A first class service to the public

As is set out on page 7 of this Review, the vast majority of those who complain to the Press Complaints Commission are ordinary members of the public who have - for some reason or other - been caught up in the temporary and unwanted glare of media attention.

For all our complainants - in or out of the public eye - the key to our service is that it delivers free, swift and easily accessible justice.

In order to make sure that our service remains, we believe, the best and quickest of any of the media regulators, we operate under the terms of a tough Complainants' Charter. This is designed to ensure the PCC is open, accessible and transparent, and each year we report back here on how we have measured up to the terms of the Charter.

1. Our aim - to respond swiftly to enquiries

In 2001, the PCC received over 8,000 enquiries by telephone, fax and e mail from members of the public. A substantial proportion of these was received on the PCC's dedicated Helpline - including a local Helpline in Scotland - from which members of the public can get swift and clear information about how to deal with complaints or other problems with the media. Our aim is to answer these calls within four rings - and we achieved that target in 90% of cases.

Of course, the main burden of the PCC's work is the processing of formal complaints - of which we received a record number in 2001. In line with our Charter commitments, all these complaints were acknowledged within three working days of their receipt in Salisbury Square. In addition, we sought again to ensure that all complainants were kept informed of the progress of their complaint at least every fifteen working days.

2. Our aim - to deal with complaints as quickly as possible

The PCC has always sought to deal with complaints in an average of 40 working days - delivering redress far more quickly than could be achieved in a legal or statutory system. In 2001, we achieved a record rate for complaints handling. The average time it took the PCC to deal with a complaint was just 32 working days - some 20% faster than our own target of 40 working days. This compared with an average complaints handling time for the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which works under statutory regulations, of up to seven months (source: BSC Annual Review 2000).

Furthermore, 87% of all complaints were completed within that target period - compared with 84% in 2000 - and at the end of the calendar year only 15 complaints had been outstanding for longer than that period.

That the Commission succeeded in this aim at a time when it dealt with a record number of complaints is testimony both to the strength of the system and to the commitment of all editors in responding swiftly and effectively to complaints made about their newspapers or magazines.

3. Our aim - to deal with complaints at no cost to complainants

As a number of high proÞle legal cases in recent months have shown, legal redress against newspapers or magazines is prohibitively costly - and therefore is only accessible to those with the ability to risk a substantial amount of their own money.

Because of the commitment of all newspaper and magazine publishers to effective and tough self regulation, and their generous support for the work of the PCC, the Commission continued in 2001 to deal with complaints at no cost to either the complainant or the taxpayer.

In view of the fact - as is set out on page 7 of this Review - that most people who complain to us could never afford any form of legal redress, this commitment continues to be crucial.

4. Our aim - to be as accessible as possible

We aim to make our service as well known and accessible as possible - particularly to those who are most vulnerable. We want people with a grievance to complain regardless of their age, ethnic origin or background.

To ensure we meet this commitment in full we operate a Helpline (as set out above), a Textphone to assist deaf or hard of hearing persons in making a complaint, and provide literature on audio cassette for those with difficulty in seeing.

In addition we maintain and keep up-to-date a web site - www.pcc.org.uk - which deals with every aspect of the Commission's work and personnel, as well as providing a library of all adjudications since 1996. In 2001, there were some 100,000 "hits" on the site.

Our literature is available in a range of languages to help make our service accessible to those who may not speak English. Following consultation with interested parties, the PCC has recently republished advice on how to make a complaint in Urdu, Bengali, Arabic, Somali and Welsh - as well as producing literature for the first time in Chinese.

We aim to make sure we are known in every region of the country and in 2001 maintained our important programme of regional tours - holding exhibitions and seminars in Birmingham, Norwich and Nottingham. In addition, we continued an extensive training programme for many local authorities, consumer groups and others on the role of the PCC.

All this work is backed up by the publishers themselves - who continue generously and effectively to donate free advertising space to promoting the Commission. New advertisements were produced and distributed by the PCC in 2001.

5. Our aim - to be as open as possible

In 2001, the PCC strengthened its transparency by ensuring that all adjudications - as well as news about the Commission - were made instantly available by e mail to editors, complainants and interested parties. This has greatly improved coverage of the Commission's work. Published versions of adjudications - in summary form - continue to be sent to all editors, MPs, CABx and others with an interest in our work.

The complaints procedure also continues to be as open as possible - with a named complaints officer dealing with each complainant throughout the course of his or her complaint, as well as the publication in this Review of statistics on complaints handling and service delivery. The extent of the Commission's discretion in dealing with complaints, and the transparency of our procedures, were again endorsed by the Divisional Court when the application by Anna Ford for a judicial review of the Commission's procedures in the handling of her complaint against The Daily Mail and OK! Magazine was rejected (see p.14).

Complainants who feel that we have not met the high standards contained in the Charter can complain to our Charter Officer and ask for an investigation. In 2001 the Charter Officer received just 6 complaints, each of which was investigated and an explanation provided to the complainant.