The Press Complaints Commission ensures the rights of the reader and the press are treated fairly

The UK's press is currently regulated by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) which is paid for by newspaper companies and not the hard-pressed taxpayer.

Editors are obliged to abide by its code of practice which includes clauses on accuracy, right of reply, privacy, harrassment and intrusion into shock or grief.

Failure to do so will lead to censure by the commission and is a very real black mark against the newspaper and its editor.

The local and regional press take their obligations under the PCC code very seriously.

Many argue that a PCC with more robust powers is the way forward.
The benefits of self-regulation are that it is quick and free.

It costs nothing to complain to the PCC - you do not need a solicitor or anyone else to represent you.

Its main aim is always to try and resolve disputes amicably and quickly.

Nine out of ten complaints are resolved; and it only takes, on average, just 35 working days to do so.

Self regulation works because the newspaper and magazine publishing industry is committed to it.

Throughout the 20 years of the PCC, every critical adjudication against a newspaper or magazine by the commission has been printed in full and with due prominence.

When the commission receives a complaint, editors now never do anything other than seek to defend themselves in terms of the industry's code of practice - a sign of their commitment to it.

A further sign of this commitment is that adherence to the industry's code is written into the contracts of employment of the vast majority of editors in the country - something which gives the PCC real teeth.

The reason for this commitment is that the Press Complaints Commission administers a code written by editors and for editors.

But that does not make the PCC simply a tool of the newspaper industry.

Far from it: the Commission has a decisive majority of lay members on it - ensuring that, although it is funded by the industry for the benefit of the public, the PCC is clearly independent of it.

Central to the work of the PCC and to the code of practice is the added protection it gives to particularly vulnerable groups of people.

The code gives special protection to children, innocent relatives and friends of those convicted of crime, victims of sexual assault and patients being treated in hospital. It also includes rules on discrimination to protect individuals at risk of racial, religious, sexual or other forms of discrimination.

The PCC from time to time issues special guidelines to editors which are designed to add even further to this protection.

In 1997, for instance, the commission issued guidelines on the portrayal in the media of persons suffering from mental illness.

Other specific areas the PCC has tackled include the identification, against their wishes, of lottery winners.

In 2001, the commission produced practical advice to help people suffering from press harassment and acted to emphasise the need for care in the reporting of matters involving race and religion.

In 2009, the commission published briefing notes on the reporting of suicide; and on the payment to parents for material about their children, in the wake of the Alfie Patten case.One of the central benefits of press self regulation is that it combines high standards of ethical reporting with a free press.

Statutory controls would undermine the freedom of the press - and would not be so successful in raising standards.

A privacy law, too, would be unworkable and an unacceptable infringement on press freedom. It would be of potential use only to the rich and powerful who would be prepared to use the Courts to enforce their rights - and would be misused by the corrupt to stop newspapers from reporting in the public interest.

Self regulation has none of the problems of the law - yet still provides a system in which editors are committed to the highest possible ethical standards.