CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - by the Rt Hon Lord Wakeham

It is right in this Review - along with other publications to mark the completion of the Commission's first decade - to reflect a little on what the PCC has achieved in the last ten years.

First and foremost, the pages of this Annual Review testify to our success in the "bread and butter" of our work:

• we deal with complaints quickly and effectively;

• we raise standards through our adjudications and decisions;

• we are vigilant in protecting the vulnerable;

• a tough Code of Practice - setting out the rights of the public and the responsibilities of editors - is kept up to date and practical; and

• we do what we can to assist those abroad who want to learn from our experience and establish self regulation in their own countries.

That in itself is a considerable achievement for an organisation born in the controversy of "the last chance saloon" and almost condemned to oblivion by the second Report of Sir David Calcutt at the start of 1993.

A great deal has happened since then, and - although there is still much to do - the PCC's success in the core areas I listed above has effectively answered the question posed when the PCC and the Code were established in 1991: can self regulation be made to work? This Review - like others before it - shows that it can, and has.

But we have done more than just establish a first class complaints handling organisation. I believe the PCC - with the absolute commitment of editors themselves, and their publishers - has changed the entire culture of British newspapers and magazines. Ten years ago, I doubt there were very many editors who stopped to ask themselves "can we get away with it?" - because they knew they could. Today, the application and observance of the Code are part of the culture of every news room and every editorial office.

On the central issue of privacy - an area where the PCC and the Code have made huge advances over the last ten years - I am certain that the first question any editor asks of him or herself is: "can I justify this if challenged?" And if they can't, they won't publish. That is the central achievement of genuine self regulation - and one which, in my view, the law could never have delivered. Controls imposed on editors from outside are there to be battered down; controls imposed on editors by themselves are observed in letter and spirit.

I am delighted that this Review again records our work on the international front. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and proof of the efficacy of our system - and the esteem in which it is held world-wide - came when I was invited by the publishers in Bosnia-Herzegovina to become the first International Chairman of the newly established Bosnian Press Council. It is a task I was delighted to undertake. Self regulation is a key manifestation of freedom of expression - and we will continue to do what we can to underpin that freedom in Bosnia and wherever else we are asked for support and guidance.

When I took up the Chairmanship of the PCC in 1995, I said that my principal aim was to ensure that the issue of the industry's self regulation was placed beyond the bounds of political debate, and that the Commission and the Code became a crucial part of the furniture of British democracy. Of course there will be ups and downs in the future, but I am convinced that we have achieved that aim. There are no serious commentators now who believe that statutory controls are either desirable or practical - and the Human Rights Act 1998, with its emphasis on freedom of expression, means that it would in any case be almost impossible to introduce such a system.

Indeed, further evidence that the PCC has become part of the furniture came in the autumn, at the Annual Conference of the Society of Editors, with strong commitments to self regulation from both the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Leader of the Opposition.

Addressing the Conference, the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Chris Smith, said: "A central pillar of the freedom of the press is the system of self regulation we have in this country. Self-regulation has over the years endured a rocky ride and I am still asked on occasion why the Government supports a voluntary press Code of Practice over statutory regulation. In response, quite apart from not wanting to take any step down the road to censorship, I think it is important to make the point that many of the safeguards contained in the Code go beyond the remit of both criminal and civil law, and thus give complainants an additional avenue for pursuing remedies which is fairly rapid and free. Research shows that the great majority of those people who have needed to approach the Commission have been satisfied with the outcome and I think the PCC is to be congratulated for this. Indeed, I would pause here to give praise to John Wakeham who as Chairman of the PCC has demonstrated that self-regulation continues to be the best way of ensuring high editorial standards in this country. Whatever the future of news, this Government will continue to see that it is produced by a plural and self-regulated press" (Cardiff, 15th October 2000).

The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon William Hague, spoke in a similar vein: "Our country has a great and vibrant tradition of a free and pluralist press and media, rich in its diversity and opinions. This has been one of the elements that has underpinned and complemented our democratic institutions. It is an essential component of a free society. And I believe it is essential that it is maintained. That is one of the reasons why I have always been a staunch supporter of press freedom. It's why I have always opposed a privacy law, either explicitly or through the back door of the Human Rights Act. It's why I have always opposed moves to censor newspapers even when I've disagreed with them. And it's why I've always supported the system of self regulation for newspapers, while at the same time encouraging them to behave responsibly" (Cardiff, 16th October 2000).

That we have reached such a position where both parties maintain strong commitments to the PCC and to self regulation is, more than anything else, a credit to the newspaper industry which has itself done so much to make effective self regulation work. Without the commitment both of editors and publishers, none of this could have happened.

Of course all of that is no cause for sitting on laurels. There is much still to do: the battles both to raise standards AND to maintain press freedom are unremitting. But if further progress reports in the years ahead can chart as many successes as this one - and continue to demonstrate that our house is now in order - then I for one shall be very content.