the panel? Jonathan Heawood: Absolutely. We have always been absolutely 100% clear about that, and that is the intention behind the project. The appointments process, certainly, which is the one thing that we cannot go back and do again, was taken incredibly slowly and incredibly carefully to make sure that we did satisfy the criteria, as far as we could understand them, without at that point the panel having gone through its consultation process to tell us how it understood those criteria. Lord Horam: I understand you have not signed up any members yet. That is correct, is it? Walter Merricks: That is correct because we are not capable of signing up members. We are not in business yet. Lord Horam: When will you be in business? Walter Merricks: A bit like the Press Recognition Panel that you have already spoken to, we have some work to do in order to constitute ourselves, to adopt articles of association of the company— Lord Horam: Are we talking a couple of months? Walter Merricks: I suspect it will take probably three months for us to— Lord Horam: You have not actively looked for members yet, or have you?

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

Jonathan Heawood: We have not had a proposition to put to members. We have been able to have conversations about the principles, but we have not been able to say to them, “This is what you would get. These are the costs. These are the terms”. Lord Horam: It is a vacuum at the moment? Walter Merricks: Yes. We are a work in progress. Lord Horam: Have you had any ideas about who might become your members? The FT, the Guardian, who? Jonathan Heawood: Over the course of the year, I have had conversations with those national, as it were, non-aligned publishers— Lord Horam: People outside IPSO? Jonathan Heawood: —who have remained outside IPSO. I have also had conversations with, as Walter suggested, much smaller, local, hyperlocal and— Lord Horam: Provincial papers or— Jonathan Heawood: —specialist publications, online or in print. Lord Horam: You have had conversations with a lot of these people? Jonathan Heawood: With a lot of these people. What a lot of these people say is that they were not part of the Leveson process particularly and they were not part of the IPSO process, and they felt rather excluded by that. They feel they are in the business of publishing news just as much as anyone else is. They see the benefits. They are very keen on the benefits of access to arbitration. These people receive threats of libel actions if they are covering local business, local government, local sports clubs. They would like to be protected against those threats, so having access to an arbitration scheme, for instance, is very interesting to them. Lord Horam: That is fine but, presumably, you want a few big fish as well? It would not have much credibility if it was the Farmers Weekly and nothing else. Jonathan Heawood: It is an open question. If big fish want to join, we would very much like them to swim into the net. Lord Horam: What happens if they do not? Jonathan Heawood: I think you still have a regulator that still regulates relevant publishers. Lord Horam: Some people might say that IPSO is the right wing lot who disagree with Leveson, and you are the left-wing lot, JK Rowling and David Sainsbury and so on. Is that rather sad? Walter Merricks: I think it would be wrong to characterise us in political terms. Lord Horam: Some people might. I am just putting it to you. Walter Merricks: People are free to do what they like and they can comment however they like, but I certainly would not want to associate myself with anything of that description. We are a non-political organisation. If commentators want to describe us they can have a go, but I am a non-politically aligned person. Jonathan Heawood: I have not asked the board for their political views.

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

Lord Horam: No, I was just thinking about your funding and your backgrounds. Jonathan Heawood: My sense is that they are quite broad and, unlike IPSO, we were very clear in the appointments process that we were closed to even esteemed Members of the House of Lords, even politically non-aligned Members of the House of Lords, in order to avoid any risk of political interference or bias on the part of the regulator. Lord Horam: Would you have powers to expel people? This is going ahead a long way, I appreciate that. You do not have anybody yet. Jonathan Heawood: It would be presumptive to expel them first. Lord Horam: Would you expect to have powers to expel people who did not do what you wanted? Walter Merricks: We would certainly have powers to regulate them and to require them to comply with our requirements. I suppose, eventually, if they continued not to comply with our requirements, we would have to say, “You are clearly not in the right place”. Lord Horam: You have not got around to that yet. The Chairman: Could you explain those financial incentives to joining you? They will not exist, probably, until you become and if you become recognised, but can you explain to us what difference that recognition will then make in incentivising people to then come to you? Do you want to have a go? Jonathan Heawood: Yes. As David Wolfe explained, it would largely come down to mitigating the risk of costs awards in libel or privacy actions. If a relevant publisher was regulated by IMPRESS, and IMPRESS was recognised and therefore became an approved regulator, and one of those publishers was sued for defamation or breach of confidence or a related tort and they found themselves in court, having offered the litigant the opportunity to go to arbitration and the litigant having refused that opportunity nonetheless found themselves in court, the court would be expected to rule against the claimant on costs. In other words, the defendant, the publisher or the newspaper would be protected. They would be immune from paying the other side’s costs even if they lost a libel or privacy action, which is clearly a considerable financial incentive and should remove a huge part of the chilling effect of the current costs regime in libel. I think research has shown that it is 140 times more expensive than the European average to defend a libel action in England and Wales. The Chairman: They could be really significant? Jonathan Heawood: They could be very significant, not only in those costs but in the costs of libel insurance, which is a prerequisite for any news publisher.

Q17 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: The Committee understands that you plan to offer an arbitration service to resolve complaints against journalists, with the aim of avoiding the need for complainants to launch potentially expensive legal actions. This is one of the distinguishing features between you and IPSO, we believe. Could you expand on this and what else distinguishes your organisation from IPSO? Walter Merricks: Perhaps I will take that on, because Jonathan has already just described to you the financial benefits that arise from having an arbitration scheme in place. Our plan is to put this arbitration scheme in place through working with the Chartered Institute of

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

Arbitrators, one of the most respected organisations in this field, so that this scheme would be available to publishers of whatever size. It has these benefits, both from the point of view of members of the public who find themselves with a claim, having been, as they feel, with a grievance against a newspaper, or from the point of view of a small publisher facing a claim from a large and powerful organisation. This arbitration regime is intended to produce the effect that the costs, for those who do not use it and refuse to use it, will fall on the big, large, powerful party, be it a newspaper, an oligarch or some other individual who might seek to bring pressure on a publisher. That is the framework that is put in place and I hope I have described it in a simple way. It turns into rather more complex sets of legislative language, but that is what it is intended to achieve. We think that is a very well worthwhile arrangement to put in place and has significant benefits. I cannot speak for IPSO as to why they are cautious about that. Jonathan Heawood: Leveson talked about what he called an inquisitorial arbitration scheme and nobody quite knew, to be fair, what an inquisitorial arbitration scheme was because it is not something that is part of the legal tradition in this country. But it was clear what he was getting at, which was something that should be straightforward and robust, with an arbitrator who was empowered to, if necessary, knock heads together and get to the heart of an issue without the need for extensive legal argument, extensive use of precedent, in a way that militates against the individual man or woman on the street. Walter Merricks: I think he had in mind something like an ombudsman, but an ombudsman, an arbitrator or an adjudicator who would be appointed for each particular case rather than being an ombudsman in permanent existence. Jonathan Heawood: We have taken steps with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to draft a scheme that we think meets the criteria that Leveson set out, which are represented in the charter. Again, there are many balancing acts here to be got right. It is worth remembering at this point that many newspaper editors and publishers went in front of the inquiry and talked about the advantages of arbitration and access to alternative dispute resolution, not least Paul Dacre of the Mail, but also Lionel Barber at the FT and Alan Rusbridger at the Guardian and many, many others. I know from the libel reform campaign that I ran at English PEN that the biggest chilling effect around libel and privacy actions for newspapers is not the substantive law but the costs and the fear of going to court. Our attempt to put in place a forum that would allow people to resolve those kinds of disputes quickly, affordably, straightforwardly, ideally without the need for legal representation, is certainly intended as a step forwards.

Q18 Baroness Bakewell: What is going to be the impact on the industry, on the consumer, indeed on the public, of all these regulators? How many regulators does a country need? We do not have multiple regulators in broadcasting. We do not have multiple regulators of Ofcom, Ofgem, and so on. What will happen when we have multiple regulators? Will it be confusing? Jonathan Heawood: There are industries with multiple regulators and there are countries with multiple press regulators, so it is not an entirely unheard of situation. The main point is that under both the IMPRESS and the IPSO proposals, publishers will in the first instance be expected to resolve complaints themselves. As a member of the public with a problem with a newspaper or website, the first thing you would be doing would be going to that

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) publisher, and they should have in place a system. You should not at that point be worrying too much about who is the next stop regulator. It is only if the publisher fails to resolve the complaint satisfactorily, which they may do, but they may increasingly not. They may increasingly resolve complaints satisfactorily if there is a more independent regulator sitting behind them. That is certainly the intention of the framework. Baroness Bakewell: We know that we have IPSO in the frame and we have IMPRESS in the frame. Are you envisaging—just as a matter of professional gossip—that there will be other regulators arriving beside you to seek recognition? Jonathan Heawood: You asked or someone asked at the last session how long it might take to set up a regulator. It has taken us 18 months to get to the point of having the board’s first meeting yesterday and, as Walter has indicated, it will be several more months for that board to work through the processes and paperwork. I would not recommend it to anyone as a way of passing the time. Baroness Bakewell: No, but do you envisage others arriving, perhaps another? Would it worry you? Would you think, “Oh, dear, that means we have lost part of the market.”? Jonathan Heawood: I think it is very unlikely. I certainly have not heard any gossip to that effect. Baroness Bakewell: No, so it is going to be two we are looking at? Jonathan Heawood: For the foreseeable future. Baroness Bakewell: For the foreseeable future it is two, right. A person complains to the newspaper and says, “I have been libelled”, and everything. They do not resolve it. The resolution will depend on the particular regulator that that newspaper comes under. Jonathan Heawood: Correct. Baroness Bakewell: The complainant will not have a choice of your criteria or IPSO criteria; that will be dependent on the public? Walter Merricks: You are right: where they wind up—if they are dissatisfied with the newspaper’s response—will depend whether they are a member of IPSO or a member of IMPRESS or potentially some other regulator who, as we have said, we do not know anything about or do not envisage at the moment because we have not heard of anybody who is intending to set one up. That is right: there will be two possible routes, but that is not unknown, as Jonathan has pointed out, in other dispute resolution contexts. Baroness Bakewell: How does it work? Walter Merricks: It depends. Baroness Bakewell: I meant how well does it work. Walter Merricks: How well does it work? It can work quite well if there is good will among everybody to understand, as a company, you are regulated by this ombudsman or this regulator and this is where you go, and if you are regulated by that one you go there. My Lord Chairman is involved in the Property Ombudsman, which has a remit over estate agents and a number of other property professionals. There is another organisation that also offers that kind of dispute resolution for some other property professionals and it works, as I am sure he would say, tolerably well.

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

The Chairman: Very well, yes. Baroness Bakewell: I take your point and thank you. I would just say that the phrase, “If there is good will around”, is not one I associate with the Leveson report. Walter Merricks: I would not want to think that that would be the case.

Q19 Baroness Deech: If you and IPSO and maybe others are all in contention for a limited number of relevant publishers to sign up, will there not be a temptation to set your rules and so on in a way that favours the publishers? Supposing there were three, four, five regulators, none of you would be financially able to go ahead. You would not have a sufficient financial base, so there must be a temptation to set the standards in a way that suits the publishers so you can attract them. Walter Merricks: We are not going to be operating without being under scrutiny, not only, potentially, of the Press Recognition Panel—who would be looking at us to make sure we were not doing that sort of thing—but I suspect from you, from Members of Parliament, other commentators who will be looking at how all this is working. If they were seeing that we were behaving in the way you described, that we were scrabbling at the bottom of the heap to try to please people rather than regulating them properly and conscientiously, then we would begin to feel that we were not doing our job. I do not think we would allow ourselves to get into that situation, having set out to do an ethical, high-standard regulatory performance. Baroness Deech: That is the principled approach, of course, but if only one publisher ever signed up to you, you would be in real financial difficulty. Walter Merricks: If we reach the situation where we are not financially viable, we would have to close. We are a business, or we will be a business, a self-contained business that has to have income and has to make itself financially viable. There is no question about that. Jonathan Heawood: It is worth stressing that it is a non-profit business. It is a community interest company. Its aims are, essentially, charitable and the long-term vision is of a framework that works, which meets Leveson’s tests of independence and effectiveness. If that is delivered by IMPRESS or it is delivered by IPSO—or potentially by a small number of regulators—that is secondary to that vision being realised. It is not about launching a new supermarket and competing for customers, and if we do not get the customers we have failed in our enterprise. If we have achieved that framework, we have succeeded in our enterprise. Baroness Deech: Could I ask what your annual budget and expenditure are at the moment? Jonathan Heawood: Expenditure in the year so far has been £240,000. That will necessarily go up now once we move into the next gear to something in the region of £400,000 to £500,000. The forecast for the longer term, I have to say, is a matter of debate for the time being. I could give you many budgets, but there are, as you can very well see, many variables as to how those fit together. Baroness Fookes: You have indicated pretty clearly that it is quite a lengthy process building this up and we have effectively heard the same. You will have, as you were present, heard the same from the Press Recognition Panel. Obviously, you are not ready to go to them and they are not quite ready to receive you. Would informal contacts not be very useful given

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) that they say they want to consult as much as possible? Would one of the possible regulators not be a very good place in which to have such discussions? Walter Merricks: I am sure we will want to communicate with the panel and they will want to communicate with us, but they have put it on record here today, rightly, that such discussions should be open and transparent and that is as it should be. Of course, we should do that and we should communicate with others as well. Baroness Fookes: Yes. I was thinking, as I say, in an informal basis given that neither of you are ready to proceed in a more formal way. Walter Merricks: Of course, we should keep in touch with each other so that they know how fast we would be capable of proceeding and we would know how fast they were capable of proceeding as well.

Q20 Baroness Fookes: Yes. Could I turn now to the question of the Editors’ Code of Practice? We understand—I do not know whether this is correct; perhaps you can tell us— that IPSO has been reluctant to let you have the Editors’ Code of Practice, which I gather they inherited from the PCC. Walter Merricks: Yes, that code has been around for quite a long time. It has been developed by editors working with the PCC. We have not asked anybody for the right to use that. What we understand is that that has been copyrighted by the Regulatory Funding Company, which is the body that stands behind IPSO. It does not belong to IPSO; apparently it belongs to the Regulatory Funding Company. Our view is that it would be very sensible for us to use the editors’ code as the code of practice that most professional journalists who have been trained in the training schools have been used to. Most professional journalists know about it and are aware of it. We think it is in the public interest and sensible for us to use it as well. Baroness Fookes: Yes. I pause because I find it astonishing that anyone should copyright such a matter. Walter Merricks: I was rather surprised. Baroness Fookes: That is perhaps another story, not for you to be able to explain, unless you think you can. Walter Merricks: No, I certainly cannot. Baroness Fookes: No. If that were to be the case and it is not possible to copy it directly, are you in a position to construct one for yourselves? Walter Merricks: Of course we could, but the main principles in that code Lord Leveson thought, on the whole, were good principles and the right sort of principles. I suppose one could write them out in different words possibly—I am not a copyright lawyer—but it does seem a strange thing for us to have to do. Baroness Fookes: It seems quite extraordinary to me. Jonathan Heawood: I do hope the Committee will put these questions to IPSO or even to the Regulatory Funding Company, if you were in a position to invite representatives to this inquiry. Baroness Fookes: Indeed.

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21)

The Chairman: You mentioned the plurality of ombudsman services in the property world, but there is only one code of practice that is shared, as a parallel. Jonathan Heawood: Indeed.

Q21 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In relation to best practice, I think there is an understanding of what that best practice looks like and the fundamental principles that are needed in order to operate appropriately within what was previously described as the editors’ code. Have you thought about producing a toolkit for publishers in order to help them to implement that in a way that would be more active than perhaps the editors’ code has hitherto operated? That is question number one. My second question is: if you have, have you thought about who you would consult with in order to get that interactive toolkit accepted and operational? It seems to me that if you are looking at the complaint structure for the publishers and making that complaint structure sufficiently robust so that the regulatory work undertaken by yourselves and others would be limited, that might be a very good starting point in terms of helping publishers see the value of something like IMPRESS because there is a commercial value in such toolkits and operational capacity building within the publishers’ own structures. Jonathan Heawood: That is right. There are two parts to that. One is the interpretation of the code and how one works with it in practice and one is the management of the complaints-handling procedures. On the first part, we have already made steps in that direction. It is, in fact, what we did with the funding we had from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust was to bring campaigners, members of the public, academics, journalists and regulators with experience of other industries together to look at the code and particularly to look at the public interest exemption. What became very clear out of the Leveson inquiry was that there is broad support for the code. There are some areas where people have some concerns, but the area that causes most concern and most confusion is the public interest. Many people have argued that it is impossible to define the public interest. It is a magical thing that you know it when you feel it but you could not possibly put it into words, which adds to the confusion. I think it is possible to articulate something about what underpins the public interest. The Director of Public Prosecutions has done it quite successfully in his guidance for the CPS. There are other media regulators that also put it into slightly more articulated terms than the current editors’ code. We had that workshop. Professor Paul Wragg at Leeds University, who is an expert in this area, is drafting guidance, addressing the issues and the concerns and the confusions that came out of that practical workshop. We put journalists and campaigners together and looked at realistic examples of a piece of journalism that may have involved an act of subterfuge or an act of surveillance or a breach of privacy but which may or may not have been in the public interest. We said to these people, “Do you buy this? What would it take to prove to you satisfactorily that this was a public interest piece of journalism or conduct by a journalist?” People had a range of opinions but some principles began to crystallise, began to take shape, which we are now putting into writing. Again, we want to put that back to the journalists and say, “Does this make sense to you? Does this resonate?”, and take that as a step towards having, exactly as you say, a practical toolkit. Journalism is all about those difficult cases. No one can pretend that decent journalism is done by cutting and pasting press releases or putting out uncontroversial,

IMPRESS and the IMPRESS Project – oral evidence (QQ 12-21) already known information into the public domain. That is not the point of journalism. The point is to ruffle feathers, to put people’s backs up, to do difficult things, to shake up things, and that always gets to this nitty-gritty area of what is and what is not the public interest. Journalists have very strong and sophisticated views about that that are not always well reflected. The aim is to put that toolkit together in a way that journalists feel, yes, that broadly reflects how we approach this and that the public can then also understand that. When you have a dispute—to come to the second part of your question about complaints handling—when a publisher wants to go back to a complainant and say, “Yes, we did breach the code in that area, you are dead right, but we did it in the public interest. This is how we justified that. This is what we mean by that”, there is a slightly greater chance the member of the public might say, “Okay, I understand what you are talking about”. The Chairman: Okay. Thank you both very much indeed for that. Is there anything that you feel that you or we have missed in this great debate where clarity would help us all? Jonathan Heawood: One thing to add is that we are very keen to look to the future. A lot of this debate has been quite backward looking and looking at a particular industry at a particular point in time, operating through a particular medium of print. We all know that is changing and the industry is fragmenting and converging in all sorts of unpredictable ways. We are very keen to be part of that future process and part of the advantage of independent regulation of this voluntary kind with the legal incentives is that it provides means to protect investigative journalism but it does not set out to regulate the entirety of the news media because information and ideas will continue to fly at us from all directions. If we can do it in such a way that part of that ecosystem is well protected and safeguarded and that the public can discriminate between what is being regulated and what is not, it gives the public a little bit more clarity and certainty about who to trust. That is part of the long-term vision that we have not had a chance to talk about. Speaking for both of us, we welcome the Committee taking an interest and, as you say, trying to bring clarity for the public. We would be very keen to continue the conversation, although, of course, we are totally politically uninfluenced by anything that you may say. The Chairman: Thank you both very much indeed. It was an extremely helpful session. Thank you.

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Evidence Session No. 2 Heard in Public Questions 22 - 41

TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Alan Moses, Chairman, Independent Press Standards Organisation, and Matt Tee, Chief Executive, Independent Press Standards Organisation

Q22 The Chairman: Sir Alan, Matt, thank you very much for joining us. We are delighted that you are willing to come before us. You gather that we are not trying to do another Leveson here; we are just trying to discover what is going on with the current state of play. It would be more than helpful, bearing in mind that we are being broadcast, if you could just put your biographical details on the record—we have them but the rest of the world does not. Please tell us who you are, if you would, and if there is any opening statement that you would like to make, please feel free to do so. Sir Alan Moses: Thank you very much. I am Alan Moses. I was a High Court judge for nearly nine years and a Court of Appeal judge for nine years. I was appointed the first chairman of IPSO in May last year. IPSO started on 8 September. Matt Tee: I am Matt Tee. I am the chief executive of IPSO. I started slightly after Alan. I was appointed in the summer and started work at the end of September. Before I came to IPSO, I held senior roles in the NHS and the Civil Service. Sir Alan Moses: I wonder if it would be helpful, Chairman, if I took the opportunity to make a short opening statement before you ask questions? It will just be to tell you my ambition and the ambition of my board, which I have said before—I hope it is worth repeating. It is to establish, for the first time, and maintain an independent regulator to provide a voice and redress for those who feel they are without a voice and are defenceless against abuse and

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) intrusion by the press. We are committed to achieving that. To that end, at the very first meeting of the board in September last year, we set out some seven principles, designed to demonstrate our independence, against which our actions, procedures and the way we reach decisions should be measured. Without reading them all—they can be read on our website—they are designed to give clarity, simplicity and effectiveness, and above all to demonstrate our independence. That means freedom from the control of others. We believe that it is not just those who have been, and fear that they will be, victims of the press who will benefit from that, but the press themselves, who have signed up and who will benefit from gaining the trust that can be attained only by effective, independent monitoring of the standards to which they have signed up and which they have set themselves in the Editors’ Code. As you may know, 69 publications have committed themselves by means of a contract, the first time the press has ever done so. Sir Hartley Shawcross wanted that to happen in the early 1960s; it never did. The disputes and debates have gone on and on. So here we are, the first press regulator that is going to try independently to regulate the 69 publications that have committed themselves by contract to that form of regulation. That is some 1,400 publication and some 1,000 websites. The press have given an assurance that they want independent regulation post-Leveson. We are going to hold them—or at least attempt to hold them—to that assurance. We want to gain the trust of the press and of those who distrust us and who fear abuse. We are in the first stages of that, having started only on 18 September. While the debate goes on, and dare I say on and on, about whether we are truly independent and whether we will achieve anything, we are getting on with it. We are already providing important services to the public and have been since 8 September. The Chairman: Thank you very much. Matt Tee, do you want to add anything? Matt Tee: I saw a slightly perplexed look on some of the Committee members’ faces. In the figures of people signed up to us, Sir Alan was referring to 69 publishers with considerably more publications underneath them. The Chairman: Absolutely.

Q23 Baroness Fookes: We are particularly interested in your funding. Could you tell us about that and how you would keep solvent, as it were, to do your job? Matt Tee: The funding for our organisation comes to us from the people who are signed up to be regulated by IPSO, through a body called the Regulatory Funding Company. One of the things that we began when I started in post in September was a discussion about the budget for 2015. We have now reached a resolution on that budget. The budget for the running costs of IPSO for 2015 will be £2.4 million, which is around £0.5 million more than the Press Complaints Commission was funded for. We have also agreed funding of around £0.5 million in what we call transition costs: the costs of setting up a new organisation, getting a new office and fitting it out, having a new website and those sorts of things. It is important to say that that is agreed funding for the year. It is not, as I think it was at times for the Press Complaints Commission, “let’s see how it goes” funding. It is guaranteed funding, which will be paid to us in set-out instalments by the Regulatory Funding Company. We have also reached an agreement with them that later in 2015 we will negotiate and agree a multi-year budget with them for the following years to cover three or four years. Our objective in doing

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) that is to remove the question of money from the discussions that we have with the industry to agree as long as a period of funding as seems appropriate. Baroness Fookes: And you are satisfied that the budget is adequate so far? Matt Tee: Yes Baroness Fookes: Obviously setting up is always a bit tricky. Matt Tee: It is. We have made what we think are prudent estimates about the costs for both initial set-up and the first year. One of the reasons why we did not want to agree a multi- year budget to begin with was because we felt that it was right that we would establish some of the new functions in the first year, which I am sure Sir Alan will come on to talk about. We do not yet know exactly what resource we will need for a standards function, for example. We have made an estimate for establishment costs for that function. As we go through this year we will have a much better idea for the future, which is why we feel more confident about asking for multi-year funding later this year. Baroness Fookes: “Multi-year” could be quite a lot of years, could it not, from two to 10? Matt Tee: The figure that we have in mind is three to four years. The initial contracts that publications have signed up to are for five or six years. That would take us through the first period of IPSO as we begin to approach re-contracting for a number of the publishers who have signed up. Sir Alan Moses: Might I just add to that? It is interesting to observe that the process of agreeing the budget required us first to identify our functions. We were most anxious to make clear that that was not limited merely to complaints handling and the resolution of complaints, but also a proper monitoring and compliance function—a function for investigating, with a view not just to fining but to investigating those issues of public concern either where there was no complaint or where a complaint had been withdrawn. There is also funding to research the whole question of redress—in other words, how those who wished to obtain redress for intrusion into privacy or for defamation could obtain financial compensation without having to go to court. It also provides a resource, for the public and for the press, for our views on, for example, what the public interest dictated on any particular question. All those functions were identified. We then sought, and have now obtained, the funds to pay for them. Baroness Fookes: It is ambitious, is it not? Sir Alan Moses: Of course. There is no point in starting this without serious ambitions in view.

Q24 Lord Horam: Let us go straight to the issue of independence, on which you waxed eloquently, Sir Alan, in your opening remarks. As we know, the Leveson inquiry said that your predecessor, the PCC, had proved itself to be aligned with the interests of the press. It was condemned on those grounds. You set out in your opening statement seven principles designed to demonstrate your independence. Could you give us the key element? What is the fundamental way in which you demonstrate your independence? Sir Alan Moses: The key element is to have a structure and rules that demonstrate that our procedures—how we monitor, investigate and reach decisions—are free from control by other people, and free from that hallmark of power and control, secrecy. They have to be

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) transparent; transparency is key. People who are suspicious have to know what we are doing, how we are doing it and our approach. Many of the rules—this awful collection of rules and regulations—are opaque, sometimes self-contradictory, difficult to understand and sometimes difficult to find. You need about five different versions open in front of you to see where they are going. From the outset one of our main tasks has been to identify the rules and regulations that we say we need amending or cutting out to demonstrate an effective and robust simplicity and directness. That is how we will demonstrate our independence, and only time will tell whether we can successfully persuade and convince others. But the moment anyone tries to control us by any means, either by opaque rules or by difficulties in any other way, would be highly damaging to independence. I quite agree with the implication: we can wave the banner of independence—there has been far too much banner waving in the whole issue in my view—but it can be demonstrated only on the ground. Lord Horam: Indeed it can. Looking at you now, the Media Standards Trust has said that your proposed “investigations process … is so lengthy, and provides so many opportunities for the publisher to object, that there is very little chance a fine will ever be imposed”. How do you react to that? Sir Alan Moses: I entirely agree. Indeed, my words and comments on those passages in relation to standards of investigation were far more rude than the Media Standards Trust. Lord Horam: Right, good. So you will have to change it? Sir Alan Moses: We have gone to them with our proposals, which require a large amount of red pencil through a large amount of those rules, getting rid, as we propose, of eight or nine opportunities to obfuscate and resist an investigation, and to have a simple and understandable means by which we can investigate deliberate or repeated breaches of the code. Lord Horam: So this is the proposal so far? Sir Alan Moses: No, we have been to them. One of the things that we have been doing since September is to redraft the sections of the rules that we either cannot understand or think are contradictory or opaque. We have now gone to them with our reasons for requesting change—and, indeed, a redraft, because there is no point just debating the words—and we had a very useful meeting with their representatives a week ago. Lord Horam: Have they accepted it? Sir Alan Moses: No, they are considering it. They have not yet accepted it. Lord Horam: Right. That was my question; it is still at this stage. Sir Alan Moses: It is still a proposal. Whatever system you put in place, you have to consult those you are going to regulate, although there will obviously be debates about who has the final word. I wonder I might add—I am sorry, I am talking rather too much—that we regard it as really important that we have something in place that is comprehensible. One of our main criticisms here is that it is sometimes very difficult to understand what is going on. Matt Tee: Might I return to the question of independence and some of the ways structurally in which we are more independent? I would point to the fact that publishers who are signed

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) up to us are signed up on contracts that have effect in law, which was not the case under the Press Complaints Commission. Our board and our complaints committee— Lord Horam: These contracts are designed by you, presumably. Matt Tee: Actually, they were designed on behalf of the industry before we came in, but they are— Lord Horam: But they are satisfactory from your point of view, and are different from the PCC’s? Matt Tee: Yes. The PCC was based on an entirely voluntary agreement. Our board and our complaints committee are appointed by an appointments panel, which has a majority on it of lay members, not industry representatives. We have no serving editors on our board or our complaints committee, in contrast to the Press Complaints Commission, and we look at potential breaches of the Editors’ Code using a set of rules, which was not the case with the Press Complaints Commission either. Partly because there are contracts and rules, partly because the press has less involvement in the workings of the organisation, and partly because of how we behave, I think we demonstrate considerable independence.

Q25 Lord Dubs: I think my question is probably more for Matt Tee. When you are setting up an organisation, you frequently have to appoint people quickly and you cannot give it the same scope as when you appoint one later on. Are you satisfied that all the people working for you, either on the board or at other levels, are not conflicted in any way as regards their previous jobs? Some of them are, of course, journalists. Matt Tee: The board and the complaints committee were appointed newly to IPSO by an appointments panel with a majority of lay members. Certainly under our rules, having been a journalist would not be considered a conflict that would prevent you from serving on the board or the complaints committee. Our experience and our view would be that it is of benefit, when considering on the complaints committee, for example, to have people with experience of journalism, albeit that they are not currently serving editors. The majority of the complaints committee is lay, but it has that experience around the table. In terms of the staff of IPSO, we inherited most of the people who currently work for IPSO from the Press Complaints Commission. They were largely the complaints handling team. That has been of benefit to us, because it has meant that the complaints function has been able to get off the ground very quickly. There was never a moment when IPSO had to say to a potential complainant, “I’m sorry, we don’t have a method of investigating your complaint”. We have received over 3,000 queries from the public about potential complaints since we set up. I do not think they are conflicted. Working in a new organisation means that you have to understand that there are different ways of approaching things, and we have a different complaints process from that of the Press Complaints Commission. The complaints team are terribly bright, terribly hard working and terribly committed to the people who are complaining. Lord Dubs: I was not arguing against journalists per se; I was arguing that there might be particular journalists who have had involvement with newspapers and played a controversial role in those newspapers, so they might not fit so happily into your organisation. That is my question.

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Sir Alan Moses: I wonder if I could take that up in relation to the board, for which I, with others like Sir Hayden Phillips, were responsible for appointing. There is on the board a minority of those who have worked in the press in the past, although they are not current editors, but I can tell you, having sat on the board with them, that they are as fiercely committed to independence as anybody else on the board, so the division between what are loosely and inaccurately called industry members and lay members is false, save as a description of their background. They are also fully committed to the principles to which I have already referred and are already demonstrating it. The same is true of those who are members of the complaints committee—the separate committee that considers complaints and has already been sitting once a month. Lord Dubs: Thank you. I do not want to pursue this unduly; it is just that it is possible that people in your organisation are behaving in the most exemplary manner possible but in the past had associations with particular newspapers that might be perceived by outsiders to put them in a more difficult position. Sir Alan Moses: I am sure that is right. There are two members of our board at whom that accusation could be levelled, but all I can assure you is that in their commitment to what we are seeking to achieve they yield to none of the others.

