AddThis SmartLayers

Fine newspapers for code breaches say MPs

A senior committee of MPs has called for urgent reforms to curb the cost of defending libel actions and enable newspapers who breach standards to be fined.

In a wide-ranging report which is likely to be hotly debated within the media industry, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee says the high cost of defending libel cases is deterring investigative journalism.

It says there is “no justification” for lawyers demanding 100pc success fees which are chargeable to the losing party, and recommends that the recovery of such fees should be limited to no more than 10pc, leaving the balance to be agreed between solicitor and client.

The committee says that if a defendant in a libel case is in the right, it “should not be forced into a settlement which entails him sacrificing justice on the grounds of cost.”

Other key recommendations in the report include renaming the Press Complaints Commission as the Press Complaints and Standards Commission and giving it the power to fine newspapers which breach its code of conduct.

The committee says the PCC is “widely viewed as lacking credibility” and must be seen to take a “more active role” in upholding press standards.

The report, published at midnight, comes out against a privacy law but says journalists should notify the subject of their articles prior to publication, subject to a “public interest” test.

It recommends that this requirement be written into the PCC Code, and that failure to notify should be an “aggravating factor” in assessing damages.

Committee chairman John Whittingdale said: “A healthy democracy requires a free press. It is essential that newspapers should be able to report and comment on events, public figures and institutions, to be critical of them and to be a platform for dissenting views.

“At the same time, the press must be seen to uphold certain standards, to be mindful of the rights of those who are written about and, as far as possible, be accurate in what they report.

“There is increasing evidence that in recent years investigative journalism is being deterred by the threat and cost of having to defend libel actions. This is a matter of serious concern to all those who believe that a free press is an essential component of a free society.

“This report’s recommendations are therefore designed to reduce the cost of libel actions and to correct the balance which has tipped too far in favour of the plaintiff.”

The committee also called for legislation to outlaw the use of “super-injunctions” to suppress the right of the press to report what is said in Parliament, as occurred in the recent Trafigura case.

Mr Whittingdale said: “The free and fair reporting of proceedings in Parliament is a cornerstone of our democracy and the government should quickly introduce a clear and comprehensive modern statute to put this freedom beyond doubt.”

On self-regulation of the press, the committee said there needed to be more incentive for newspapers to subscribe to the system.

Mr Whittingdale said: “The PCC as it currently operates is widely viewed as lacking credibility and authority. To counter this, we believe that it must be seen to take a far more active role in ensuring that standards are upheld and that it should have the power to impose financial penalties on newspapers that breach the PCC Code.”

Commenting on today’s report, PPC director Stephen Abell said: “There are constructive suggestions for improving the system which the Commission must look at, analyse and respond to.

“The role of maintaining press standards is vitally important, and the Commission will consider – in light of this report – how it can most appropriately improve in the future. In doing so, it will have to pay due regard to the best means of obtaining results for complainants and the public more broadly.

“The PCC agrees with the Select Committee’s view that we should take an active role in ensuring that standards are upheld. We are, however, concerned that the Select Committee has somewhat underrated the level of proactive work already undertaken by the PCC.

He added: “The PCC accepts that the report contains criticisms of some of its structures and practices, which will need to be given due consideration.”