Press Complaints Commission (Hansard, 9 December 1997)

§ Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a statutory Press Complaints Commission; to make further provisions in respect of libel actions brought against newspapers; and for connected purposes.

I am seeking leave to bring in a Bill to change the status of the Press Complaints Commission from a self-regulatory, voluntary body to a statutory body with legal authority. I pay tribute to the present chairman, Lord Wakeham, for his tireless work in trying to make the press barons more accountable to the code of practice.

None the less, about 200 people every week feel that they have been wronged by inaccurate press reporting. The majority are forced to settle for less than they should, simply because of the imbalance between the powers and financial clout of the press barons and the powerlessness of the individual. If a newspaper refuses to correct an inaccurate, irresponsible or malicious story, there is very little an aggrieved party can do.

Currently there are two forms of redress; neither is entirely satisfactory. The individual can pursue a libel case in the courts, but the costs are prohibitive. Understandably, there is no legal aid for libel, and facing the financial might of the press barons is quite daunting. Alternatively, the matter can be referred to the Press Complaints Commission. If the Press Complaints Commission upholds the complaint, the newspaper must publish the verdict by way of a correction.

However, the size, position, timing and content of that correction is not a matter for the wronged person, who has absolutely no influence as to what is printed. Inevitably, therefore, the correction fails to rectify the damage done by the original article. So the dice are loaded against the public and there is a clear need for a new body to balance better the power of the press moguls and those who have been wronged. Let me make it clear that I am not proposing a privacy Bill, although the new Press Complaints Commission would certainly be involved in implementing any changes made to privacy law.

I seek the leave of the House to concentrate on another issue, which is not privacy but to redress the damage done by inaccurate, irresponsible or malicious reporting by increasing the remedies available to the individuals. Most people who are wronged by the press want nothing more than for the record to be put straight by way of a correction and an apology, and they deserve nothing less. However, at the moment an apology can mean virtually anything. Editors may offer to write another article, which is favourable to the person wronged, to publish a letter from the aggrieved individual or to publish a correction—never an apology.

Inevitably, such pieces are not accorded the prominence that they deserve and are designed to attract as few readers as possible. Understandably, newspapers do not like to admit when they are wrong and are reluctant to publish anything that suggests that they have made a mistake. They shy away from admitting any blame. People who run newspapers have a public responsibility to get things right. When mistakes occur, they have a duty to put them right quickly and frankly.

Under my Bill, corrections and apologies will have to be of a minimum size. Never smaller than the offending article, they will appear on the same page as the original 814 article, with the same headline size and a wording agreed by the person who has been wronged. It is important that the impact of the apology matches that of the offending article. That is not impractical, as newspaper editors already argue, although it may be unpalatable for some.

If editors refuse to publish a correction and an apology, which they are fully entitled to do if they believe that there is no cause, there will still be other ways for the individual to proceed. The Press Complaints Commission will still have the power to consider the complaint and make a ruling. In addition, two funds will be established—raised by way of a levy on newspapers, either on profits or turnover. The first will be a compensatory fund to repay any expenses to the claimant arising from the publication of an inaccurate article, such as legal fees and so forth, perhaps, up to about £5,000. The other fund will be able to offer an interest-free loan for individuals to pursue libel cases.

In either case, the funds will be made available only after the Press Complaints Commission has judged the claimant to have a bona fide, prima facie case. While the compensatory fund would require an annual top-up, the loan fund would be made good either by the aggrieved party, should he or she lose the libel case, or by the newspaper, should the libel be upheld, although some provisions will be needed to pay off bad debts.

I propose one final sanction, which would be used only in the most extreme and serious cases. If the Press Complaints Commission deemed that an article was written with malice and recklessness and without regard to the consequences of publication, it could suspend the circulation of a newspaper for one day. In effect, it would take the newspaper off the streets because it had been irresponsible and totally reckless. That is a draconian measure, but it would act as an ultimate deterrent for editors who want to publish scurrilous material regardless of the damage that it might cause.

The Bill is not an attack on the press, but an attempt to gain the support of the House to give real teeth to the Press Complaints Commission, with the aim of outlawing inaccurate, irresponsible or malicious journalism. As far as most editors and journalists are concerned, there is nothing to fear because the vast majority of them are diligent and responsible.

My aim in seeking leave to introduce the Bill is to level the proverbial playing field between the individual and the press barons; to reduce the incidence of poor reporting; and to provide David with the rocks to fight Goliath.