COMPLAINTS OF UNJUST OR UNFAIR TREATMENT ETC. (Hansard, 9 July 1984)

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 28, line 1, at beginning insert `Unless a right of reply has been offered and used within two weeks of the transmission of an item which gives rise to complaint by an individual, then'. This is an important matter. The Opposition are attached to the right of reply and would like to see it provided by newspapers and off-air television services. It is a basic human right for someone who is maligned, misrepresented or attacked in the media to have quick access to a right of reply to put over his point of view or a corrective argument. That is especially important in cable television.
The advent of the cable network and the new structure provided for in the Bill gives us an opportunity to introduce a quick right of reply. It is relevant because the essence of cable is minority audiences and narrowcasting. It is a different, much more flexible and varied structure than the oligopoly of mass off-air channels and therefore a quicker and more immediate response is desirable.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission does a good job. The Opposition do not criticise it, but it is a slow and elaborate procedure that is over-elaborate for cable television for which something quicker and simpler is appropriate. We therefore commend to the cable companies the precedent that is offered by more than 30 newspapers in the United States which have set up their 811 own ombudsman to adjudicate on complaints against those papers and to give the right of reply where he thinks it relevant. The Washington Post pioneered the development. If the cable companies can be persuaded, as they would be by amendment No. 70, to offer the right of reply when they agree that a person has been misrepresented or maligned, that would short-circuit the elaborate procedure of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
We offer amendment No. 70 because it would be quick, simple and an important precedent. We need to strengthen the individual against the media organisations.

§ Mr. Hurd
The hon. Gentleman is devoted to the right of reply and here it is, popping up again. It would be odd to add it to the Bill when no such right exists in the broadcast channels. People have only one television set in a room and they would be pretty baffled if the procedures for complaint differed according to the origin of the programme coming out of the set.
The Committee decided that, like broadcasting complaints, cable complaints should be made to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid some tribute to its work. I do not think that it would be sensible to add yet another layer of procedures for dealing with complaints on cable.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
It is appropriate to exercise my right of reply. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. The right of reply will be established and it will be set out in legislative form for the mass media. The amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to take an important step forward and to pioneer the right of reply in an area which is immediately relevant. The commission which deals with complaints about broadcasting is a slow-moving and cumbersome procedure for something as quick, flexible and immediate as cable television.
We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The loss is the Minister's because he could have established himself as an important pioneer instead of the legislative pressure cooker that is emerging as our debates on the Bill proceed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.