View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Media Law
November 29, 2017

State-funded Press Recognition Panel calls for Section 40 costs penalties for publishers to be brought into force

By Press Association and Press Gazette

Provisions that would make news publishers not signed up with a recognised regulator pay all the costs of court cases, win or lose, should be brought into effect immediately,  a government-backed panel has said.

This was because the press recognition system established by the Royal Charter “continues to be frustrated”, the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) said in its second annual report on the system, published today.

The Section 40 provision of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 has already been approved by Parliament, but has yet to be enacted. It faces strong opposition from news publishers who claim it forces them to sign up to state-funded regulation and threatens a free press.

The PRP, which is funded by taxpayers’ money, was set up under the Royal Charter to recognise press regulators that met criteria detailed in the charter.

In its three years, the PRP has recognised only one regulator – Impress, the body almost entirely funded through former Formula 1 boss Max Mosley which regulates 77 news outlets, most of which are hyperlocal news websites and their print editions.

The vast majority of the national, regional and local press is registered with Ipso, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which is funded by the industry and oversees the Editors’ Code of Practice.

IPSO bosses have made clear that the regulator has no intention of applying for recognition under the Royal Charter in line with the publishers it regulates.

Content from our partners
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it
Impress: Regulation, arbitration and complaints resolution

The report said: “The PRP continues to fulfil its role, and it is disappointing that one year after the publication of its first report on the recognition system, the recognition system continues to be frustrated.

“The public is still not receiving the intended protections.

“There has been a concerted campaign to undermine the system. The position of ordinary people and the public interest (including securing freedom of speech for publishers) in the proper operation of the recognition system has become marginalised.

“The situation is complicated by the fact that some larger publishers who report on the recognition system are resisting joining it.”

It goes on: “The new system of press regulation has still not been given an opportunity to operate and it is difficult to be confident that the original intentions of Parliament will be upheld.”

The reasons for the failure to bring Section 40 “do not bear scrutiny”, the PRP report said, adding that the delay in bringing section 40 into force “supports the interests of the press who oppose it”.

It said: “Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 should be commenced immediately to deliver the new system of regulation that was devised by Parliament following the full consideration of all relevant matters and views through the Leveson Inquiry.

“Partial commencement would leave the public unprotected from those outside the recognition system.

“It is clear that incentives are needed. If the Government does not intend to commence section 40, Parliament may wish to consider alternative incentives to encourage recognition and provide protection for the public as Leveson recommended.”

The report added: “Leveson also recommended that if (but only if) the new system of regulation were considered to have failed then Parliament should consider statutory action.

“The PRP is of the view that it would be premature to consider introducing statutory regulation. The recognition system must be established first and properly tested.”

The PRP’s call for section 40 to be brought into force, but for no statutory action, echo what was said in the organisation’s annual report last year.

Picture: Reuters/Luke MacGregor

Topics in this article : ,

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network