House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1993

Mr. Corbett : I say that it is no measure because many people who feel wronged and damaged by the antics of the sewer Sun cannot meet the legal bills involved in taking the paper on. The Sun well knows that, which is why it abuses its position.

Mr. Bottomley : That is not relevant to my remark that fewer people are suing The Sun. I suspect that if Lord McGregor were speaking in this debate, he would say that the Press Complaints Commission is getting fewer complaints from ordinary people. That is one of the reasonable tests of whether the pressures are working.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Is my hon. Friend aware that the editor of The Daily Star has said that as a result of peer pressure within the Press Complaints Commission, he has now disciplined his newspaper so that there are fewer complaints than there were before? Self- regulation is taking effect.

Mr. Bottomley : That is the case. I do not want to take up too much time as we lost so much time with points of order from the hon. Member for Hammersmith during our debate on the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill.

If we get rid of the idea that comprehensive legislation will bring a comprehensive solution, we can engage in debate about the standards to which proprietors, editors and journalists hold themselves. I recommend the method of criticising the BBC, for example, and saying, "What you did in the Real Lives' programme was not in accordance with your own guidelines." The BBC would then have to say that it did not want to pay attention to its guidelines, that the guidelines were wrong or that it got it wrong. I think that there is a far more effective way of proceeding.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith has rightly raised questions at his own press conferences and hearings, and I congratulate him on that. Some of the cases have come up again in the Select Committee on National Heritage. Where there are problems, they need attention ; they do not necessarily need legislation. In so many areas, we have gone from having our awareness raised, to saying, "They should not do it", to legislating. The third stage ought to involve those concerned saying, "I should not do it." The fourth stage should be, "I intend not to do it" ; and the last should be, "We don't get things wrong and when we do we are very angry about it ; we say so and put it right"--which some editors already can say. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Column 676

What John Browne proposed was wrong and would not have worked. What the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) proposed in his Right of Reply Bill would not have worked, and the present Bill would not work. My new clause would work, but I do not believe that it needs a Bill to go with it. It should be a requirement that people in the media place upon themselves, and I hope that that is what they will do.

Mr. Soley : I am in some difficulty, because the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) went rather wide. I shall attempt to explain what I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do by means of the new clause. I shall address the points he made as briefly as possible to allow other hon. Members to have their say, although I do not think that time should trouble us too much, given that hon. Members took so much time on the previous Bill with the deliberate intention of talking my Bill out.

Mr. Heald : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley : Yes, but let me just say that I have that from Conservative Members--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We have gone through all this before. We have had quite enough of it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith will address himself to the new clause.

Mr. Soley : I shall be delighted to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in that case I shall not be able to give way to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).

Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to give way.

Mr. Soley : In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refuse-- rather reluctantly, because I always prefer to take interventions.

I will give the hon. Member for Eltham credit on one issue and one issue only : he comes to the debate with a genuine belief in press freedom. I must say, however, that he is one of the most confused speakers on the subject that I have ever heard. I have to say to him, too, that his voting record on press freedom is bad. I have checked how he has voted on press freedom in the past. He voted against the defence of press freedom on a number of critical issues, including the issues that he raised just now when he referred to the ability of journalists to protect their sources. The journalist who was fined £75,000 last year was told in court that, if it happened again--that is, if he protected his sources again--he would face much more serious consequences. The hon. Member for Eltham never spoke out against that ; he voted for it. He voted for the Official Secrets Act 1989 and for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allow the police to confiscate journalists' materials. He voted for all those measures, yet he talks about being in favour of press freedom.

Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman what the debate is about. It is not about whether the British press needs more regulation. I restate my view, which I have expressed many times, that the British press is over- regulated in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. We actually inhibit good investigative journalists, yet we allow individuals to be abused. The headline in The Sun -- "Boy 12 is held for Jamie Murder"--

is but one example. I have already made the point that we should be looking not at the trivial cases to which the hon.

Column 677

Member for Eltham referred but at those much more critical cases. We are talking about a family whose son was taken to the police station to be questioned as a possible witness. Even The Sun quoted the police correctly as saying,

"We do not hold the murderer in this police station".

However, as hon. Members can see for themselves, the headline was :

"Boy 12 is held for Jamie Murder."