Q26 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: You have made it clear that IPSO will not seek recognition under the royal charter. Can you explain the reasons for this, and is it your understanding that IPSO could be considered Leveson-compliant without seeking recognition? Sir Alan Moses: On the first question, seeking recognition from IPSO’s point of view is irrelevant, because no members of the press who have signed up contractually want to belong to a regulator that seeks recognition, so for us the question does not arise. Nor does it arise in relation to the publications that have not yet signed up, since they have also announced, in so far as they have admitted to being a newspaper—I think the Financial Times said that it was not a newspaper, or at least was not a UK newspaper—that they are against the charter. The other two, the Independent and the Guardian, have also set their face against the charter. As for being compliant with any rules that the recognition body put in place following Leveson, I saw with—how shall I put it politely?—a little dismay that David Wolfe was thinking of drafting some more rules about complaints, so there will be another body of rules with which we have to comply. But we do hope that in relation to independence, to putting in place and supervising a method of obtaining redress, to monitoring and reporting, and to what we are going to set up this year, namely an independent assessor to see how we have done over the year and beyond, we would be compliant with any set of rules and criteria which the recognition body put into place. Obviously, if one talks about this broadly, there is no difference in the aims of all of us, whether IMPRESS or Hacked Off. We are all after the same thing. The quarrel, unfortunately, has been all about the method, and of course the time that it has taken, since Leveson reported. Baroness Bakewell: You are not seeking recognition, because your members do not want it, so your members are instructing you on how to conduct the evolution of your structures.

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Sir Alan Moses: No, they are not instructing us on the evolution of our structures. It is just that they have had a theological objection to the charter, so there is no point, independently from our members, seeking the recognition that they have set their face against. I quite accept the underlying implication, “How can you say you are free from control if you are not making your own decision about applying for recognition?”, but I do not regard the structures admitting of the possibility of our independently seeking recognition, because they would then all leave us. Baroness Bakewell: But that is the theological belief on your part. Sir Alan Moses: I do not have that theological belief; they do. Matt Tee: What we would ask to be judged on, given a suitable period, is whether we have demonstrated that we are an independent and effective regulator. If you were to look at the Leveson criteria, as various people have done in various analyses, and the charter criteria, you would find that they are similar but slightly different. I would like us to be in a place, the next time we come before this Committee, where we can set out why we think that we have achieved being an independent and effective regulator and that the conversation has moved on from whether we are, point by point, compliant with the charter or with Leveson’s criteria, because we would be doing the job that we said we would do. Baroness Bakewell: Just to clarify things, was the decision by the publishers not to be registered and not to comply with the charter made before your appointment? Sir Alan Moses: Long before. Baroness Bakewell: And was there a robust discussion about that issue, or did you simply take that as your brief? Sir Alan Moses: That was the condition on which IPSO was set up. You raise one of the not problems but features of this: that we took no part in setting up the rules that they put in place, which is why I made it clear when I became a candidate for chair, and ever since then, that I wanted to see changes so that the regulator was not in existence and took no part in the devising of the rules by which the standards were going to be monitored and policed. The Chairman: Is it possible to answer the question: to whom is IPSO accountable, or am I getting into the realms of theology there? Sir Alan Moses: No, no. I would like to say in answer, although I am not convinced that it is a very helpful answer, is that we are answerable to the public. If we do our job properly, clearly and transparently, they will see what we are doing and will be able to say, I hope vociferously through you or through MPs and broadcasters, whether we are failing. The one difficulty with accountability is asking the mirror question, “What is success?”, because we will never be able to demonstrate success. Success to some people will be fining newspapers £1 million on a daily basis for their bad taste and lack of balance. Success to others will be doing absolutely nothing and letting them go on their own free way under the banner of freedom of expression. We will never please both sides, and we will never be able to demonstrate success. In other words, I am saying in a rather roundabout way that the difficulty of accountability, in answering your question, Chairman, is by what criteria you measure success. We will probably be successful if neither side is particularly pleased with the outcome of our decisions. If we are unpopular, we are probably doing the best we can.

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Matt Tee: Chairman, going slightly to the theology of your question, because we have said that we will not apply to be recognised by the charter, clearly we are not accountable to the Recognition Panel. In the absence of a single body to which we are directly accountable within a set of rules, it seems to me that our accountabilities are more complex and more diffuse in the way Sir Alan has just described. Unquestionably we are accountable to the public, but we also have an accountability to those who have signed up to be regulated by us. So we have resolved to commission each year an external study into our operation and effectiveness, which we will publish. One of the things that we will do before the summer is to have commissioned that piece of work and to have set a date for publication. It will be commissioned from a recognisably external body. That may be from the university sector, or from a consultancy. It might be from a regulator in some other area, but it will be a recognisably independent body to carry out that effectiveness study. Lord Dubs: When you say “carry out a study”—both of you also said that you are accountable to the public in some way—will that study seek the views of the public? Matt Tee: It absolutely has to. I cannot see any way in which you could measure the effectiveness of this organisation without asking those who have sought to complain about the behaviour of the press, but also those who have a wider public interest in this matter. Baroness Deech: Sir Alan, are you expecting your decisions to be susceptible to judicial review? Sir Alan Moses: Yes. Baroness Deech: Would that be a form of accountability or a constraint? Sir Alan Moses: It will not be a form of constraint. Judicial reviews are usually rather good processes to affirm decisions, rather than to show that they are unlawful. The Government win, what is it, 80% of judicial review, contrary to their fears. While one might have had a legal argument as to whether IPSO is a public body susceptible to judicial review, I cannot see that argument being had and I certainly would not want it to be advanced.

Q27 Baroness Hanham: I think the Chairman has thrown a very big stone into the middle of a pond, which is obviously going to keep rippling. If I may, I want to drag you back to the royal charter. You have given a very clear explanation of why you are not signing up to it. In the world of theory, where there might have been an organisation that signed up to all the terms of the charter, how would you be different from that organisation? In other words, what does a charter bring to a regulator such as yours that you are not going to provide? Sir Alan Moses: I hope nothing. Baroness Hanham: So you reckon that, although you will not sign up to the royal charter, you will be compliant with what is anticipated within it? Sir Alan Moses: I am being cautious because we are not wholly clear precisely what the requirements are, because the statute and the charter are drawn in broad terms. It ought to be our ambition. I cannot see why there should be any difference. Matt Tee: Baroness Hanham, the one difference I would point out is that we will regulate a far greater part of the published press than a regulator signed up to the charter will for the reason that we are not signed up to it. Baroness Hanham: Is that because you are so far in advance of everyone else?

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Matt Tee: No. There are two factors to that, one of which is that those who are signed up to us—and, as my chairman says, the Guardian and the Independent—would on principle not sign up to a regulator that would be recognised by the charter. However, we do have a head start on everybody else. We have received inquiries about complaints from more than 3,000 members of the public. We have adjudicated on a lot of complaints. We have an established process with publications about handling complaints. We have a set of rules that enable us to do our business. As I think you heard from IMPRESS last week, it is not in a position to do those things yet.

Q28 Lord Clement-Jones: On compliance with the broad criteria—not with the individual rules, which I accept are not fully there yet—you used the phrase “time will tell” in relation to some of the activities such as independence. Do you think that you already comply in certain respects with the criteria, whether they are from Leveson or the royal charter, if there is any difference between those two? Sir Alan Moses: Yes, I think we do in relation to our complaints handling. Where there has been a failure to reach agreement between the particular publication and the member of the public—the complainant—the complaint comes to us. Through the complaints committee we reach an independent decision, which we will publish on our website, starring those that have precedential value, and dictate what the remedy should be—in other words, not only where in the paper the correction should be, but the terms in which that correction should be phrased. Lord Clement-Jones: And time will tell as far as anything else then, is that right? Sir Alan Moses: Yes, because we have not recruited and started those other functions yet. Lord Clement-Jones: And that applies to independence as well, and so on and so forth. So at what point should we come back to you and see whether you are compliant? Sir Alan Moses: I am very reluctant to give a date, but our hope is by the summer. Matt Tee: Lord Clement-Jones, I fear I might labour this point, but I hope that at the point when you call us back, the question you will put to us will be, “Can you demonstrate that you are an independent, effective regulator?”, not, “Can you demonstrate that you satisfy Clause 6(3)(ii) of the Leveson recommendations?”. Lord Clement-Jones: I appreciate that, but we are looking at the follow-up to Leveson, which includes the royal charter. One of the key areas of interest is, of course, the principles set out in both of those. Sir Alan Moses: Those who applied to be, and have signed up as, members of the board and those who are members of the complaints committee are fully committed to our principles and understand that their reputations are on the line. The moment that someone can say with foundation, “You are not acting independently and free from the control of those you purport to regulate”, it is their reputations that will suffer. We chose the members of the board and of the complaints committee who satisfied us that they would do that.

Q29 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: One of the reasons for this inquiry is to try to shed some light on what for many people, including me, is a very murky and complicated area to understand. Are the provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 that relate to this overall regime clear to you?

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Sir Alan Moses: It is some months since I was a lawyer. Therefore, I am reluctant to get into the legal complexities. I do not think they are clear. It will take some considerable time to see whether they will work as a carrot and stick, as they were designed to work. There are going to be debates and disputes among lawyers, possibly in the courts, as to their effectiveness. In the meantime, a service and a protection has to be provided to the public, One of the things I was intent on doing, and really the reason why I applied to be chairman of IPSO, was to provide that service while this debate goes on. My answer is no, their effectiveness is not clear. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: I ask the question because if there was a regulatory body that was approved—I accept that there is not at the moment—the publications or publishers that belonged to such a body would possibly be treated differently in law from the way that your members might be treated. Do your members have a view? Sir Alan Moses: I think you would have to ask them. After all, that does not affect IPSO; it would only affect them, their owners and their shareholders. I would like to duck that question— Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Why would you like to duck it? Sir Alan Moses: Because I think it is a legal question as to whether it will be effective as to the imposition of costs. Hugh Tomlinson has already said that he does not regard exemplary damages as being an effective stick or carrot. It remains a matter for the judgment of the court in any case; it is very difficult to see that a court would award exemplary damages in a case where they would not otherwise. It will not work in Scotland, where no such thing exists. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: In a way, that is what I was trying to get at. You helped to answer the question. You understand it sufficiently to give me that point of view. Sir Alan Moses: I was told not to give a legal view in answer to those questions— Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Thank you very much for having done so. Sir Alan Moses: That is why I was being obfuscatory. There are difficult questions—I understand what they mean; you can read them—as to whether they will work in law. The splendid paradox and irony about this debate is that the more the newspapers chafe and rant at the European Convention on Human Rights and Strasbourg, the more they are attacking probably one of their greatest safeguards, namely the final port of call if they wish to demonstrate a breach of Article 12. Matt Tee: All I would say, Lord Sherbourne, is that, from IPSO’s point of view, were there to be an approved regulator and those elements of the Crime and Courts Act were to come in, it would not have an impact on IPSO because we are not subject to it. As you say, those who are signed up to IPSO might be affected by it. They are the people to ask. I know that you have the Society of Editors in your next evidence session. They might be very good people to ask. But from an IPSO point of view, the provisions would not affect the way that we did our work. Sir Alan Moses: One has to posit—I am doing what I was told not to do—a judge finding in favour, with or without a jury, of a newspaper that has proved that a complainant has lied in order to claim damages for defamation, and which nevertheless awarded costs in favour of the proved liar. At the moment it is difficult to imagine a judge doing that, or, if a judge did

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) that there would be a series of appeals that will take year after year to resolve. We are talking about another four to five years before we see whether the stick has worked. I hope that IPSO will work effectively in the mean time. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: That is very helpful. Thank you very much.

Q30 Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps we could talk about the differences between you and IMPRESS, who we have heard from. I do not know whether you have read any of the transcripts. Sir Alan Moses: Yes, I have. Lord Clement-Jones: In particular, one of the areas that interests us is the question of arbitration. Sir Alan, you have been reported in the press as saying that your current budget will not allow for an arbitration service, but from what we have heard about the budget that may not be the case. IMPRESS, on the other hand, plans to offer an arbitration service. Where are these differences? Sir Alan Moses: I do not think there are any. What I said—or what I would like to have said, without accusing anybody of misreporting me—was that I was not convinced that arbitration— Lord Clement-Jones: I just wonder whether you might hear a complaint in those circumstances. Sir Alan Moses: No, I might stand down. I am anxious as to whether arbitration is the best means of providing cheap redress for those who cannot afford it. I have talked to Jonathan Heawood about this. I am interested in his scheme. We have discussed it and I am talking to other people about arbitration. What they have not solved is the problem of compulsory arbitration, by which I mean persuading publications to commit to arbitration in advance, irrespective of the particular case. The problem identified by Leveson and others is the prospect of a newspaper being able to frighten off a comparatively impoverished claimant from bringing a case to court. You want some simple, cheap means of obtaining financial redress. It is no good putting in place a system of arbitration such as that which will be offered by IMPRESS—indeed, the Guardian discussed it in their proposals for their own system—unless it is compulsory. If it is optional, you are merely revisiting the same problems that existed in the past. I am interested in a system whereby the publication is committed to offering financial redress in appropriate cases of intrusion or defamation without the expense of having to go to court. It might not be arbitration. When I appeared before the all-party committee in the Lords, I remember Lord Mackay of Clashfern reminding us that at some time in the past he had proposed some form of ombudsman system, which might be an alternative. That is my only caution: how you grapple with the fact of preventing a publication from opting out in a case where they think they can frighten off the claimant. Lord Clement-Jones: But your current activity, therefore, is geared towards setting up a compulsory arbitration system. Sir Alan Moses: Yes. We have appointed somebody to research that, and we hope within the next few months to have reached a resolution as to how that might be done. Lord Clement-Jones: Is there any other major difference with IMPRESS?

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Sir Alan Moses: We have discussed this in public together, as well as in private. Our aims are identical. Matt Tee: The difference is that we have been running a full complaints function for nearly four months now and have a body of experience of doing that. We have a set of rules by which we do that, and we are clear that we will not seek recognition under the charter, so we are not distracted by those sorts of set-up conversations that I think they are currently going through. Sir Alan Moses: We are very keen to get away from the idea of rivals and “I’m better, stronger and bigger than you are”. We talk perhaps not publicly, but we talk, and we know each other—I certainly know and respect Heawood and Merricks and others involved—and anything we can do, as they struggle to the very thing that has already happened in our case to find a set of rules and regulations to which people are prepared to sign up, the more we can do to talk together and to help, the better. Lord Razzall: On that point, we understand that you are reluctant to allow IMPRESS to use the Editors’ Code of Practice. Is that true, and if so what is the reason? Matt Tee: That is absolutely not true. The Editors’ Code of Practice is not ours to let IMPRESS use. My and Alan’s position is that if it was ours, we would be quite happy for IMPRESS to use it. Lord Razzall: So who is stopping them using it? Matt Tee: I do not know that anybody is stopping them using it, but the Editors’ Code is a product of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, and the Editors’ Code of Practice is a sub-committee of the Regulatory Funding Company, which I think you are hearing evidence from next week. The Regulatory Funding Company are the people to ask the question of. Sir Alan Moses: I think you should ask, and if the underlying implication is that it is absurd to have this sort of argument, I would wholly agree with you. The Chairman: It is nonetheless the case, though, that the code of practice is the basis upon which you will be making judgments. Matt Tee: Yes. Sir Alan Moses: That is the standard that has been set. The Chairman: Yes, so the code is pretty fundamental. In terms of the independence of IPSO, although your complaints committee and your board are clearly independent, that code committee is chaired by an editor and belongs very much to the editors and not to you. Sir Alan Moses: Exactly, yes. The Chairman: Is that a weak link in the argument about independence? Sir Alan Moses: It is certainly an argument that is deployed against us to challenge our independence, and the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee is already committed to having both the chief executive and me on it, and IPSO’s appointments panel is in the process of appointing three other independent members for the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. So there will be five of us. If you do the mathematics, that is not a majority. One of our aims—again, it is on our website, and we said it when we set out our principles—having sat

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31) on the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, is having far greater opportunity to create flexibility, should the terms of the standards require changing. One assurance that I can give you is that under our rules and the rules of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, those standards cannot be weakened unless IPSO independently sanctions the amendment. IPSO would clearly not sanction any weakening of those rules. Matt Tee: Just to be clear, the IPSO board has a veto over amendments to the Editors’ Code, and I think it would be fair to say that the Editors’ Code is generally felt to be fit for the purpose that we use it for. Even critics of IPSO, I think, would say that the Editors’ Code was a pretty good code for the things that we might judge complaints against. Lord Dubs: Nevertheless, in your day-to-day work, looking ahead, you may well find respects in which the code is not quite as useful to you as it could be. It must be quite unusual for a regulator not to be in charge of the code under which they operate. Usually regulators have a code— Sir Alan Moses: It is their own standard, yes. Lord Dubs: —and consult those stakeholders and others and amend the code at intervals. So it puts you in a rather weaker position than you would like to be in. Sir Alan Moses: Yes, it does. Lord Dubs: Would you be able to take the Editors’ Code and change it so that it becomes your code, and use that? Sir Alan Moses: We have said that publicly, and that is one of our ambitions. Can I give a weaker answer to that? It takes time. The accusation from the editors might be, “You haven’t even been present at an Editors’ Code of Practice Committee yet, so be careful how you attack and challenge us”. I think it will take a period of persuasion. But in the end, the standards ought to be the standards devised and imposed by the regulator, in consultation with others, and not those of the regulator. So I repeat again: yes, to your question. The ideal might be not just the regulator. I would like to see, at least at the first stage, no constituency having a majority on the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. It would be editors and members of the public, as represented by IPSO and the independent people it appoints, and journalists. One of the things that is lacking in this system—and I know that Joan Smith, the director of Hacked Off, feels this—is that not enough journalists themselves are involved, and I would like to get them more involved more as well. Lord Razzall: Do you have a view that the chair might be different? I do not mean the individual but someone of a different description. Sir Alan Moses: I think it would be good if it changed from time to time. Matt Tee: I would just follow up Lord Dubs’ question by saying that were we to find that the code did not cover something that we particularly felt was bad behaviour by the press, it would be in the nature of IPSO that we would make that public. It would also be in the nature of IPSO if the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee was reluctant to change the code to meet that. Baroness Bakewell: You speak about your ambition to have more journalists, and that sounds very fine, but is it more than just an abstract ambition? Do you see the pathway to getting a majority on the committee? Do you envisage a strategy that will bring that about?

Independent Press Standards Organisation – oral evidence (QQ 22-31)

Sir Alan Moses: I have not devised a strategy yet, but I would have thought that it would be possible to get momentum going so that the journalists themselves said, “We ought to be present”. The unions, or at least the NUJ, to which I have spoken at lectures and other things that I have given, are being quite quiet about it at the moment. The Chairman: We are seeing them next week, so we may get a view from them. Sir Alan Moses: Good, so you can gee them up.

Q31 Baroness Deech: Sir Alan, you have given us quite a lot on your vision and aims for the next year or so, but in relation to press regulation in the round—all of it—what do you expect the position to be a year from now? Sir Alan Moses: In the round, I am afraid I am unable to say. I can only speak for us. In a year’s time, I would be more than disappointed if we did not have all the functions that I have identified up and running and working. Baroness Deech: For example, might you join forces with IMPRESS, or do you think that more potential regulators will come on the scene? Sir Alan Moses: I think that more potential regulators are unlikely. Jonathan Heawood gave a very interesting lecture that I went to at the LSE—I am not sure whether it was under Chatham House rules or not, so I had better be careful—in which he spoke of IMPRESS’s ambitions. I do not know whether that is what joining forces means, but I would hope that in the end we would co-operate either as one body or together as a regulator, bearing in mind that our aims are the same. Baroness Deech: Another couple of points, looking to the future. Do you think there is any chance that the Guardian will join one or other of the bodies? Sir Alan Moses: I think you have the editor-in-chief in front of you later on today. I speak to him frequently. He has been a very useful source of advice and help to me. We talk from time to time, and he knows that I am not going to go to them on bended knee saying, “We can’t work without you”, but they will take their own counsel. I believe that if we are able to demonstrate the independence that we have discussed here—and the questions that you have aimed at me are designed to tease out whether we are going to be able to or not— they would have no reason not to. Part of the problem is the lack of clarity and lack of simplicity. If there are a number of regulators, and some members of the national press are in and others are out, it is highly confusing to those who matter most: namely, the public. The Chairman: If there is anything that has not been said that should have been said, please feel free to offer any final thoughts to us. Matt Tee: My final thought—it is not a final thought from me—is a piece of work, which they have kindly shared with me, by Tom Rowland and Mike Jempson of the MediaWise Trust, who did a comparison of the complaints that went to the Press Complaints Commission in November and December 2013 and the complaints that came to IPSO in 2014 in a similar period. They found that complaints were being responded to much more quickly and that newspapers were reaching resolution with complainants more quickly under the IPSO system than they were under the PCC. I am not claiming that two months is anything like representative, and I would like to look at this over a much longer period, but under the new system and in the way we are prosecuting it, there are early very positive signs that the people for whom it is most important that we work—those who feel that they

have been maligned or badly treated by the press—are getting a better service and a better means of achieving resolution of those complaints than they were in the past. If that is the case, that is a very good early period for us at IPSO. Sir Alan Moses: I wonder if I could just add, and I hope it does not sound too fawning, that this sort of debate seems to me to be really valuable, because ever since Leveson there has been far too much noise, far too much shouting, far too much banner waving. On the one hand, there are those who, I quite understand, are infuriated at the time they have had to wait for regulation to be put in place and treat us with suspicion. That, I repeat, I wholly understand. On the other hand, there is the press, which describes them, without entering into the debate, in highly pejorative and derogatory terms. So there is an awful lot of banner waving, shouting and noise without anything very much being done. We are concerned to get on with it and provide a service to those who matter. I believe that with quieter tones and more positive arguments, which in fact do go on—I speak to Hacked Off, I speak to the Media Standards Trust, I speak to everybody who is prepared to talk to me about this—far better progress can be made. The Chairman: Sir Alan, Matt, thank you very much indeed. That was extremely helpful for us. Thank you for coming.

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – supplementary written evidence (PRG0014)

Letter from Lord Best to Sir Alan Moses, Chairman, IPSO

Firstly, thank you very much once again for giving oral evidence to the Committee last month. Thank you also for your letter of 29 January about the Communications Committee’s oral evidence session with Paul Vickers on 27 January. During your oral evidence session with the Committee on 20 January, you had the following exchange with Lord Horam: Lord Horam: Indeed it can. Looking at you now, the Media Standards Trust has said that your proposed “investigations process … is so lengthy, and provides so many opportunities for the publisher to object, that there is very little chance a fine will ever be imposed”. How do you react to that? Sir Alan Moses: I entirely agree. Indeed, my words and comments on those passages in relation to standards of investigation were far more rude than the Media Standards Trust. Lord Horam: Right, good. So you will have to change it? Sir Alan Moses: We have gone to them with our proposals, which require a large amount of red pencil through a large amount of those rules, getting rid, as we propose, of eight or nine opportunities to obfuscate and resist an investigation, and to have a simple and understandable means by which we can investigate deliberate or repeated breaches of the code. Lord Horam: So this is the proposal so far? Sir Alan Moses: No, we have been to them. One of the things that we have been doing since September is to redraft the sections of the rules that we either cannot understand or think are contradictory or opaque. We have now gone to them with our reasons for requesting change—and, indeed, a redraft, because there is no point just debating the words—and we had a very useful meeting with their representatives a week ago. Lord Horam: Have they accepted it? Sir Alan Moses: No, they are considering it. They have not yet accepted it.25

From this, we understood that you had submitted proposals to the RFC seeking significant changes to IPSO’s rules and procedures.

In his evidence to us, Paul Vickers said, “So when Sir Alan says that he is going to put a red line through a whole load of things, he cannot do that.”26 Your evidence to us seems to

25 Q 24 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications- committee/press-regulation/oral/17714.html 26 Q 53 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications- committee/press-regulation/oral/17828.html

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – supplementary written evidence (PRG0014) make it clear that you do not have the power to make changes to IPSO’s rules and procedures but that this power rests with the RFC – this is presumably why you have approached them with your suggested changes. Paul Vickers then had the following exchange with Lord Razzall: Q54 Lord Razzall: I must say that I am intrigued by one of the things that you said to Baroness Scotland. As you will appreciate, at the core of complaints coming from the other side is that the press are, to use her phrase, paying the piper and calling the tune. If you are naive, or from Mars, you might assume that a company that is called the Regulatory Funding Company was just about funding the regulator. That is what the name says. Yet in your answer to Baroness Scotland, you say that if Sir Alan Moses wanted to take a red pen to a lot of the code you will not let him do so. That seems to blur the distinction between what the regulator does and the funding company—because the world would assume that the Regulatory Funding Company was so named because it provides the funding, and the regulator, IPSO, got on with the regulation. But your answer seems to imply that that is not the view of your board, or indeed of yourself. In the context of that answer, how do you claim to be independent, and how do you safeguard your independence? Paul Vickers: IPSO will regulate. Lord Razzall: You said that if Sir Alan comes along and takes a red pen, as he told us that he would like to do, it has nothing to do with him. Paul Vickers: IPSO will regulate. The basis on which it has been asked to regulate is on an agreed set of regulations, which are set up to enable it to in effect police the Editors’ Code. Lord Razzall: Which you own, not them. Paul Vickers: Which we own. Lord Razzall: But why do you own it if you are just the Regulatory Funding Company? Paul Vickers: The answer is in the title. It is the Editors’ Code. The code committee was convened by the Regulatory Funding Company—that has been our last involvement in it— and we own the copyright on the code. Lord Razzall: But why, is my question? If you are the Regulatory Funding Company, what does the code have to do with you? Surely it has to do with the regulator. Paul Vickers: No, because the regulator has been set up to regulate on the basis on which it has been set up. We have set it up, and we have said, “This is the set of rules under which the majority of the press have agreed that they should act. This is the set of rules under which we ask you to regulate us. Please now get on and regulate us”. Lord Razzall: But I am sure you understand, if that is your approach, why people are sceptical about your claim to be independent. Paul Vickers: I think the important elements of independence are the people involved, the process by which they are put in place, and their ability, once they have been in place, to regulate without interference. All those structures are in place. One of the big criticisms that people have made in the past is that one of the things that you will be able to do is to deny them the funds to regulate. We had a very amiable discussion with Sir Alan Moses and Matt Tee about the amount of money that they needed. We had a little gentle arm wrestling over

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – supplementary written evidence (PRG0014) one or two things, and they got what they asked for. We, and they, recognise that this first year is a bit “suck it and see”. We hope that their costs will come down. Lord Razzall: I am not worried about your ability to starve them of money, I am much more worried about your ability not to allow them to amend the Editors’ Code of Practice in the way that they are required to, in their view, to regulate the press properly. Paul Vickers: Focusing on the Editors’ Code of Practice is one of the very few things that was part of the old system that came out almost unscathed from Leveson. It has been very highly praised. On one level, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. One thing that we have done under the new system— Lord Razzall: But as you know, that is not Sir Alan Moses’ view.27

I think that you are correct in your letter that there has been a blurring of the distinction between IPSO’s rules and regulations and the Editors’ Code of Practice. As I understand it IPSO does not have the ability to change either. You have suggested changes to the regulations to the RFC (the “red pen” to which you refer) but you have not so far, proposed changes to the Editors’ Code.

10 February 2015

27 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/ communications-committee/press-regulation/oral/17828.html

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – supplementary written evidence (PRG0014) Letter from Sir Alan Moses, Chairman, IPSO to Lord Best

Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence in front of your Committee on 20 January. I hope you will forgive me if I draw the Committee’s attention to what may have been a misapprehension during Lord Razzall’s questioning of Paul Vickers, on 27th January, about the RFC’s approach to IPSO’s proposed amendments to the rules. I had referred to those proposals as amendments to the Code and it was apparent that Paul Vickers understood that to be a reference to the Editors’ Code, and seemed to me to answer on that basis. As the Committee appreciates, the Editors’ Code contains the standards against which IPSO judges those it regulates. It does not contain rules of procedure. The rules and regulations of IPSO are the administrative arrangements that govern how we monitor and police those standards. IPSO has proposed detailed changes to those rules and regulations; they were notified to the RFC before Christmas, with attached redrafts and reasons for seeking those changes. We have not so far proposed changes to the Editors’ Code.

29 January 2015

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – further supplementary written evidence (PRG0016)

An overview:

Total number of inquiries received by IPSO: 3906

Number of those that did not lead to a complaint: 2827

(This would be because: the complaint fell outside IPSO’s remit; the complaint did not raise a potential breach of the Editors’ Code or; the complainant wasn’t eligible to make the complaint)

Total number of complaints received by IPSO to date: 1079

Of the complaints received:

339 are on-going;

528 were not pursued at some point in the process by the complainant

99 were resolved directly with the publication, after having been referred by IPSO;

14 were resolved with direct mediation by IPSO;

39 received a ruling by the Complaints Committee, after investigation; 8 of which were upheld 31 were not upheld

60 were multiple complaints, where more than one complainant raised a complaint but only one ruling is made and will be covered elsewhere in these figures.

I have attached our latest flow-chart of the complaints process.

12 March 2015

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – further supplementary written evidence (PRG0016)

Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009)

We are victims of press abuse and we are pleased that you are examining the current state of affairs with regards to press regulation. The Hacked Off campaign represents our interests and has done so for a number of years. We are aware that they are due to appear before you on 27th January but there are a number of points that we would like to make to you directly.

They are as follows.

The historical context.

As the committee knows, the Leveson inquiry was convened following the refusal of the press industry to respond adequately to the findings of a long succession of Royal Commissions, official investigations and select committee inquiries going back to the 1940s. Every single inquiry undertaken on behalf of the public in those years, in other words, has found the industry’s self-regulatory arrangements to be unsatisfactory. Yet on every occasion the industry’s leaders have conspired to frustrate changes intended to give the public better protection against press abuse, and to ensure that newspapers, editors and proprietors are properly accountable for what they publish. The Leveson Report acknowledged this history of refusal and called upon Parliament, assuming it agreed that change was needed, to ensure that this time the necessary changes really were made.

We hope you agree that it would be unacceptable in a civilised democracy for the press industry yet again to reject the recommendations of a public inquiry, and to refuse to implement reforms designed to protect ordinary British citizens – reforms that have been clearly endorsed by Parliament. Such refusal is clearly the current intention of the principal national newspaper publishers. We fervently hope that this cycle of rejection of the will of Parliament to protect the vulnerable from a powerful industry will end.

The inadequacy of IPSO.

An independent and rigorous analysis (http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/MST-IPSO-Analysis-15-11-13.pdf) has demonstrated that IPSO does not remotely conform to the standards of independence and effectiveness that Lord Justice Leveson set out as the minimum required to give the public confidence (as the chair of IPSO himself has now admitted). This analysis, published over a year ago, has never been rebutted. In truth, IPSO represents a renewal of what Lord Justice Leveson described as a ‘pattern of cosmetic change’ in response to failure and external criticism. We consider IPSO to be the same sort of sham regulator that the PCC was, and we see the same protestations of “turning a new leaf” and calls for “one more chance” that were seen when the PCC was established. The considered recommendations of a senior judge, who conducted a model and detailed public inquiry under the relevant Act, are being rejected. Moreover, the express will of Parliament is being ignored.

IPSO and independence

Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009)

We reject the idea that IPSO is independent. IPSO can not be considered to be independent merely by dint of its own repeated assertions. Nor can IPSO be considered to be independent on the basis of self-serving claims to that effect made by newspapers and the press industry who control the funding, rules and constitution of IPSO. The very same claims were made by the PCC, and the Press Council before that, and were shown to be false. Independence is a matter that can only be finally determined by an entirely objective assessment by an independent body according to criteria clearly laid out, and preferably - as in this case – set down by a Public Inquiry and confirmed by Parliament. That is the central recommendation of the Leveson Inquiry.

Unless and until such a determination is given, the best evidence to guide our views on whether IPSO is independent is that of a factual nature relating to the constitutional, legal, procedural and funding arrangements for IPSO and the manner of the appointments of the board. All the evidence in this area make clear that IPSO can not be considered independent in its appointments, in its structure and constitution or in its freedom of movement.

We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the Editors’ Code – which the Leveson Report specifically required to be the responsibility of the independent regulator, like every other industry regulator - remains fully in the hands of the industry and that the Committee continues to be chaired by the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper group which has been found to be one most often in breach of its terms. That is just one example of how claims of change are shown to be false.

IPSO and the public

In its public pronouncements, IPSO – just like the PCC – has a tendency to say that it is “most concerned about” the views of the victims of press abuse and the public whom it is supposed to serve. However, its actions have not supported this. There was no attempt by the industry to consult with the public or with victims when drawing up the rules for IPSO, nor any attempt by IPSO to consult the public or victims on what changes to seek in its structure and procedures from the industry body which controls it.

