It should be said that the time when we said this, it was absolutely not accepted. It was not accepted by the Press Complaints Commission, who attacked the report; it was not accepted by the news industry. Many of the things that the report says are now generally accepted, not just by those outside the industry but by some of the people who have come before the Inquiry. Only yesterday, Baroness Buscombe talked at some length about problems of independence.
One of the specific concerns we raised in the report was that it seems to us that compared to other regulatory bodies there weren't the independent mechanisms within the constituent bodies, and particularly between the Press Board of Finance. When I spoke to people from other regulatory bodies, they said that normally that would be peopled by accountants and others who would simply be working out the levy, it would be a transparent levy, a percentage of revenues, et cetera, and then distributing it to the regulatory body.
This was and is very different. It's peopled by very senior people within the industry, who collect the finance and then distribute it. It has no transparency, despite the governance review itself of the PCC recommending that they become more transparent and put out a website; it hasn't and it didn't. So we don't know if one, in that wonderful journalistic way, follows the money, who pays how much for the system, which seems to me to go partly to the heart of where the power lies, and indeed, going by Baroness Buscombe's evidence yesterday, that's exactly the point that she made.
In terms of transparency, we've talked a little bit about that. I can talk more.
In terms of accountability, and this is I think one of the central points and the difference, as we saw it, between -- and still see between the mediation and regulation, is that many editors in front of this Inquiry and elsewhere have talked about how they're very proud to have only had a very limited of upheld adjudications against them. However, if you look through the cases, the complaints that have been made against them that are resolved, many of those resolved cases certainly appear to have breached the code. But, because they're resolved, there's no record of a breach kept. I suppose it's the equivalent of pleading guilty and being acquitted.
That has a number of different effects, one of which is that it means that there is very little learning from it, so one can't -- both within the organisation and more widely in the news industry -- say this organisation is regularly breaching the code on this basis and then take action as a result.
Then obviously from the public's perspective, they can't look at the individual organisations and see who is or is not regularly breaching the code, and I can give specific examples.
In 2010, the analysis we did on the evidence available, just to take one example, there were 63 resolved complaints against the Daily Mail. If one goes through each of those summaries on the PCC website, it is -- in 47 cases, they clarified, collected or apologised. One wouldn't have thought they would have clarified, corrected or apologised unless there had been some breach of the code. That's absolutely arguable and I accept that, but going by that alone, 47 of 63 is quite a high number. But in terms of the upheld adjudications in 2010, there were zero.
So from the public perspective, and indeed the way in which the paper presents itself, it has an almost unblemished record, but actually one could argue that it's breaching the code on a regular basis.