The Government sees a proposed Right of Reply and Press Standards Bill as an unnecessary restriction on the freedom of the press.

The Bill, put forward by labour MP Peter Bradley, would alter the self-regulation system for newspapers and magazines, and force publications to make corrections by law within a specified time limit.

The Press Complaints Commission is the self-regulated independent body which deals with complaints from members of the UK public about editorial content in newspapers and magazines. It has no statutory functions and is independent of the newspaper industry and Government.

A new Press Standards Board would be able to enforce its decisions through the courts.

But junior education minister Derek Twigg told the House of Commons: “We cannot countenance any restriction of the freedom of the press.

“We believe that no laws should specifically restrict press freedom. The Government should not intervene in any way in what a newspaper or magazine chooses to publish.”

Speaking at the Bill’s second reading debate, he said: “We support self-regulation and the basis of the Government’s relationship with the independent Press Complaints Commission is support for effective self-regulation. Newspapers may not publish whatever they like, but must abide by the law, as we all must, and that includes laws covering defamatory material.

“We acknowledge that with freedom comes responsibility. In recognition of their responsibilities, newspapers chose to restrict their historic right of free speech, which is now guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998, by signing up to the voluntary code of practice, which is overseen by the PCC.

“It is right that, in support of the PCC code, we remind the industry from time to time that accuracy is of the utmost importance to its standing among the public. The importance that the PCC accords to accuracy is reflected in the fact that the need for accuracy is enshrined in the first clause of the code.”

He said that no editor had ever refused to publish the PCC adjudication and adherence to the PCC code is written into many editors’ contracts.

And in contrast to Peter Bradley’s assertion, the majority of PCC members were, in fact, lay members and not part of the newspaper industry.

He warned: “I am afraid that the Bill would establish statutory regulation by the back door… Once we have breached the principle of press freedom — let us be clear about this — we will find ourselves on a very slippery slope.”

The Conservative Party also thought the Bill neither necessary nor desireable.

John Randall told the Commons: “The Conservative party supports the right of the press to regulate itself, which is a crucial part of our press freedom.”

But Peter Bradley told the House that he, too, wanted press freedom to flourish and would not curtail press rights but agreed the press “should not have an unfettered freedom to misinform or deceive”.

“In fact, in such circumstances most people do not want monetary compensation; they simply want the record set straight, and quickly. The PCC is their only other means of achieving redress, if redress it is.

“Last year, it received more than 3,600 complaints — just under 40 per cent more than in the previous year. It adjudicated only 23 of those complaints and upheld just 11: 0.3 per cent.”

He quoted messages of support from the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, MediaWise and the NUJ general secretary.

He added: “Newspapers have rights — and those rights must be protected—but so do the people whom they write about.

“As I said, individuals have a right not to be misrepresented and the public have an important right not to be misled. The Bill creates a new citizen’s right of protection against the power of the press when that power is abused, either by design or, more often than not, by default.

“I do not believe that any responsible journalist need fear the Bill. Only the worst, the least professional, the least scrupulous will be inconvenienced by it.”

The House voted 12 MPs to six against the second reading, but because there were fewer than 40 MPs voting, the business was held over to another day and could be doomed due to a lack of time before the general election.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index