CMS Report: PCC should be renamed and have power to fine newspapers

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) should be renamed and given the power to fine its members for serious breaches of the Code of Practice, a report from the Culture Media and Sport select committee recommends.

The PCC should be renamed the Press Complaints and Standards Commission to reflect its role as a regulator, "not just a complaints-handling service", the committee's conclusions of its year-long inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel suggests.

Fines should be reserved for serious breaches of the code and could include the suspension of printing of one issue for the most serious cases.

"We remain of the view that self-regulation of the press is greatly preferable to statutory regulation. However, the PCC as it currently operates is widely viewed as lacking credibility and authority. To counter this, we believe that it must be seen to take a far more active role in ensuring that standards are upheld and that it should have the power to impose financial penalties on newspapers that breach the PCC Code,” said John Whittingdale, chair of the committee.

To encourage publications to sign-up to the self-regulatory system, the report suggests that titles which are PCC members could have their costs in defamation cases reduced by the government.

The recommendation of financial sanctions goes against the views of current PCC director Stephen Abell, who told Journalism.co.uk earlier this month that it was "difficult to gauge" fines in the current market: "[A] national newspaper might be able to absorb the financial hit, for a small regional newspaper, it might be enough to close it down.

"[There's] a very strong argument that incorporating financial sanctions would lose a lot of what the PCC does well.

"Financial regulatory systems tend to bring with them, not necessarily a statutory, but a statutory-like framework, and I think that could cause more problems than they solve."

The committee urged the PCC to become "more proactive" in its work and not to wait for a complaint to be made in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that coverage of case has serially breached the Code of Practice. To decide whether a "proactive inquiry" is appropriate, the report suggests putting it to the judgment of the three lay members of the commission and increasing the lay membership of the Code Committee. One of these members should also chair the committee to make it "absolutely clear that the PCC is not overly influenced by the press".

The report's recommendations for a more proactive regulator referenced UK newspapers' coverage of the Madeleine McCann case and the PCC's "failure to take more forceful action than it did". The commission told the committee that it had not spoken out on the Express Group's coverage of the McCann story until after the publisher had settled its libel case with the family, because the McCanns had not made a formal complaint to the regulator.

"Under its Articles of Association, the PCC has the power to launch an inquiry in the absence of a complaint; such provisions were in our view made for important cases such as this," the report says.

"The PCC, by failing to take firm action, let slip an opportunity to prevent or at least mitigate some of the most damaging aspects of this episode, and in doing so lent credence to the view that it lacks teeth and is slow to challenge the newspaper industry."

"The PCC agrees with the select committee's view that we should take an active role in ensuring that standards are upheld. We are, however, concerned that the select committee has somewhat underrated the level of proactive work already undertaken by the PCC (...) It should not be lost that, every year, thousands of people choose to come to the PCC rather than resort to law. We look forward to improving the committee’s knowledge of our activities in these areas," said PCC director Abell in a statement responding to the report.

"The PCC accepts that the report contains criticisms of some of its structures and practices, which will need to be given due consideration. The select committee acknowledged the ongoing independent review into the governance of the Press Complaints Commission, and the review demonstrates that the PCC is not complacent and is seeking to improve itself and to become more transparent and accountable."

The PCC and privacy

The Editor's Code of Practice committee should also amend the code, which is upheld by the PCC, to include a pre-notification recommendation for journalists, the report recommends.

This pre-notification should not be mandatory but should be part of the code and prompt journalists to notify the subject of their articles prior to publication, subject to a 'public interest' test. Guidance for journalists and editors on pre-notifying should be included in the Editors' Codebook, adds the report.

"We also recommend that failure to pre-notify should be an aggravating factor in assessing damages [and part of the Civil Procedure Rules]. To balance this, we recommend the development of a fast-track procedure for a final decision where an interim injunction banning publication of a story has been granted, or where a court refusal has been appealed," it says.

Phone hacking

Commenting on allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World [full details of which can be found at this link], the committee said the PCC's November report into the affair was "simplistic and surprising".

"It has certainly not fully, or forensically, considered all the evidence to this inquiry," it said.

Full coverage of the CMS report at this link... The report in full and our page-by-page guide at this link...