IPSO also claims that it seeks to prioritise transparency in its work. Yet IPSO has not published the paper in which it sets out the changes it wishes to make, and which it admits it has submitted to the industry in secret.

We are aware that the distinguished Chair has asserted that IPSO can be independent and effective, but the available facts do not bear this out. The same assertions were made repeatedly by equally distinguished Chairs of the PCC and the Press Council, and could not be delivered. That is why Lord Justice Leveson demanded an independent process of audit and recognition.

The Leveson Report made recommendations to Parliament on how to act in the present circumstances.

Leveson recognised the possibility that the historic pattern of rejection and failure might be repeated. His Report proposed that, under these circumstances, Parliament should arrange that Ofcom be the press regulator until the industry creates and joins up to a self-regulator

Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009) that achieves recognition – that is, one that meets the basic standards of independence and effectiveness. We, as victims of press abuse, are depending on parliamentarians to take this or comparable action to ensure that this powerful industry is not left unaccountable once again, which would inevitably lead – in Lord Justice Leveson’s memorable words – to yet more “wreaking of havoc by newspapers in the lives of innocent people”.

A test for politicians of all parties.

The three main party leaders publicly stated that the Leveson Inquiry’s recommendations would be implemented (which the Prime Minister qualified by saying "if they were not bonkers” which they clearly were not). Many of us were promised this by all the leaders in face to face meetings. Sir John Major memorably told the Leveson Inquiry: ‘I think on this occasion it is the politicians who are in the last chance saloon. If, at the end of this inquiry . . . the recommendations that are made are not enacted and nothing is done, it is difficult to see how this matter could be returned to in any reasonable period of time, and those parts of the press which have behaved badly will continue to behave badly . . .’ He also warned of the dire consequences of any major party ‘seeking to court the favour of an important media baron who may not like what is proposed’. We share his views and we believe they are shared by the great majority of the public.

Continuing harm from a press industry unconstrained even by their own code.

The committee is no doubt aware that, although the Inquiry and other public processes have exposed widespread abusive and illegal behaviour by journalists at national newspapers, much of it endorsed by editors and managers, the leading newspaper companies have shown no contrition or desire for real change. Instead, they have abused their power to attack the Inquiry, the Judge, his assessors, witnesses to the Inquiry, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the victims of their abuses and almost everyone who has supported the case for change, without any semblance of fairness. They have concealed the facts from their readers by failing to publish them or by distorting them beyond recognition.

Meanwhile the abuse of individuals without effective redress continues at the same rate as it did under the PCC, as follows:

An analysis of recent newspapers looking for obvious code breaches has been carried out by Hacked Off. This shows that gross breaches of the Editors' Code continue without either comment or inquiry from IPSO, without any effective preventive measures and without any remedy for the victims.

Vulnerable groups are still targeted by elements of the press in ways that breach the Editors' Code. Even during the Leveson Inquiry itself there were appalling abuses of ordinary members of the public. Indeed, we witnessed the abuse and intimidation of those people who were brave enough to volunteer to put themselves in the firing line by giving evidence to the Inquiry.

It has been confirmed beyond doubt in court proceedings that the abuses were not limited to “one rogue reporter” or one rogue newspaper. Not only were journalists at the News of the World bribing public officials (and two so far have been convicted), it has also been admitted

Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009) in court that vast sums of money were paid out by the Sun newspaper to multiple public officials for information leading to “Exclusives”.

It is now clear that it was not even a case of “one rogue news group”. Mirror Group Newspapers have admitted widespread hacking and unlawful blagging at all of their national titles over an eight-year period. Two journalists have pleaded guilty. Four editors have been arrested pending a charging decision, and five more senior journalists’ cases are with the CPS. This means that several witnesses from the industry either lied to the Leveson inquiry or failed to tell the whole truth. That is why it is essential that part 2 of the Inquiry – which is due to take place after the criminal justice process has taken place – does indeed take place.

We find it astonishing that the executive at Mirror Group Newspapers who was responsible for compliance with the law at the time of most of the breaches, and who told the Leveson Inquiry that he had found no evidence of hacking, has been made the chair of the Regulatory Funding Company (RFC). Many of us were victims of unlawful activity by this newspaper group when he was in charge and yet the industry see fit to put him in charge of their new regulator, and IPSO are happy for him to be in control of their funding and of their rules and procedures.

Conclusion

In March 2013 Parliament very clearly endorsed the Leveson recommendations in the form of a Royal Charter. The Royal Charter mechanism was proposed by the Prime Minister as a means of appeasing industry sentiment hostile to a statutory scheme that could be amended easily by the Government of the day. The industry accepted the concept of a Royal Charter readily and indeed used the opportunity to submit their own Royal Charter. This was patently a document that would allow the PCC system to continue, and so was rejected, and also appears to have been a device to create delay in the establishment of the new system.

Now, almost two years later, our leading national newspaper companies continue to defy the will of Parliament and wishes of the general public. In our view, it raises the profound question of who runs the country: newspaper proprietors and editors, or our democratically elected Parliament? We hope you will emphasise in the strongest possible terms that Parliament cannot simply be ignored, and that these enormously powerful companies should not be left yet again to abuse another generation of individuals and families.

Although the Chair of IPSO has said to your Committee that we, the victims, are “justifiably angry because of the delay in setting up an independent and effective regulator”, this is simply not the case. We are frustrated because we see in IPSO a rejection of change and an attempt once again to avoid the implementation of an effective system of press regulation that will prevent others being treated in the same way that we have. So we look to Parliament finally to put an end to the abuses that have been meted out without access to a fair remedy, and to the depressing history of regulatory failure, by delivering the full implementation of the Leveson reforms.

We wish you well with your inquiry.

21 January 2015

Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009)

Signatories:

Christopher Jefferies - innocent citizen “monstered” by the press during murder inquiry and co-signed by the following victims of press abuse:

Jacqui Hames – former police officer subject to hacking and surveillance by News Int

Gemma Dowler - whose family was subject to unlawful intrusion

Kate and Gerry McCann –subject to libel and breach of confidence by multiple newspapers

Margaret Aspinall – on behalf of Hillsborough Family Support Group

Joan Smith – journalist subject to hacking by news International and intrusion by press

Sheila and Martin Hollins – parents of Abigail Witchells and subject to gross press intrusion

Tricia & Phil Bernal – mother and brother of murder victim, subject of intrusion by the press

JK Rowling – whose children were subjected to press intrusion

Edward Bowles – bereaved family subject to gross intrusion by the press

Alastair Morgan – for Justice for Daniel Campaign & brother of murder victim Daniel Morgan

Mark Cann – Charity leader and victim of hacking by news International

Paul Dadge – fireman and 7/7 bombings “hero” – subject to phone hacking by News Int

Mike Hollingsworth – journalist and victim of gross press intrusion after bereavement

John Tulloch –victim of 7/7 bombings and subject to phone hacking by News International

Ed Blum – film-maker -& subject to phone hacking by News International

Zoe Margolis – author and libel victim of newspaper

Jane Winter – Human rights campaigner whose emails were hacked by newspapers

HJK – private individual who was subject of intrusion by newspapers

Ben Noakes - subject to phone hacking by News International

Ciara Parkes – publicist and subject to phone hacking by News International

Christopher Jefferies et al – written evidence (PRG0009)

Maire Messenger Davies and John Davies - friends of 7/7 victim & hacked by News Int

Mo George – actor and victim of press abuse (libel) and hacking

Sheila Coleman – of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign

Sky Andrew – agent and subject to phone hacking by News International

Media Reform Coalition – written evidence (PRG0012)

Pluralism and press regulation

The Media Reform Coalition welcomes the current Inquiry into press regulation and endorses its questions concerning the current complaints process and prospects for independent self- regulation.

The remit of the Inquiry leans heavily on Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the ‘culture, practices and ethics of the press’ and, in particular, his conclusion that the press have, on occasion, ‘wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people’.

However, it appears that another significant branch of Lord Justice Leveson’s report – the sections on pluralism – do not seem to feature in the Committee’s present Inquiry. Leveson himself spent a significant amount of time assessing the implications of the proposed acquisition by NewsCorp of BSkyB of those shares that it did not already own and included questions of ownership and proprietorial influence in his assessment of press ethics and standards. He concluded that these were matters for regulatory action and indeed recommended, much as the Lords Communications Committee has recently done, that there should be ‘periodic plurality reviews’. He also concluded that ‘it will be important for the regulatory authorities to be able to impose structural remedies and remedies [with respect to plurality] which will change behaviour which can relate, if appropriate, to editorial independence and journalistic standards.’28

Yet, despite these words and despite the recommendations of the Lords Communications Committee’s own report on media plurality, there has been little movement towards securing the sorts of remedies needed to protect plurality and to enhance the number of distinctive voices in the communications environment.

Let us remind ourselves of the problem. We have an environment in which three companies control some 70% of daily national newspaper circulation, five companies control 70% of regional circulation, a single news wholesaler provides bulletins for the vast majority of commercial radio stations and where, in 35% of local communities, a single daily newspaper has a 100% monopoly.29 Lord Justice Leveson spotted this problem when he argued that ‘it remains vital to ensure that there are many different sources of news, controlled by many different people, and reaching the public by many different routes.’30

The government’s response to its own ownership consultation31 fails to address the urgent need to secure plurality. It has commissioned Ofcom to develop indicators that can show the extent to which the UK is sufficiently pluralistic and has additionally confirmed that online news should be included within the scope of any new framework for measuring plurality, that

28 Paragraph 142 of the Executive Summary of Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, November 2012. 29 Media Reform Coalition (2014), The Elephant in the Room. Available at www.mediareform.org.uk. 30 Paragraph 139 of the Executive Summary of Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, November 2012. 31 Department for Culture, Media & Sport, Media Ownership & Plurality Consultation Report, 6 August 2014.

Media Reform Coalition – written evidence (PRG0012) news and current affairs are the most important genres in considerations of plurality, that the BBC should be included in an assessment of plurality, and that there should be at least some consideration of local and regional markets as well as the national picture. It has, therefore, effectively shunted the need to find remedies to the problems identified by Lord Justice Leveson well into the future.

In conclusion, any meaningful attempt to establish the current position of press regulation in the UK ought to include an assessment of where we are at in terms of addressing the pluralism of our news environment as well as discussing prospects for specific independent self-regulatory structures.

The Media Reform Coalition and its partner organisations are, of course, happy to assist the members of the Committee, in this process.

5 February 2015

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

This is a brief submission made prior to giving oral evidence to the Inquiry on 27th January 2015. Separate to this submission the Lords Communications Committee may find some existing Media Standards Trust publications and articles on this subject helpful, most notably:

IPSO: An assessment by the Media Standards Trust (November 2013) – available at http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/ipso-an-assessment-by-the-media- standards-trust/ How newspapers covered press regulation after Leveson – Media Standards Trust Analysis (September 2014) – available at http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/how- newspapers-covered-press-regulation-after-leveson-media-standards-trust-analysis/ ‘Can newspapers convince the public IPSO is not a ‘sham’?’ (Huffington Post, September 8th 2014) – available at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-moore/ipso-press- regulation_b_5782812.html ‘New Appointments Further Increase IPSO's Dependence on Powerful Industry Figures’ (Huffington Post, November 3rd 2014) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin- moore/ipso_b_6081726.html

The public

Since press self-regulation must first and foremost work on behalf of the public, it seems appropriate to start with where things stand from the perspective of the public.

From the perspective of the public:

A large, but not comprehensive, number of national and local newspapers and magazines have established a system of self-regulation that does not – nor does it seek to – comply with the criteria set out by Lord Justice Leveson for an independent and effective system of self- regulation A small, but respected and influential, number of newspapers have chosen to remain outside any system of press self-regulation, beyond their own complaints and compliance mechanisms Currently, access to legal redress in media cases is comparable with the situation prior to the Leveson Inquiry. However, this is only due to a suspension of clauses within the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012). Once this suspension has been lifted a member of the public’s access to justice via the courts will be far more restricted than it was before Leveson. An alternative regulator is being established – IMPRESS – that aims to adhere to Leveson’s criteria (but which may or may not seek to validate this claim through independent review by the Recognition Panel), but is not yet relevant to the public since it is still being set up and has – to date – no named members

The situation is therefore, from the perspective of the public, quite dispiriting. Indeed it may be argued that the situation for the public is worse than it was prior to the Leveson Inquiry, except insofar as the failings of the previous system have been exposed, and guidelines for an

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006) independent and effective new system have been set out by an independent judge. Yet no such system has, to date, been established.

IPSO

When IPSO published its founding articles and associated constitutional papers in the autumn of 2013 the Media Standards Trust (MST) assessed these against the criteria set out by Leveson in his report (IPSO: An assessment by the Media Standards Trust, November 2013).

This assessment found that IPSO satisfied 12 of Leveson’s 38 recommendations for an independent and effective self-regulator.

As the 2013 assessment states:

‘Of the 12 recommendations that IPSO satisfies, some should substantially improve the current system, especially with regard to internal complaints and compliance, and protection for whistleblowing journalists. However, of the 20 recommendations that IPSO fails, many are key elements of the Leveson system, including independence from industry, access to justice, and complaints.’

‘The most substantial failings of IPSO’ the assessment goes on ‘are with respect to its lack of independence – especially from the newspaper industry – and its failure to provide access to legal redress for ordinary people.’

This assessment was not rebutted at the time or since. We have, as yet, seen nothing that would lead us to alter the assessment made in that report.

Developments in IPSO since November 2013

Dependence

There have been no structural developments since November that alter the fundamental dependence of IPSO on the publishers it seeks to regulate.

IPSO is reliant on, and directed by, the largest publishing groups in the industry – via the Regulatory Funding Company (RFC). IPSO’s budget, its rules, its code, its sanctions, its investigations process, are all ultimately controlled by the RFC and its subsidiary, the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee. IPSO cannot offer an arbitration service, or change the code, or make changes to the system of regulation, without the agreement of the RFC. IPSO is therefore acutely dependent on the publishers it regulates.

Although IPSO Chair Sir Alan Moses has stated he intends to make substantial changes to the IPSO system (though has not detailed what these changes are), the barriers to any such changes are significant.

After identifying the changes the IPSO Chair will need to:

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

Convince the IPSO Board they are necessary Convince the nine industry directors of the RFC of the need for the changes Win a vote of RFC members (votes are dependent on the levy which is calculated – opaquely – on the basis of circulation and revenue – as a consequence of which voting is dominated by the largest publishing groups)

If any changes are agreed and member publishers vote to enact them, the contracts signed by each publisher will need to be altered to take account of the change. Each publisher will then, presumably, need to re-sign the contract.

As yet, neither the directors of the RFC nor the large publishers themselves have shown any outward inclination to alter their founding documents. Indeed given the care that was put into drafting these documents, the deliberate differences between IPSO and the Leveson recommendations, and given past precedent, it is highly unlikely that the large publishers should agree with Sir Alan Moses on the need for these changes. It is also within their power to negotiate and delay, as well as to refuse.

Even should changes be made it is within the power of the RFC to reverse the changes at a later date.

IPSO Members’ Internal Complaints and Compliance

The MST November 2013 assessment stated that ‘The system set up through IPSO should lead to a substantial improvement in the complaints and compliance systems within member news organisations.’ This was based on stipulations within the Scheme Membership Agreement, which stated that: each publisher should ‘implement and maintain internal governance practices and procedures with the aim of ensuring compliance with the Editors' Code and the Regulations’ (Scheme Membership Agreement 3.3.3) also that each publisher should ‘implement and maintain effective and clear procedures for the reasonable and prompt handling of complaints’ (Scheme Membership Agreement 3.3.4)

Reform of internal complaints and compliance systems is the chief distinction between the IPSO system and the system overseen by the PCC. Significantly improved internal complaints and compliance systems are particularly important to the IPSO system since complainants are now required to go to the publication concerned before a complaint can be dealt with by IPSO.

Yet, at this stage, from the perspective of the public, the reforms remain inconsistent, unclear and untested. It is not possible properly to examine the number of complaints made direct to newspapers, or the manner in which they are dealt with, since individual newspapers have not, to date, released details.

However, based on the procedures set up online and in print, it is already apparent that, depending on which news organization a member of the public complains to, they could find complaining easier than before, or more time consuming and more difficult.

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

Some IPSO members, like The Times, have a prominent graphic on the front page of their website reading ‘How to complain about an article in The Times’. This then leads to a page which makes clear The Times adheres to IPSO regulations and the Editors’ Code (and links to both), sets out its complaints policy (including the 28 day limit), and has an online form that can be filled out.

Other systems, however, could make the process of pursuing a complaint more difficult for a member of the public than under the PCC.

There is a danger, for example, that complaints made to The Daily Mail could go unrecorded by IPSO, could remain at the Mail longer than the 28-day time limit, or could be summarily rejected by the Mail. This is because:

The Daily Mail distinguishes between ‘formal’ and ‘non-formal’ complaints. It does not indicate whether IPSO will be made aware of either formal or non-formal complaints nor how the public should interpret these distinctions It is not made clear to the complainant that the newspaper has only 28 days to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant before it escalates to IPSO. This makes the timing and circumstances in which a complaint escalates to IPSO opaque The Corrections and Clarifications page online states that a complaint cannot be started ‘until we [The Daily Mail] have received all supporting documentation you wish to submit, including correspondence with the journalist concerned’. Based on this one must assume the 28-day time limit does not begin until all documentation, as defined by the paper, has been received. This, again, could lengthen the time before it escalates to IPSO There is no link or address or phone number for IPSO on the Corrections and Clarifications page

The Daily Mail also ascribes to itself the right, acting at its own discretion, to reject any complaint if it judges that ‘there is no apparent breach of the Editors’ Code, or if they [complaints] are without justification (such as an attempt to argue a point of opinion or lobby), vexatious or disproportionate’. It also makes clear that the paper is likely to reject a complaint unless the complainant is the first party (consistent with IPSO rules but contrary to Leveson).

It should be noted that a number of complaints forms, The Daily Mail included, require the complainant to add personal details, including a home address. People making complaints – particularly under Clause 3 (Privacy) – may feel understandably reluctant to give to these personal details to a newspaper about which they are complaining.

IPSO has stated that it is currently reviewing the new complaints and compliance procedures of its members. This ought to highlight some of the shortcomings of some of these systems. It is not clear, however, how IPSO will ensure these systems are changed.

The Editorial Code

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

In his report Lord Justice Leveson recommended that changes be made to the ownership of the code of practice, to the composition of a code committee, and that the code itself be reviewed.

Since the Leveson Report was published, there has been little meaningful change in the structures and processes of standards-setting, and no substantive changes to the code.

The current industry members of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee all predate the Leveson Inquiry. The code remains unaltered despite promises of specific changes following a public consultation. Most significantly, the industry retains ownership of the code and the standards-setting Committee contains a substantial majority of serving editors.

Code Committee Membership

The Editors’ Code of Practice Committee currently consists of the following members:

Member Affiliation Year appointed/Approx. Tenure Paul Dacre (Chair) Industry (National) 2008 / 7 years Ian Beales (Secretary) Industry (former Regional) 1990 / 25 years John Witherow Industry (National) c.1998 / Min. 17 years Ian Murray Industry (Regional) 2001 / 14 years Harriet Wilson Industry (Magazines) 2004 / 11 years Jonathan Grun Industry (National) 2007 / 8 years Neil Benson Industry (Regional) 2008 / 7 years Hannah Walker Industry (Regional) 2009 / 6 years Geordie Greig Industry (National) 2010 / 5 years Mike Sassi Industry (Regional) 2010 / 5 years Sir Alan Moses IPSO (Chair) 2014 Matt Tee IPSO (Chief Executive) 2014 TBC Proposed lay member N/A TBC Proposed lay member N/A TBC Proposed lay member N/A

As of writing, the Industry Members (including the Secretary, who had previously served as a regional representative) have an average tenure of service of approximately ten years, and each was in place before the Leveson Inquiry was announced. Many predate the phone- hacking revelations published in 2009 (and subsequent discredited PCC investigation), and four Industry Members have been in place since before the original phone-hacking convictions of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire in 2006.

The 2014 Constitution of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee states that all members (other than the IPSO representatives) are “elected or appointed for three year terms.” (http://www.editorscode.org.uk/downloads/minutes/Editors-CC-Constitution-Final- IPSO.pdf). There is, however, no evidence on when the three-year terms began or ended, and Paragraph 14 of the Constitution states that an Industry Member shall cease to be a member of the Committee when he or she ceases to hold a qualifying position in the national, regional, Scottish or magazine press. There is no statement in any of the minuted meetings on the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee website of renewals of terms of office.

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

It is not clear whether, since the establishment of the RFC in 2014, these members have simply continued their terms of office or been re-appointed by the Regulatory Funding Company. At the beginning of the IPSO Scheme Membership Agreement, the definition of 'Editors Code of Practice Committee' reads: "the committee of that name established under the Articles of Association of the Regulatory Funding Company". This Code Committee should, therefore, be a new Committee established by the RFC. However, the industry members remain the same as previously and there has been no announcement of a new Committee or re-appointment.

Failure of Code Committee to implement 2012 commitments

On 14th December 2012 the then Editors’ Code of Practice Committee published a formal ‘Response to the Leveson Report’, which outlined four actions to be undertaken by the Committee. These were (to quote):

The Code’s definition of the public interest will be revised with urgency, in light of the Leveson Report, to take into account the definition of the public interest published by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his recent Guidelines for Prosecutors.

The Committee also agreed to take up Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation to appoint lay members. The committee at present comprises 13 editors, plus the Chairman and Director of the Press Complaints Commission as observers. In future it is proposed the number of editors will be reduced by three, to 10, with five lay individuals – including the Chairman and Director of the new regulator – joining the Committee as full members.

The Committee proposes to add a new Compliance Clause to the Editors’ Code. Under this clause all editors must offer readers a clear and effective means of making complaints, and publish corrections and apologies promptly, preferably without recourse to the new Regulator. In cases where it is not possible to reach agreement by negotiation, the clause will make it clear that editors will have to publish adjudications, and approved corrections and apologies, in positions required by the Regulator.

The Committee will also, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson, undertake a review of the Code. It will invite suggestions from the public and, for the first time, newspapers and magazines will be encouraged to urge their own readers to contribute. At the same time the Committee will review the Editors’ Codebook to ensure – in the light of the Leveson Report – it gives editors and journalists the best possible guidance on agreed practice.

From http://www.editorscode.org.uk/downloads/press_releases/CodeReview-14-12- 12.pdf

Over two years later, two of these have been partially fulfilled – (2) and (4) – and two – (1) and (3) – do not appear to have been undertaken at all, or have not been made public.

1. Revision of the definition of the public interest:

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

The definition of the public interest in the current edition of the Code of Practice (published in September 2014) is identical to the version which was in place when the Committee published its response to Leveson, except for the substitution of the term ‘Regulator’ for references to the Press Complaints Commission.

2. Appointment of lay members to the Committee The Chair of IPSO and its chief executive have been appointed to the Committee. Three other lay positions were advertised in November 2014 but have not, as yet, been appointed. This commitment, it should be noted, was made by the Code Committee seven months prior to the Leveson report, in April 2012 (Code Committee Minutes, April 2012).

3. A new ‘Compliance Clause’ As with the definition of the public interest, the remainder of the Editors’ Code has remained unchanged since Leveson, with the exception of replacements of the term ‘Regulator’ for the references to the Press Complaints Commission.

4. A review of the Code including public consultation Following Leveson the Code Committee invited suggestions on changes to the code by February 17th 2013. It then extended this deadline to 17th April 2013. The Code Committee has not published the results of the consultation. Minutes from a Committee meeting of May 2014 suggest that deliberation on “broad issues raised by the Code Review” would be deferred until the re-constitution of the Committee (Minutes, May 2014). It is not clear what is meant by ‘re-constitution’. No suggestions have been published and no changes have yet been made to the code.

Ownership of the Code

The constitution of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, published August 2014, refers to Leveson’s recommendation on the Code:

‘I recommend that the standards code must ultimately be the responsibility of, and adopted by, the Board advised by a Code Committee which may comprise both independent members of the Board and serving editors.’

Yet in almost all constitutional respects the Committee goes against the spirit and wording of the Leveson report.

‘The standards code’ Leveson wrote, ‘must ultimately be the responsibility of, and adopted by, the Board’ (Executive Summary, p.33). Yet the code to which IPSO members adhere ‘belongs to and is the responsibility of the newspaper and magazine publishing industry’ (Constitution of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, May 2014). The Code is not the responsibility of the IPSO Board, it is the responsibility of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee.

Regulated members of IPSO should not, Leveson said, own the code by which they are regulated: ‘[T]he suggestion that those in charge of the regulated entities should be

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006) responsible for the code pursuant to which they are regulated is not one that would (or should) command support’ (Leveson Report, Volume IV, p.1,627). Yet the code to which IPSO members adhere is owned by the Regulatory Funding Company (RFC) and any proposed changes can be vetoed by the RFC.

The Board, Leveson said, may be ‘advised by a Code Committee’. The Editors’ Code of Practice Committee does not advise the IPSO Board, it presents it with a Code which IPSO must adopt.

The Code Committee, Leveson said, ‘may comprise both independent members of the Board and serving editors’. Yet, Leveson said ‘The continuation of the Code Committee with a majority of serving editors, acting in more than an advisory role, does not allow for independent setting of standards’. The Editors’ Code of Practice Committee has a substantial majority of serving editors.

Therefore, constitutionally, the Code Committee breaches almost all of the tests that Leveson set for independent standards-setting.

Future changes to IPSO

Lord Justice Leveson said that any new system of self-regulation had to be independent and effective on behalf of the public. IPSO is neither independent of the industry, nor demonstrably more effective on behalf of the public.

Sir Alan Moses has stated, on a number of occasions, that he wishes to make substantial changes to IPSO, though he has not given details as to what these changes would be. He has set out seven broad principles to which he thinks IPSO should adhere, some of which contradict existing structures. For example, ‘The procedural rules and regulations will be those of the regulator and not those of the regulated’, is contradicted by the IPSO contract which states that the Regulatory Funding Company has a veto over any changes to the regulations.

Rather than us seek to translate these seven broad principles into actions it would be helpful if IPSO publicly set out what changes it aims to make.

In the absence of such a public statement, we have identified ten changes that could significantly enhance IPSO’s independence and effectiveness:

Remove RFC vetoes on: Regulations (IPSO Contract, Clause 7.1) Editorial Code (RFC Articles 10.11, IPSO Contract 7.2) Arbitration (IPSO Contract, Clause 5.4.3)

Give IPSO the obligation to record all breaches of the Code that cannot be resolved at the publisher concerned (change IPSO Regulations 14-21)

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006)

Make arbitration compulsory to IPSO members within the terms of the Scheme Membership Agreement

Make the investigations process ‘simple and credible’, based on the investigations process of other regulators like the Financial Conduct Authority Change IPSO Articles of Association 8.1.2.b, and entirely rewrite IPSO regulations 40-75

Give IPSO - and the public - a proper say in the Code of Practice Make the Code Committee a subcommittee of IPSO (change RFC Articles 2.2 and 10.9) Make IPSO responsible for appointments (change RFC Articles 10.10) Oblige IPSO to conduct a formal, open consultation with the public and journalists on an annual or biennial basis (add to IPSO Articles)

Free IPSO from direct financial control by the industry Recalculate the budget for IPSO and tell the RFC – publicly – how much IPSO needs to do its job properly, removing responsibility for defining IPSO's budget from the RFC (change to RFC Articles of Association 24.4 & Schedule: 1.10) Make the industry's budget commitment for a minimum of four years - so that it does not need renegotiation on an annual basis (change to RFC Articles of Association 24.4) Make clear that it is IPSO's responsibility, not the RFC's to determine the pay of Board members, members of the Complaints Committee, and members of the Appointment panel (requires changes to IPSO Articles 24.2, 26.8, and 27.9)

Make investigations affordable and sustainable Give IPSO responsibility for proposing the size of a ring-fenced investigations fund (change IPSO Contract 10, add ring-fencing, add to IPSO Articles) Make the subject of investigation pay

Give IPSO the freedom to accept complaints on their merit, not based on who they come from (change IPSO Regulation 8)

Remove the requirement that IPSO take account of the views of the RFC when making appointments, either to the Board (via the Appointments Panel) or the Complaints Committee (change IPSO Articles of Association 22.5 and 27.4 and Regulations 34)

Show IPSO has ‘teeth’ Give IPSO the freedom to direct the placement and prominence of apologies where it deems that one is appropriate (change IPSO Regulation 22) Give IPSO control of financial sanctions guidance (change IPSO Contract, Clause 1.1)

There has been not been any outward sign, as yet, of industry enthusiasm to make these, or other, substantial changes.

Even should Sir Alan Moses and the IPSO Board make some, or all, of these changes, IPSO has set itself against recognition and therefore will not be audited by an external body established for that purpose. This will deprive it of public legitimacy both in the short and

Media Standards Trust – written evidence (PRG0006) longer term, and preclude it from taking advantage of the legal incentives set out in the Crime and Courts Act (2013).

IMPRESS

An alternative press self-regulator, IMPRESS, has stated its intention to achieve the criteria set out in the Leveson report and in the Royal Charter for Self-Regulation of the Press (2013).

Reading its draft documents and following its progress it appears to be proceeding in this direction.

Once it has published its final documents we aim to review these in order to assess how many of the 38 recommendations in the Leveson report it achieves.

January 2015

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

Evidence Session No. 3 Heard in Public Questions 42 - 67

TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Lord Best (Chairman) Baroness Bakewell Lord Dubs Baroness Fookes Baroness Hanham Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Lord Horam Lord Razzall Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury ______

Examination of Witnesses Dr Martin Moore, Director, Media Standards Trust, and Professor Chris Frost, Chair of Ethics Council, National Union of Journalists

Q59 The Chairman: Welcome, Professor Chris Frost and Dr Martin Moore. Thank you very much for joining us—and for doing so earlier, which means that I do not have to explain that I am not another Leveson but that we are trying to shed light, which I am sure that both of you will be very much part of doing this afternoon. Would you just introduce yourselves for the record and say where you are coming from in terms of this inquiry? Professor Chris Frost: Yes, I am Professor Chris Frost, professor of journalism in Liverpool John Moores University. I am also a member of the NUJ and I sit on the NUJ’s national executive committee, as well as chairing the NUJ’s ethics council. I have been heavily involved in our Leveson work over the past few years. Dr Martin Moore: My name is Martin Moore. I am director of the Media Standards Trust. I have worked in the media for about 20 years and have been director of the Media Standards Trust since 2006. We do research into a number of different areas, particularly the news media. We also produce tools to help people to navigate the media. Since 2006, we have also been looking at the whole issue of the self-regulation of the press. We published a report back in 2009 that was critical of the system of self-regulation with the PCC. We published a subsequent report the following year and made quite a lengthy submission to the Leveson inquiry, in which we made a number of recommendations, some of which he seems to have taken account of. More recently, in November 2013, we published an assessment of IPSO based on its founding documents, published in October 2013.

