sign in sign up
<<
Home , The Guardian

Th(}.. Guarutan

Kings Place, 90 York Way Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com

David Wolfe Chair Press Recognition Panel Mappin House 4 Winsley Street London W1W 8HF

8th October 2018

Dear Mr Wolfe,

Report on the Recognition System 2018

Many thanks for your letter to on 17th September 2018. Ms Viner has asked to respond on behalf of Guardian News & Media (GNM). Following the passage of the Royal Charter on press regulation (Royal Charter)1, and during the process by which the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was established, representatives of GNM were pleased to meet with you and colleagues to discuss how the PRP would dispense its duties as a public body, whilst being clear that we did not wish to join the system of press regulation that the PRP would eventually oversee. As the PRP has made clear previously, the decision on whether to join the "recognition system is voluntary. We do not regulate the press and we cannot compel any regulator to apply for recognition. "2

As the PRP may be aware GNM's approach to self-regulation comprises an editorial code of practice3, an independent readers' editor4 and an independent review panels, both of whom report to the Chair of The Scott Trust. The review panel ensures that where complainants do not feel their issues have been adequately resolved through the internal complaints procedures, they have the

https ://assets .publishing .service .gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/ file/254116/Final Royal Charter 25 October 2013 clean Final .pdf

2 https ://pressrecog n ition pane .o rg. u k/prp-con su ltation-on-u ndertaki ng-cycl ical-and-ad-hoc­ reviews/ 3 https://www. theg uardian .com/i nfo/2015/aug/05/the-g uardians-editorial-code 4 https://www. theg uardian .com/i nfo/2013/sep/23/guardian-readers-editor 5 https://www.theguardian.com/info/2014/nov/20/review-panel Guardian News & Media Limited A member of

Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1P 2A P Registered in Numb er 908 396 Th(}.. Guarutan

Kings Place, 90 York Way London Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian .com

opportunity to have their complaint further considered by an independent panel. Where appropriate, arbitration is offered by GNM as a way to resolve legal disputes without the need to go through a lengthy and costly court process for both sides. GNM's primary focus is on resolving complaints in a rapid and effective manner, and promoting the highest quality standards of independent journalism. The GNM global readers' editor writes a corrections and clarifications column 6 every day, and a longer weekly column, "open door"?, which explores some of the more detailed complaints made to the office of the readers' editor. Rulings of the review panel are hosted within the corrections and clarifications section of The Guardian website 8• A recent column by the current readers' editor Paul Chadwick, published in November 20179, outlines the challenges that the readers' editor's office faces when responding to responses from readers across the globe.

The legal authority of the PRP

The Royal Charter on Press Regulation sets out the public functions of the PRP as a public authority, which are:

"a) determining applications for recognition from Regulators; b) reviewing whether a Regulator which has been granted recognition shall continue to be recognised; c) withdrawing recognition from a Regulator where the Recognition Panel is satisfied that the Regulator ceases to be entitled to recognition; and d) reporting on any success or of the recognition system."

In your recent letter to Ms Viner, the PRP purports to expand its remit beyond the functions placed on by the Royal Charter, stating that "We are often asked to give a view on whether (in particular) the complaints (and any arbitration) systems operated by some news organisations meet the Charter criteria and to give an indication of the extent to which the public safeguards

6 https://www. theg uard ian. com/theg uardian/series/correctionsandclarifications 7 https://www. theg uard ian. com/com mentisfree/series/open-door 8 https://www. theg uard ian. com/info/com plaints-and-corrections 9 https://www. theg uardian. com/com mentisfree/2017 /nov/12/trial-and-error-20-years-of-work­ by-the-readers-editors-office

Guardian News & Media Limited A member of Guardian Media Group

Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London NrP 2AP Registered in England Number 908396 Th(}.. Guarutan

Kings Place, 90 York Way London Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com

intended by the post-Leveson system of regulation are in place on a voluntary basis."

That you may be asked to give a view on something, (you do not say who has asked) does not automatically mean you have a power to do so.

In the parallel call for information, the PRP states that:

"It appears to us that several social media platforms may also fall within the definition of relevant publisher at least in relation to their production of news and news-related material.

The PRP is often asked to give a view on whether (in particular) the complaints ( and any arbitration) systems operated by some news organisations meet the Royal Charter criteria and to give an indication of the extent to which the public safeguards intended by the post­ Leveson system of regulation are in place on a voluntary basis.

