How many complaints were received?

As reported, the Commission's first task when receiving any complaint is to seek amicably to resolve it. Of the 2,601 complaints concluded in 1998 (a figure which includes 279 complaints carried over from 1997 and completed in 1998, but excludes 183 complaints carried over until 1999), 87% of all those where there was a case under the Code were conciliated in this way.

The Commission had to adjudicate on only 86 complaints - of which 45 were upheld. As in every previous year, all these critical adjudications were published in full and with due prominence by the newspaper or magazine concerned. All the Commission's adjudications were published in a quarterly bulletin, widely distributed to editors, MPs and many other individuals and groups.

In all the other cases, it was clear there was no case to pursue under the Code. In addition, the Commission was unable to take up a number of complaints outside its remit - for instance, those which concerned matters of taste or where legal action was pending - or which were unduly delayed.

What were the complaints about?

Just over one in eight complaints related to intrusion into privacy and were raised under Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Code.

The remaining 21% of complaints were brought under the other twelve Clauses of the Code - principally relating to alleged discrimination (10%) and harassment (3%).

What type of publication did people complain about?

Publications special to Scotland and Northern Ireland attracted just over 12% of complaints - while 5% of complaints were about magazines. The remaining handful of complaints were about news agencies and some foreign publications.

Payments to criminals

In each case the PCC found the newspapers concerned had strong public interest justifications for making payments - and that there was therefore no breach of Clause 16 of the Code in any of the complaints investigated.

The PCC was concerned, however, by the allegations made in the wake of the publication of Gitta Sereny's book, Cries Unheard, of harassment of Mary Bell's daughter. In its adjudication on the complaints, the PCC made clear:

"The Commission would have welcomed a complaint from any of the interested parties in order that it could more fully address these issues. That said, the Commission wished to place on record its serious concern about allegations of the harassment of any child - which is always unacceptable - and would have been quick vigorously to censure a newspaper if a complaint had been received, backed up by evidence from one of those involved, and a breach of Clause 4 or Clause 6 proved. This was a point underlined at the time by the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission in a series of radio and television interviews."

A full copy of the adjudication is available here on the web-site, or in Report Number 43.

The 1998 World Cup

In advance of the 1998 World Cup, the PCC reminded editors of their responsibility not to do anything to incite violence or promote xenophobia. The subsequent coverage was exemplary. Speaking after the conclusion of the World Cup, Lord Wakeham said:

"In May, I asked all newspapers to ensure that they did nothing during the World Cup to incite violence or xenophobia that would have marred the enjoyment of the tournament for millions of fans. They have honoured that request in abundance. While the World Cup may not sadly have been a success for our teams, British newspapers deserve much credit for the way in which they have handled it. I commend them for it. All newspapers have shown a good deal of responsibility, even at the most tense and emotional points of France '98. This is a great goal for the editors' own Code of Practice and for self regulation."

The Royal Princes

On two occasions in 1998 St James's Palace made complaints about stories that appeared about either Prince William or Prince Harry. Both complaints were subsequently resolved.

Training the next generation of journalists

The Human Rights Act 1998

The Government listened to those concerns and moved in June 1998 to amend the Bill - which was warmly welcomed by the PCC. The Human Rights Act 1998 now contains a Clause specifically to protect freedom of expression - and to ensure that the legislation cannot be used to bring in a privacy law by the back door.

Speaking during the passage of the Bill in Parliament the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Home Secretary, said:
"The Government have always made clear our support for effective self regulation as administered by the Press Complaints Commission under its Code of Practice. We have also said we have no plans to introduce legislation creating a general law of privacy ... On self regulation, the new Clause provides an important safeguard by emphasising the right to freedom of expression. Our intention is that that should underline the consequent need to preserve self-regulation. That effect is reinforced by highlighting in the amendment the significance of any relevant privacy Code, which clearly includes the Code operated by the PCC." - (Hansard, 2nd July 1998, col 541).

'No' to global media regulation

The PCC is opposed to the establishment of any such Code or complaints body - making clear that self regulation, independent of Government, will only work at a local level in response to local needs. Speaking at the Annual Meeting of the Commonwealth Press Union in Kuala Lumpur in September 1998, Lord Wakeham said:

" I am unattracted by the idea of a global Code of ethics or any global organisation to deal with transnational complaints about the media. Shades of the discredited ëNew World Information Order', there are many practical and philosophical objections to such a scheme - not least that it would be impossible to devise a global Code acceptable to all societies that would not end up curtailing the freedom to report in many of them. I agree with Claude Moisy who, speaking for UNESCO at the recent meeting of the World Association of Press Councils in Istanbul, said that any grand designs to produce a global Code and establish a transnational body to police it would be 'wrong in principle, impossible to formulate and impossible to apply'. Indeed, I think a global Code could end up doing much mischief - and be misused by those who seek to bring in often draconian controls against the press through the back door, under the guise of a respectable, international body."