STATISTICS AND REVIEW

How many complaints were received?

The PCC received 2,427 complaints in 1999 - roughly the same level as in the previous year. See figure 1

What type of publication were complaints made about?

Of these complaints, 48% related to national newspapers, 31% to regional newspapers, 10% to publications special to Scotland and 7% to magazines. The remaining 4% of complaints related principally to newspapers special to Northern Ireland and to agencies. This proportion of complaints was very similar to previous years. See figure 2

What part of the Code of Practice did the complaints fall under?

The significant majority of complaints received - 61% - were about accuracy in reporting and were raised under Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Code. The proportion of complaints received about accuracy - while still the most significant - has been falling in recent years, and reached its lowest level so far in 1999 see figure 3.

Just under 15% of complaints were about intrusion into privacy under Clause 3 of the Code - only marginally higher than in recent years.

The remaining 24% of complaints were brought under the other thirteen Clauses of the Code. Of these the greatest number of complaints were about discrimination (7%), intrusion into grief and shock (6%), intrusion into the privacy of children (3%) and harassment (3%). The number of complaints received about intrusion into grief and shock, while still small in number, has doubled in recent years. This follows changes to the Code in 1997 which included for the first time publication of material at such times - rather than the manner in which news is gathered, which was the limit of the previous Code in this area. The number of complaints about alleged discrimination in reporting has fallen over the last year by about a third.

What was the outcome of the complaints made?

The Commission's first task in dealing with any complaint is to try and resolve it amicably and swiftly. In this task, it continued to be highly successful. A significant proportion of those complaints raising a prima facie breach of the Code was resolved directly between editor and complainant following the intervention of the Commission.

Of the complaints concluded during 1999, just under one third turned out to be either outside the remit of the Commission, third party complaints or were disallowed for unjustifiable delay. (The Commission normally only deals with complaints made one month after the publication of an article, or one month after the conclusion of direct correspondence between a complainant and an editor).

Just under 40% raised no breach of the Code of Practice. Of the remaining complaints, the Commission had to adjudicate on just 49 cases, while the others were either resolved or not pursued following an explanation from the newspaper concerned or a letter from the Commission. As figure 6 shows, excluding that 71% of complaints where there was no breach of the Code or which were outside the remit of the Commission, 93% were either resolved or not pursued.

The number of complaints adjudicated is now at its lowest ever level - which underlines the strength of the Commission in resolving those cases where there is a prima facie breach of the Code. Of the complaints adjudicated in 1999, 26 were upheld and 23 were rejected.

The Royal Princes - revised guidance

In November 1998, St James's Palace complained about a number of stories relating to Prince William and Prince Harry. The complaints centred on the issue of so-called "cumulative intrusion" - in other words, an accumulation of apparently harmless stories about the children which had a potential impact on their privacy at school.

The complaints followed the significant tightening of the Code at the end of 1997, which added substantially to the degree of protection available under the Code to all schoolchildren. In the light of the Code changes, the Commission decided to revise its guidance to editors on the reporting of the Royal Princes. This was published in April 1999 and emphasised three key points:

• while individual stories in themselves may be harmless, it could not be right for boys such as Prince William or Prince Harry to be exposed to weekly headlines and splashes about them;

• there could not be a total blackout on stories about the Princes at school; and

• editors should consider the proportionality of any story - assessing both the potential damage to the children's education, as well as the prominence given to a particular article and the cumulative build up of similar stories.

Complaints about two newspapers were resolved following the publication of this revised guidance.

Children of public figures

Another key complaint in 1999 related to an article about the education of Kathryn Blair, the Prime Minister's daughter. In its adjudication on the complaint, published in July 1999, the Com-mission took the opportunity to set out a number of principles - based on the Code of Practice - which affect the children of all public figures. The Commission ruled that:

"it would be permissible under the editors' Code to name the children of public figures in newspaper articles - in a manner proportionate to the issues and facts involved - in circumstances where:

there is reasonable substance to a charge or allegation that provides the exceptional public interest required by the Code; and

it is necessary to report the story and to identify the child because that child, and that child alone, had to be the centre of the story."

Payments to witnesses

Another important complaint investigated by the PCC in 1999 related to payments by one newspaper to a witness in the trial of Gary Glitter. In upholding the complaint, the Commission took the opportunity to set out further guidance for editors on the subject - particularly on the issue of so-called "conditional payments" to a witness, where payment for a story appears to be contingent on the outcome of a trial. In its adjudication, published in December 1999, the Commission ruled that:

"Conditional offers of payment are not acceptable under the Code. Indeed, the Commission could not see how payments, dependent on conviction, could ever be justified under the Code even on grounds of exceptional public interest. Any newspapers entering into contracts in the future must ensure in an explicit manner in the contract that no money is payable dependent on the outcome of a criminal trial."

"Own volition" complaints

From time to time the argument continues to arise about whether the PCC should investigate complaints of its own volition. In fact, the PCC does have power to investigate its own complaints - but a power which, for very good reason, it deploys only in exceptional circumstances where there are significant issues of public interest at stake. Lord Wakeham took the opportunity to explain the danger of "proactivity" in an article in The Sunday Express in January 1999:

"(There are some who argue that) we should have a legally constituted and 'proactive' Press Authority able to 'call in articles' it does not like the look of and investigate them (a power, incidentally, no other media regulator - even statutory ones - has either here on in Europe).

"In other words, to protect those who would do nothing to protect themselves. Down that path great danger lies. Great danger - because there is only the very slightest difference between being 'proactive' and controlling. Great danger - because such a body would be the tool of the elite, protecting those who should in fact be subject not to special protection but to the greatest scrutiny.

"Every time there was an uncomfortable story in a newspaper, a statutory Press Authority - funded by, beholden to, and no doubt appointed by, the state - would be expected to investigate and condemn. The press would be subject for the first time ever to special controls. And once you control the press in that way, it is no longer free. It sounds so innocent. Yet it is so sinister - and it is the real, authoritarian agenda of those who say the Press Complaints Commission should be 'proactive'."

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act

During 1999, discussions took place with the Home Office about the terms of new legislation on matters relating to youth justice. As a result of these, editors decided to amend the industry's Code on the issue of reporting of crime. A full note on this is set out in the report of the Chairman of the Code Committee on page 5.

Scottish Helpline

As part of its commitment to ensure that the services of the Commission are as accessible as possible, the PCC launched a special Helpline for complainants in Scotland in 1999. This Helpline ensures that those people from Scotland with a complaint can contact the Commission at the cost only of a local telephone call. The telephone number is 0131 220 6652.

Making our service even better known to those most in need

The Commission recognises that some of those groups in society who may have most cause to complain about newspapers or magazines may be those who are least aware of the work of the PCC. In 1999, the Commission began a special programme to target those groups to ensure that they are aware of our work and of the protection available under the editors' Code. They included, for example, mental health groups, prison officers and prisoners, Travellers and Gypsies organisations, and carers organisations. The Commission continued to put particular effort into raising its profile among those groups involved with the care of those suffering from mental illness. This was intended to build on the publication in 1997 of Commission guidance on the coverage of persons suffering from mental illness.

Training the journalists of the future

The PCC continues to play an active role in training new journalists, to ensure that they are aware of the terms of the Code and the role of the Commission. The demand for this service grows every year, and is borne - in great part - by the PCC's Privacy Commissioner, Professor Robert Pinker, who delivered over 20 lectures in 1999. The Commission continues to be extremely grateful to him for his work in this area.