The hon. Member for Eltham claims that it is not a matter of who is doing the best thing, the worst thing or how to improve matters. He is saying that the people concerned, and that 12-year-old, have no rights. I believe that they have rights. We could extend those rights by saying that they could sue for libel. However, we were talking about a family which was in no position to complain effectively

Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

1.30 pm

Mr. Soley : If the hon. Lady will give me time to finish, I will give way. It is very important that she hears the argument through. The family to which I referred was very vulnerable not least because it had no stable accommodation. How is that family supposed to sue for libel when it will not be able to obtain legal aid as it is being moved onto other accommodation? How can that family go to the Press Complaints Commission when the complaint must be put in writing? Can I take the matter up for them? No, I cannot because I am a third party. No one else can take the matter up on their behalf--other than perhaps a lawyer if the family situation is stable enough and it has the necessary income, which it does not. The amazing thing about the story--

Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Soley : I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have completed this point.

According to the new clause, all these issues should be a matter of guidance for editors. There is no problem about that. That is happening now.

Lady Olga Maitland : Give way.

Mr. Soley : I will give way in just a moment. The hon. Lady should be patient. Conservative Members are terribly impatient today. I am grateful to the people in News International who officially and unofficially have kept me well informed about the views of News International-- [Interruption.] Conservative Members would probably like me to be taken to court for not revealing my sources. The hon. Member for Eltham would certainly like that as he supported the legislation to allow that.

In a news release headed

"News International Supports Press Self-Regulation"

News International states that editors

"today made a further commitment to self-regulation of the press by their decision to incorporate, or continue to incorporate the Press Complaints Commission's new code of conduct into the journalists' handbook of each title."

Column 678

That is something similar to what the hon. Member for Eltham seeks to achieve in the new clause. The news release continues : "Compliance with the code will be a condition of appointment, and breach of the code will be a disciplinary matter."

That news release is dated 27 January 1993. However, the article to which I referred appeared in The Sun on 17 February. Has the editor been disciplined? Has he been fired? Has he even been told off? Has he put it right? No, he has not. Despite the editor's code, he published the article. However, the family concerned has lost all its rights. The child involved could, as in many of the cases in recent years--and this is one reason why I introduced the Bill--have been wrongfully convicted. We do not have the right to put innocent people in prison in the name of press freedom.

Lady Olga Maitland : The hon. Gentleman appears to be making enormously sweeping statements. With regard to the headline in the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred, how does he know for a fact that the family made a complaint? Does he know for a fact that the family wrote to the Press Complaints Commission?

Mr. Soley : If the hon. Lady considers the family's background she will see that I used my words cautiously. I do not wish to label the family and I would certainly not say about it the kind of things that The Sun said. I am satisfied that the family is not in a position to pursue a complaint.

The issue is very important. If we reach the appropriate point in the debate, I could mention other examples--if I were to quote them now you would rightly rule me out of order Madam Deputy Speaker--of the way in which the Press Complaints Commission is totally inadequate to help people who are not well equipped, for whatever reason, to make formal written complaints of the type required by the PCC, and who do not have the safeguard of a legal person or adviser to help them. Many people are in that position.

If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) would like to pursue the matter with me afterwards, I will explain the problem in much more detail. However, I repeat : have some sensitivity for the family involved ; look at the original story. If the hon. Lady has any sensitivity, she might begin to understand why I am confident that the family could not pursue the matter on its own. That is the point.

Let us be clear about what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do in his amendment :

"Each newspaper will make available for public inspection at its registered office a copy of any editorial or journalistic guidance provided for the use of its staff Such guidance shall be open to inspection during normal working hours of the company."

That is perfectly reasonable. It is right that newspapers should be encouraged to do it. But it should not be a matter for legislation. The hon. Gentleman is determined to put that provision in the Bill. I am not too worried about it. I would not lose any sleep if it were included. But it is not the appropriate way to do it. The hon. Gentleman, in his muddled thinking on the matter, does not understand the dangers in this.