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

Q60 The Chairman: Thank you both very much. You do not both have to answer every question that comes, so between the two of you perhaps you can decide for yourselves which one to go for. You can then spend more time on the questions that you answer. The first question probably does require something from both of you—your assessment of the important things in Leveson and what has happened to them over the past few months and years. Professor Chris Frost: I am happy to, my Lord Chairman. We felt that the self-regulatory sections of the Leveson report introduced a large number of things that we welcomed, particularly the idea that every newspaper should be a member of the new body, whatever that turned out to be. There was the idea that all of them should be members and they should be obliged to adhere to what is going on. That had not happened before. This is often presented as a mix of the public and the industry. We want to make it absolutely clear that from our perspective the industry is always being represented as the publishers, who have very different interests to other sectors of the industry, particularly journalists. This has been mentioned already by several of you around the table, and quite rightly. The way in which journalists view what is going on is entirely different from the way in which publishers view it. Publishers are there to publish their newspapers and to make money. There is nothing wrong with that, but they should have no more freedom to do that than anybody else who is manufacturing something for sale—whether that is selling drink, food stuffs, or whatever it might be. There is a whole raft of regulation to control how that is done. We cannot see any reason why the commercial side of publishing should not be controlled in very similar ways. The difficulty that this Committee and Leveson are looking at is the journalism side of it—the idea that there should be a free press, able to say things that are important. That comes from journalism, so journalists have a major part to play in that, and we cannot understand why that is being consistently ignored. We were very pleased that Leveson did not ignore that; he wanted to look particularly at things that a whistleblower hotline and a conscience clause, so that journalists could say when they believed that something breached the code of practice and that therefore they did not want to do it. So it is very disappointing to see that IPSO has picked up on none of those things yet. We have already tried with one or two test cases, where our members have been in very difficult circumstances, and we have contacted IPSO only to find that nothing was happening there. It was very good to hear Paul Vickers confirm that that has not happened yet. In our view, it is typical that IPSO should leave that till very much later and that there should be no pressure from the Regulatory Funding Company. Journalism, as far as we are concerned, is the most important issue, and that is being ignored. We do not think that IPSO will be able to pick that up, and we think that there will be another Leveson in five or maybe 10 years’ time, if we are lucky. Dr Martin Moore: First, on your question about the Leveson report and its recommendations, there were two particularly valuable things about the report and recommendations. The first was the findings of the report itself, and the exposure of the existing system. We tried to do that ourselves but Leveson did it in significant depth and took significantly more evidence. Leveson demonstrated particularly the lack of independence of the existing system with the PCC, and the human cost of those failings. It was very good that you had Hacked Off earlier, because that was crucial to the inquiry itself. As for the recommendations, I would highlight three structural changes that Leveson recommended, which would make a significant difference to this whole area. The first was the low-cost arbitration system, which I know that you have already spoken about but which perhaps we will talk more about. The second was the idea of regular audit of the system to ensure that it

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) is working effectively and to avoid the historical cycle of failure that we have been through every 10 to 15 years since the Second World War. That was an attempt by Leveson to do something different from many previous royal commissions and inquiries, and that is why the recognition system is so central to the sustainability of the system that he proposed. The third was his basic list of what independence and effectiveness means from the perspective of the public—the basic criteria that any self-regulator ought to adhere to. It can do anything that it wants to above and beyond that, but it should adhere to those basic criteria in order to justifiably be able to call itself independent and effective on behalf of the public. Those are the three areas that were significant structural changes. As for what we have done in observing what has happened since the Leveson inquiry, we have very closely followed, and at some stages got involved in, the discussions around the implementation of the inquiry. We looked at every version that there is of the various charters that were published and did a very close textual analysis of them, including the industry charters as well as the other ones. That is published online and is called The Story of Eight Charters. It shows the closeness of different charters to Leveson and particularly the closeness of the final agreed version with the Leveson criteria. You can virtually map one to the other. The other thing that I did, which I mentioned, was that when the final documents for IPSO were published we did an assessment of IPSO. The thing that triggered that assessment particularly was when an ad was taken out in some national newspapers by, I think, industry representatives, although we never found out exactly two took it out, claiming that IPSO delivered Leveson, and all the key elements that Leveson recommended. In order to assess the degree to which that was true, we went through and assessed all the 38 different recommendations that Leveson made for an independent and effective self- regulator. We measured IPSO against them, which was quite a difficult process. I do not know whether you have seen that there are many different founding documents—articles of association, regulations and the scheme membership agreement. We went through it and assessed them all and found that IPSO satisfied 12 of the 38 recommendations, failing 20, with six that on the information then available we could not make a judgment. Many of the ones that it failed on were really fundamental, with regard to independence, arbitration and complaints. We can talk more about those specifically. Since November 2013, we have continued to follow closely both the implementation of IPSO and of IMPRESS, and we have published two lengthy and comprehensive analyses of the coverage of the Leveson inquiry and its aftermath by the national press.

Q61 Lord Horam: Could IPSO ever be satisfactory from a Leveson point of view? You mentioned the 38 points and that it has managed to get right only 12 of them so far. Is it irremediably so far out that it could never happen? Dr Martin Moore: There are aspects to that. IPSO is already set up, so it has already been through certain aspects, such as appointments and so on. So over and above re-establishing it, there are certain things that IPSO has already done which contravene Leveson in his recommendations. Of course, IPSO, from the beginning and constitutionally has set its face against recognition, which was another crucial aspect of Leveson. Lord Horam: On independence in particular, your third point was about independence and self-regulation. Can the self-regulation that IPSO embodies be truly sufficiently independent? Dr Martin Moore: In the written submission that I gave to the inquiry, I tried to be as clear as possible about 10 changes that IPSO could make that would fundamentally alter its

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) independence and effectiveness on behalf of the public. Many of those are to do with removing some of the constraints on IPSO that are set into its articles of association. Lord Horam: It would be useful if you could give us an example of the sort of thing that you have in mind. Dr Martin Moore: Absolutely. The very first one, which you have already discussed, is if it was to remove the veto that the Regulatory Funding Company has to any changes to the regulations and any changes to the editorial code, as well as its veto over any system of arbitration. Lord Horam: Just to recap, if Alan Moses had perfect freedom to do all that, would it satisfy your criteria about independence? Dr Martin Moore: No, that is the first point. The problem that we have here is that, built into all the constitutional documents in the formation of IPSO is a very significant degree of control by the industry, mostly through the Regulatory Funding Company but also through its sub-committee, the Editors' Code committee. That puts such constraints and such processes in the way of Sir Alan Moses, which he talked about in front of this Committee, that make it extremely difficult for him to do the job that he has been asked to do. He talked specifically about investigations. I have not mentioned investigations, but that was supposed to be one of the main differences between the PCC and IPSO—that it could conduct these standards investigations. But the way in which the process has been set out is so byzantine and allows for so many formal interventions by a publisher that the chances of him ever getting to a point when he is in a position to try to impose a fine, after which there is then another opportunity for review and appeal, are very small.

Q62 Lord Horam: We talked about the editorial code, as you may have heard. IPSO would say that it is fundamental to press freedom that the journalists decide the editorial code on which they are judged. You are saying that, no, Sir Alan Moses must determine that. So that is damaging press freedom. Dr Martin Moore: No, I am not saying that at all. Lord Horam: I am just putting that argument to you. Dr Martin Moore: Leveson spent an awful long time looking at the issue of the code from the perspective of the process, not the content. He was very specific; he did not feel that it was his job to dictate any of the content of the code, but he felt that it was his responsibility to talk about the way in which the code was created. He concluded that while he absolutely took on board the need for the industry to be intimately involved in creating a code, he did not think that giving editors the ownership of the code and depriving the regulator of the ability to make changes to it was adequately independent. That was particularly with regard to this whole issue, which he felt that the inquiry focused on at enormous length, which was the definition of the public interest. He felt that it was not adequately described because many people within the industry had very different ideas as to what the public interest meant and how it should be interpreted. Lord Horam: That is very helpful. Professor Chris Frost: You mentioned a couple of things that are very important to us, one of which is that journalists have to sign up to the code of conduct, or that it is part of their contract of employment, or has been. Yet journalists are not included in the code of conduct

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) committee. It is another one of these things that the industry keeps putting forward. They say that journalists are on the code of conduct committee but what they mean is that editors are. I understand that editors are and have been journalists, but they have other responsibilities as well—managerial responsibilities and supervisory responsibilities as well as responsibilities through the board to the shareholders, which means that their approach is, or quite often can be, different from that of the journalists themselves. We feel that it is very important that journalists as well as the public sit on the code of conduct committee, and it is really unfortunate that that is not happening. Lord Horam: Is there any difference between IMPRESS and IPSO from your point of view? Dr Martin Moore: Yes. It is important to say that IMPRESS has not published its final document yet, so we have very deliberately not conducted the same assessment against the Leveson criteria, although we hope to do so once we have published those final documents and we can go through them. If I could just highlight a few critical difficulties right from the start, which are apparent from the draft documents that have been put online and elsewhere. It has no comparable body to the Regulatory Funding Company. Leveson said that he could understand the need to have a funding body but not the need to have a funding body that had anything like the powers that PressBoF previously have and that the RFC now has. The IMPRESS board has responsibility for the code; it is advised by a code committee but it has responsibility for the code. IMPRESS is committed to providing an arbitration service, unlike IPSO. I can continue—but there are substantial differences between the two.

Q63 Lord Razzall: If I can change the subject and come on to the effect of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which brings in in November this year exemplary damages, with a possible defence if a publisher is a member of an approved regulator. Under Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act there would be a defence against a costs award, but that does not apply until a body is first recognised as an approved regulator. What do you make of these incentives for people to sign up to a regulator that we would all approve of? Would they provide any incentives for any publisher to sign up to the royal charter? Professor Chris Frost: From the NUJ’s perspective, we certainly felt this was a useful carrot to give to publishers to prevent them facing those kinds of damages, if they belong to an appropriate regulatory body. It is not entirely dissimilar to the situation that operates in Ireland, where a recognised regulator is able to put that forward as a defence. In some instances at least, it makes the public interest defence much easier to put, because you would be using the code that a recognised regulator had and would be following the public interest defence as laid down in the code. Lord Razzall: I understand that was the idea of it, but do you think in practice it will have any effect? Professor Chris Frost: Until somebody actually sets up a regulator that can seek verification, it is a moot point. I think that it can, but we would have to see the details. Lord Razzall: We have no evidence that anybody is going to sign up to get that. Professor Chris Frost: No. Dr Martin Moore: One of the particularly difficult things to assess here is that it is very hard to judge the degree to which there will be financial incentives. We know from what many publishers have said that the reasons for not signing up to the charter are not simply financial. Some of them are ideological or, as Sir Alan Moses says, theological. I am sure that

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) there are other reasons as well. We went back and tried to do an evaluation of the potential savings that publishers would make or not make, which is extremely difficult to do. It is very rare that publishers are subject to legal action on a regular basis and particularly legal action by large corporations or otherwise. They are black swan events, so you cannot figure on an annual basis how much you are likely to save or not save. So the decision is beyond financial. Lord Razzall: I think the simple answer from both of you is no. Dr Martin Moore: Certainly there is no evidence. In the case of court costs, there is reason to believe that it would be a powerful incentive to participate, but there is no evidence as yet.

Q64 Baroness Fookes: Most of the discussions have centred on IPSO, but of course IMPRESS has been mentioned, which makes two regulators in the market. What might be the effect of having more than one regulator? What is the effect likely to be on the industry and, indeed, on the consumer? Professor Chris Frost: We think there are good reasons for having more than one regulator, and some of these reasons will come up in some of the questions that are likely to follow. For instance, to have one to regulate the national press and one to regulate the regional press would solve a lot of the problems that the regional press faces at the moment. They are very concerned, for instance, that an arbitration system, as suggested by Leveson, would be very expensive for them because they would end up funding a system that would spend most of its time, effort and energy looking at claims that have gone to the national newspapers. If we look at some of the figures for complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, we can see a stark difference between those at the top of the league table and those at the bottom. I have just finished looking—and I think that the figures were in the evidence that we gave you—at all the statistics that the PCC has put out, at every complaint that came in that the PCC sees as a prima facie case. The Daily Mail is way up at the top, although the Sun is pretty close behind—there is not a huge surprise there—with the other nationals fairly close. Then we look at the regional press, and it is way behind. A separate regulator simply for the regional press would solve a lot of their problems. So I do not think there is a problem about having more than one regulator. The publishers have a problem with that, because they want to keep the costs in-house. We have to remember that there are very few publishers of newspapers. Five or six major groups control most of the newspapers in the UK, and it makes sense for them to fund that, regardless of whether there are regionals or not. But the regional newspapers find that very difficult. We have been in talks with IMPRESS, and I have to say that we are quite impressed with what it is suggesting—but, like Martin, we have not seen sufficient detail to be certain yet. But we are certainly talking to IMPRESS, and we welcome that. We just wish that the publishers had talked to us about IPSO. Dr Martin Moore: Just to add to that, I think there are benefits to allowing for more than one regulator, particularly in a digital environment, where we have a huge and growing variety of publishers. There are two potential disadvantages: one, that it might be more confusing to the public and, secondly, as was raised in another session, that the regulator may try to cut corners and offer a more low-cost and low-responsibility alternative. There are two ways in which to mitigate that, both of which Leveson included. The first was to oblige publishers to make it very clear how to complain and what rights the complainant had, and the second was to set out very clearly the basic criteria to which all regulators had to adhere, which Leveson did in his report.

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

The Chairman: Even if we have more than one regulator, do we need to have more than one code? Professor Chris Frost: That is an interesting question. We feel that journalists ought to be represented more clearly on the code, so it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to have a committee that would draw up a code and then pass it on to the appropriate regulators to do with it as they wish. IMPRESS is talking about having an advisory committee to do precisely that, and there is no reason why that could not be shared. Having said that, if you look at the codes in the UK, none of them is that different from the other. If you have an advisory code that a particular regulator would pick up and the differences are finally imposed, I do not think it would be likely to be any more different than the codes that exist now. Dr Martin Moore: Once the basic safeguards are in place, you might find that particular regulators want to distinguish themselves by having codes around areas in which they specialise and want to have higher standards. Baroness Hanham: The PCC has gone, and IPSO is just operating while IMPRESS is not operating. What is the current position on complaints? Do the public know who to complain to now? Do they have anybody to complain to? If they have someone to complain to, is somebody telling them how they do it? Dr Martin Moore: The whole situation in many ways at the moment is unsatisfactory, from the perspective of the public. It is not where one would hope we would be. We have a relatively complicated situation whereby we have one regulator that does not comply with Leveson and does not aspire to. In our judgment, it is not independent or effective. We have some organisations standing outside any kind of regulation apart from their own internal complaints and compliance mechanisms, and we have an alternative regulator being set up. So it is confusing for the public, and that, I suppose, is compounded by the fact that one of the biggest changes from the perspective of the public from the PCC to this system is that they are obligated to go first to the newspaper concerned. That is a considerable change. That recommendation was made because it was felt that the newspaper was in a better position to resolve the matter quickly, but if one looks across the board there are some organisations providing clear and detailed information as to how to complain, how it will be dealt with and the role of IPSO, while there are others that are not doing so. At the moment we do not have any data, because again the publishers themselves are not obligated to publish data about the number of complaints that are made—so it is very difficult to judge. Certainly, looking at it from the outside as a potential complainant, it is unclear, confusing and inconsistent.

Q65 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Could you tell us about the definition of “publisher” in the Crime and Courts Act 2013? Do you think that we have got it right? Is it clear enough? Does it encompass all the people whom it should encompass and exclude people who should be included, particularly when we are living in a digital age? Do you think that definition is right? Professor Chris Frost: We certainly think it is a good working definition. As the Bill went through, we did not feel that there were any significant problems. It is one of those things on which, until we start working with the system, it will be difficult to tell—and since we think, and others largely agree, that it will be some years before that actually happens, we have not concentrated that heavily on it. But I think that you have largely got it right and it is a good definition that will largely be quite useful.

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

Dr Martin Moore: I agree that there are elements of it that are clear, but I am not a lawyer and much of the law does not read particularly clearly to me. There are certainly parts of it that I find ambiguous and difficult to interpret. I do not understand the definition of “blog”, for example. I am sure that there will be more discussion over it, but there are elements of it that will need to be clarified. The Chairman: We may have to go at a bit of a canter for our last set of questions, but before we get on to them, Lord Dubs wanted to say something. Lord Dubs: I want to get in on the previous question about complaints and ask two things. One is, as you have just said, that there is an obligation on newspapers to keep statistics on how many complaints they have had, what they have done with them and so on. Dr Martin Moore: At the end of the year they are supposed to give IPSO some sort of annual report about the complaints, but it is very unclear how they record them, in what detail and particularly how they distinguish between a formal and an informal complaint. If one goes to certain sites at the moment as a complainant, you are offered the opportunity to make either a formal or an informal complaint. I do not understand the distinction there, but nowhere does it say whether formal or informal complaints will be reported to the regulator, or whether making a formal complaint means that it is somehow cordoned off and not made known to the regulator. It is opaque. Lord Dubs: May I just follow up on that very quickly? I appreciate that time is against us. As regards the remedies to the public, one of the points that was made to us by other people earlier this afternoon, for example, is that if a newspaper accepts that it erred in a large article, maybe on the front page, and tries to satisfy the complainant by three lines at the bottom of a page in the middle of the newspaper, surely that is not satisfactory. What can be done about that? Professor Chris Frost: It depends on whether it is a formal or an informal complaint. Normally someone will contact the newspaper and there will be some kind of discussion about an appropriate correction. I would assume, but I may have got this wrong, that only if those talks broke down would it become a formal complaint, initially to the newspaper and then on to IPSO. IPSO has the power to say where in the newspaper that correction can go. We have not yet seen it use that power in any real sense, but I think it has only dealt with 11 or 12 complaints so far. Dr Martin Moore: They say they have that power to direct, but they deliberately do not have that power to direct apologies. They say they have that power to direct a correction, but as Chris said we have not seen them use that power yet. Lord Dubs: So not for apologies? Professor Chris Frost: No, not for apologies. Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: Very briefly, because I think you have already talked about it, Mr Moore, you have said in your written submission, “Currently, access to legal redress in media cases is comparable with the situation prior to the Leveson Inquiry”, so we have not really moved any further. Would you briefly expand on that, please? Dr Martin Moore: I can try but unfortunately not very briefly, because it is a long-standing issue. It goes to the whole discussion on conditional fee agreements and the attempted of conditional fee agreements prior to the Leveson inquiry following the Jackson review. The Government went further than the Jackson review in their reforms in the Legal Aid,

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, so much further in fact that effectively in media cases conditional fee agreements would not be accessible to ordinary members of the public because of non-recoverability of insurance premiums and effectively no success fees. They would disappear in those cases. Because no alternative was in place and because of the hacking scandal, and in fact because of pressure from the House of Lords, the Government suspended those clauses in the Bill, they are still accessible but they hang by a thread. In a way, we have exactly the same situation that we had previously, because there is no alternative. Should those suspensions disappear, so will access to justice for almost any ordinary person in legal cases and legal action in media cases. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: So you are really saying that you would advocate solidifying that position so that we go back to pre-Leveson conditional fee agreements? Dr Martin Moore: Clearly the best thing would be to move forward in terms of what Leveson proposed, which was to help both publishers and ordinary victims— Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Mediation. Dr Martin Moore: —by having an arbitration system. That was the answer that he came up with. Unfortunately we are no closer to having that arbitration system. Until we have that, unless all access to justice is cut off, then yes, it has to continue.

Q66 Baroness Fookes: You suggested earlier on that you found opaque the difference between the formal complaint and the informal complaint. Looking at other organisations, let us say a parent complains about something to do with a school. They might well go informally to the head teacher and try to sort it out. If they remain dissatisfied, they move to a formal procedure. Would it not be something like that with the newspapers? Dr Martin Moore: It would. The particular thing that I do not understand, and I do not understand why it was set up in this way, is that the IPSO system works such that the complaint is made to a newspaper. If it is not resolved within 28 days, it is supposed to escalate to IPSO, although the mechanisms for how it escalates and how an individual member of the public is to know how to escalate it are quite unclear to me. At the point at which it escalates, it would seem entirely logical to me that IPSO adjudicated, made a judgment as to whether or not the complaint breached the code and took some action. According to the IPSO regulations, however, at the point at which it escalates, IPSO then starts the process of mediation—the exchange of letters et cetera—all over again, which is what the PCC did and what Leveson said was the problem with the PCC: that it was a mediator and not a regulator. From the perspective of a member of the public with a complaint, in many ways this system could take longer. They could end up spending a month at the publisher concerned and then start the process all over again once they got to IPSO. Baroness Fookes: In other words, it needs streamlining. Professor Chris Frost: It needs clarifying. Dr Martin Moore: It needs significant clarification and significantly more transparency, particularly for members of the public.

Q67 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Do you think that the change to the new regime will impact in any significant way on the regional press?

Media Standards Trust and National Union of Journalists – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

Professor Chris Frost: No, not really. If we look at the figures that affected the PCC with their adjudications, the regional press are really only a small blip. There are a lot of them, so there are a lot of blips, but they are quite small. The kind of complaints that the PCC was dealing with were very largely to do with a lack of appropriate supervision, a lack of training or a lack of experience among the journalists working in the regional press. The mistakes that were often made for which complaints were upheld were really quite serious howlers, but they were the kind of one-off mistake which the newspapers themselves had already recognised and apologised for and which the PCC dealt with. Those will undoubtedly continue. I cannot see IPSO fining for those, because they are simply not systemic or deliberate in any way, and the number is very small. So the regional press’s interface with IPSO will, I suspect, continue to be relatively small. Dr Martin Moore: From the regional press’s perspective, the difference between IPSO and the PCC will be very minor indeed. We heard Paul Vickers say earlier that the cost of it will be the same, the processes will be extremely similar, and indeed many of the staff are similar. So from the regional press’s perspective, the system of regulation set up by IPSO is incredibly similar to that of the PCC. The Chairman: The true of you have brought tremendous knowledge and expertise in this field. Thank you very much for that. Are there any final remarks that you would like to make, I have to say rather briefly as we are running well over time? Dr Martin Moore: Just one thing, really. I know this inquiry is not planning to make recommendations, but it would be of great service if this inquiry showed where we are now, particularly how unsatisfactory the status quo is, and to show how far the status quo is from what was recommended by Leveson. One of the things that has been apparent to me, certainly for the last two years, is that many people have put on the cloak of Leveson and have talked about Leveson compliance and about going very close to Leveson, but actually when one looks at it in detail, we are a very long way away. Professor Chris Frost: I certainly agree with that. I would just remind you that we feel that journalists have largely been excluded from a lot of this, despite the fact that they play a major part in what is going on. I also just wanted to mention that a view is continually put that the Editors’ Code is brilliant. Somebody asked whether it could be improved. Yes, it most certainly could be, and taking third-party complaints against the code but having more in the code about principles rather than just individual harm would be a major improvement. The Chairman: Great. Thank you both very much indeed. It has been really useful.

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

CONTENTS

1. The MediaWise Trust 2. Our work with complainants 3. Press accountability and transparency 4. IPSO & IMPRESS - The proof of the pudding 5. IPSO and the PCC - how do they compare? (Research by Tom Rowland)

APPENDIX: SURVEY DATA

o Average time for Daily Mail to print corrections fell to 2.5 weeks in 2014 under IPSO compared to over 12 weeks in 2013 under PCC. o In 2014 all conceded complaints amended in print; in 2013 online amendments only for 66% o But small print in a dull slab on page 2 is the new form of burial for glaring errors.

The MediaWise Trust

1.1 The MediaWise Trust is a registered charity providing advice, information, research and training on issues related to journalism ethics, media policy and practice. Its primary purpose has been to assist those considering complaints about inaccurate, intrusive or unduly sensational journalism by print, broadcast or online media in the UK.

1.2 The Trust also conducts research and training for media professionals and the voluntary sector, and has achieved an international reputation for its training programmes around journalism ethics and media coverage of problematic issues. We have worked in more than 45 countries with the BBC World Service Trust, the British Council, the European Commission, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Organisation for Migration, the Media Diversity Institute, the Organisation for Security & Co-operation in Europe, and numerous UN agencies notably UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF and WHO.

1.3 The Trust was originally known as PressWise when it was set up in 1993 by 'victims of media abuse', following the Special Parliamentary Hearings32 on Clive Soley’s33 Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill in 1992. The Bill had proposed the establishment of an Independent Press Authority to defend press freedom and adjudicate on complaints.

32 Jempson M, (Edi) Freedom and Responsibility of the Press: Report of Special Parliamentary Hearings, Crantock Communications/Pearson 1993 33 Now Baron Soley, Clive Soley was then a Labour MP

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

1.4 In March 1993, following the defeat of his Bill, Clive Soley invited the national newspapers and agencies to meet with some 70 individuals, families and organisations whose lives had been affected by inaccurate or intrusive press coverage in the Grand Committee Room at Westminster. The purpose of the meeting was to allow a frank exchange of views between the two groups. Not one member of the press bothered to attend.

1.5 Those present then discussed what would have made a difference to them at the time of their problems with the media. They identified three key issues:

- being able to talk to someone who understood their feelings of anxiety, fear and helplessness - knowing someone who could instantly take action on their behalf (most knew nothing of the Press Council or the Press Complaints Commission, none could afford lawyers, and all were afraid of contacting the editors of the offending publications) - a fervent wish that it would not happen to anyone else.

1.6 Following consultations with sympathetic journalists, politicians and media lawyers a not-for-profit company, PressWise Ltd, was registered and began to offer free advice and support to people affected by inaccurate, intrusive or otherwise unethical behaviour by the print and broadcast media. It was managed by a team of five: David Joyce, Desiree Ntolo, Diane Simpson and Linda Townley (nee Joyce), all ‘survivors’ of media abuse’, and journalist Mike Jempson who had worked on the Soley hearings.

1.7 One indication of the reluctance with which newspapers face criticism is that Jempson’s public advocacy on behalf of those harmed by unethical journalism earned him few friends in the industry and his earnings as a freelance had reduced by two thirds by the time he was appointed Executive Director in 1996.

1.8 The Trust has been funded through charitable donations, project grants, and earnings from training programmes. Lack of core funding in recent years means the trust can no longer afford permanent staff. The Director now handles complaints and works for Trust on a largely voluntary basis, while teaching Journalism at the University of the West of England (UWE Bristol). He is also Vice-chair of the NUJ Ethics Council and a long serving member of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom.

1.9 Having achieved charitable status in 1999, PressWise changed its name to MediaWise in 2005. Its work had broadened to include training for journalists and voluntary sector organisations and projects around some of the issues which appeared to give rise to the most frequent complaints, including coverage of asylum seekers and refugees, children and young people, health, ethnic and sexual minorities, Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, suicide and mental health issues.

1.10 The Trust has lobbied for changes in codes of practice and regulatory procedures making numerous submissions over the years to Parliamentary select committees,

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

consultations on changes in the law as it affects journalism, as well as to OfCom, IPSO and its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission, and to the Leveson Inquiry.

1.11 Trust staff recently provided the UK lead for UWE on a 14-nation European research project into media accountability and transparency systems.34

1.12 The Trust’s international work with journalists' organisations and UN agencies has led to the production of influential handbooks and guidelines, some endorsed by the IFJ and the NUJ:

• IFJ guidelines on reporting children; • The Media and Children’s Rights: A resource for journalists by journalists (produced for UNICEF and now in its 3rd edition and available in at least 12 languages) • Reporting Children in Crisis: Guidance for media professionals produced for Reuters’ AlertNet • WHO Europe Code for health correspondents & communicators • Reporting suicidal behaviour (produced in collaboration with 23 suicide prevention/mental health agencies and disseminated by the NUJ & IFJ • Reporting asylum and refugee issues (produced with exiled journalists, the UNHCR, the NUJ and IFJ)

1.13 The current Honorary President of the Trust is Aidan White (formerly General Secretary, International Federation of Journalists, now Director of the Ethical Journalism Network). He succeeded Sir Louis Blom Cooper (last Chair of the Press Council). The current Board of Trustees includes:

• Bob Borzello (former journalist & publisher) • David Baines (Newcastle University lecturer & journalist) • Mohammed Elsharif (NHS communications officer) • Forward Maisokwadzo (Charity worker & former journalist) • Dr Christien van den Anker (Human rights professor, UWE) • (Dr Lee Salter (Senior lecturer, University of Sussex))

2. Our work with complainants

2.1 MediaWise provides a free, confidential and professional advice service for those who believe they have grounds for complaints against newspapers, magazines, online publications, radio and television broadcasts.

2.2 As a genuinely independent advocacy service, the Trust sees its role as complementary to that of the regulators. We provide a service primarily to complainants who are unpractised in the ways of the print and broadcast media. Our function is to assist them to appreciate how a story may have come to be published, to identify the errors in the published copy, to analyse the way in which information has been collected, and to advise them on the best procedures to adopt in order to gain a reasonable hearing from the regulators.

34 See www.mediaact.eu

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

2.3 MediaWise does not seek out complainants. This is a point of principle, but it is also a protective measure against gratuitous accusations by some editors that we deliberately set out to encourage complaints. It has always been essential to the integrity of our work that people come to us voluntarily and authorise any action we take on their behalf.

2.4 Nowadays most complainants are referred to us by a third party – Citizens’ Advice Bureaux, voluntary sector organisations with whom we have worked, and occasionally from MPs, solicitors and journalists. There tends to be an increase when there has been publicity about our work in the media.

2.5 On numerous occasions we have had cause to quote a Guardian editorial from November 1996 which resonates to this day, especially if the word ‘Press’ is substituted for the term ‘Parliament’. It describes exactly the case for a truly independent system of press regulation. 'At the moment the people see only a body which claims unique privileges to itself without any of the concomitant responsibilities...prepared to change...but only when it suits them. They see a body scornful of whether or not its proceedings command public confidence. It cannot go on like this.' It went on to quote Lord Nolan on the Standards in Public Life: 'the public needs to see that breaches of rules are investigated as fairly, and dealt with as firmly by Parliament, as would be the case with others through the legal process’.

2.6 MediaWise has also echoed the sentiments expressed by Onora O’Neill’s in her 2002 Reith Lecture: ‘we are now perilously close to a world in which media conglomerates act as if they too had unrestricted rights of free expression, and therefore a licence to subject positions for which they don't care to caricature and derision, misrepresentation or silence. If they had those unconditional rights they would have rights to undermine individuals' abilities to judge for themselves and to place their trust well, indeed rights to undermine democracy.’35

2.7 Most complainants who come to us admit to feeling frightened and alone when intrusive stories have been published about them, even more so when they are inaccurate. Most are scared to approach the publications that have traduced them, and feel more assured when there is an intermediary who can, in the first instance, act for them or advise them how to proceed. Few can afford solicitors, and fewer still have any idea of what courses of action may be open to them. We estimate that some 50 per cent of those who approach us discover that they do not have a valid ‘case’ however upsetting the offending item may have appeared to them.

2.8 Although many are upset few want to punish the publishers or restrict the freedom of the press. They want swift and equitable corrections and apologies, and in a few cases some compensation for the damage caused. The effort and distress of having to make a complaint can cause people to require time off work, and thus hit pay, or involve them in incurring expenses to gather evidence to prove their case.

35 From Lecture No.5: A Question of Trust, Onora O’Neil, Reith Lectures 2002: Licence to Deceive

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

2.9 People have lost families, relationships, jobs and even homes because of inaccurate press coverage, and many have expressed suicidal thoughts. One of our clients did kill himself when the PCC found in favour of a newspaper which had claimed he had run away from their photographer when this was not physically possible (he had two broken knee caps and used crutches) - for the PCC this was not a ‘significant inaccuracy’ in the terms of the Editors’ Code.

2.10 Over the years we have gathered ideas from complainants which have formed the basis of our proposals for reform of the regulatory system, its procedures, and preferred outcomes. It is their stories and preferences that have informed our submissions to numerous inquiries and consultations over the years. Had they been listened to earlier on then perhaps there would have been no need of the Leveson Inquiry since we had produced plentiful evidence of unethical behaviour and potentially criminal activity by journalists or their publishers - behaviour which editors then denied and the PCC chose to ignore for years.

2.11 It is our intention to continue to provide our services to individual and collective complainants, funding permitting, and were have established what we hope will be positive working relationships, as critical friends, with both the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS). We have links with the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times internal complaints systems, and we enjoy cordial relationships with the Media Standards Trust, Hacked Off and the Media Reform Group.

3. Press accountability and transparency

3.1 In our 2004 review of the PCC’s effectiveness36 we considered best practice in self- regulation using the then National Consumer Council’s guidelines. In summary these are:

i. the scheme must command public confidence; ii. there must be external involvement with relevant stakeholders in its design and operation; iii. its operational control should be separate from industry institutions; iv. consumer, public interest and other independent representatives should make up 75 per cent of governing bodies; v. it should have a clear and intelligible set of measurable standards; vi. its rule should identify intended outcomes; vii. it must have clear, accessible, well-publicised complaints procedures; viii. there should be adequate, meaningful and commercially significant sanctions; ix. compliance must be monitored (e.g. through research) x. performance indicators should be published to measure its effectiveness; xi. there must be addressee of public accountability (e.g. annual reports)

36 Cookson R & Jempson M (2004) Satisfaction Guaranteed? Press complaints systems under scrutiny MediaWise ISBN 0-9547620-1-0

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

xii. it must be well publicised with maximum education and information for consumer and traders.

