Right of Reply in the Media (Hansard, 17 February 1982)

§ Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them in the press or on radio or television; and for connected purposes. Individuals or organisations whose views have been misrepresented must be given the opportunity to reply, in an equally prominent position and time, to correct harmful or damaging inaccuracies. I propose first to quote three recent examples of the sort of distortions that the Bill would end, secondly to state the terms of the measure to meet them, and, thirdly, to quote the support that I have received from Members of all parties and from all quarters.

Last month, the right to reply was granted to Sir Anthony Part, a former top civil servant, who had previously been refused the right to a television reply. Sir Anthony stated that an interview he had given to ATV was cut by half and that the edited version was not balanced. He complained immediately to ATV but received only a private apology. Later he was told that there would be a press apology. Sir Anthony rightly insisted that the offence was committed on the air in prime time and that the apology should appear at an equally prime time. That protest to the IBA won him a two-minute, peak time, apology on Central Television, which was recently granted the ATV franchise.

Not every victim of distortion is as fortunate as Sir Anthony. On the same day, The Sun published a story about two trainee railway drivers, one of whom, a week earlier, had been sent to trial for falsifying his worksheet—althoughThe Sun conveniently avoided mentioning that fact. On January 23, The Sun devoted the front page and two inside pages to the story. It alleged drinking, fiddling and cheating by railwaymen, and brought into question the integrity of all railwaymen. It was clearly likely to provoke a strike. The headline read"Taken for a ride", but I suggest that it was the 12 million readers ofThe Sun who were taken for a ride. ASLEF and NUR members refused to touch the newspaper, and also theNews of the World, The Times andThe Sunday Times, all belonging to the Rupert Murdoch group. The following day, another three pages were devoted to the allegation.

ASLEF demanded a full front page retraction. On January 27, four days later, the paper agreed to publish an article by two union officials. However, it compounded its offence with another smear article. If the Bill had been in operation, there would have been no need for that strike action.

The third example concerns an educational organisation that was attacked in a two-page article in another mass circulation newspaper. It was a highly and deliberately damaging article, although it skillfully avoided libel. Members of the foundation asked the paper for an opportunity to refute the article. No one request received even a letter in reply. The foundation conducted a public survey that overwhelmingly supported a right of reply in such cases. It collected 14, 000 signatures on a petition which has been presented to a number of Members of Parliament in London and the home counties today.

Under the right of reply provided by the Bill, an individual, organisation or company can require the editor of a newspaper that has carried a factually inaccurate or 288 distorted report involving the complainant to print a reply within three days. The reply must be printed without charge and be of equal length to, and in the same position as, the original article. In the case of weekly or monthly periodicals, the reply must be printed in the next issue. The same right would apply where there had been a misrepresentation or distortion of fact on the radio or television. That is vital, as damage can be done through those media before an even larger audience than the readership of a newspaper.

The existing libel laws will continue and will not be changed in any way. Unfortunately, people of small or moderate means cannot afford to sue for libel, as legal aid is not available for that purpose. Not everyone has the resources of Sir James Goldsmith. The bill would require a newspaper to publish the reply, and failure to do so could mean a fine of between £2, 000 and £40, 000—a practice that applies in France.

Such a law has operated successfully in France, West Germany, Denmark and other Western European countries for many years, and is clearly practical.

The inspiration for today's Bill came from Mr. Torn Baistow, a distinguished British journalist and the former deputy editor of theNew Statesman. I offer a tribute to him for his work.

Since I introduced a Bill on this issue for the first time last year, I have received widespread support. It has come from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), one of the most eminent lawyers in the House. He is Conservative Member with journalistic experience dating back to theSunday Express of 1945. On the other side there has been support for the principle of the Bill from the Campaign for Press Freedom, a trade union body with 10 union general secretaries and many others in its ranks.

Lastly, I have had backing from a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I mention that because, unlike last year, a Conservative Member intends to oppose the Bill. In addition, many members of the general public have written to support the Bill.

The Bill is no panacea. The millionaire press will continue to mislead vast readerships. The Bill would not touch the selection of the news that suits the television and press proprietors—the main way of misleading the public. It would, however, provide some safeguard to an individual or organisation that is not provided at present. I commend the Bill to the House.