My Bill focuses on accuracy and does not fine newspapers--all the suggestions by the ombudsman, David Calcutt and so on include fining newspapers--because, if we go down that road, we restrict press freedom

Column 679

because the threat of the fine can worry genuine and good investigative journalists. We must make the newspaper put right what it has got wrong.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that newspapers have good practices. As he said, there are many such practices, especially in local newspapers. Newspapers run columns for corrections and outline editorial policy. That is good : it must be encouraged. Indeed, I am pleased that it is happening more often as a result of my campaign. That is part of what I am about. It is one of the reasons why I can say that, win or lose today, the fight will go on. More importantly, it has already achieved a great deal, and I am determined not to let go of it for that reason.

The press will not be allowed to continue getting away with the disgraceful lies which rip away the life of a family, as in the case of the headline I referred to earlier, and at the same time create a situation in which people can face wrongful conviction. Dealing again with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, we must remember that having guidance is not enough. The case of the Taylor sisters is going before the courts on appeal partly on the basis of press reporting. Unlike the National Union of Journalists which did a U-turn on the matter, the hon. Gentleman has not thought the matter through. We must have something that stops such disgraceful lies being told. The answer is not to fine or punish in some way : it is simply to say that if the newspapers get it wrong, they must put it right. People say to me, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we cannot have accuracy because it is someone else's mind, but I did not invent the idea of adjudicating on accuracy. The editors and proprietors invented it : they put it in the code of the Press Complaints Commission. If they cannot be accurate, they should take it out of the code. But it is there. My only argument then is if they say that it can be done, if they give adjudication the credence of being article 1 in their code--not way down the list--it should be seen to be independent. The hon. Gentleman should know from his good work in the alcohol and driving field, that it would be unfair if, when he went to court and gave his evidence, the police gave their evidence against him and then took off their helmets, climbed into the judge's box, put on a wig and said that they would now adjudicate. The hon. Gentleman would say that that was unfair. I am simply saying that if the editors adjudicate on their own errors, can we be surprised if people do not have confidence in the system? If the editors had adjudicated on the story I referred to, could we have confidence in it? I have told the editors many times that it does not matter if they give the right ruling : their problem is that they do not have credibility because they are not seen as independent. That is the reason why I weople who have moved away from the journalistic world into the managerial world. That is important because they then also have an interest in circulation.

The hon. Member for Eltham made the important point that a paper can lose readers if it gets it wrong. That is why--he may already know the explanation, I do not know--local papers tend to be better than national papers. They are much closer to their community. The national papers do not care so much.

Column 680

The Sun got it badly wrong on Hillsborough and burned its fingers. So no one in Merseyside buys The Sun now. That is the only example of which I am aware of a national paper losing readers. We have a duty to protect the rights of people such as the 12-year-old child and his family to whom I referred and other people like them. Unless Conservative Members address that issue seriously, we shall continue to lose press freedom in Britain. They should remember that we have been warned by the International Press Institute that we are losing press freedom as a result of some of the acts to which I have referred. At the same time, abuses will continue.

Therefore, the argument is not that an amendment such as that be included in my Bill ; it is that such an amendment should be included in any code of practice whether drawn up by my body or any other body. But that is not an alternative.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) : The hon. Gentleman said that no one in Merseyside bought The Sun . If I could show him on a future occasion that that was untrue and people in Merseyside bought The Sun , would he publish an apology and correct his statement?

Mr. Soley : The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake of thinking that just because I say something which is not technically 100 per cent. true, we must immediately--

Mr. Peter Atkinson : That is not the point.

Mr. Soley : The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that. I ask him to hear me through. I have been over the ground many times. There are two answers. First, the hon. Gentleman is technically right. Of course, someone on Merseyside buys The Sun . The difference is that my words do not go through the letterboxes of millions of people. They may go out through the media. I can be challenged on them. The problem with newspapers is that they stay in print and are referred to and no one can answer them back. No one came forward and said that the 12-year-old to whom I referred was not being held for murder. But the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) stood up and said, "You are not right." That is what the Bill is about. The argument is not merely between the two sides of the House. One of my hon. Friends could have picked me up on what I said. People can correct us here in the House. Inasmuch as people outside hear what goes on in the House, they can hear the correction if another hon. Member makes it. They cannot hear the correction of what the newspaper said about the 12-year-old child.