3.2 Measured against these criteria, let alone those set out in the Leveson Report, to is clear that we still have some way to before press self-regulation will pass muster.

3.3 In our second formal submission to Lord Justice Leveson37 we suggested that whatever the eventual shape of the new regulatory regime one important consequence of the Inquiry should be to ensure that all publications:

• establish a regular spot within the news pages for a ‘Corrections & Apologies‘ column; • indicate on the front page or contents page where inside readers can find adjudications about the publication; • give equivalent prominence to corrections where the original headline and article were substantial; • reach written agreement with successful complainants about the wording of corrections and/or apologies, or offer a right of reply; • properly tag all cuttings and electronic records of articles where corrections have had to be made or apologies published, and; • offer compensation should the publication repeat the same breach. • If media self-regulation is to be transparent and equitable, there needs to be a single system, open to all, especially when there is a serious risk of unnecessary suffering or harm being done to innocent people by the online publication of words or images making it instantly accessible across the globe. A single system would ultimately beneficial for the general public and media professionals alike. They would then all know where they stood in an increasingly crowded and confusing media marketplace.

3.4 There is evidence that publications are establishing a regular spot where readers can find evidence of corrections, but we have yet to discover how many of these other ‘standards’ have been met.

3.5 From the time the ‘hacking scandal’ broke and throughout the Leveson inquiry a 14 nation EU-funded research study of media accountability and transparency was examining self-regulatory systems and interviewed almost 2,000 journalists to obtain details of their attitudes.38 In general journalists favoured far greater accountability and transparency about their work and their employers. They considered their primary responsibility was to their individual consciences followed by their sources and their audiences ahead of their employers and any regulators. Nonetheless they acknowledged that the Internet now provides an opportunity for a closer relationship with readers, and saw little reason why publications should not promote their editorial policies, staff names, complaint procedures etc. online.

37 A Fair System of Regulation http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-MediaWise1.pdf 38 Fengler, Eberwein, Mazzoleni, Porlezza, Russ-Mohl, (eds.) 2014 Journalists and Media Accountability: An International Study of News People in the Digital Age Peter Lang New York ISBN 978-1-4331-2281-1

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

3.6 In January 2006 MediaWise presented to the All-Party Social Responsibility Group a set of 10 proposals for a system of accountability and transparency which would improve public trust in journalism and strengthen confidence among journalists that they are recognised as important stakeholders in the democratic process. In our view these would make welcome additions to self- regulation and could be incorporated into the social responsibility audit of every media company.

• An in-house but independent Reader’s Editor on every publication above an agreed circulation/ratings threshold; • A regular Corrections Column which might include an occasional review of the company’s own journalism. • A commitment to give suitable prominence to upheld complaints. • Agreed minimum competences with which all journalists must comply within two years of joining the company. • A conscience clause in journalists’ contracts. • Equitable wage rates for staff and freelances, and an end to arbitrary systems for determining freelance payments. • Commitment to transparency and a career structure within the industry. • Mid-career skills updating and specialist in-service training to keep journalists up- to-speed on legislation and social developments. • A commitment to diversity throughout the workforce, and especially in newsrooms. • Tough action on discrimination and bullying in the work place. In our view this would vastly improve the standing and standards of journalism, and provide the basis for a genuine ‘compact of trust’ between journalists and the public. A more transparent approach to management aims and policies might also make for improved industrial relations. In an era of global media control, pay and conditions should be equable across borders, and if social responsibility audits do not include such commitments they are little more than window dressing. A company’s ethic should extend across all its activities, and not just where it is convenient or expedient.

3.7 In addition it should by now be standard practice for publications to indicate clearly:

• the use and identification of digitally manipulated images; • when and how payment has been made to individuals or organisations in the gathering of information and images.

3.8 We believe that journalism is a vital part of the process of open democracy – so the corporations that own and control media outlets have a very special social responsibility. Journalists are the eyes and ears of civil society and the means by which the many different voices of the public are able to express themselves to those who develop and manage our social, cultural political and physical environment. The primary audience of the journalist is the general public – not least because their employers expect then to help attract audiences. To that extent journalists could be seen as popular advocates – alerting political, industrial, commercial and cultural

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

decision-makers to the responses of the public to what is happening around them, and to them, and to what is being done on their behalf. That requires a level of trust which has been destroyed in recent years by the arrogance of newspaper owners and managers for whom profit rather than the public good is has been the primary motive.

3.9 However it is also clear that media convergence, in terms of both ownership of outlets and platforms, makes separate regulators for print and broadcast media increasingly untenable in the longer-term. Journalistic staff are now expected to operate across all platforms, often simultaneously, yet currently different regulatory regimes apply to print and broadcast output and production, while blogging, for example and perhaps quite properly, is virtually free of any such constraint.

3.10 We reject the notion that convergence strengthens the argument for the lifting of all forms of regulation. Quite the reverse. Technological convergence, increased concentration of cross-media ownership, and multi-skilling among media professional across delivery platforms makes stronger the case for common standards of conduct and regulation to apply to the print, broadcast and on-line media. Regulation is after all, for the benefit of the public rather than the convenience of an industry and its investors.

3.11 The ownership of outlets and platforms gives media companies extraordinary influence over public discourse and culture. They are accountable only to those with a vested interest in their commercial success. Few of their readers/users, and even many of their employees, have much idea who the ultimate owners are, what their financial interests are, or the extent to which their other business or political interests shape media content.

3.12 Online versions of national newspapers already ‘broadcast’ video footage on the web free of the impartiality requirements of main-stream broadcasters regulated by Ofcom, and even refer to this as a television service (as in TelegraphTV, for example). It may be the task of the Competition Commission, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, and Ofcom, to check that individual companies do not have control of an inordinate share of the market, but it is not unreasonable to expect media regulators of the future to alert readers and users to any potential or perceived conflicts of interest between news purveyors and their other business interests.

3.13 Members of the public cannot be expected to take it on trust that notions of editorial freedom and independence still separate news content from public relations and advertising, and the vested interests of stockholders. Product placement is not merely an issue for broadcasters - it dominates the thinking of web design and access to web content.

3.14 If media self-regulation is to be transparent and equitable, there needs to be a single system, open to all, especially when there is a serious risk of unnecessary suffering or harm being done to innocent people by the online publication of words or images making them instantly accessible around the world. A single system would ultimately

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

beneficial for the general public and media professionals alike. They would then all know where they stood in an increasingly crowded and confusing media marketplace.

3.15 Nonetheless, for the time being we are pleased that under the new systems all publications are expected to have their own in-house procedures for dealing with complaints in the first instance. This was the general practice in the 1990s, but with the arrival of the Internet many dropped their ombudsman or ‘Readers’ editors’ as circulations fell and advertising revenue began to dry up. Even then the practice described by former Mirror executive Neil Bentley was not uncommon. “I am an old hand at this game,” he told the Special Parliamentary Hearings39 on Clive Soley’s40 Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill in 1992. “When a newspaper gets a complaint you can tell in 30 seconds flat whether or not it is any good. If it is going to stick it goes on a long circuitous route. It is called “kick it about until you lose it’”.

3.16 The PCC was not averse to this technique, using it to the very end notably in the case of the first and only complaint lodged by The MediaWise Trust about inaccurate and libellous articles in the Sunday Telegraph and Daily Mail claiming that we and other media reform groups and academics were part of an EU funded conspiracy to initiate state control of the press. It took seven months for the PCC to ‘resolve’ this complaint allowing the papers to ‘correct’ the libel but to leave on record their ridiculous claims about a pan-European conspiracy.

3.17 Happily our recent research (see Section 5 below) suggests that, for the moment at least, one of the most complained about publishing groups has taken to heart the need to speed up the correction of complaints with the minimum fuss.

3.18 Quite apart from any punitive action against persistently offending editors, a sliding scale of financial sanctions, related to the severity of the breach, might help to convince the public that self-regulation is a serious business. Proprietors would be unlikely to tolerate lackadaisical reporting or editing if it had an impact on profits. We have yet to see when and how IPSO will impose its much vaunted £1m fines but significant fines set against sales figures or advertising revenue – would provide publishers with a stronger case for protection against the threat of litigation from successful complainants even if IPSO is not ’Royal Charter recognised’.

3.19 Breaches of the Editors’ Code should be dealt with like any other violation of professional standards or human rights – with appropriate sanctions including compensation for the victim. Although the new regulators may claim their services are free, obtaining evidence to support a complaint (which may include purchasing court transcripts) can be costly in comparison to a person’s means. The time and worry involved also comes with a potential price tag – for time off work, for example. It is entirely unreasonable that innocent victims of unwarranted and/or inaccurate media coverage should be expected to cover the cost of putting right the failings of material published with commercial intent. After all advertisers expect to be compensated when

39 Jempson M, (Ed) Freedom and Responsibility of the Press: Report of Special Parliamentary Hearings, Crantock Communications/Pearson 1993 40 Now Baron Soley, Clive Soley was then a Labour MP

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

errors appear in their copy, or publishers fail to honour their contractual obligations in other ways.

3.20 It is disingenuous to claim that publishers do not rely upon lawyers in countering complaints. Complainants should not be denied the option of seeking and paying for advice, where necessary, and should have the right to reasonable reimbursement if they are successful. There should be a cap upon the upper limit to reduce the likelihood of people complaining simply to win compensation.

3.21 The efficacy of the new system will be enhanced if were to have genuine sanctions rather than the convenient fiction that peer pressure maintains standards. Consistent breaches should be dealt with severely. Members of the Editors’ Code Committee whose newspapers have been found to be in breach should beamed to stand down. This would at least convey a sense that the industry understand why the old system was regarded with contempt by its many critics.

3.22 We have yet to discover whether IPSO will be willing to commission independent research into public attitudes towards media products and standards, into problematic areas of coverage (for example of minorities) or indeed potential risks to press freedom – such as Police misuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to obtain access to journalists sources. One of the disappointments of much academic research in the field of journalism is that it fails to ‘hit the mark’. It is often seen by practitioners as being too abstruse and too far removed from the rough and tumble of the real world of the newsroom to be of much practical benefit, but the regulator could help by being precise in its requirements for research into journalistic ethics.

3.23 Among the many issues that would merit research would be the coverage and management of coverage of disasters, including the impact on the news-gatherers; the representation of specific social groups, particularly young people, the elderly, and ethic and sexual minorities groups; and ‘chequebook journalism’ of the kind used when seeking out ‘human interest’ features.

3.24 All of this remains largely speculative, however, since there is not yet a functioning ‘regulator’ that is truly ‘Leveson compliant’. The new recognition Panel established under the Royal Charter is not yet in operation. It is not clear when and how the Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS) will get underway, and which publications will join it. All we have to go on is the practical evidence thus far, which is why we have conducted the short piece of research that follows. Unfortunately we were unable obtain statistics from publications that have not joined IPSO.

4. IPSO & IMPRESS – The proof of the pudding

4.1 Having set out to clear up the mess created by phone hacking and other unlawful or unethical activities, the Leveson Inquiry has left readers with a more disparate and confusing system of ‘regulation’ and complaint handling than ever before.

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

4.2 News UK, Express newspapers and Northern & Shell, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, the Periodical Publishers Association and most of the regional newspapers have signed five year contracts to fund and be regulated by IPSO, which a forensic study by the Media Standards Trust41 suggests is far from ‘Leveson compliant’. IPSO retains the crucial weakness of the PCC as to credibility in that it is funded by the very companies it seeks to regulate. It is further weakened by the absence of three important newspaper groups with perhaps the best reputations for abiding by the editors’ Code of Practice and correcting errors swiftly.

4.3 The Guardian, Observer, Independent, i, Evening Standard, and Financial Times will go it alone for the time being with their own in-house Readers’ Editors. They have an established reputation for considering complaints, admitting and correcting errors and commenting openly about the ethics of their journalism.

4.4 At present the only potential candidate for approval by the Recognition panel established under the post-Leveson Royal Charter is IMPRESS set up using crowd- funding by former director of English PEN Jonathan Heawood with the support of Sir Harold Evans and numerous literary figures. It has yet to be decided whether IMRESS will indeed seek recognition but it is determined to be ‘Leveson compliant’. If it does win recognition its members will benefit from protection against punitive costs in any legal actions. Members of IMPRESS must also have their own transparent in-house complaints system and an arbitration service will be available to resolve disputes. It is unclear yet how many and which type of which print and online publications will sign up to IMPRESS, but their initial targets are smaller independent publications.

4.5 The great irony is that all will adjudicate complaints against the Editors’ Code of Practice, a hybrid that began life in the closing days on the Press Council under its last Chair Sir Louis Blom Cooper. It was an extended version of the NUJ Code of Conduct and was then adopted by the Press Board of Finance to be policed by the Press Complaints Commission. In recent years the Code Committee has been chaired by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. He remains its chair as part of IPSO. The Daily Mail titles are among those which received most complaints of Code breaches under the PCC. To leave Mr Dacre in charge of the Code Committee inspires little confidence that much has changed or will change.

4.6 Although IPSO claims that five of its Board members represent the newspaper and magazine industry, thus characterising the other seven as ‘independent’ a cursory examination reveals that not to be quite the case. Seven of its Board members – Kevin Hand, Anne Lapping, Martyn Lewis, CBE, Charles McGhee, William Newman, Keith Perch, Charles Wilson – have been closely associated with the media and an eighth, Richard Hill, MBE, owns a media consultancy and is on an Ofcom advisory panel and held a similar position with the BBC. Charles McGhee is former member of the PCC, and Charles Wilson served on the PCC’s Charter Complaints panel.

4.7 A similar situation exists on the IPSO Complaints Panel, where again the claim is that it is dominated by those with no media connections. In fact seven of its members –

41 http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/ipso-an-assessment-by-the-media-standards-trust/

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

Richard Best, Lara Fielden, Janette Harkess, Gill Hudson, David Jessel, Elisabeth Ribbans, Peter Wright all have professional associations with the media. To the outsider this does not look quite as ‘independent’ as it claims, especially in the clubby world of the media.

4.8 Newspapers are quick to criticise politicians for being out of touch with the public, but they have shown themselves to be similarly lacking in sensitivity by appointing Bill Newman, former Ombudsman at Murdoch’s Sun, to the Board of IPSO. In addition to defending his paper’s disgracefully inaccurate coverage of the Hills-borough disaster, it was Newman who responded to our evidence that The Sun’s infamous ‘Swan Bake’ front page was false with ‘We stand by our story’. It took another six months for his paper to publish a correction, on page 41 of a Saturday edition. And it was he who caused European editors to guffaw at meeting of the International Press Institute in Vienna that any decision about Page 3 would be made on editorial rather than marketing grounds.

4.9 It had taken almost two years from publications of Lord Justice Leveson’s Inquiry Report42 for the industry to come up with a functioning Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) to replace the discredited PCC.

4.10 The timing harks back to January 1992 when Lord MacGregor, the first Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, told the UK Press Gazette: “Give newspapers more time to put their houses in order. If we could have two years in which editors have got accustomed to following the Code of Practice then we shall have an entirely new situation in the Press. It’s a hard test for a very short time because we are in a world where it takes time to change attitudes. But if we can have two years, attitudes will have changed. Self-regulation will become instinctual.”

4.11 He was batting off criticism from a Conservative government which had just appointed lawyer Sir David Calcutt to review the efficacy of press self-regulation. In the 23 years since we have had similar pleas for time and patience from his successors at the PCC, Lord Wakeham, Sir Christopher Meyer, Baroness Buscombe, and Lord Hunt, but with little improvement to show for it as the evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, and the fall out form the phone-hacking scandal demonstrates.

4.12 As an indication of just how ‘instinctual’ self-regulation has become, IPSO began life with the same company number [02538908] as the PCC, the same office and much of the same staff. It continues to be funded by a Regulatory Funding Company (RFC) entirely controlled by the publishing industry mutes its predecessor the Press Standards Board of Finance, but at least it is a new company with a different registered address.

4.13 Nonetheless IPSO’s chair Sir Alan Moses, and its Director Matt Tee have sought to assert their independence from the funders. However the chair of the RFC, Paul Vickers, has already begun to fire shots across their bows, criticising their decision to quit the “frankly quite nice” PCC offices and demanding to know why, after three

42 Report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Published 29 November 2012. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780.asp

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

months, they have yet to set up a whistle blowers hotline for journalists.43 This is rich coming from an industry that has, for generations, rejected the notion that its staff should have a ‘Conscience Clause’ in their contracts of employment.

4.14 On taking charge of IPSO Sir Alan Moses criticised the press barons for being thin- skinned, and demanded a bigger budget than they had allowed the PCC. He appears to have won the first round and is seeking to modify the procedures initially agreed.

4.15 There are other grounds for optimism. IPSO has indicated a willingness to insist where and how corrections and adjudications should published. While this does not yet achieve what Lord Younger proposed 50 years ago – that correction should appear in the same place with the same prominence as the offending article – it is a step in the right direction.

4.16 IPSO is also looking for opportunities to conduct its own ‘standards investigations’ in order to be able to recommend to editors how better to cover problematic issues. This opens the door for minorities who feel they are generally misrepresented or treated unfairly to seek more accurate representation. In the past the industry has been reluctant to admit that some social groups have unfairly become convenient scapegoats for society’s ills.

4.17 Unfortunately IPSO has yet to declare clearly and unambiguously on its website who its members are. Without that information the public will remain further confused about whom to approach with complaints.

5. IPSO V PCC: how do they compare?

5.1 In seeking to compare the performance of IPSO as against that of the PCC we looked into the story so far. How well did the IPSO system perform in November and December 2014 compared to the PCC in November and December 2013?

* Average time for Daily Mail to print corrections fells to 2.5 weeks in 2014 under IPSO compared to over 12 weeks in 2013 under PCC. * 2014 all conceded complaints amended in print; in 2013 online amendments only for 66% * But small print in a dull slab on page 2 is the new form of burial for glaring errors.

5.2 Each month newspapers agree that some of the complaints made against them are justified and they offer some form of redress – printed corrections, online amendments, letters of apology, bunches of flowers, donations to charity or, in extreme cases, all five of these.

5.3 Tracking these conceded complaints is the most effective method of measuring how the post-Leveson complaints handling procedures are working. Justice delayed is

43 http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/chair-ipsos-funding-body-blasts-new-press-regulator-failing-set-whistleblowers- hotline-four-months

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

indeed justice denied in these instances; if they are overly slow in offering redress in the cases where they agree things went wrong the outlook is bleak for the much larger number of complainants where there is a dispute.

5.4 Under the old PCC regime Associated Newspapers titles regularly generated the highest number of conceded breaches of the Editors’ Code, 46 per cent in 2013 out of a total of 461.

5.5 Given that Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre remains Chair of the Editors’ Code Committee under the IPSO system, as he did in the days of the PCC, we felt it appropriate to focus on how the Mail titles have fared. To gauge how the new system under IPSO is performing compared to the old PCC we measured the time it took to resolve conceded complaints to Associated Newspaper titles during the final two months of 2014, compared to the final two months of 2013 under the PCC.

5.6 Those papers that sign up to IPSO must have an in-house complaints handling mechanism to which complaints are supposed to go in the first instance. Only if this does not result in an outcome satisfactory to the complainant do IPSO processes come into effect.

5.7 We found that during November and December 2014 the average time taken by The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday to print a correction or clarification of a conceded breach of the IPSO Editors’ Code was 2.5 weeks, compared to around 12 weeks during the same period in 2013 for corrections to appear under the PCC.

5.8 In both cases we were measuring the number of days between the appearance of the original offending article and the printing of a correction or announcement of a resolution, the more usual out-come under the PCC.

5.9 On this basis it would seem that the new system instituted under IPSO has in this one respect made for improvement. It is still too early to form a definitive conclusion as to its effectiveness, although it behoves member publications to offer swift and satisfactory remedies, especially in the early days of the new system to both encourage confidence and as an indication of a determination to improve inputs performance.

5.10 Last year the rate was around 10 conceded breaches per month for The Daily Mail group, or one every three days. This year, under the IPSO system, the comparable rate of conceded breaches that appeared as corrections in the new Daily Mail Clarifications and Corrections column during the two month period was almost identical. That number was 18 in 2014 under IPSO for the two month period compared to 20 in 2013 under the PCC.

5.11 Further, under the PCC system 66 per cent of the corrections were only published online, with most of these appended to the original piece in the data silo but nothing appearing in print.

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

5.12 This year, in contrast, all of the 18 conceded complaints have at least appeared in the print edition as corrections and appropriate amendments have also been made to the data silo.

5.13 If one includes the legacy complaints which started off life under the PCC regime but which have since been dealt with by IPSO then the time taken increases to five weeks but it still seems a very credible improvement in the time taken to publish a correction of an admitted breach.

5.14 However since the creating of the IPSO, data is much less trans-parent than was the case with the PCC. There is currently no requirement upon member publications to inform IPSO about the number of complaints received and how they have been dealt with. This is a serious shortcoming in the new procedures. And we cannot yet know how many serious or unresolved cases remain awaiting resolution or adjudication by Associated Newspaper or IPSO.

5.15 Of greater concern The Daily Mail has found a way to discretely bury the corrections in a slab of boilerplate, small print text, at the bottom of the second page of the newspaper.

5.16 It can claim that it is publishing in a prominent position on an early page but the reality is that this is nothing like the due prominence to the original article that Leveson envisaged; in reality the correction is tucked away where it will go largely unnoticed while in extreme cases the offending splash stories are quietly withdrawn from the newspaper’s online database.

5.17 IPSO claims that it has the power to insist on where and how its adjudications should be published. Although in one case concerning the Daily Mirror it has asserted this authority, we have yet to see how effectively IPSO will be able to use these powers in the longer term.

5.18 In one case, serious errors in a story about the European Court of Human Rights written for The Daily Mail by the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling, were not corrected quickly, nor were the corrections given due prominence when they did appear piecemeal over a six week period.

5.19 To make for more appropriate comparisons, we focused on significant Code breaches of the Editors’ Code, and excluded more routine corrections of mistaken identity for example.

5.20 On the basis of this review it would seem that the new system instituted under IPSO has, in this one respect, made for an improvement. However it is still too early to form a definitive conclusion as to its effectiveness.

5.21 The IPSO system retains the crucial weaknesses that members of the public are expected to approach newspaper groups themselves and engage in a negotiation with a potentially hostile, well-funded and experienced adversary without initial support or

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

advice. And the odds are inevitably that the biggest battalions come out on top in such ‘David v Goliath’ confrontations.

5.22 Also the system has no independent oversight advising IPSO or complainants as to how appropriate or prominent the apologies/corrections newspapers offer complainants really are. Without such oversight and a requirement that newspapers supply IPSO with regular summaries of the numbers of complaints received and resolved, it seems likely that the new process will be subject to the same organisational drift into ineffectiveness that has scuppered its predecessors.

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

APPENDIX: SURVEY DATA

DECEMBER 2014 Key: click on the underlined text to see the correction and the original articles

No. 1: Foreigners in council houses Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 29/12/14 Date of Publication: 17/12/14 Delay: 2 weeks Notes: Intro + headline of major story hugely misleading: it reads as though one in 10 council houses are occupied by foreign nationals, which is not what the statistics say. Not amended at time of publication of the correction and no mention of the correction on the database.

No. 2: Castle Howard Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 24/12/14 Date of Publication 13/12/14 Delay: 2 weeks Note: Major error. Article deleted from database

No. 3: Nursing Shortage Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 23/12/14 Date of Publication 17/12/14 Delay: 1 week Note: Guardian carried similar correction (see here)

No. 4: NHS Failings in Wales Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 21/12/14 Date of Publication 8/8/14 Delay: 19 weeks Note: Subsidiary part of wider investigation.

No. 5: European Court of Human Rights Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 21/12/14 Date of Publication 3/10/14 Delay: 11 weeks Note: Ran letter as a correction. Earlier correction published on Link to original story included in correction online

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

No. 6: UKIP Ayling Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 21/12/14 Date of Publication 14/12/14 Delay: 1 week Note: Original error not main part of story

No. 7: WBA shirt wrong strip Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 21/12/14 Date of Publication 14/12/14 Delay: 1 week Note: picture mixup

No. 8: New jobs taken by foreign workers Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 18/12/14 Date of Publication 14/8/14 Delay: 18 weeks Note: Major investigation undermined by correction. Article withdrawn.

No. 9: Listellany/John Prescott/John Prescott Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 18/12/14 Date of Publication: NA Delay: NA Note: article withdrawn

No 10: Prince of Wales Christmas Presents Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 14/12/14 Date of Publication: 12/12/14 Delay: under 1 week Note: Unchecked agency report

No. 11: Alexander Economou Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 14/12/14 Date of Publication 30/11/14 Delay: 2 weeks Note: Defamatory

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

No. 12: Robert Plant/Led Zeppilin Mail online Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 6/12/14 Date of Publication 9/11/14 Delay: 4 weeks Note: Defamatory; damages

No. 13: Leeds United Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 5/12/14 Date of Publication Nov 14 Delay: less than 4 weeks

No. 14: Miliband/UKIP Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 3/12/14 Date of Publication 1/12/14 Delay: none Note: Ashcroft poll error

NOVEMBER 2014

No. 1: Immigration/ Barbara Roche Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 26/11/14 Date of Publication September 2014 Delay: 8 weeks

No. 2: Immigration/mangled statistics Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 20/11/14 Date of Publication 19/11/14 Delay: less than one week

No. 3: European Court/ Grayling Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 14/11/14 Date of Publication 3/10/14 Delay: 6 weeks

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

Note: letter also ran as correction on 21 December

No. 4: Melbourne Apartment Prices Daily Mail Australia Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 10/11/14 Date of Publication 29/9/14 Delay: 6 weeks

Control Data for 2013 [Source: RESOLUTIONS files at the PCC] Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday/ Mail on line.

DECEMBER 2013

10 major editors’ code breaches recorded and recompense/correction offered during each of the two months. Slowest delay in publishing correction 36 weeks

Note: The figures for the average time taken under the PCC has been adjusted downwards to take account of the lag under the old system between the newspaper publication of a correction and the PCC report. Average delay in publishing correction where data available 13.5 weeks. This has been adjusted to 12 weeks.

No. 1: Mr Robin Crorie The Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Published Sunday 28 Sept: Date of Correction: 19/12/2013 Delay: 12 weeks

No. 2: Mr Ash Choudry Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Published 28 September Date of Correction: 12/12/2013 Delay: 12 Weeks

No. 3: Rape Crisis Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Published 11 September Date of Correction: 12/12/2013 Delay: 13 weeks

No. 4: Ms Zoe Harcombe Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

Published 11 October Date of Correction: 06/12/2013 Delay: 8 weeks

No. 5: Mr David Bennett Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1, 2, 3, 4 Published 1 April Date of Correction: 06/12/2013 Delay: 36 weeks

No. 6: Mrs Jessica Sims Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 6 Date of Correction: 19/12/2013 Delay: NA

No. 7: A man Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 3 Date of Correction: 19/12/2013 Delay: NA

No. 8: Ms Lorraine Kordecki Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 19/12/2013 Delay: 1 week

No. 9: Laura Clegg Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1, 3 Date of Correction: 06/12/2013 Delay: NA

No.10: A woman The Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1, 3 Date of Correction: 06/12/2013 Delay: NA

NOVEMBER 2013

No. 1: A woman Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Published 8 October (now quietly removed from online database)

The MediaWise Trust – written evidence (PRG0013)

Date of Correction: 22/11/2013 Delay: 6 weeks

No. 2: Mr Shaun McInerney Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 3, 5 Published 10 July Date of Correction: 21/11/2013 Delay 19 weeks

No. 3: Dee Vyas Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 21/11/2013

No. 4: Mr Sean McGrath Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 21/11/2013

No. 5: Mr Peter Maddison The Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 14/11/2013

No. 6: Mr Anthony Stansfeld, Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley The Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 07/11/2013

No.7: Mrs Julia Litt The Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 06/11/2013

No. 8: Mr Adam John Spears The Mail on Sunday Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 06/11/20/13

No. 9: Mrs Anne Darwin Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1, 3 Date of Correction: 06/11/2013

No. 10: Mr Rohan Agalawatta Daily Mail Code Clause Breach: 1 Date of Correction: 06/11/2013

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

What is the current process for someone wishing to make a complaint against a newspaper?

The current process involves two methods of complaint (a) directly with the newspaper (b) with the press regulator. There is a third process but this is not widely known and is less used, in our view, than the two methods presented above. This is a complaint to the Readers’ Editor at a publication.

To our knowledge, not all publications have a Readers’ Editor and it is more customary for complainants to address their complaints to the Editor of a publication or a named journalist to an article; where one is stated. We are aware of the post of Readers’ Editor at The Guardian and the role performed in dealing, in depth, with complaints that arise from readers in relation to the newspaper’s output on a range of subjects.

The successor to the Press Complaints Commission, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) and presently the only operating regulator, though one that is not and has not sought recognition from the Recognition Panel inaugurated under the provisions of the Royal Charter sealed on 30 October 2013, accepts complaints but the criteria for doing so are conditional in some cases.

As a Muslim NGO who have presented oral evidence and a written submission to the Leveson Inquiry on our experiences with the Press Complaints Commission on breaches falling under Clause 1 (Accuracy); Clause 12 (Discrimination) or ‘third party complaints’, we are familiar with the process of complaints rejected on the basis of its not being advanced by the named individual (in the newspaper report) but by a ‘representative group’ (and not always at the behest of the named individual).

These grounds for rejection, of not being the named individual, have been applied to complaints raised under both Clauses 1 and 12.

The complaints system as operated by Ipso allows for the regulator to accept complaints submitted by the representative group if two conditions are met:

Where an inaccuracy relates to a specific individual or organisation, we may be able to take forward a complaint from a third party, but will need to consider the position of the directly affected party in deciding whether it is appropriate to do so.

Where the complaint does not relate to inaccuracy, but some other issue - or the inaccuracy is not on a general point of fact - IPSO can take forward a complaint from anyone directly affected by the article or journalistic conduct (or an authorised representative). We can also take forward complaints from representative groups, where the alleged breach of the Code is significant and there is a public interest in our doing so.

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

But Ipso, on the website, and in communication with us on the occasion when we have raised a third party complaint have not been able to provide objective criteria for the assessment of what constitutes a ‘representative group affected by the alleged breach’.

This is a matter left to the discretion of the Complaints Committee.

We are pleased to inform that in the case of one of our complaints (reference 02163-14), the Complaints Committee have acknowledged our case will be heard as one of a representative group but it is unclear at this stage whether this means that our status as a representative group is established in perpetuity on or this sole occasion. There is a lack of clarity in this matter.

In addition, where a complaint has been accepted by Ipso’s Complaints Committee, it is brought to the attention of the publication for resolution via the publication’s internal complaints procedure. The process is given a window for resolution consisting of 28 days at which point if the matter has not been resolved to the complainants satisfaction by the publication, it will be formally investigated by Ipso.

The complaints procedure can, therefore, follow a dual track where the internal complaints procedure is applied and exhausted before the external, Ipso, investigation is launched.

It is not clear to us that letters of complaint addressed directly to publications are dealt with in the same manner as with the intervention of the industry regulator.

How do the public know to whom to complain?

As an NGO involved in delivering media literacy classes to the Muslim community to enable better understanding of the media industry, media representations of Islam and Muslims and the regulatory frameworks available for redress of grievance in the spheres of broadcast, print and online media, we are aware of a lack of knowledge in the Muslim community about the role of regulators, the respective Codes against which each adjudicates on a complaint and the criteria on which a complaint can be directed to a regulator as a possible breach of the Code.

In exercises we have conducted with participants at our media literacy classes, it is clear that many Muslims are not aware of the appropriate body to whom to direct a complaint; many are unfamiliar with the existence of a Code which ought to be referenced in the body of the complaint, many are also unaware of the proper limits of the regulator and the need for more serious remedial action (bringing matters to the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service on grounds on potential breach of the law).

