The Industry Funding Body

The Industry Funding Body

¶9.1 The model presented is one of "independently led self-regulation".¹⁴³¹⁴³ p45, line 19, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf The industry is represented in the system largely by the IFB, which has various roles and responsibilities. Each of those roles have already been touched on in the paragraphs above, but this section sets out the totality of the IFB's role in relation to the proposed self-regulatory regime.

¶9.2 Lord Black said:¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁴ p21, para 29, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Black-of- Brentwood1.pdf

"In any self-regulator regime there will always be a need for the industry to be involved in some way. In this case, the publishing industry's chief involvement will be through the operation of the Code Committee [….] and some form of industry co-ordination body to be responsible for funding. This is currently provided through the Press Standards Board of Finance. Its structure and role may change so for the purposed of this note this entity is referred to as the Industry Funding Body."

¶9.3 The IFB is obviously responsible for setting and collecting the membership fees. The IFB would set both the overall level of funding to be provided to the Trust and the distribution of that funding between the regulated entities.¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁵ paras 7.2-7.4 above

¶9.4 The IFB has the power to enforce the contract between a publisher and the Trust in respect of the payment of the membership fee.¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁶ p4, para 9.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lord-Black-of-Brentwood-Annex-B1. pdf K

¶9.5 The IFB is responsible for the Editors' Code. Any changes to the Code will have to be approved by the Trust Board.¹⁴⁷¹⁴⁷ para 8.2 above

¶9.6 The IFB is responsible for appointing the two industry members of the appointment panel that appoints the Chair of the Trust.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁸ para 3.13 above

¶9.7 The IFB must approve any changes to the Regulations.¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹ para 3.10 above

¶9.8 The IFB is responsible for the Sanctions Guidance which will be used in setting the level of any fine as a result of an investigation.¹⁵⁰¹⁵⁰ para 5.23 above

10. Incentives to membership

¶10.1 It is recognised by the industry that it is important to have incentives for publishers to join the proposed system. Four such incentives are outlined in the proposal submitted to the Inquiry by Lord Black. These are:

¶(a) the provision of press cards; (b) the use of agency copy through the Press Association; (c) a "kitemark" for publications which are part of the system; and (d) the way in which advertisers can support the system.

¶Press cards

¶10.2 Press cards are currently issued under the banner of the UK Press Card Authority (UKPCA) by 17 gatekeepers ranging from the NPA to the National Union of Journalists. At present the press card simply confirms the identity of the holder and the fact that they meet the criteria of their gatekeeper, which loosely means that they are engaged in journalistic work.¹⁵¹¹⁵¹ p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf

¶10.3 Lord Black told the Inquiry that under the proposal the issuing of press cards would be limited to journalists working for publications who were signed up to the self-regulatory regime, or other organisations such as a relevant industry body or a trade union.¹⁵²¹⁵² p22, lines 3-9, Lord Black, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf The basis on which bodies were accepted as 'relevant' in this context has not been set out in any detail.

¶10.4 In addition to a limitation on who could be issued with press cards, the proposal is that the courts, Parliament, local councils, police, and sports and entertainment bodies would agree only to deal with journalists accredited with the new press cards.¹⁵³¹⁵³ p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf The Inquiry has seen no evidence of any discussions between the industry and these bodies on the proposal, nor has any evidence been taken from those bodies as to their willingness to participate in such an approach.

¶Access to agency copy

¶10.5 Paul Dacre, editor in chief of Associated Newspapers told the Inquiry that the newspaper industry owns the Press Association (PA) and that there are "significant steps afoot" to examine how the service could be denied to publishers who were not members of the new self-regulatory system.¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁴ p7, ibid This proposal was described by Lord Black as "legally challenging", particularly because of the competition issues raised; these are dealt with later in this Report¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁵ Part K, Chapter 4 and will be the subject of a report to the PA Board by September 2012.¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁶ pp23-24, lines 14-11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon- K Hearing-9-July-2012.pdf

¶Kitemark

¶10.6 The provision of a kitemark as a badge of quality would be a matter for the Trust itself. Mr Dacre suggested that such a mark could be carried alongside corrections and clarifications columns to tell the public how to make a complaint and provide information on the process.¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁷ p7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf Lord Hunt said that those who join the new regime should carry its badge with pride.¹⁵⁸¹⁵⁸ p17, para 53, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Lord-Hunt-of-Wirral. pdf

¶Support from advertisers

¶10.7 No detailed proposal in relation to what support advertisers could give to the self-regulatory system has been provided. Mr Dacre suggested that advertisers, in particular Government and public sector bodies, might be persuaded not to advertise in newspapers which were not subscribers to the scheme.¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁹ p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Submission-by-Paul-Dacre1.pdf The Inquiry has seen no evidence that any discussions have been held with any bodies which might be able to deliver a proposal in this regard and I cannot think of any commercial reason why advertisers would wish to go down this route, which could threaten to deprive them of access to one route to what might be a significant market.