I am simply providing a mechanism which operates for people such as the family to which I referred regardless of the fact that they cannot operate the existing system.

Mr. Peter Atkinson : My point may have been trivial but the hon. Gentleman seeks to force on the press precisely such trivial detail. My point illustrates that absolutely.

Mr. Soley : The hon. Gentleman has not thought it through. Accuracy is the first article in the Press Complaints Commission code. I did not put it in. I did not say, "I think I will do accuracy. No one has ever heard of it before, so I shall invent it." I knew that the article was in the code. The Press Complaints Commission adjudicates on it. Am I right? It adjudicates whether the matter is trivial or not. The hon. Gentleman does not deny it.

Column 681

If the commission adjudicates, the argument is not whether we can have accuracy or even whether we should want it. It is about who adjudicates. That is what the hon. Gentleman must address. I am offering a method of getting it right. The method has been well tried. The BBC and the independent television and radio companies operate according to such a code. No one goes round the world--the hon. Member for Eltham ought to consider this point--saying that the BBC and the independent television and radio companies do not have a high standard of accuracy. No one says that they do not do good investigative journalism or that they are not fair, decent or good. People have a high regard for the British electronic media. Sadly, and undeservedly for some parts of it, the British press has a poor reputation.

When I go abroad, people say, "We envy you the BBC and ITV, but how on earth have you ended up with the tabloid press? We do not have such a press." They are right.

Lady Olga Maitland : I am not sure that I go along with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation that the electronic media has the same validity and basis as the press. Television stations, unlike newspapers, are governed by a franchise. That discipline is almost written into their being.

1.45 pm

Mr. Soley : It is interesting to note the evidence that was given to my Committee by investigative journalists who were opposed to my Bill, who had worked in television and the press. One was asked why inaccurate reporting was not a problem in the electronic media and he said that there was a culture of accuracy in the BBC. The hon. Lady should note that.

Those in the electronic media tend to check their stories much more carefully than certain sections of the press. The good newspapers do the same, but some newspapers do not. The problem for all newspapers is that they still have not learnt that people have the basic right to expect their news to be reported accurately or, if Conservative Members prefer the language of Baroness Thatcher, that people have customer rights.

When one buys a newspaper it should, perhaps unusually or surprisingly if it is part of the tabloid press, contain some news. If one wants to call a publication something else, that is fine, but a newspaper should contain news, not disinformation. No one is disputing the fact that newspapers can get things wrong sometimes, but there should be a mechanism to put that right. Newspapers should not be fined or closed down, but that is what will happen if we follow Sir David Calcutt's recommendations about ombudsmen and others.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but television news has fewer problems because it deals with fewer stories and it uses fewer words. Television does not have to compete for attention on the news stand and therefore inaccurate reporting is inherently less of a problem for the electronic media.

Mr. Soley : That is right. I may be asked for my opinion on camera and I am responsible for what I say. That does not mean that the television station has to correct me if I am wrong ; it is simply reporting me and if I get it wrong

Column 682

it is my responsibility. The hon. Member for Eltham, however, should not underestimate the culture of accuracy in the electronic media. The difficulty is in creating that same culture in the press. We are trying to do it in the wrong way.

The hon. Member for Eltham, who moved the new clause, will vote for privacy legislation when it comes before the House. We will then be left with yet another restriction on press freedom, which will not work particularly well. That legislation will not protect the rich and the powerful as much as some people fear because there will be a public interest let-out clause. It will protect some people, however, and I am not against the principle behind privacy legislation. I will not, however, vote for legislation of the type that I fear unless it is matched by a freedom of information Act or a press freedom Act. That is what the National Heritage Select Committee has recommended. I suspect that hon. Members will vote for privacy legislation as blindly as they voted for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the prevention of terrorism Acts, the Official Secrets Act 1989 and all the other Acts that have restricted press freedom. They will troop through the Lobby, but they will then ask why we have lost press freedom. We will have done so because they are blind to the problem--too much regulation of the wrong type that does not solve the problems I have highlighted.