In seminars we conducted during 2014, jointly organised with the press victims’ campaign group, Hacked Off, upon the sealing of the Royal Charter and entitled, ‘Royal Charter: what does it mean to me?’, it was evident that there much interest in sections of the British Muslim community to better understand the provisions of the new press regulatory system

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004) as envisaged by Lord Justice Leveson and what it would mean in respect of the media’s reporting on Islam and Muslims and how disproportionately high volumes of negative coverage could be addressed through better regulation.

We have also produced a ‘media monitoring toolkit’ which is an easy ‘how-to’ pocket guide to help Muslims address the problem of negative media coverage on Islam and Muslims by providing information on regulation and how it works in an accessible, portable format.

It is our view that information by publishers is not adequately presented to the readership on the procedure for raising a complaint and on the criteria against which it is adjudicated as part of the publication’s ‘internal complaints procedure’.

We also believe that the press regulatory body has, by virtue of neglecting third party complaints unless a ‘public interest’ can be demonstrated and only if a group can be accepted as a ‘representative group affected by the alleged breach’, has contributed to the problem of readers seeking remedies and procedures not being available to exercise redress.

To date we have organised 26 masterclasses and workshops across the country attracting around 650 British Muslim participants. We have printed 20,000 copies of our pocket guide and distributed more than 15,000 to Muslim communities across the country.

Is it clear what conduct merits a complaint?

In our experience, no it is not clear what conduct merits a complaint.

In exercises we have conducted during our media literacy classes, where participants are presented with copy from newspapers/periodicals and invited to assess whether a complaint can be raised and on what grounds (against what clause/s), it is evident to us that among some ethnic minority communities, this is not well known.

By way of example, we list cases that have been directed to the then press regulator (Press Complaints Commission) during 2014 (January – September) against which the regulator has registered the cessation of the complaint for various reasons. The table in the Appendix lists the publication, the date, the clause/s if cited, and the regulator’s decision. As can be seen from the number of cases in which the clause/s breached has not been stated and/or the complaint has not been pursued due to no further response by the complainant, it is clear that there exists a considerable lack of knowledge over what conduct merits a complaint:

In relation to the table’s contents, please note that we have evaluated only those complaints which have identifiably been raised by complainants complaining about content that could be regarded as presenting a Muslim bias.

Of the total 5,024 complaints received by the PCC covering the period January – September 2014, the number of these that we have assessed to be the basis of a Muslim bias is 278.

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

As a proportion of the whole, this is greater in proportion (5.5%) than British Muslims as a proportion of the UK’s total population (4.8%).

We have erred on the side of caution when compiling the table from the data available from the PCC’s monthly summary of concluded complaints and there is the possibility that the figure is greater than 278.

Of the 278 complaints, 199 of these did not cite the ‘clause’ against which the complaint was made resulting in 189 complaints not being pursued. That is to say, than in over two thirds of the cases, the complainant was not able to progress a complaint because the relevant clause against which the regulator may have evaluated the merits of the complaint was absent.

This is consistent with our experience of working with Muslim communities where we have observed a lack of knowledge in determining what conduct merits a complaint and how the complaint can be successfully raised through referencing the relevant clause/s deemed to have been breached.

What are the differences between the various bodies such as IPSO and IMPRESS, including the differences in the criteria for accepting and evaluating complaints?

Last year we published a brief report outlining the main differences between Ipso and a Leveson compliant regulator (conditions of which we believe IMPRESS fulfils).

We have enclosed this report here as a response to the question above. The report outlines the process on complaints management and available sanctions under the different systems applied by Ipso and a Leveson-complaint regulator.

What are the similarities and differences between the regulations for press and other forms of media?

This is an area which we explore in our media literacy classes for Muslim communities drawing on the system operated by Ofcom, BBC (on issues of ‘due impartiality’ and ‘due accuracy’), the press regulator (previously the Press Complaints Commission and presently, Ipso) and the evolving role of social media companies on regulating online content. Principal similarities we have identified are as follows:

Print, broadcast and online media regulate output against a ‘Code’. The presence of a Code suggests guidelines that are available to industry users and readers/viewers making clear standards that must be observed.

A body set up to judge compliance with the Code is a common feature across the platforms with the exception that online media operates a wider berth in terms of threshold for reporting content that may fall foul of the standards to be observed.

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

With the sealing of the Royal Charter in October 2013 and the clauses contained in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (2013) and the Crime and Courts Act (2013), both broadcast and print media enjoy a statutory underpinning to the system of regulation.

A Leveson-compliant regulator (in our view, IMPRESS) shares with the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, independence from the industry in the makeup of its Board. The introduction of rapid turnaround in processing complaints directed at the print media regulator brings it closer to the system operated by broadcast regulators. Both Ofcom and the BBC make clear the time in which complainants can expect a response from the body and the time limits imposed during which complainants are able to progress their complaint should they be dissatisfied with the initial or preceding response.

The process of escalation of complaints is clearer in print media, in relation to both Ipso and a Leveson-compliant regulator. Complainants have a clearer idea of the stages by which a complaint may be escalated through the regulatory system if they are dissatisfied by either the ‘internal complaints system’ or the regulator.

Principal differences we have identified are as follows:

Press regulation is a voluntary system, albeit one that, under the Royal Charter provisions and if recognised by the Recognition Panel, operates with incentives and disincentives to signing up.

Problems with the voluntary system in the past has been that print publications have unilaterally withdrawn from the regulatory body leaving readers without an avenue for redress of grievance (eg Express Newspapers withdrawing from PressBof in January 2011). This option to withdraw from regulation does not exist in relation to broadcast media which is governed by the Communications Act (2003) and the Broadcasting Act (1996) requiring the regulator to establish a Code and judge on compliance.

Sanctions that are available to Ofcom are far superior to those that have previously been relied upon by the Press Complaints Commission. An independent regulator (independent of the industry), financial sanctions and the power to ‘direct’ apologies are among some of the more profound changes recommended by Lord Justice Leveson and which would bring press regulation closer to the rigour and powers that Ofcom enjoys in relation to regulating broadcast output (and, we might add, with greater levels of viewer satisfaction).

Broadcasters publish regular reports on complaints received and adjudicated. Print media has lagged behind in this drive for transparency with infrequent and incomplete information made available about the nature of the complaint, the means of investigation, the decision reached and the result. A key difference between print and broadcast media is the extent to which the work of the regulator is open to public scrutiny through full and regular reports on work and performance.

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

13 January 2015

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

Appendix – A sample of complaints from the PCC Monthly Complaints Summary: Jan – Sept. 2014

Publication Date Clause/s Outcome Daily Mail 03/01/2014 1,3,4,6,12 Sufficient remedial action Daily Mirror 31/012014 1 No breach The Times 15/01/2014 1 No breach The Guardian 23/01/2014 12 No breach Daily Mail 21/01/2014 1 No breach The Daily Telegraph 06/02/2014 12 No breach Daily Mail 17/02/2014 1,4,12 No breach The Times 06/02/2014 1 No breach The Spectator 27/02/2014 1,12 No breach The Spectator 27/02/2014 12 No breach The Guardian 25/02/2014 12 No breach Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 28/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 28/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014/ clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 21/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 27/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 24/02/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant The Mail on Sunday 13/03/2014 1 Not pursued - confirmed by complainant The Daily Telegraph 28/03/2014 1,4,10,2 No breach Daily Mail 14/03/2014 1 Not pursued - confirmed by complainant The Daily Telegraph 14/03/2014 1 Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mail 04/03/2014 1 No breach Daily Mail 21/03/2014 1,12 Not pursued - confirmed by complainant

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

Daily Mail 06/03/2014 clause not cited 3rd party Daily Mail 31/03/2014 1,12 3rd party Daily Mail 26/03/2014 12 No breach Daily Mirror 13/03/2014 clause not cited 3rd party Daily Mirror 20/03/2014 clause not cited 3rd party Daily Mirror 13/03/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - confirmed by complainant Daily Mirror 01/04/2014 12 No breach The Sunday Telegraph 01/04/2014 1 No breach Daily Mail 18/04/2014 1,12 Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mirror 11/04/2014 12 3rd party The Sunday Telegraph 02/05/2014 1 No breach The Mail on Sunday 16/05/2014 1,10,12 3rd party Daily Mail 16/05/2014 1,12 Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 19/05/2014 1 No breach The Daily Telegraph 19/05/2014 1 No breach Daily Mail 30/05/2014 1 No breach Daily Mail 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Sun 30/05/2014 1 No breach The Sun 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Sun 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Sun 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Sun 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 30/05/2014 1 No breach The Sun 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Sun 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 15/05/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 12/05/2014 clause not cited outside remit - legal Daily Mail 22/05/2014 clause not cited 3rd party Daily Mail 22/05/2014 clause not cited 3rd party Daily Mail 28/05/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 26/06/2014 1,12 No breach Daily Mail 04/06/2014 12 No breach Daily Mail 04/06/2014 12 3rd party The People 20/06/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Record 19/06/2014 clause not cited 3rd party The Spectator 19/06/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Spectator 19/06/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 06/06/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 06/06/2014 12 Not pursued - not lead complainant The Guardian 09/07/2014 1 No breach The Spectator 03/07/2014 12 No breach

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

The Spectator 03/07/2014 12 No breach The Daily Telegraph 07/07/2014 1,12 No breach The Daily Telegraph 22/07/2014 12 3rd party The Times 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1,12 No breach Daily Mail 14/07/2014 1 No breach Huffington Post 17/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 18/07/2014 clause not cited No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 clause not cited No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 12 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 12 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1,12 No breach Daily Mail 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1,12 No breach Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 03/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Metro 11/07/2014 1 No breach Daily Mail 23/07/2014 1,12 Not pursued - not lead complainant The Daily Telegraph 17/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Daily Telegraph 24/07/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Times 27/08/2014 12 No breach The Times 07/08/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Times 07/08/2014 clause not cited 3rd party The Guardian 26/08/2014 1,12 No breach

Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND) – written evidence (PRG0004)

The Guardian 21/08/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Daily Mail 26/08/2014 1,12 Sufficient remedial action The Sunday Telegraph 27/08/2014 1,2 No breach The Spectator 06/08/2014 1 No breach The Spectator 06/08/2014 1 No breach The Daily Telegraph 08/08/2014 1,2 Not pursued - no response from complainant The Times 07/08/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant The Times 19/08/2014 12 No breach Birmingham Mail 28/08/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - not lead complainant Birmingham Mail 29/08/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mirror 18/09/2014 clause not cited Not pursued - no response from complainant Birmingham Mail 02/09/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Birmingham Mail 02/09/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Birmingham Mail 02/09/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Birmingham Mail 11/09/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Birmingham Mail 01/09/2014 1 Not pursued - not lead complainant Daily Mail 03/09/2014 12 Not pursued - not lead complainant The Sunday Times 29/09/2014 1 No breach

National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002)

The National Union of Journalists is the voice for journalism and for journalists in the UK and Ireland. It was founded in 1907 and has more than 30,000 members. It is an affiliate of the European Federation of Journalists and International Federation of Journalists. The NUJ represents members working across the media – as staffers, casuals and freelances. NUJ members work in broadcasting, newspapers, magazines, books, in public relations, photography and new media.

There are two regulators in the UK set up with the aim of providing a process for deciding a code of conduct, taking and adjudicating complaints about newspapers from the public and monitoring and investigating press behaviour.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has been set up with the support of several national newspapers and the majority of the provincial press and is funded by the Regulatory Funding Committee, a committee of press executives who raise money from the industry to pay for IPSO. It is led by an executive board chaired by Sir Alan Moses, the former Lord Justice of Appeal. IPSO has yet to announce a full listing of those publications it will regulate, however it is clear it does not cover all UK publications able to join according to its own constitution and the Leveson report. It started work as a regulator in September 2014 and has already announced its adjudications on five cases, one of which was upheld. IPSO has no intention of seeking verification from the charter body.

The Independent Monitor of the Press, Impress, is an independent non-profit company reliant on grants and donations. It is led by an independent project board chaired by Walter Merricks CBE. Impress has yet to gain any subscribing publications and so is limiting its work to an advisory role. However, it has promised to regulate the press “in full compliance with Leveson’s criteria” including seeking verification. The NUJ believes that neither organisations’ rules offer a deterrent to membership as both strongly support the principle of no interference prior to publication. Impress is intending to stick closely to the Leveson recommendations and for that reason is supported by the NUJ. IPSO offers even fewer restrictions to publishers and fails to match the Leveson recommendations and for that reason the union’s national executive has condemned those publishers involved in setting up IPSO.

Impress’s lack of subscribers means that IPSO is presently the only operating press regulator in the UK. Complaints can be made directly to IPSO but it is doubtful that many of the public are aware of its existence. Its website is still primitive and while some newspapers carry details of how to complain there is only limited information available.

National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002)

Broadcasting is controlled by statute, in that Ofcom has a statutory obligation to draw up a broadcasting code to ensure accuracy, impartiality, fairness and to uphold standards to limit harm and offence and intrusion into privacy. Its code contains many rules similar to those in the IPSO code except for impartiality and the rules on harm and offence. The NUJ can see no good reason why broadcasting should have a statutory obligation to have regard to accuracy and intrusion into privacy whilst the press is allowed a free hand limited only by its ability to control itself.

The internet has limited regulation in the UK largely because, unlike the press, no one of significance in the internet news industry has asked for it. The press has long boasted, and certainly many of its leading publishers and editors told the Leveson inquiry in their evidence, that they believe in a responsible press that should be regulated. Leveson LJ made it perfectly clear in his report that he had not suggested regulation for the internet because no one had asked for it.

The NUJ has strong views on the issue of press regulation believing it underpins the free and responsible media that is vital to the future of democracy in the UK at a time when it is under threat as rarely before from a number of sources both internal and external to the country. It is perhaps more vital than ever, at this time in our history, that voters get accurate and comprehensive coverage of political issues both home and abroad. The NUJ told the parliamentary CMS select committee last year that:

The NUJ wants a press that provides a good range of news and views to serve the broad needs of readers in terms of information and entertainment in a democratic society.

The intense competition of the press in the UK has led publishers to seek easier and cheaper ways to attract and retain readers. Increasingly, a celebrity-driven culture has resulted in an entertainment-driven media. This has become extremely competitive and has put pressure on journalists, newspapers and magazines to push to the limits in their pursuit of celebrity stories.

This has all been at the expense of investigative, political and "hard" news. Democratic and political debates have been pushed to the fringes and can foster an ill-informed and apathetic public. High quality journalism and investigation, designed to inform and educate for the public, should be encouraged, supported and enhanced.

The NUJ was pleased with the general thrust of proposals for a new regulator made in the Leveson report, particularly his emphasis on the following issues: The new regulator should be an independent self-regulatory body governed by an independent board;

National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002)

The new regulator would not have the power to prevent publication, although it might offer pre-publication advice;

The code of practice should be owned by the board;

Publishers who joined the new regulator would have to put in place appropriate grievance processes and complaints handling mechanisms;

The new regulator should be able to take complaints from all comers, free of charge; they would not be limited merely to those identifiable in the story;

The new regulator should be able to direct a variety of remedial actions for breaches of standards including the publication of corrections and apologies and, if necessary the imposition of sanctions including fines of up to £1m;

Journalists should be able to complain to the new regulator if they felt pressured to cover stories in breach of the code;

There should be a “whistle-blowers hotline” for newspaper employees;

An independent self-regulatory body should be able to examine issues on its own initiative and have sufficient powers to carry out investigations both into suspected serious or systemic breaches of the code and failures to comply with directions of the Board;

It should run an arbitration scheme that would allow for a fair, quick and inexpensive handling of civil suits that might otherwise go expensively to court;

The regulatory process must have a system to allow frivolous or vexatious claims to be struck out at an early stage;

Finally, and perhaps most crucially since it was widely supported in evidence to Leveson by all the party leaders, a number of publishers, witnesses formerly involved in regulation and others, the report said that a new system of regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does not cover all significant news publishers.

The Communications Committee asks if there is any reason why there cannot be more than one regulator. The NUJ believes there is no reason why there cannot be two or even more regulators. Indeed it would be a good solution for the provincial press who do not want a regulator with an arbitrator they would be obliged to share with the national press. They clearly fear that the burden of funding such an arbitrator that would largely be there to limit civil actions taken against national newspapers would be excessive. The same is also true of normal complaints. There are considerable differences between the ethical approach of

National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002) national newspapers, provincial newspapers and magazines. In an examination of all the complaints adjudicated by the PCC from 1991 until it closed in September 2014 carried out by Professor Chris Frost of Liverpool John Moores University it is clear that all national newspapers had significantly more complaints made against them than all other types of publication. Examining complaints that presented a prima facie breach of the code and so were adjudicated or resolved in some way (the PCC prided itself on dealing with complaints by resolution) there are a handful of news, all national, that have significantly more complaints than others. Below this small group are the rest of the national newspapers followed a long way behind by the regional press. Local press barely figures in this league table.

For example the leading offenders showing the number of complaints made requiring adjudication or resolution are:

Daily Mail 803 The Sun 495

They are followed by:

Daily Mirror 271 Daily Telegraph 265 Mail on Sunday 252

The next group have much lower figures of about seven or eight such complaints a year compared to the Daily Mail’s 35 per year:

News of the World 184 Evening Standard 168 The Times 168 Daily Express 150 Sunday Times 145 The Guardian 145

The first regional newspapers stand at position 34 in the league table with an acceptable one complaint per year or so:

Liverpool Echo 28 The News, Portsmouth 26 South Wales Echo 25 Hull Daily Mail 23 Southern Daily Echo 23 Birmingham Mail 23

National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002)

Local Weekly newspapers barely register at all with the first 10 averaging just one complaint in every five or six years:

Brecon and Radnor Express 4 Greenock Telegraph 4 East Grinstead Observer 4 (Frost, Chris (2014) Professorial lecture UiTM, Shah Alam, Malaysia)

Of course many of the adjudicated complaints in all categories were not upheld and many arguments can be made to justify the figures, but it is the sheer weight of complaint numbers that shows why executives of the Daily Mail and General Trust, Trinity Mirror, News UK and the Telegraph Media Group are so keen to ensure regulation of the press is kept as weak as possible.

They have achieved this by ignoring the Leveson recommendations and doing the minimum possible to make it appear that the new body will work. Essentially IPSO is the PCC with slightly stronger teeth in the form of fines for systemic bad behaviour, more but still limited investigatory and monitoring powers and the opportunity for complainants to refuse to accept offers of remedial action.

There are some key points that need to be addressed before IPSO (or whatever will replace it when it inevitably fails in five to ten years' time leaving us to go through all this again) can succeed: A regulator should be independent of the organisation funding it and both the board and the code committee should be a mix of the public, editors and journalists;

It should take complaints from anyone on all aspects of the code;

It should amend its code in order strengthen it, remove many of the weasel words and to allow complaints to be brought on issues of principle not just individual harm; It should be sufficiently well funded to allow it to organise investigations and to monitor the press in order to issue guidance and advice to editors and journalists. This could additionally be funded from fines levied against more serious breaches of the code;

It should go ahead with the civil arbitration process outline by Leveson LJ but putting in place a cost according to usage system to provide a fairer cost burden to newspapers;

There should be a clause in its code allowing journalists to refuse an assignment they believe to be in breach of the code.

National Union of Journalists – written evidence (PRG0002)

Crucially the regulator needs to be acceptable to all significant publishers so that all join and that the regulator seeks verification in order to benefit from the protections offered under statute and to hold itself up to scrutiny by the verification panel and the public so that all can be confident that the press is both free and responsible.

January 2015

National Union of Journalists and Media Standards Trust – oral evidence (QQ 59-67)

National Union of Journalists and Media Standards Trust – oral evidence (QQ 59-67) Transcript to be found under Media Standards Trust

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

Introduction 1. The Press Recognition Panel came into existence as a legal entity under the Royal Charter on 3 November 2014 with the appointment of its Board Members. Brief profiles of the six Board Members are in the first Annex to this Note. 2. Fundamental to how we will discharge our obligations under the Charter is our independence from external influence in working to ensure that regulators of the UK press are independent, properly funded and able to protect the public. 3. Also fundamental is our commitment to working in the public interest by supporting and promoting a free press in a free and fair society. 4. As explained below, we intend to adopt an approach which is as open and transparent as possible, including by holding Board meetings in public, by documenting all meetings with interested people and organisations and by making public correspondence and other materials. 5. But when doing all that, we have no power to compel any press regulator to apply for recognition. Our power is in recognising any that do as complying with the criteria set out in the Royal Charter, and in removing recognition if those criteria later cease to be met. 6. The Board is pleased to have this opportunity to let the Committee know what has happened since the Panel came into existence and of our plans for the immediate future. The Board will be represented at the meeting by Dr David Wolfe QC its Chair, and by Carolyn Regan, a Member of the Board. They can provide further information, and answer the Committee’s questions. Other Board Members will be in attendance as observers, able to assist the Committee on this or other occasions on request. Appointment of the Board Members 7. The Board Members were directly appointed by an independent Appointments Panel itself appointed for this purpose by the Commissioner for Public Appointments as required by the Royal Charter. The ‘essential criteria’ applied for recruitment of the Board Members were as follows: “Successful candidates must have:  Senior level experience in public, private or voluntary sector;  An understanding of the context within which a regulator operates. Successful candidates must be able to demonstrate:  Clarity and rigour of thought, with strong analytical skills and the capacity to examine issues and reach judgements in an impartial way on the basis of the relevant evidence;  A participative approach to decision making; and  Effective communication skills, with the ability to convey complex issues clearly and compellingly.

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

To be a success the Board as whole will to need to include diversity of opinion and of representation. The Board as a whole will also need to include people with one or more of the following skills and experience:  Experience and understanding of the media industry;  Legal qualifications and skills, together with an understanding of the legal framework within which the Board must operate;  Financial skills, including experience of delivering value for money;  Experience of public policy; and  Experience of consumer rights. Successful candidates will also need to demonstrate a reputation for personal integrity, professional conduct and credibility, with an exceptional sense of propriety and regard for the Seven Principles of Public Life.” 8. Our appointment under the terms of the Charter gives us, as individuals and as a Board, the highest level of independence from any potential external influence, whether from Government, the press or elsewhere. We see that as key to the successful operation of our role. We have agreed that Board Members will commit a minimum of 20 days per year to their role (60 for the Chair). Progress to date 9. We held Board meetings on 5 December 2014 and 18 December 2014, with a third scheduled for 13 January 2015. That meeting, and our Board meetings in the future, will be generally open to the public. The Board may also hold strategy sessions. 10. Our initial priority has been to establish the Panel with policies and procedures, personnel and premises and other infrastructure to function as an organisation appropriate and fit to meet the requirements of the Royal Charter. As those things are put in place, we will also work to put in place the policies and procedures required to receive and consider applications from press self-regulators for recognition in accordance with the requirements of the Royal Charter. Timescales 11. In establishing timescales and priorities for what we do, we are well aware that the relevant provisions of sections 34-42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 will come into force (in England and Wales) on the anniversary of the Panel’s establishment i.e. 3 November 2015. Their application and operation is not our direct concern. But they provide the backdrop, in England and Wales, to our work as required by the Royal Charter. Practical steps 12. Our initial work has included setting up a web site, obtaining premises (in Fleet Street), putting in place banking and other financial arrangements and recruiting three people to assist with the initial operational tasks on a part-time and flexible basis. Further details are available on our web site. 13. The Panel has received initial funds (through the Ministry of Justice) from the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Treasury as required by the Royal Charter. Our only contact with the Government or any part of it has been in relation to mechanics of

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

receiving that money, and from officials responsible for the operation of the Freedom of Information Act who have written to us in contemplation of the application of its provisions to the Panel. We expect any further contact to be very limited and of a similar nature, if at all. It will, of course, be a matter of public record. We are clear that we are entirely independent from Government and other potential sources of external influence. We would immediately make public any attempt, direct or indirect, to influence us in our work from any quarter. Our intended approach 14. Consistent with the requirements of the Royal Charter, we have decided to operate in a fully open, transparent, and consultative way. With that in mind, we have adopted, and are consulting on, an interim/draft Statement of Mission and Approach as set out in Annex 2 to this Note. 15. At its heart are our independence and our role in helping to protect the public and also the public interest by supporting and promoting a free press in a free and fair society. It also outlines the approach we intend to take to those things. We would welcome comments from the Committee or anyone else on that proposed text. Proposed/draft policies 16. We have also adopted on an interim/draft basis those policies which we consider essential to getting going on an appropriate basis. More will follow on a similar basis in due course. Each will be subject to public consultation before final adoption so that the Board can take into account the views of people interested in its work as part of going about its task. 17. At the moment we are seeking views (by 13 February 2015) on our proposed/draft policies for:  the procedures for Board Meetings;  openness and consultation;  confidentiality;  the expression of views;  data protection;  the Freedom of Information Act;  Equality, Diversity and Inclusion;  the delegation of decision-making within the Panel;  the Panel’s role in Scotland/Northern Ireland;  indemnities;  expenses;  declarations of interest and relevant matters;  Board Member remuneration; and  disciplining the Chair and Board Members. Further details are available on our web site www.pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk, along with information about the other policies/procedures on which we expect to be consulting shortly.

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

Appointment of an Executive Director and other staff 18. We are also currently seeking to appoint an Executive Director to help recruit and lead our executive team. We hope to make an appointment in mid-January following an openly advertised process. The short timescale of advertising over the Christmas break was not ideal. But we considered it struck an appropriate balance between urgency and the need to recruit openly. 19. Once an Executive Director is in place, we will embark, with their assistance, on recruiting the full and/or part time staff we consider are necessary to give us the capacity to discharge the Royal Charter obligations and on developing the policies and procedures for that task. We will seek public views on drafts of those things. That will help us to ensure that we meet the requirements of the Royal Charter and act in the public interest by supporting and promoting a free press in a free and fair society. Communications 20. We have so far announced the items described above through our web site, through Twitter @PRPanel, and by direct communication with nearly 500 people whose names we have compiled on as wide a basis as possible to form a contact database. We have made clear that people can ask to be added to our database, and some have. No-one has yet asked to be removed although we have made clear that option. Our announcements and activities have received media coverage. Meeting with people interested in our work 21. As part of those processes we will also meet with people and organisations interested in our work – indeed meeting with the House of Lords Communications Committee is to be an early example of that. All such meetings will be formal and on the public record (unless they take place in accordance with our whistle-blowing policy). We will be specifically inviting people and organisations who we think might be interested in speaking to us, but we also welcome contact now or at any time from anyone else. 22. We envisage inviting press organisations, including press regulators, at a point where we have better developed our thinking on the mechanics of the recognition process (likely to be from Spring 2015) but we would be happy to meet them sooner, as they wish. Overall 23. We expect to be in a position to receive applications for recognition in accordance with the requirements of the Royal Charter ahead of the coming into force of the applicable provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. 24. When we attend the Committee’s meeting we would, of course, be happy to assist the Committee with any further information about our activities and plans. We also, of course, have formal obligations to report under the Royal Charter in due course.

Dr David Wolfe QC, on behalf of the Board of the Press Recognition Panel

5 January 2015

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

Annex 1: The Board of the Press Recognition Panel appointed 3 November 2014 Dr David Wolfe (Chair of the Press Recognition Panel) works as a barrister (QC) helping people and organisations who want to challenge the legality of decisions taken by public bodies and, very often, the Government itself. He was a founding Board member of the Legal Services Board, which oversees the operation of the self- regulators of lawyers and other legal professionals, and also a member of the Board of the then Legal Services Commission.

Harry Cayton is the Chief Executive of the Professional Standards Authority, the body which oversees the self-regulators of health and social care professionals across the UK. Harry was previously Director of the National Deaf Children’s Society and then Chief Executive of the Alzheimer’s Society. For five years Harry was the NHS National Director for Patients and the Public at the Department of Health. He is a Trustee of Comic Relief.

Emma Gilpin-Jacobs has worked in strategic communications for over 17 years, much of it advising media companies. From 2000- 2006, she was International Director of Public Affairs for Time Inc. Emma then worked at the Financial Times Group for six years and, from December 2013 to February 2014, as Director of Communications for the Deputy Prime Minister. At the FT, she was Global Communications Director and one of the Executive Board that successfully managed the FT’s transition to digital. Emma began her career in journalism.

Carolyn Regan was Chief Executive at the then Legal Services Commission having been Chief Executive of major NHS bodies including the North East London Strategic Health Authority, where she took the lead for the NHS in promoting London’s successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. Most recently, she was responsible for establishing and leading the newly formed NHS West London Clinical Group. Carolyn is Chair of the Board of Trustees of Just for Kids Law, a Council Member at City University, London chairing its Remuneration Committee, and a Trustee of Action Space ltd., a visual arts organisation for people with disabilities. She is a member of the appeal board for Depression Alliance. .

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

Harry Rich is the Chief Executive of the Royal Institute of British Architects and a Governor of the University for the Creative Arts. He was previously Chief Executive of Enterprise UK and Deputy Chief Executive of the Design Council. Harry served as a Board member of the Advertising Standards Authority which regulates UK advertising. Harry was a Magistrate and, for two years, an external member of the Charter Compliance Panel of the then Press Complaints Commission.

Tim Suter worked on Newsnight before becoming Deputy Head, Managing and Executive Editor for BBC Television and Radio Current Affairs. He was head of Broadcasting Policy at the Department of Culture Media and Sport before becoming the Founding Partner of Ofcom with responsibility for its regulation of broadcast and other content. Tim gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on possible structures for UK press regulation. He is a Visiting Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University and a freelance consultant who has advised a wide range of national and international media organisations including the BBC, ITV, Channel 5, The Newspaper Society and (on issues of media ownership) News Corporation.

Press Recognition Panel – written evidence (PRG0001)

Annex 2 – Our consultation draft Mission and Approach Statement “The Press Recognition Panel is the independent body set up by Royal Charter to ensure that regulators of the UK press are independent, properly funded and able to protect the public. The Panel works in the public interest by supporting and promoting a free press in a free and fair society. We do this by:

 deciding whether or not a regulator who applies for recognition complies with the criteria set out in the Royal Charter;

 making sure, through review, that they continue to meet the criteria;

 withdrawing recognition if they don’t; and

 reporting on any success of failure of the recognition system, including the impact of our work. We will perform our duties:

 independently, using to the full the complete freedom we have from state, government or any other interest, and expressing our views honestly and courageously;

 fairly, guided by the principle of understanding the public interest, ad always putting it first;

 openly, asking questions, using the widest possible range of evidence available to us to make our decisions, and explaining them clearly; and

 transparently, wherever possible holding our meetings in public, publishing our papers, and making our meetings formal and documented – ensuring that the public and those we serve can see how we are putting our principles into practice. When we consult, we will seek out, and listen to, the broadest range of views. We will speak plainly and promote the widest possible dialogue with all those with an interest in our work. When we take decisions, we will always consider how regulation can best respond to the developments in the industry on which it will impact, and the changing reality of people’s lives, behaviour and expectations. We will be challenging where challenge is necessary; we will not seek out controversy but we will speak fearlessly. Above all, we will ensure that we play a valuable, and valued, role in delivering a press independent of state regulation, but well regulated in the public interest.”

