Code committee report

by Sir David English, the Chairman of the Code Committee

1997 saw the most substantial changes to the industry's Code of Practice since it was first established at the end of 1990. They followed the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales - the public and Parliamentary concern that was expressed about media intrusion.

Let me say at the start that the Code we already had at that time was a good one. It set out the responsibilities of editors and journalists across a broad range of issues. It set out their duty to safeguard the public's right to know. And it worked. Worked in raising standards in all newspapers. Worked in providing a comprehensive framework for self regulation. And it worked far better than statute ever could - by providing editors with a set of rules hammered out by editors themselves, not by those who know nothing of our craft.

But I have always maintained that the Code must be a flexible document. It does not exist in a world of its own. It must take account of public opinion and concerns - as much as it does of changes in technology and the case law put together by the PCC.

Public opinion following the death of the Princess was telling us loud and clear that we needed to look to our laurels - and ensure that our own rules on privacy and harassment were as tough as they should be. We listened and acted - and did so with the speed that statute or judge made law never could.

On 25th September, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission - following a round of meetings with editors across the industry - made a number of proposals to the Code Committee for changes to the Code. The Code Committee worked tirelessly on these and other ideas across many meetings and - in a tribute to the dedication of its members and to the flexibility of self regulation - completed that work in just five weeks. On 26th November, following consultation on the proposed changes across the newspaper and magazine publishing industry, the PCC ratified the new Code. It came into effect on 1st January 1998.

The new Code has evolved in a number of significant ways - not all of them relating to intrusion and harassment. Other changes - such as mental illness and discrimination - had been in the pipeline anyway. The main changes are set out below.

• Privacy. A substantial change to this part of the Code means that it now recognises for the first time that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private life. It also includes new stipulations on the taking of pictures in 'private places' which significantly expands the old definition of 'private property'.
  
  
• Harassment. In order to tackle the problems of motorbike chases, pictures taken as a result of 'persistent pursuit' are banned. There are new requirements for editors not to publish material from freelance sources which do not meet the standards of the Code to cover the problems arising from the use of paparazzi photographs.
  
  
• Children. A new stipulation makes clear that children should be free to complete their time at school free from unnecessary intrusion. The previous age limit of 16 for special protection has been removed, and protection is now given to all 'pupils'. For the first time there is a ban on payments to minors except where it is in the interest of the child. And finally there is a new subsection protecting the children of people in the public eye.
  
  
• Accuracy. The Code now includes a reference to inaccurate, misleading or distorted pictures to deal with the potential problems of picture manipulation.
  
  
  
• Grief and shock. The Code has always dealt with the way news is gathered from those suffering grief and shock. The changes mean it is now includes stories published at such times, which must be handled sensitively - although there is no restriction on the right to report judicial proceedings.
  
  
• Public Interest. The Code now contains a stipulation that in cases involving children, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of the child.

Quite apart from these significant changes to the Code, the Committee has continued its more routine work during the course of the year. Importantly, it considered fifteen submissions from members of the public and other organisations about the contents of the Code. These contributed to changes to the Clause of the Code on the jigsaw identification of children in sex cases - which has now been simplified.

The Committee also supported the work the PCC undertook with the Department of Health and the Mental Health Act Commission in producing new guidelines on the portrayal in the media of those suffering from mental illness. The discrimination Clause of the Code was changed as a result to include irrelevant references to mental illness.

The new Code is a demanding one - in letter and spirit. But it is also a realistic one. All editors know how important it is to them, what lengths they go to in order to stick by it, and what happens on those rare occasions when they step outside of it. Our task in 1998 and in the years beyond is to prove that to the public, and show them we mean what we say.

The Committee meets regularly throughout the year to consider representations from members of the public, the PCC and editors themselves about changes to the Code. It is made up of senior editors across the industry. The Chairman and Director of the PCC attend to provide lay input into discussion and ensure co-ordination with the work of the Commission.