If the hon. Member for Eltham agrees with me about that he should rethink his opposition to my Bill so that rights are given to people such as the 12 -year-old kid in Liverpool and others who have suffered wrongful conviction --I have many other examples in my files. Hon. Members should consider such serious cases and recognise that I am not arguing about whether one can adjudicate on accuracy ; I am simply arguing about who does it and how. That is what the argument should be about and that is why individual members of the Government have said to me, "You are right. This is not about privacy, but about accuracy. That is what matters." The new clause is not very helpful and should not be included in the legislation, but if the House agrees to, I shall not object as it will not detract from the Bill.

Mr. Thurnham : I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) feels that we are having a useful debate--we certainly did earlier. I am not sure whether it could be described as a furious row, but the temperature has risen a little. One or two Opposition Members are now present. There are no Liberals present and only four or five Labour Members.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is present as it allows me to remind her of what she said in Standing Committee. She quoted some examples and said that she would come back to me with accurate information. I know that we are all busy in the House, but I do not believe that I have received that information. If I have and I have omitted to read it, I apologise, but I do not believe that the hon. Lady has come back with the accurate information that she promised on 3 March, as recorded at column 27 of the report of Standing Committee F.

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I left him with a misunderstanding. I thought that the issue had been adequately covered by my hon. Friend the Member for

Column 683

Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), when he said that there could be no third-party intervention in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious for that information I shall make my best efforts and present it to him. Mr. Thurnham rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Before the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) continues his speech, will he explain how what he has already said relates to new clause 1?

Mr. Thurnham : It relates to new clause 1 and the need for accuracy, a code of conduct and the ability of the public to inspect, at registered offices, a copy of any editorial or journalistic guidance provided for the use of staff. It must have accuracy as its first aim, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith stressed.

I was in two minds about new clause 1 when I saw how it was drafted, because I feel that it is up to each organisation to decide how it wants to run things. Rather than have the sort of Bill that the hon. Gentleman has proposed, I would be happier to settle for the new clause. We now have the Select Committee report, which was not available when we had our debates in Standing Committee. It contains the proposal that there should be an ombudsman who, no doubt, would want to look at the editorial journalistic guidance provided to staff.

The issue at the heart of the new clause is accuracy. The hon. Member for Hammersmith quoted The Sun on the tragedy of the Jamie murder. He was right to say that The Sun was proved to be inaccurate. However, the most important aspect of that tragic murder was that, despite the fact that there were videos of the two children who were involved in the abduction, it was a week before they were identified. The community and the rest of the country were concerned that it took so long for the police to identify the children who have now been arrested. It was the delay of a week that was so serious and it was important that everyone was alerted to the case. Although the headline was proved to be wrong, it was right for the newspaper to highlight the case and the anxieties arising from it. The hon. Member for Hammersmith placed great stress on the fact that the family was wronged. I do not have the advantage of having the article in front of me, but I do not believe that it named the family.

Mr. Soley : It gave the address. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the fact that the article was wrong was a minor point. As I said in my opening comments, the story accurately said that the police were not holding the murderer in their cells. That fact was placed way down at the bottom of the story. The police had tried to head off the story at that stage. The headline, however, was damning. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an affinity for News International, but even he cannot defend that. It is indefensible.

Mr. Thurnham : I was not going to return to the question of alleged collusion. It is, of course, absolute nonsense. I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about his links with News International ; he said that it had kept him fully informed. So if there has been any collusion it appears to have been on his part.

I think that the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill for purely political reasons. He thinks that News International puts out a political line not in agreement with his own, so

Column 684

he singles it out for attack. He has singled out The Sun for attack, but it was right to highlight these issues even if it made mistakes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, there will be casualties. It is impossible to have news reporting on the scale that we have enjoyed without some errors at some stages of the proceedings.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for allowing me to debate these issues. He himself has been badly wronged by the press. I have complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the way in which he was treated in one national newspaper. He seems to be able to look back on it all with remarkable good humour, but he was badly wronged. I believe that he got some sort of settlement and I hope that there will be no repetition of what happened.

I have had occasion to complain to the paper in question about another issue as well, but it seems to have improved since then. Ultimately, such matters are for the editor's judgment and that of the people who buy the papers--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument as best I can. It seems to have become a general debate on the press, whereas it should be about the new clause under consideration.

Mr. Thurnham : I apologise. I was just trying to answer some points made earlier. If I have strayed further than I should have, I am happy to desist and let others make their own points.