January 2015

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Evidence Session No. 1 Heard in Public Questions 1 - 21

TUESDAY 13 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Examination of Witnesses

Dr David Wolfe QC, Chairman, the Press Recognition Panel, and Carolyn Regan, Board Member, the Press Recognition Panel

Q1 The Chairman: Can I welcome both of you, Dr David Wolfe and Carolyn Regan? Thank you very much for joining us from the Press Recognition Panel. We are being broadcast and there will be a transcript of what is said. We have the public with us as well for this session, so everything is on the record. Thank you very much for joining us. You have gathered that we are not going to do another Leveson, you will be delighted to hear. This is not an inquiry that will make recommendations. What we are trying to do is bring some clarity to the position to help parliamentarians but also to help the world outside to explain exactly what the current state of play is in relation to press regulation. We are very grateful that you are able to come and start us off. You are our first witnesses and it is extremely helpful that you could join us. Could you possibly tell us a little bit about yourselves just to start with—where you are coming from and where your special interests lie? Then I am going to ask you to explain the events that led up to the creation of the Press Recognition Panel. Dr Wolfe: Yes, Chairman, thank you. Let me start, if I may. I am David Wolfe. I was appointed earlier in the year—and I will no doubt talk about the process of that in a moment—as the chair of the Press Recognition Panel. With me is Carolyn Regan, another member of the board. The other members of the board sit behind us in the audience listening and supporting us here today. Carolyn Regan: Hello, I am Carolyn Regan. I am a board member of the Press Recognition Panel and I have worked in the NHS and in legal aid. I am an independent member of City University.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Q2 The Chairman: Thank you both very much. Could you, between the two of you, explain briefly the events that led up to the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, what its role is and how you feel that it will improve press regulation in the future? Dr Wolfe: Let me have a go at that. Let me start, if I may, with the Leveson inquiry process. The Leveson report obviously made a range of recommendations. We are concerned with part 1 of that report around press regulation issues. That in turn led to the royal charter process, and obviously I can talk in more detail about any of these elements if you want me to. The royal charter process then put in place the process that has led to us being appointed and the panel coming into existence. The specific mechanism that the royal charter put in place for us to come into existence was that it required the Commissioner for Public Appointments—that is, Sir David Normington— to appoint an appointments panel of independent people, which he did, the components of which were specified. There were various categories of people who could not serve on that panel, such as members of the press, editors and so on. That panel then embarked on the process of appointing first me and then the rest of the board. They advertised in the back end of 2013 across the whole of the UK, very widely, and received applications for the chair’s job that I applied for. I was then, through a competitive process, interviewed by them in June of this year and appointed directly by them. There was no external involvement in that appointment. I was simply appointed directly by the appointments process that in turn had come from the royal charter. I then worked with the four of them, so we became a panel of five, to do the second phase of the recruitment, which was to recruit a board. Again, we advertised very widely, received a very large number of applications from people who wished to be on the board, and that process took us from the middle of June through to October. In October, the appointments for the rest of the board were announced with effect from 3 November. By operation of the royal charter, it then provides that the panel came into existence as a legal entity with the appointment of its board on 3 November. We have existed as a legal entity from that point and we then have the powers that come to us under the royal charter, so that is what we are now operating to. The Chairman: Just as a broad overview, what difference do you hope that the creation of the Press Recognition Panel will lead to? What change for the world around us will this mean? Dr Wolfe: We have two specific roles, one of which is to do with what is called recognition— that is the term used under the charter—of regulators. The other is a reporting role. Let me talk about them separately. The recognition role is that it is our job to put ourselves in a position where we can receive applications from press self-regulators for them to be recognised by us. What that means is that we then will hold them up to scrutiny against the criteria that are in the royal charter. There is a series of criteria around the independence of their board and various other facets of their organisation, against which we scrutinise them. If they meet those criteria, we will say so and they will then be what is called approved regulators. They do not have to apply to us, but if they do we have to process their applications and that is what we do. There is then a set of legislative provisions around the court process, the effect of which depends upon whether a press body is under an approved regulator or not. The framework is fairly typical of, but by no means the same as, every other oversight regulator framework—something of

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) an oversight regulator that sits above a series of front-line self-regulators. We have no role in making decisions about the actual operation of the press. Our role is simply to sit above the self-regulators and to assess their structures and frameworks against the criteria in the royal charter. The other aspect that I mentioned is our reporting role, where the charter requires us to do several bits of reporting, one of which is to report on what is called the success or failure of the recognition system. The second is to report on an annual basis whether we have received applications and how we have dealt with them. We will obviously take those very seriously and be reporting, and our reports are laid before Parliament on how the system is working or not in our view. Those are the twin tracks of what we are here to do. The Chairman: Feel free to add anything you like at any point, Carolyn. Carolyn Regan: I will.

Q3 Lord Razzall: You have explained the first bit of my question, which is how the membership was selected and who did it. I think the Committee would be interested in term—how long people are selected for—and, indeed, the term of the organisation. Is this an organisation that has an indefinite life or does it have to be reappointed? How does that work? Dr Wolfe: The narrow answer to your question is that the organisation once set up by the royal charter exists in perpetuity until it is wound up by another royal charter. There are various mechanisms such as the possibility of our surrendering the charter. That is not in contemplation but there is a mechanism for it. The Panel effectively exists for ever. We have personally been appointed for a five-year term, which can be extendable to eight years, but there is then a regime of perpetual successions - we are required in that five to eight-year period to introduce a regime of new appointments so that there is phasing into the future. Certainly, you will have the same group of us for the next five years, but after that— Lord Razzall: So five, but it could be eight? Dr Wolfe: It could be eight, exactly.

Q4 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: You said in your submission, “We envisage inviting press organisations, including press regulators, at a point where we have better developed our thinking on the mechanics of the recognition process—likely to be from Spring 2015—but we would be happy to meet them sooner, as they wish”. Could you explain the reasons for this to the Committee, because there are some fears that there is unnecessary delay or that you are taking rather longer than people had hoped? Carolyn Regan: Yes. Can I assure the Committee that we are working as fast as we can? This morning we agreed a schedule of meetings with interested parties, which we will publish. It is open for other people; in fact, we will be seeking views from a wide range of organisations and individuals, all of which will be a matter for public record. We have agreed that we would like to invite people in groups to help us with our thinking and our thoughts on how we should proceed next. We are looking to members of the Leveson inquiry as a starter, academics and commentators, also interest groups, representative bodies of journalists and representative bodies of the press. In fact, given that we had our board meeting only this morning, we will be publishing that draft schedule for comment probably tomorrow morning.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Dr Wolfe: In terms of the background to that, we take the view that we need to be a properly functioning public body, which is what the charter provides us to be. Our initial activities over the last two months have been to get going on the basic mechanics of an organisation, and that is ongoing. Now we are going into a phase where we are looking more at the detail of the regulatory framework, which is the process that Carolyn has described. You can be reassured that we are not in any sense slow-pedalling, but one of the things that is fundamental to the way we have decided to behave is that we intend to behave in a very open, transparent and—perhaps most particularly—consultative way. Rather than simply rushing in and saying, “This is what we are going to do”, we want to make sure that all the interested people and organisations can feed into how we go about what we see as a very important task. That inevitably takes a bit of time.

Q5 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Can I ask you how you are going to operate and about the costs of the administration of the panel? Presumably, the workload will depend on the extent to which you have a body that is registered with you. If there is no such body, the workload will be different. First of all, how many full-time people do you employ and is that likely to change if there is one, or possibly more than one, body that seeks and gets recognition from you? Secondly, in terms of budgeting, presumably your money is coming from the Treasury, from public funds. How much do you need going forward, depending on your workload? Carolyn Regan: Shall I start and then David can come in? We are employing at the moment three interim members of staff and we are out to advert for an executive director, who we hope to interview later this week. We have sufficient funds for our work at the moment but, as you said, this will ebb and flow depending on the volumes. We are setting a budget for the financial year, bearing in mind what we have said about keeping the members of staff and the organisation lean and mean, if I can use that well-hackneyed phrase. We feel that we have enough funds to undertake the role that we have been set up to do, but it is still very early days in terms of establishing the size of the team we need. We envisage it to be a very small team of staff, but to a certain extent that will depend on the workload as we move forward. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: I saw that there was a statement about an advance of £900,000 being given to you. How long a period is that supposed to cover? Dr Wolfe: Let me talk about the background to that. Back in the process of discussions around the royal charter, as I understand it—obviously we were not involved at that point—it was decided that the royal charter would provide that for the first three years we would receive money from the Treasury. After that, we receive money through applications, so there are two different phases in a sense. The discussions around the royal charter, as I understand it, led to figures being identified. That is the provenance of the figure that we have then been allocated for the financial year up to April, though it is a part financial year. Then, as we have been told, there will be more money in subsequent years up to the three- year point. That is where that comes from. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Is the £900,000 from November to April? Dr Wolfe: It is calculated in a slightly different way because the figure that has been allocated for an annual basis is more than that, but it has been front-loaded because of a recognition that we would do more work in the early period, so it is not £900,000 scaled up. But that has not been identified by us as the figure we need to spend; that is simply the sum that has been identified and passed over to us. I do not envisage we will spend that much, but we are

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) not in a position at the moment to tell you how much we will need. That gives us the security to be able to say to you, as Carolyn did, that we have the money and we are not going to be going begging to anybody who might then be able to influence the way we behave. That is part of securing our independence, if you like, as we have guaranteed funds.

Q6 Lord Clement-Jones: You mentioned that after the first three years you are going to make your income through fees for applications. Dr Wolfe: Yes. Lord Clement-Jones: How realistic is that? Dr Wolfe: It obviously depends on the extent to which there are applications. Lord Clement-Jones: Well, quite. How many applications do you expect to receive? Dr Wolfe: At the moment we have absolutely no idea, and certainly what the position would be in three years’ time is very difficult to identify. The royal charter says that at that point the guaranteed Treasury funds dry up, but it provides for a mechanism—not of our creation but no doubt this is what was envisaged—to enable us to continue the activity in the event that there are no applications. We need to remain in place for the royal charter to carry on, no doubt at a much lower operational level if that were the position. At the moment, we are pressing on with the current role. There may be issues down the line depending on how things come out in due course. Lord Clement-Jones: You are going to have to have scores of self-regulators all applying to you in order to be financially viable after three years, by the sound of it. Dr Wolfe: The mechanism is of application and then review. If I look into my crystal ball, if we were to get applications in the next 12 months or so, by three years down the line they would likely be review applications rather than fresh applications. It is up to us to consult and identify on a charging scheme and I am sure that we would build those things into it. It may well be that the review activity and the annual reporting activity would be a much more modest task, but that is for the future. Baroness Fookes: Before I turn to my own question, could I have a supplementary, Lord Chairman? Is it envisaged that the board members are paid as well as what one might call staff? Dr Wolfe: Do you mean in technical terms? They are employees but that is merely the legal mechanism. One of the things that the charter required us to do, for better or for worse, was to decide how much we should be paid. We made an initial decision on that and we are consulting publicly on that initial decision, as a result of which we are paid the salary equivalent of a daily rate. The royal charter required us to set those figures having regard to the rates generally paid to public sector boards, and we went through an exercise of getting data on what that would be to get benchmark figures. As I say, that is all part of a consultation at the moment. If people want to comment on what we think we should be paid, they can certainly do so. I am not sure that answers your question. Baroness Fookes: I was thinking of your budgets, but at the same time it is important that one knows what your board is going to be paid. It is what I call the usual thing for public boards, the mechanism anyway, the precise amount still to be consulted about. Dr Wolfe: Still to be finalised, yes.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Q7 Baroness Fookes: Thank you. Perhaps I could turn now to the criticism made by the Leveson inquiry that the old Press Complaints Commission was not sufficiently independent of the press. How would you ensure that you do not suffer the same criticism? In other words, how will you ensure that the press regulators are independent of the press? Carolyn Regan: Our job, as David said earlier, is to assess the applications against the criteria in the royal charter. That sets out the provision of the membership—the appointment of those boards and their funding and various other things. If the criteria are met, then they will be seen to have independence, which was seen as lacking before. Baroness Fookes: If you would refresh us, what are those criteria? Carolyn Regan: The appointment mechanism, the independence of the board membership, and the funding mechanisms. Have I missed anything? Dr Wolfe: That is the core framework that the schedule in the charter identifies. It identifies lots of other things about how they behave, but in terms of their establishment and their independence, that is the principal framework. Obviously, we will do a certain amount of fleshing out of details but that is the basic structure. Carolyn Regan: That is the core from the charter, yes. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: May I ask a supplementary on that? Do you envisage that there ever might be an occasion where nobody has come forward to seek recognition but where you may decide that you want to indicate whether any existing self-regulatory body might come within the criteria? Or do you think you are going to be entirely passive in that respect? Dr Wolfe: Our formal role, as I said at the beginning, is to receive and process applications and they would have to be applications against the criteria. We might, I suppose, say, “You have applied and you meet 22 of the 23 but you do not meet the 23rd”. One of them might be board membership, for example. Equally, I suppose, as part of our role in annually reporting on the success or failure of the system, we might say, “We have had applications from X and Y but not from Z. Z has not applied but might, if they applied, meet in some respects and not others”. I am speculating. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: I was just thinking that if you get no applications and you are getting a bit frustrated that you are sitting there doing nothing, costing the taxpayer money, and the outside world is saying, “What the hell is going on?” might you be tempted to at least put forward your views as to where the existing self-regulatory bodies failed to meet your criteria to encourage people? Carolyn Regan: My answer would be that it is a bit early to say and we have not had that debate as a board. As David mentioned, the annual report is the opportunity to look more broadly and perhaps make some comments about the current situation and the future. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I was just a bit troubled about the timeframe. I absolutely understand that the way in which the Act has framed your creation limits certain aspects of what you were minded to do. But if I understand it correctly, nothing can happen until you are up and running and ready to do business because you have to be the people who recognise these bodies. I am just a little troubled about the time this is all taking because, if there were to be someone ready to go now, in need of scrutiny, in need of regulation, you would not be able to do it. I was just wondering what timeframe you think you will be ready in.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Dr Wolfe: I will try to pick up aspects of that. As Carolyn said, we are working to do things in what we think is the right way to do it and there are various consultation processes we are going through. You can be reassured in overall terms that we are not artificially slowing ourselves down because of some horizon that we do not want to hit too early. There is no sense of that whatever. We have set out, as I said, various processes of consultation and so on and we have set shorter than what some people would think appropriate timescales for consultation and so on, so we are accelerating processes in general terms. None of that stops self-regulators coming into existence and, indeed, IPSO is obviously in existence and operating. We are consulting, among other things, on the process we are following. But, if we were to receive responses in that that said, “Hang on a minute, we want to bang on your door and make an application much more quickly than you appear to be ready”, then we would no doubt have to respond to that. That is not our sense at the moment. I do not think we are slowing anything down. If we got wind that we were slowing things down in the real world rather than on paper, then we would certainly, I am sure, want to respond to that as vigorously as we could. The legislation has some timescales built into it, because there are some provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 that come into play in November—or a year after our creation, which means November—but we are not slowing down to not meet that timescale. I am sure if we did not meet that timescale we would be subject to criticism, and we have every intention of being ready ahead of then—indeed, possibly well ahead of then. Lord Clement-Jones: Does it all stem from the fact that nothing could really happen until you were appointed as chair and, in turn, could appoint your panel? Dr Wolfe: Yes. Obviously, there was a big period of time from the Leveson report to the royal charter. There is then another big period of time. They are more or less a year in each case— a year from the Leveson report, a year to the royal charter—and then the process of appointing me took many months. I was not involved in that, obviously. I was appointed in the middle of June, and then by the time we had gone through a proper recruitment process to recruit the board, and received hundreds of applications to be on the board, that took us to October, with a November appointments date. Each of the sections has gone reasonably quickly, although I can see in overall terms that it looks like a long time. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Can I be clear about what I am worried about? There are those who would like this to be like Godot and for it to go on and on and on and never come to any conclusion because, of course, that would be the least challenging opportunity. I am just a bit anxious. I absolutely understand what you say in relation to consultation, but there are those who will argue that there was masses of consultation before you were created and there has been masses of consultation since you were appointed. What specificity do you think would have been lacking if you had gone without as much consultation as you have decided, in your wisdom, to undertake? Dr Wolfe: What we are consulting on at the moment are, if you like, organisational things. For example, we are consulting on whether we should behave as if the Freedom of Information Act applies to us, which it does not as a matter of law. We are proposing to behave as if it did. We think that is a good idea, but we want to hear people’s views on whether they think that is a good idea. Those are examples of the sort of organisational mechanics that we are doing at the moment. In terms of the phase that Carolyn was talking about of talking to groups of interested people and anybody who wants to talk to us— because we want anybody who wants to come and talk to us to come and talk to us—about

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) the actual regulatory mechanics, there are no doubt process questions. In terms of the substance of the criteria—the schedule with its 23 criteria—some of those are actually quite broad-brush. It requires things like a complaints system and it gives you a broad outline of what a complaints system should look like. We think it is a good idea—and no doubt people will tell us whether they agree with us or not—that we should flesh out in advance a bit more detail of what a good complaints system would look like before we hold up would-be regulators to scrutiny. There is a framework but there is, we think, more detail that needs to sit under it. Going back to your concern about people who will try to slow it down, I do not think we are particularly receptive to those voices and we are certainly not doing anything to slow it down from our end. Lord Horam: Let us be crystal clear about this. If a regulator came to you now, could you recognise them? Dr Wolfe: Not today, but if they came to us now and said, “We would like to make an application and we would like to make an application next week”, we would have to get our skates on to try to receive that. Lord Horam: So you are in a position to accept somebody. Dr Wolfe: Well, not today. We would have to make a decision about whether we cut across what we regard as the good process that we are undertaking in terms of public involvement and so on. I think there would be a balance to be struck between saying we can make a quick decision on an application next month as opposed to what we think the public interest balance might require, which is a greater degree of consultation on the application and so on. We would like, for example, to hear what people think about an application before we decide upon it. Lord Horam: What is your current view about whether there is likely to be an application? Can you tell the Committee whether you have any information about it? Dr Wolfe: We have no information that is not in the public domain. Lord Horam: You do not? Dr Wolfe: Certainly not, no, partly because we have been very clear that our dialogues are public dialogues. We do not propose to have any covert meetings with anybody or behind- the-scenes discussions.

Q8 Lord Horam: We were talking earlier about the number of fees you might get from various groups of people. In theory, how many bodies could apply? Are we talking about one, two, five, 10 regulators? Dr Wolfe: The royal charter specifically provides for regulators, plural, so it does not assume that there will only be one front-line self-regulator. It allows for but does not— Lord Horam: Have you formed a view, in theory, about how many there could be? Dr Wolfe: I suppose in theory there could be one for every relevant publisher. Every relevant publisher could have one regulator with one regulated—but that would be very surprising. In the public domain, already we know about IPSO and IMPRESS, from whom you are hearing and you can, no doubt, get their first-hand experience on it. Lord Horam: There may be others as well.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Dr Wolfe: We have no idea. We have no private information. All we can really say is that our role is to receive applications from anybody who comes forward. If somebody comes forward and says, “You need to change your process to cope with more or fewer regulators”, then we would have to look at that. Lord Horam: Right. What happens if nobody comes forward? Dr Wolfe: In terms of us? Lord Horam: Yes. Dr Wolfe: In terms of us, we have to remain in existence, partly because the royal charter— Lord Horam: Even though you are doing no work? Dr Wolfe: We would have to go into a phase of remaining legally in existence— Lord Horam: To hibernate. Dr Wolfe: Hibernate, yes, or a holding pattern you might call it, to be in a position to receive applications were they to come forward, partly because that is what the royal charter requires us to do, but also because, with the various court mechanisms around costs and so on, for them to bite when they come into force they are dependent on the ability of somebody to make an application. We could not shut up shop. We would have to be available. Obviously, our costs at that point would drop dramatically because we would be doing very little active. We are not planning for that; we are not expecting that. We are pressing on assuming and hoping that there will be applications. Carolyn Regan: We would want to review why, if that did happen, so we would go back to some of the previous points, I expect. Dr Wolfe: Yes. Lord Horam: Right. Coming back to the point that my colleague raised, what can you do to activate this process if another six months goes by and nothing has happened? People will get very worried and say, “What is all this about?” Dr Wolfe: We are actively—and this is part of that process—going out telling the message, as it were. In terms of the external processes, there are the legal mechanisms in the Crime and Courts Act, some of which come into force automatically. I think we mentioned this earlier on. Some of these come into force automatically at the one-year point, which is 3 November 2015, and some of them require statutory instruments to get them invoked. Lord Horam: Do you think that will make a difference? Dr Wolfe: It is not for us judge. I do not want to duck the question, but quite how the press industry will respond to those is anybody’s guess. They have obviously been framed by the parliamentary process, presumably with the idea of providing, to some extent, an incentive mechanism. They also provide easier access to court if there is not in place a regulator who can give you a low-cost alternative to court. That is the structure of them. They make it easier for you to bring libel proceedings or whatever it may be through the court process if a regulator has not come forward to put in place a workable arbitration mechanism. That is the structure of it. Baroness Deech: Just a quick preliminary before I get on to exemplary damages: are you satisfied that the members of your board are sufficiently diverse? Surveying the other

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) boards, will diversity be a condition if you ever get around to recognising someone? At the moment, it does not strike me that it is particularly a diverse world. Dr Wolfe: Yes. I was involved in the recruitment process and I am not sure I am in a position to lift the lid on the range of applications that we received and so on. You could certainly make observations about the profile of the group, but they were selected by the team appointed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and that process was subject to his audit and scrutiny. It was also very informed by things like the public sector equality duty, and it was certainly very widely advertised and received a wide trawl of people. It was also working with a set of criteria that come from the royal charter, which themselves, as so many of these processes do, steer the range of the kind of people who can apply and who are likely to succeed in those processes. One of the specific things that we are conscious of is that we have a UK-wide remit, and although the Crime and Courts Act is an England and Wales-only provision—so there is a gap in the system if you look at it that way in Scotland and Northern Ireland—we do not have any members on our board who could seriously say that they had a foot in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Baroness Deech: It is quite worrying when you realise that you one day will have to consider how the entire population of the UK gets justice from regulators if diversity has not so far entered into it and, it seems, will not enter into it when you consider recognising other panels. Dr Wolfe: I am not sure I answered that. That is, no doubt, an issue that we need to look at when we come to look at how we flesh out the criteria. Certainly, the royal charter says that our functions are public functions, and that means that things like the Human Rights Act and the public sector equality duty bite on us as they do on other public bodies. Those are certainly elements that we would need to feed into our thinking as to what the fleshing out of the criteria would look like. I can well imagine that being part of it.

Q9 Baroness Deech: Yes, because if I can echo someone at the BBC who said it, I think, it does look very much like white middle-class English capture at the moment. Anyway, leave that on one side. Exemplary damages is a complicated issue. Dr Wolfe: Yes. Baroness Deech: Could you explain to us briefly how that will work and whether or not you think that the possibility will have a chilling effect on the industry? Dr Wolfe: Let me have a go. I will talk for a moment about the exemplary damages, because there is also the costs bit. The provisions of Section 37 and the subsequent provisions of the Crime and Courts Act, which was put in place a couple of years ago, provide for a regime of exemplary damages, which is an unknown to date regime in our system of press litigation. That framework comes into play—this is the exemplary damages bit—automatically at the annual point of our creation, so that is 3 November 2015. That will come into force automatically. It does not depend upon there being a regulator in place for people to apply to. There is then a slightly complicated mechanism, which is effectively what the judge hearing a case would have to work his or her way through, which is whether or not to award exemplary damages in a particular case. The simple position is that if a relevant publisher is regulated by a self-regulator recognised by us, then none of that applies to them, or only applies to them in exceptional circumstances. If nobody comes forward to be recognised, or nobody succeeds

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) in their recognition, that exemplary damages regime will come into force as a matter of automatic process in November of this year. There is a contrast between that and the costs regime, which is also in the Crime and Courts Act, which has to be brought into force by statutory instrument and which does depend on the existence of a regulator. It is a slightly subtle position. Part of it is automatic, part of it is not. As for the effect it will have on relevant publishers, I am not sure we are in a position to speculate on that. Baroness Deech: What is a relevant publisher? Dr Wolfe: A relevant publisher is, effectively, all the press. It is a slightly complicated definition, but it captures anybody who produces something that has news content produced by different authors and under the control of an editor. That can be online or newsprint, so it catches newspapers and their online editions. Baroness Deech: And magazines? Dr Wolfe: Magazines, but magazines very often will not have a news content with separate editors. Then there are some various exemptions, some of which are quite big, like specialist technical publications, local authority newspapers, and several others. There are various exemptions, but certainly the main body of the press that were subject to the Leveson process are relevant publishers. Baroness Deech: Have you considered whether the issue of exemplary damages might form the object of complaints to the European Court of Human Rights? Dr Wolfe: We have not because I do not think it is our role to do that. No doubt that might be an issue and we might read about that as a concern in the media. That would no doubt be an issue in any litigation in which exemplary damages were awarded following November 2015. You can have a lawyer’s view on whether a claim to the European Court would succeed, but that is not the role of the panel to provide that sort of thing. Baroness Deech: You differentiated, quite rightly, between exemplary damages and costs. Can you explain to us the rationale behind the provision that costs can be awarded against a publisher even where the claim against the publisher is unsuccessful? Dr Wolfe: I can try. But it is not our baby - we just operate the system. But if you step back a step, one of the concerns that the Leveson report identified was the difficulty that people have in getting redress against press organisations. As things stand, they basically have to go through a litigation process that is costly, time-consuming and all the rest of it. Therefore, that is a very big barrier to people getting redress against the press where they feel they have a grievance. What we now have is a sort of binary system where, if it is put into effect by statutory instrument, there is either a regime that allows for what is called a “one-way cost-shifting mechanism”—in other words, if you bring a claim against a publisher, they will have to pay your legal costs either way; that is the Crime and Courts Act regime—or the regulator has put in place a low-cost alternative arbitration mechanism. In a way, those are the two alternatives, and a publisher that is regulated by a regulator who is recognised by us will only be recognised by us if they have a low-cost alternative to court, but that very fact in turn gets them out of the regime of the Crime and Courts Act. That is the rationale, I think. It is partly, no doubt, to provide incentives to sign up but also, more fundamentally, to ensure that one way or another the public can get access to a resolution mechanism without great cost.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Can I be clear on the point on exemplary damages? I may have got this confused in my own mind. If by November no body has been recognised by your panel and, therefore, there is no such body that a regulator comes under, a publisher could still be liable to exemplary damages even though there is nothing they can do about it. Dr Wolfe: Well, except that pretty much by definition the regulators that are being set up are what are called “self-regulators”. They are the initiative of the newspapers themselves or the publishers themselves. It is not that there is nothing they can do about it because it is open to publishers or groups of publishers to establish self-regulators at any time. The question to them would be, “Why have you not set up a self-regulator?” if you were posing it that way. Does that make sense? Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: No, I just wanted to be absolutely clear because I was under the misapprehension that there had to be a regulator approved by you before the exemplary damages provisions came into effect. I am obviously wrong on that point. Dr Wolfe: That is right in relation to the cost-shifting bit but not the other bit. It needs to be possible for them to apply, which is why we need to be up and ready, but as long as on 2 November they could make an application to us, if they choose not to that is not a sufficient answer to get them out of the exemplary damages regime. Baroness Bakewell: Can I take up that point? What is the time lag here? If there is no recognised regulator and a publisher is up against it and wants to become set up as a regulator, over what period of time would that take for them to come to you, fill in the application and have it considered? What are we talking about? Dr Wolfe: We have not worked through what we think the process will be to do that. Our initial view is that that process needs to be one that allows for public participation in it, because we would not simply want to receive a piece of paper. We would want to hear the views of interested people on whether they thought the applicant met the criteria, but we are not seeking to string that out. That is what we think is good practice. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we do not have a sense that there is anybody knocking on our door wanting to make an application at the moment, but if we got that sense we could, no doubt, look to accelerate our processes. But we would have to still strike a balance between what we think is a good practice way of doing it and the urgency that they were expressing to us. Baroness Bakewell: Give me some idea. Are we talking six weeks, six months, six years? Dr Wolfe: We certainly intend to be in a position well ahead of November for somebody to make an application. As for how long it would take us to process that, we do not have a view but it is going to be weeks and early months rather than any longer than that. I am speaking on the hoof because we have not— Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Is this not the position? From the moment everyone knew that this process was possible, all the agencies could have, if they wished, started to look at how they were going to implement Leveson. Dr Wolfe: Absolutely. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: They should have been forming their regulatory bodies now in a compliant way with the Leveson procedures. Simultaneously, you should be setting up the regulatory framework as quickly as possible and, in any event, not later than November, because if you fail to do that all of the current entities can say, “It is not our fault. There is no regulator. There was nothing we could do”.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

Dr Wolfe: Exactly right. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: But if you were speedy and were ready to roll by, for example, next week, then anyone who was willing and able to put themselves into a Leveson- compliant way could apply to you to be regulated, so that after November all the publishers would be able to say, “We have had all the period from Leveson to now to be compliant if we so choose”. Dr Wolfe: Yes. Assuming for the moment that we do our job and we are in a position to receive their applications, if after November they choose not to make applications, then that will not be because we have not done our bit of that framework. It will be because they are choosing either to not comply with the criteria or to not make an application.

Q10 Lord Dubs: According to your written submission, you have no power to compel any press regulator to apply for recognition. It has to entirely happen from them. What is the rationale behind that? Dr Wolfe: That is the position in which we find ourselves. That is the framing of the royal charter and I think it has its roots in Lord Leveson’s recommendations. He recommended, essentially, a framework of a recognition oversight body and then what turned into the Crime and Courts Act provisions, but not with an oversight regulator that had the power to compel. Lord Dubs: Do you think that if you felt there was a need for such recognition you could say to the regulator, “Why do you not?” Could you encourage them informally if you do not have the powers of compulsion? Dr Wolfe: As Carolyn said earlier, we are going to meet actively with regulators if they want to meet with us. We will certainly be doing our best to dispel any misunderstandings they have about our role or how we are doing it or any of those things. We hope that will provide them with a degree of encouragement to apply, but obviously they have to be potentially compliant first. We are also—and this is part of it—meeting with you today very much on the front foot in putting the message out so that we begin to get a clearer public understanding of the framework. I think it is fair to say that there is not a lot of public understanding at the moment. We see our role as including an element of that public education. Lord Dubs: That public education could include saying to them, “Look, the most sensible thing would be if you were to apply. We cannot make you, but do not be silly. If you do not do it, you cannot sit on the sidelines”. Dr Wolfe: Yes, I suppose we could. We can certainly say to them, “If after November we are in a position to receive your application and you have not made one, then that is very demonstrably your public choice to stand outside the framework that came from the Leveson report”. At that point, on November 4 or whenever, it will only be their decision. Lord Dubs: Yes, but as I said a minute ago, you have the power to— Dr Wolfe: Cajole. Lord Dubs:—be persuasive, to cajole, to encourage, and to say to them, “Do not be bloody silly”. Dr Wolfe: Yes. The Chairman: Can I pick you up on one of the key points? Dr Wolfe: Of course.

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11)

The Chairman: You are boxed in; you have to follow certain criteria. Your criteria include that the funding of the regulatory body must be independent, independent funding, yet the reality is that it is almost certain to be paid for by the publishers themselves. Does that square? You are not going to rule anybody out because the money comes from the people who are being regulated, but how do we then get independence in terms of funding if it is for sure the people who are being regulated who are paying for the regulator? Dr Wolfe: We have not yet—and it is one of our next immediate tasks—begun to work through those criteria to unravel the potential dilemmas that you have identified. We will obviously have to do our best to make them work because the underpinning for us is to try to get in place a regime that is as compliant as it can be to protect the public interest and a free press, which we see as underpinning everything we do. I do not think it is going to help anybody if we turn around and say, “This is internally inconsistent and cannot be made to work”, because the target for us all is an appropriately overseen free press where we have a role to play in that structure. Baroness Deech: Chairman, I hope I did not miss this. How many full-time staff do you have and how often does your board meet? Carolyn Regan: The board meets monthly and we have a programme for the next year. We have three interim members of staff at the moment. Dr Wolfe: But they are all part-time. Carolyn Regan: Yes.

Q11 The Chairman: You are rightly saying that this is an opportunity to inform the public. Thank you for that. Is there anything that you would like to inform us and the wider world about? Dr Wolfe: We have covered everything. Carolyn Regan: I think we have covered it, yes. Dr Wolfe: Just to draw your attention back, we have given you a copy of our mission statement, which we are consulting on, that frames what we think our role is. We have hoped to summarise this afternoon how we are going about doing that. We are enthusiastic to receive anybody’s views on that statement, but also behind it, on our website, are a number of other policies - I have identified a couple here today. They are about organisational mechanics, and we are keen to receive views on those things. Part of that, you will have seen, is that we have taken a conscious decision to position ourselves as a very transparent, open organisation because we think that is the right way to do it. As an example of that, we had our third board meeting this morning. That was open to the public. We were grateful to have members of the public there and we hope to build on that in the future. Although Carolyn has indicated that we have a programme, we are going to invite people proactively. Anybody else who wants to come and speak to us, press regulators, individuals, organisations, academics— Carolyn Regan: Interest groups. Dr Wolfe:—commentators, interest groups, we are very happy to meet them. All those meetings will be a matter of public record. They may be held behind closed doors, but they will be a matter of public record. We will not be having under-the-radar conversations with

Press Recognition Panel – oral evidence (QQ 1-11) anybody because we do not think that is the right way to do it in this context, if at all. That is the positioning that we have identified, but if anybody wants to comment on that, or anything else, we are actively seeking views. Carolyn Regan: We would welcome that, yes. Dr Wolfe: We would welcome that. The Chairman: You have been very helpful and informative for us. I hope that we have been helpful to your getting your messages out into the world. Dr Wolfe: You have. Thank you for your questions. Carolyn Regan: Thank you. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming.

