Calls for changes to the way complaints against newspapers are dealt with, which would give people a statutory right to correct significant factual inaccuracies about them, are being backed by the National Union of Journalists and MediaWise.

A Right of Reply and Press Standards Bill was launched in the House of Commons yesterday by Labour MP Peter Bradley, proposing new leglislation which would provide an alternative to the Press Complaints Commission.

The MP says people currently have little or no means of defending themselves against the press when things go wrong.

Speaking at the launch of the Bill, he said: "Currently they have two choices: either to take their case to the Press Complaints Commission which has proved over many years to be toothless and ineffectual or to the courts which few can afford.

"My Bill would ensure that when a complaint is justified, a newspaper would be required to publish a correction speedily and prominently.

"It's my expectation that if this citizen's right existed, the worst offenders in the press would clean their acts up very quickly and we would see higher standards of journalism, less casual inaccuracy, more respect for individuals’ reputations and, ultimately fewer complaints."

Under the proposals, if editors do not agree to publish prominently placed corrections within three days, complainants could take their case to an independent adjudicator. Either party would then be able to appeal the adjudicator's decision to a Press Standards Board, and its rulings would be enforceable through the courts.

NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear said a simple measure requiring factual inaccuracies to be corrected would be a step in the right direction.

He said: "The NUJ would not support anything that restricted press freedom or allowed the state to determine what gets into print. There is no attempt to correct opinions or even descriptions – just the facts.

"Good journalists will offer a right of reply anyway, as required by the NUJ Code of Conduct. A paper that gets everything right, or offers to correct mistakes of its own accord, will never be subject to an order.

"The press should be open to Peter Bradley's constructive proposal."

Media ethics charity MediaWise and The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom have also spoken out in support of the bill, welcoming the opportunity for public debate.

"The right of reply is a democratic issue. The press are free to print without fear of favour, but there must be adequate systems of instant redress, which appear to be beyond the scope of Press Complaints Commission procedures," said MediaWise Director Mike Jempson.

MP Peter, whose constituency is The Wrekin, in the West Midlands, is due to take the bill to the House of Commons for a second reading on Friday.

The PCC says it offers a service primarily for the public who feel they have something to complain about. In over 90 per cent of cases where there has been a possible breach of the code it negotiates an appropriate response such as a correction or an apology.

Under the Editors' Code of Practice clause one states that any significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published, while clause two states that a fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.