I am not entirely sure what is the best way to improve standards in the press, but I am certain that we do not want a statutory so-called independent press authority, as proposed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. If we had a Bill that consisted solely of new clause 1, that might be the solution. We wait to hear more of the Government's proposals for necessary changes. I hope to hear the Minister comment on the suggested ombudsman. If an ombudsman were in place, new clause 1 could feature prominently in any legislation on this subject.

Lady Olga Maitland : I support new clause 1. As a practising journalist for 25 years I have always believed that self-regulation regulates the press most effectively.

I am a member of the NUJ. I am not employed by News International. I was reared in the great editorial tradition of Beaverbrook on the Sunday Express, under Sir John Junor. He controlled the newspaper with tight discipline and strict standards of the sort reflected in the guidelines proposed in the new clause. In the news room we were almost terrorised by the guidelines that he imposed. We could not quote someone without precisely identifying him ; we had to be precise about our sources of information when explaining ourselves to the news editor ; we could not fly a kite in the hope that we would get away with it.

Above all, we had to check, check and check again. We should be concerned about the kind of behaviour that has been pointed up. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Hammersmith in his frustration over the way in which the press has got out of control in some sectors. However, the Bill is a knee- jerk reaction, whereas new clause 1 would satisfactorily remedy the defects with which we are faced. The difficulties under which the press is operating--together with the rather tacky sales war between newspapers, which seems to override sober judgment on

Column 685

what it is suitable to print--is not helped by a knee-jerk response to that material. The main point of new clause 1 is that self-regulation would put that situation into order.

2 pm

What would come out of the Bill if it ever received Royal Assent-- mercifully, it will not--is a charter to muzzle or gag the press. That fits poorly on a tremendous democratic tradition. We have to take into account not only the desire to punish the wrongdoer, but the importance of ensuring that the press, in the name of democracy, is able to expose wrong, to challenge and, by being unfettered, to speak up without fear or favour to bring wrongs to public light. I am sorry that the press was fettered when it tried to expose Robert Maxwell. It was a scandal and a tragedy that he used all the weapons at his command to gag the press.

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : Was the hon. Lady equally disturbed when the press was fettered--in particular, the New Statesman -- when it tried to report the Zircon affair and the Government of the day sent in police to smash down the journalist's door and seize all his notes ?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Lady continues, let me make the point that we are not having a general debate on the issue of press freedom or the curtailment of the press. We are looking, precisely, at a new clause.

Lady Olga Maitland : Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the main point of new clause 1, which would require newspapers to provide guidelines.

Self-regulation would achieve more than would an independent press authority, set up, not as independent in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but by the Government of the day, who might not be as scrupulous as the Government whom we are used to. As such a press authority would be seriously flawed, I could not possibly accept it. New clause 1 would redress the problems. A press authority such as the one proposed would be, de facto, judge and jury. It could become an unguided missile. It could wield its powers on the basis of loosely defined duties, rather like a quasi-judicial quango. Should a Government body enforce on newspapers what they should or should not publish? It is up to newspapers to retain the powers that they already have.They are already responding to their peer group and public pressure to get their act in order. It rather reminds me of the dark days of Pravda, the Soviet truth newspaper, which was anything but.

Mr. Livingstone : It had a code of guidance.

Lady Olga Maitland : We are talking not just about accuracy, but about what is truth. Philosophers have been foxed about that since time began. That could give rise to a great deal of work for lawyers. An independent press authority would hardly inspire trust and confidence in newspaper, if it tried to be a conciliator, particularly if the newspaper knew that later the authority would adjudicate upon the complaint.

We would be aiming for the sky if we set up an independent press authority. We should seek the best and the highest standards, but I do not believe that the hon.

Column 686

Member for Hammersmith is going the right way about trying to impose accuracy. The IPA would become a draconian body- -

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : Does my hon. Friend believe that the words of the new clause

"any editorial or journalistic guidance"

cover issues relating just to accuracy, or does she believe that they go wider and cover what happened in the Gorden Kaye case or in the Lady Green case, who was confronted with a prostitute in order that there could be a gimmicky story? Would that, in my hon. Friend's view, also be covered?

Next Section

Home Page