Press Recognition Panel – supplementary written evidence (PRG0008)

Further to the Press Recognition Panel’s oral evidence to the House of Lords Communications Select Committee on Tuesday afternoon in connection with its inquiry into press regulation, I am attaching two letters for the Committee’s information – one to the Chair of IMPRESS and one to the Chair of IPSO - to emphasise some of what Carolyn Regan and I said in evidence to the Committee in relation to timescales and dialogue.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify (as we did in our oral evidence to the Committee on Tuesday) the relationship between the Panel’s coming into existence (3 November 2014) and the related provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

Sections 37-39 of the Act make provision for exemplary damages. By operation of section 61(7) of the Act, they come into force automatically one year from the date the Panel came into existence, namely 3 November 2015. They will apply whether or not a body has been recognised (by the Press Recognition Panel) as an approved regulator by that date.

Sections 40-42 of the Act make provision for costs orders and the definition of ‘relevant publisher’ in section 41 and Schedule 15 (which also applies to the exemplary damages provisions). They need to be commenced by Order by the Secretary of State (as set out in section 61(2) of the Act). By operation of section 40(6) of the Act, the costs provisions of section 40, even when commenced, do not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.

As explained in our evidence to the Committee and reiterated in the attached letters, while allowing sufficient time for appropriate public involvement in the establishing our approach to the task, we intend to be in a position to process applications for recognition before 3 November 2015. However, we have made clear that we would review that timescale if any regulator was to let us know that it was being prejudiced by our current plans. We have also made clear that we are keen to meet and discuss all relevant matters with any such regulator as they request.

Please do let me know if I can assist the Committee further.

Encs: Letter to Walter Merricks CBE, Chair of IMPRESS Letter to Sir Alan Moses, Chair of IPSO

16 January 2015

Press Recognition Panel – supplementary written evidence (PRG0008)

The Press Recognition Panel

107-111 Fleet Street London

EC4A 2AB

16 January 2015

Walter Merricks CBE, Chair Designate, IMPRESS

Dear Walter,

It was good to welcome a member of your team as an observer at our Board Meeting on Tuesday morning and then to see you, Jonathan Heawood and other colleagues from IMPRESS at the House of Lords Communications Select Committee on Tuesday afternoon.

I am writing formally to follow up and emphasise some of what Carolyn Regan and I said in evidence to the Committee.

As you know, the Press Recognition Panel came into existence as a legal entity on 3 November 2014 with the appointment of its Board Members under the Royal Charter on that date. Since then, we have started the work to put in place the organisational and regulatory system and processes required for us to consider and decide on applications from press self-regulatory organisations that want to be recognised as compliant with the recognition criteria in Schedule 3 of the Royal Charter.

We believe that is important to frame our approach to those things in the light of an understanding of the views of all interested persons and so we plan to consult on them in the next few months. We intend to be in a position to process any applications before 3 November 2015, the date when the provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 relating to exemplary damages come into force for the purpose of legal actions brought against relevant publishers.

It is our understanding that IMPRESS will not be looking to make an application imminently. However we wish to make clear that we would look to accelerate our plans if our timescales were putting you to any disadvantage in that regard.

On a separate but related matter, as you know, we have made it clear that we are keen to hear from, and potentially meet with, anyone with an interest in our work. As part of that, our Board agreed at its meeting on Tuesday to hold a series of meetings with interested parties over the coming months including with regulators such as IMPRESS. We currently intend that to be later in the schedule but if you felt that an earlier meeting would be helpful, we would of course respond positively.

For the record, I should emphasise that it is the Board’s policy that the fact of meetings with

Press Recognition Panel – supplementary written evidence (PRG0008) interested parties are a matter of public record. However, the Board is entirely open as to whether the content of the meeting itself would be wholly private, or whether it would be held in private but with an agreed note published afterwards, or indeed entirely in public.

I am copying this letter to the Chair of the House of Lords Communications Committee, as these issues were touched on in our oral evidence on Tuesday.

I hope this clarification is helpful. Yours sincerely,

Dr David Wolfe QC Chair of the Press Recognition Panel cc Lord Best Chair, House of Lords Communications Committee House of Lords London SW1A 0PW

Press Recognition Panel – supplementary written evidence (PRG0008)

The Press Recognition Panel 107-111 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AB

Sir Alan Moses 16 January 2015 Chair, IPSO

Dear Sir Alan,

The Press Recognition Panel gave oral evidence to the House of Lords Communications Select Committee on Tuesday afternoon in connection with its inquiry into press regulation. I understand that you are scheduled to give evidence at their next meeting, on 20 January 2015.

I am writing formally to follow up and emphasise some of what Carolyn Regan and I said in evidence to the Committee.

It is our understanding that IPSO has no current plans to make an application for recognition. However we wish to make clear that we would look to accelerate our plans if our timescales were putting IPSO to any disadvantage in regard to any decision it may make about submission of an application. Do please let us know if that is, or becomes, the case.

On a separate but related matter, we have made it clear that we are keen to hear from, and potentially meet with, anyone with an interest in our work. As part of that, our Board agreed at its meeting on Tuesday to hold a series of meetings with interested parties over the coming months including with regulators such as IPSO. We currently intend that to be later in the schedule but if you felt that an earlier meeting would be helpful, we would of course respond positively.

Press Recognition Panel – supplementary written evidence (PRG0008)

For the record, I should emphasise that it is the Board’s policy that the fact of meetings with interested parties are a matter of public record. However, the Board is entirely open as to whether the content of the meeting itself would be wholly private, or whether it would be held in private but with an agreed note published afterwards, or indeed entirely in public.

I am copying this letter to the Chair of the House of Lords Communications Committee, as these issues were touched on in our oral evidence on Tuesday.

I hope this clarification is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Dr David Wolfe QC Chair of the Press Recognition Panel cc Lord Best Chair, House of Lords Communications Committee House of Lords London SW1A 0PW

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Evidence Session No. 3 Heard in Public Questions 42 - 67

TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2015

Members present

Lord Best (Chairman) Baroness Bakewell Lord Dubs Baroness Fookes Baroness Hanham Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Lord Horam Lord Razzall Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury ______

Examination of Witness

Paul Vickers, Chairman, Regulatory Funding Company

Q51 The Chairman: Now we switch to the chairman of the Regulatory Funding Company, Paul Vickers. Thank you very much for joining us. For the record, as we are being broadcast and there will be a transcript of everything that happens, will you tell us briefly about yourself and your engagement with the issue today? Paul Vickers: I am, as you say, the chairman of the Regulatory Funding Company. Until about two weeks ago, I was the secretary and group legal director of Trinity Mirror. I was made redundant just before Christmas, but I continue in my industry role for the moment. I was asked to become chairman of the RFC because I was very heavily involved with working with the industry to create what became IPSO. I was chairman of a group that changed its name on a couple of occasions but ended up as the industry implementation group. At the core of that were about 20 people from different parts of the newspaper and magazine industries, national and regional newspapers. Before that I was part of a small group, which again changed in number, but there were four of us who were there all the time who engaged with Government and with all political parties soon after Leveson to see whether we could come up with what Leveson had recommended—an industry solution for a new voluntary, independent, self-regulatory system. So I was involved really from that; I gave written evidence to Leveson and ran the Trinity Mirror dealings with Leveson. As you will see from my draft biography, I was also the director of PressBoF, the funding group for the old PCC. I was not on that for very long—only about three years. Just in case it is raised later on, I am the only person who was the director of PressBoF who is also now a director of the RFC.

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Q52 The Chairman: Thank you for that. Could you explain the Regulatory Funding Company, what it comprises and what its budget is? Paul Vickers: I was asked if I wanted to make an opening statement, and I said that I did not, but one point is worth clarifying right at the beginning, which will lead in to answering your question. They are portrayed by Evan Harris as the Hunt-Black proposals to Leveson, but while Guy and David had their names on that piece of paper it was a document that was produced after wide consolation within the industry. One key proposal that we put to Leveson which he accepted was that whatever regulator, whatever form it took, should have the ability in certain circumstances to impose what we have for shorthand purposes called fines. The famous £1 million fine came from a recommendation in that industry submission, and was adopted by Leveson. I know there are many, many lawyers on the Committee. You will know that there are only really two ways in which to impose a fine. The first is by statue. Short of statute or common law, you need to find a system to be able to impose a fine, and the only other way in which to do that is by a contract. You need to get people to agree that they will put themselves into a position in which they are prepared to pay money. You need to have a system of enforcing that agreement to pay money, again through a contract. So if someone has agreed to a contract to pay a certain amount of money in certain circumstances and fail to do so, you can use the courts to enforce the contract. If you accept—I know that some do not, but most do—that we should not be on a statutory route, the only vehicle left to set up a voluntary independent self-regulator is by a contract. Lots of the things that people complain about in the complexity of the system that we have created come mainly from that issue: that to get there and to be able to get to the fines you need a contractual system. The RFC is technically a company, and it is limited by guarantee. Its members are IPSO members and shareholders, and signatories to the contract with IPSO. So you have two parties to the contract: IPSO on one side and 96 parties on the other side who are the publisher signatories to the IPSO contract. Again, we recognised that it would be ridiculously cumbersome to be in a position where, if there needed to be any change, amendments or discussion between the parties to those contracts, we had to set up IPSO on one side with all the 96 parties. So the RFC was created as a vehicle to enable those discussions to take place. It was also thought by some—and you can have a debate on this— that it was repugnant for a regulator to deal directly with those that it regulated in relation to raising money. So the RFC is put between IPSO and its individual members, but made up of those members, to collect the money from the members. So if someone was in default of payment, it would not be IPSO that pursued them but the RFC. We raise the money from the members of IPSO and pay it over. The RFC board is made up of nine people, unfortunately all men. There are four from the national newspapers, four from the regional newspapers and one from magazines. Each person is nominated by their sector. In future, we expect to have elections, if necessary, but the first time round we got the right number of people who were nominated, and they were directly appointed. I was directly appointed from the national sector and the other directors asked me to chair the board, but I am elected by the other members of the board of the RFC. That is a bit of a monologue, but I hope that that gives you the picture. The Chairman: Yes. The budget? Paul Vickers: The RFC’s budget is £2.5 million per annum, most of which, around £2.4 million, is going to be paid over to IPSO. The other £100,000 is to cover the RFC’s admin

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58) costs. We have a secretariat; we hire some people to do that for us. It is also to pay the costs, when there are any, of the Editors’ Code committee. The Chairman: And that funding comes from the 96 signatories. Paul Vickers: Yes. It is split, roughly, 63% from the nationals, 32% from the regionals and the remainder from the magazines. Again, someone suggested that this is confidential; I do not think it is. Within each sector, the intention is that the share within the 63% and so on would be on a revenue share basis. We have set up a system whereby companies can submit their unpublished revenue figures in confidence, add up the total and divide it appropriately. Just for absolute clarity, that is not the system that is being used for the first year. Everybody has their favourite bit of Leveson, and I shall quote my bit in a moment. But the regionals’ favourite passage in Leveson is that any new system of regulation should not cost them a penny more than they were paying before. We agreed for year one at least, and hopefully for the future, that the individual regional companies, per company, would not pay any more than they were paying before. That applies to the magazines as well.

Q53 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: You very helpfully told us that you were the legal director and company sectary at Trinity Mirror, and from what you have indicated you were one of the architects, if not the architect, of the structure that IPSO then took over. Am I correct? Paul Vickers: I would not want to claim in any way that I was the architect. A document was produced by the industry, heavily negotiated—four of us negotiated it with the Government—and then it changed. I was certainly involved. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Heavily involved, so my phrase “one of the architects” would be accurate. So from your legal experience you were, I am sure, very well aware of the concerns expressed by Calcutt in his two reports and you would have followed very closely the information and recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in his report as to the nature of a body that should then take on the role of regulator. Can you just help me, because I am a little perplexed, as to how you argue that the structure that you created in IPSO was capable of meeting the Leveson criteria? Paul Vickers: I do not know why you would be perplexed. We do not recognise the Media Standards Trust analysis of the various different points of failure. By a judgment against either the broad thrust of Leveson—and we must remember that Leveson was not holy writ—or the majority of individual recommendations, our system would comply. One thing that is absolutely clear is that it does not, and by the end was not intended to, comply with the very tight requirements of the recognition criteria in the royal charter. There was a point when we were in negotiations when we thought there was a royal charter proposal that most of the industry would be able to accept, and I think that we would have got there with a structure. When we thought that we had a deal—we had not shaken hands on it, but as good as—things were changed after that point, and from that point on we no longer tried to devise a system that would meet the royal charter recognition system. But for what Leveson was trying to solve, the broad thrust of what he was recommending, we feel that we got there. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I just want to make sure that I heard you. You said that you no longer tried to satisfy—

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Paul Vickers: That was after whatever it was—the pizza meeting at 3 o’clock in the morning, where frankly we felt bitterly let down. We had done a deal and managed to get most of the industry together and agreed with very senior politicians, but then we were not consulted in the last 48 hours. From that point on, we said that we had done our best and that what we should now do was create a system that worked. So that is what we tried to do. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: So what is your relationship with IPSO now? Paul Vickers: It is as cordial as it can be. We are certainly not in each other’s pockets. You have met Sir Alan Moses and read some of his comments over the last year. He is very robust; he is super-independent—he slightly shoots from the hip, but he says what he thinks. We have a perfectly professional relationship with him. One of the things that we stress to him, which he says that he hears, is that it took a long time to negotiate with as many parties as we did to get the structure that we eventually managed to get. There were loads of people who did not want to be part of this system, and compromises were made along the way. One of the parties that we bent over backwards most to accommodate was, in fact, the Guardian. So lots of the features of IPSO that are there at the moment are there because the Guardian asked for them, and it is perhaps overcomplicated partly because of some of those things. As you will know, once you are signed up to a contract, it should be impossible in law for one party to that contract to unilaterally change the terms of that contract. So when Sir Alan says that he is going to put a red line through a whole load of things, he cannot do that. We have said, “Come and talk to us when you’ve got some experience of running the system as it was designed to be set up and, if things are not working, we will talk about it and see whether through the signatory members of the industry we can change the system”. We are open to that. We had one meeting with Sir Alan and that team on that very point a couple of weeks ago. We are due to meet him again on Friday this week, but we are waiting to see his very detailed proposals for changes to regulation. I hope that we get them before Friday, and we can have a proper discussion with him then. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: So which publications do you raise the levy on at the moment? Can you help us a little bit about how that levy is set? Paul Vickers: I do not carry a list in my head, but it is all the nationals other than the famous three; the Guardian, the Independent and the FT are not signatories. It is the vast majority of the regional press—I would say 99% of the regional press have signed on; there are some very small publishers who have not signed on. Then it is the big magazine publishers. Magazines have a very long tail of small publishers, so we have some small publishers and some web-only publishers, although unfortunately just a couple. But it is the vast majority by number and circulation of the British printed press. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Were you aware when you were creating this system that concerns and complaints were being made by Mark Lewis about your own newspaper? Paul Vickers: Of course I was. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Mirror admitted on 24 September last year the liability in relation to phone-hacking. Did that experience influence the way in which you crafted the regulatory framework? Paul Vickers: Not particularly. Obviously, all that was in the background—not the Mirror as such, but phone-hacking was the thing that caused Leveson to be set up. That was the

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58) atmosphere in which all this was being discussed, and of course that was in the background. I do not think anything is in the IPSO documents that relates to anything in particular that Mark Lewis had to say at this stage. Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One of the fundamental things that came up through Leveson was the need for independence—the need for clarity, and for those who paying the piper not to call the tune, so there was some separation between the two. Bearing in mind that you knew about the difficulties that all the different publications were having, including yours, why did you believe that that lack of separation was not as fundamentally important as it appeared to Sir Brian Leveson and others, who said that that separation was essential? Paul Vickers: I struggle with the way in which you are putting the question, because I think you are conflating two completely separate things. Mark Lewis and others made some claims which, at the point when they were originally made, the Mirror could not establish were true. That was going on in one place. I should have said at the very beginning that I am no longer authorised to speak on behalf of the Mirror; I am not a director there any more, but I was obviously around during that period. Following a very detailed investigation and Dan Evans’s guilty plea, the Mirror—actually, it was mainly the Sunday Mirror—accepted that there had been some phone-hacking going on. That was going on from one side. The discussions around IPSO had nothing to do with that; they had nothing to do with those discussions. The Chairman: I need to bring in Lord Razzall and the independence question that he is pursuing.

Q54 Lord Razzall: I must say that I am intrigued by one of the things that you said to Baroness Scotland. As you will appreciate, at the core of complaints coming from the other side is that the press are, to use her phrase, paying the piper and calling the tune. If you are naive, or from Mars, you might assume that a company that is called the Regulatory Funding Company was just about funding the regulator. That is what the name says. Yet in your answer to Baroness Scotland, you say that if Sir Alan Moses wanted to take a red pen to a lot of the code you will not let him do so. That seems to blur the distinction between what the regulator does and the funding company—because the world would assume that the Regulatory Funding Company was so named because it provides the funding, and the regulator, IPSO, got on with the regulation. But your answer seems to imply that that is not the view of your board, or indeed of yourself. In the context of that answer, how do you claim to be independent, and how do you safeguard your independence? Paul Vickers: IPSO will regulate. Lord Razzall: You said that if Sir Alan comes along and takes a red pen, as he told us that he would like to do, it has nothing to do with him. Paul Vickers: IPSO will regulate. The basis on which it has been asked to regulate is on an agreed set of regulations, which are set up to enable it to in effect police the Editors’ Code. Lord Razzall: Which you own, not them. Paul Vickers: Which we own. Lord Razzall: But why do you own it if you are just the Regulatory Funding Company?

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Paul Vickers: The answer is in the title. It is the Editors’ Code. The code committee was convened by the Regulatory Funding Company—that has been our last involvement in it— and we own the copyright on the code. Lord Razzall: But why, is my question? If you are the Regulatory Funding Company, what does the code have to do with you? Surely it has to do with the regulator. Paul Vickers: No, because the regulator has been set up to regulate on the basis on which it has been set up. We have set it up, and we have said, “This is the set of rules under which the majority of the press have agreed that they should act. This is the set of rules under which we ask you to regulate us. Please now get on and regulate us”. Lord Razzall: But I am sure you understand, if that is your approach, why people are sceptical about your claim to be independent. Paul Vickers: I think the important elements of independence are the people involved, the process by which they are put in place, and their ability, once they have been in place, to regulate without interference. All those structures are in place. One of the big criticisms that people have made in the past is that one of the things that you will be able to do is to deny them the funds to regulate. We had a very amiable discussion with Sir Alan Moses and Matt Tee about the amount of money that they needed. We had a little gentle arm wrestling over one or two things, and they got what they asked for. We, and they, recognise that this first year is a bit “suck it and see”. We hope that their costs will come down. Lord Razzall: I am not worried about your ability to starve them of money, I am much more worried about your ability not to allow them to amend the Editors’ Code of Practice in the way that they are required to, in their view, to regulate the press properly. Paul Vickers: Focusing on the Editors’ Code of Practice is one of the very few things that was part of the old system that came out almost unscathed from Leveson. It has been very highly praised. On one level, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. One thing that we have done under the new system— Lord Razzall: But as you know, that is not Sir Alan Moses’ view. Paul Vickers: He is now part of the code committee, as is Matt Tee. As a new feature, three laymen will be appointed to that code committee as well. They will have much more involvement than they had in the past. As Sir Alan said in his evidence to you—I would not quite use the word that he used, which was “veto”—there cannot be any changes to the code itself unless the board of IPSO agrees with them. There are quite a lot of checks and balances in there, but it comes back to a fundamental principle: I am not a journalist, as has been pointed out, but when very many journalists say that journalists themselves should be the ones who create the code under which they think they should write. It comes back to their understanding of issues of freedom of speech. If you start handing it over to other people, it is being done by people other than journalists. The Chairman: Can we stay with the code? Baroness Bakewell, you had another point.

Q55 Baroness Bakewell: I am interested in the ownership of this code. You have said that you have the copyright of a code which journalists feel journalists should shape and that should govern the industry. Will you share it with other regulators?

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Paul Vickers: We have not been asked to, and it will not be my decision, but if asked it is something that we would consider. It has not been widely publicised, but we have already licensed it to the FT. The FT says that it is not a British newspaper; it is an international digital information service. In the UK, they would like their journalists to be governed by the code. We have said, “Fine”. We have granted them the licence on the strict terms that if they want to use the code, they use the code as it stands. They do not play with it, they do not amend it, they do not substitute parts of it. The FT is now using it under licence. Baroness Bakewell: Let us suppose that another existing regulator came to you and said, “The code is for journalists. Journalists obeying a good code is good for the press in Britain across the board”, what would your considerations be in deciding whether to share it with them? What would inhibit you? Paul Vickers: It would not be my decision on my own. One of the things that we would be concerned about is, as I have just said, that on the code committee there will be representation from the board of IPSO. We would not want to expand that, because it would dilute it, unless we added to the number of journalists on the committee for every person who was a non-journalist. Baroness Bakewell: Would there be any objection to that? Paul Vickers: You would end up with a very, very big body. There are some practical issues with that sort of proposal, but we have not set our faces against others using it. We question why, if people were so keen on the code, they did not join IPSO. It is not something that we currently propose to use as some sort of weapon or tool. Baroness Bakewell: Do you believe the code can be improved? Paul Vickers: Yes, everything could be improved. Baroness Bakewell: So it will steadily improve— Paul Vickers: Yes. Baroness Bakewell: —at people’s suggestions, but those suggestions will come from members of IPSO? Paul Vickers: Actually the code committee periodically consults the public on changes to the code. In the old days it consulted within the industry. In the future it will be among the signatories to IPSO. It consults its members, it consults more widely, it has taken into account the views of IPSO through the members of the code committee, and if amendments are agreed they will be made. Baroness Bakewell: You said that you consult the public? Paul Vickers: Yes. Baroness Bakewell: How do you do that? Paul Vickers: They put notices on the website and announce a public consultation. Baroness Bakewell: Have you done that so far? Paul Vickers: Not recently. They launched a public consultation two or three years ago. Baroness Bakewell: When will the next one be?

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Paul Vickers: I do not know, because I am not on the code committee. I have no influence in any way over the code committee. Baroness Bakewell: But you anticipate there being another one? Paul Vickers: I imagine there will be, yes. I think they have to decide how much of the last public consultation they will take into account. I cannot imagine there will be one very soon, but they do do them. Lord Dubs: You might have answered this already, but do you see the evolution of the code as a dynamic process where there is a full review of the code at intervals, or do you see it as just making minor changes at the margins? Paul Vickers: I think it is somewhere between the two. I do not think there is any desire to rip it up and start from scratch, but certainly if things are shown to be not working, are imprecise or difficult to understand, or need to be brought up to date, they will be.

Q56 Lord Horam: You explained, Mr Vickers, how the board of the RFC is constituted. In what way does the RFC differ from PressBoF? Paul Vickers: Under the old PressBoF system, the directors of PressBoF were nominated and appointed through the trade associations. The Newspaper Publishers Association had the right to nominate I think three people, as did the Newspaper Society. The directors were directly appointed by the newspaper and magazine trade associations. Lord Horam: And now? Paul Vickers: Now the members of the RFC who are the signatories to IPSO will nominate people to the board. If there are more than the four from the nationals, four from the regionals and one from the magazines, we will hold elections. It is £1, one vote, as part of that process.

Q57 Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Can I return to the question of the funding of IPSO? Sir Alan may come to you and say, “I need more money than is in the budget in order to do my work effectively”, and no doubt there will be discussions about whether or not the RFC agrees with that and how it can meet his requirements. If there is disagreement between the RFC and Sir Alan, and he says, “I need the money”, and you do not agree, who has the final word? Paul Vickers: No one has the final word. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: How would that be resolved then? Paul Vickers: They will carry on with the budget that we agreed beforehand, and I suppose there will be a stand-off. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: So in that event, if you do not increase the budget to Sir Alan once, he will not able to do the job that he needs to do. Paul Vickers: Arguably yes. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: You would exercise a veto over him in that sense. Paul Vickers: I do not think it is exercising a veto; it is simply not agreeing.

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58)

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Yes, but what I mean is that if he says, “I need to do that piece of work”, and you say, “I’m not giving you the money to do it”, you are stopping him doing him what he wants to do. Paul Vickers: It depends on what the piece of work is. There has been some debate about standards investigations and a sum of money has been agreed that is ring-fenced for the nationals—I think it is only £100,000—to enable him to launch his first standards investigation. There is a separate fund for that. We obviously hope that there will be no fines in the future, and there is a lot of debate about whether it would be a good or a bad thing for the first £1 million fine to be levied. The fines go into a pot for him to use for future investigations, so he will build up a kitty, almost, out of which to fund future standards investigations. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: I understand that, but I will put the question more simply. Imagining that there is what you have called the possibility of a stand-off, the stand-off simply means not giving him the money? Paul Vickers: Yes. Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury: Okay, thank you. Baroness Hanham: I just want to understand this. The people who are funding you are basically the IPSO sign-ups: the people who are supporting IPSO. What do you base your budget on? Are there four layers of subscription? What do you do? Do you say, perhaps not having discussed it with IPSO, “This year, we are going to raise a certain amount of money and these are the subscriptions that we are going to ask for from the various organisations”? If that is based on the budget you are going to give IPSO, that seems to be something that needs to be properly negotiated. If it is something that you think is the most you can raise from the members of IPSO who are giving their money to you to give back to IPSO, how does the system work? Paul Vickers: I hope we have demonstrated to Sir Alan that there will be reasonableness, and perhaps we ought to shine a brighter light on it, but this is where there is a slight divergence from what was formally set out in the contract. The contract said that an initial budget should be agreed for year one. Baroness Hanham: Between the two of you? Paul Vickers: Between IPSO and the RFC. That budget would apply for the subsequent five years. When the contracts were entered into, there was a yet to be agreed mechanism for agreeing the rate of annual increase. We agreed with Sir Alan that he would in effect inherit, for the first six months of operation for the last year, the basis of the budget that was there before. He has not complained that he has not been able to do his job. Baroness Hanham: So he is inheriting the PCC’s budget? Paul Vickers: Not the PCC’s budget but the level of funding while he got his foot under the table and, with Matt Tee, who was appointed from outside, got to understand the system and to work out what they needed. They have done that. After a few months of operation, they have come forward with their proposed budget for 2015. There are a couple of things in there over which we have raised an eyebrow, but other than that we have basically agreed the amount of money that will be paid for operations in 2015. Sir Alan was very keen that IPSO should set up in its own offices. He did not simply want to move into what were, to be

Regulatory Funding Company – oral evidence (QQ 51-58) frank, the quite nice offices that the PCC had. There was a bit of concern about whether that was unnecessary expenditure, but he is moving to his new offices, and the industry is funding that. As I think Matt Tee mentioned, there is an extra £500,000, which had not been taken into account, which is being funded to enable him to do that. He is not being stopped from doing anything. He has engaged Matt. I do not think I can tell you what Matt is paid, but it is a very generous salary. It is significantly more than the director of the PCC was ever paid. I do not know whether you saw in the Sunday Times over the weekend that he is advertising for three more senior staff, all on really quite generous salaries. He is not being starved of funds. Actually, I do not think he claims he is being starved of funds.

Q58 The Chairman: We heard in the earlier session that there was hope for a hotline for journalists who felt pressurised in IPSO. Is the fact that there has not— Paul Vickers: It should be there. As you know, I came in slightly late, but I heard that. If I have the right to be cross, I am very cross that that is not there. In my role, I do not have the right to be cross. The Chairman: It is not a constraint of the financial arrangements? Paul Vickers: No, it should be there. I do not have the status to ring Sir Alan up and say, “Why haven’t you done it? Do it”, but if I did I would do that; I would have a quiet word. It should be there. I do not know why it is no. The Chairman: Okay, thank you for that. Any final remarks that you would like to make? Paul Vickers: Just one thing: the differences between the old system and the new system. It is on a note that David passed forward. David, who is the director of two of the trade associations, was a director of PressBoF. Somebody in his role is expressly excluded from being on the board of the RFC. It has to be somebody from the industry. One of the big differences between the new system and the old system is that PressBoF itself appointed the chairman of the PCC. I am pretty certain he was an employee of PressBoF. The contract was with PressBoF. It is a completely different system under Sir Alan. I do not have time to go into it now, but one of the most cumbersome parts of the IPSO process was the appointment of the chairman and the board. We had the famous Foundation Group, chaired by Lord Phillips. The Foundation Group was wholly independent, although it had representatives of the press on it. It then appointed the appointments panel, which then appointed Sir Alan, who joined the appointments panel and appointed the rest of his board. The RFC did not do that. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for that, Paul Vickers. Thank you for joining us.

Society of Editors – written evidence (PRG0005)

The Leveson Inquiry concluded that the best solution for press regulation would be for the industry itself to create a new self-regulatory regime.

This has been achieved through the establishment of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. More than 90 per cent of the newspaper and magazine industry is contracted to the organisation thus demonstrating support and providing funding.

IPSO has substantially wider powers than the former Press Complaints Commission including the facility to initiate its own standards investigations in certain circumstances such as systematic failure even if legal actions and police investigations are considered insufficient. It also has the ability to fine news organisations where their conduct is sufficiently serious and systematic in accordance with the published financial sanctions guidance.

The Code committee will have increased lay membership and will continue to be subject to review and approval by the independent organisation itself.

Other changes have included a process that requires news organisations to react urgently to direct complaints in the first instance and IPSO will only become involved if no resolution is found. That has already changed the culture of complaints handling in news organisations. Their procedures are also subject to annual audit by IPSO. This again has an effect on the culture in newsrooms, as well as put new pressures on budgets and staffing.

IPSO has started work under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Moses who has impeccable credentials and has demonstrated his and his organisation’s independence.

Critics have suggested that there should be no involvement by those with experience of the workings of the Press. Clearly that would be counter-productive in that the organisation would not have the understanding to judge the behaviour and operations in newsrooms. Neither would it have the confidence of the industry. I know of no other regulator which does not involve those with experience of the industry that it covers and in IPSO they are in the minority.

It was suggested that the Royal Charter would be a mechanism to protect the Press from political interference in the future. Proposers suggested that the two thirds majorities of both House of Parliament required to amend the Charter would prevent further encroachment on the freedom of the media in the future. In fact, that is where the danger rather than the safeguard lies.

The industry has responded positively and quickly to criticisms levelled at it as a whole when there was clear evidence to the Leveson Inquiry and in subsequent criminal cases that mistakes and misbehaviour was at worst limited to a tiny minority of journalists. A new regulatory system is already working for most organisations. Others are creating their own. I am confident IPSO will gain the confidence of those both within and outside the industry.

Society of Editors – written evidence (PRG0005)

The Society of Editors has more than 400 members in national, regional and local newspapers, magazines, broadcasting, digital media, media law and journalism education. It is the single largest organisation for editors and senior editorial executives. Its members are as different as the publications, programmes and websites and other platforms for the delivery of news that they create and the communities they serve. But they share the values that matter: the universal right to freedom of expression; the importance of the vitality of the news media in a democratic society; the promotion of press and broadcasting freedom and the public’s right to know and the commitment to high editorial standards.

16 January 2015

Society of Editors and The Guardian – oral evidence (QQ 32-41)

Society of Editors and The Guardian – oral evidence (QQ 32-41) Transcript to be found under The Guardian