We have chosen significant publishers from across the press landscape and we consider it to be in the public interest for us to assess them as part of our Charter requirement to report on the success of the recognition system and as part of our consideration of how far the public is currently protected from potential harm. "

It is important to note that while the PRP may consider something to be in the public interest, it does not automatically mean that the PRP has the power to do something.

Indeed, the objectives set out in the PRP's call for information raise of questions about the legal basis on which the PRP is seeking to rely in order to undertake this consultation and produce this report . It is not clear that the terms of the Royal Charter the PRP the high degree of discretion that it appears to have assumed when designing the terms of reference of its 2018 report. For , while there is a role for the PRP in 'reporting on the success or failure of the recognition system' in relation to the activities of regulated entities, and regulators that have applied for recognition through the PRP (i.e. IMPRESS), that is a very different role - and outside of the role proscribed to the PRP in the Royal Charter - of determining the success or

Guardian New s & Media Limited A mem ber of Guardian Media Group

Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1P 2AP Registered in England Numb er 908396 Th(!.. Guarutan

Kings Place, 90 York Way London N 1 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com

failure of the self-regulatory systems put in place by news media publishers (as well as , , and ) none of whom have applied to have those systems adjudged against the criteria of a system of press regulation which, as the PRP itself acknowledges, is voluntary.

I would be grateful if you could please clarify the legal basis on which you propose carrymg out this review, by providing answers to the following questions.

1. As the PRP accepts, the decision of publishers not to sign up to a recognised regulator is entirely legal, and in line with the voluntary nature of the Royal Charter system. On what legal basis does the PRP feel it is appropriate to "give a view on whether (in particular) the complaints ( and any arbitration) systems operated by some news organisations meet the Charter criteria"? 2. You state that the review will look at "the extent to which the public safeguards intended by the post-Leveson system of regulation are in place on a voluntary basis." What are the public safeguards of the post­ Leveson system of regulation to which the PRP refers? Given the objective of Parliament was for membership of a recognised regulator to be on a voluntary basis, what is the metric by which the PRP will judge success? 3. You state that you are "often asked to give a view" about the complaints systems of news organisations that have decided not to volunteer to join a recognised regulator? Often asked by whom, and on what legal basis can they direct you to perform this review? 4. The call for information states that "We have chosen significant publishers from across the press landscape and we consider it to be in the public interest for us to assess them as part of our Charter requirement to report on the success of the recognition system and as part of our consideration of how far the public is currently protected from potential harm." On what basis did the PRP choose publishers to review as part of this report? The PRP says it considers a wide-ranging review to be in the public interest, but what is the legal basis for such a review? What is the legal basis of the PRP conducting any assessment of the internal complaints handling of a that has not voluntarily applied to be regulated u the PRP? How could a full or fair assessment of apparent compliance with your Schedule 3 criteria be made without

Guardian News & Media Limited A member of Guardian Media Group

Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London NtP 2AP Registered in England Number 908396 Th~. Guarutan

Kings Place, 90 York Way London Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com

confidential information that are likely to be unwilling to share with the public or the PRP? 5. The PRP states that "It appears to us that several social media platforms may also fall within the definition of relevant publisher at least in relation to their production of news and news-related material." Again, on what legal basis does the PRP have the right to assess whether social media platforms fall within the definition of a relevant publisher? The absence of a focus on the internet and social media platforms through the 10 means that there is a significant gap in the debate about the regulation of news media content in a digital world. But what is the legal basis for the PRP to determine whether definitions in the Crime & Courts Act 2014 can be applied to social media companies? Even if social media companies do fall within that definition of a relevant publisher, given that compliance with the Royal Charter process is voluntary, what is the purpose of including social media companies within the ambit of the review? What is the legal basis on which the PRP believes it has the right to establish what is effectively a standing inquiry into the practices and ethics of the press? To seek to create such an inquiry, without the legal framework that underpinned the Leveson Inquiry, appears to be an interference in the Article 10 rights of the press that is neither necessary, nor proportionate, nor prescribed by law.

I'd be grateful for your response to these questions before we consider your request to input into the PRP call for information.

Yours sincerely

Gill Phillips Director of Editorial Legal Services Guardian News & Media

+44 20 3353 4126 [email protected]

10 https ://www .bbc.co. uk/news/entertainment -arts-20553416

Guardian News & Media Limited A member of Guardian Media Group

Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N,P 2AP Registered in England Number 908396