- Quote
- I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create offences in relation to breaches of the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice; and for connected purposes. I should like to begin by thanking those hon. Members who kindly agreed to sponsor this Bill, and all those colleagues who have given me their support in the face of potential threats, or of the consequences of taking on and challenging the British press. I should also like to express my gratitude and thanks to Lord Soley, who in 1993 tried to bring in a similar Bill but who was unfortunately unsuccessful. This Bill would introduce a statutory method for protecting the general public from inaccurate and, at times, inflammatory reports in the press and media. It is not intended, either by design or omission, to restrict or in any other way curtail the freedom of the press. However, a free press must balance commercial considerations with its responsibilities to individuals and to society as a whole. The press are beholden to ensure that what is reported is accurate and can be substantiated if challenged. As it stands, a high proportion of people living in the UK have some difficulty in believing even the racing results printed by some of our newspapers. Indeed, a recent survey suggested that only 7 per cent. of the general public trust tabloid journalists. I want to make a clear distinction between the tabloid press and those in the journalism profession, such as the late Charles Wheeler and, of course, our own Alan Johnston. At tremendous risk to themselves and their crews, they have worked bravely to report from some of the most troubled hotspots in the world and to bring events to our television screens. I contrast that with those who perch themselves in the Press Gallery here, and who indulge in cowardly character assassinations by day yet by night moonlight with the old boys’ network of the BBC. The Press Complaints Commission was established in 1991 by the newspaper industry to address increasing concerns that self-regulation of the press was failing adequately to protect the public, and indeed the industry itself. The PCC’s prime function is to put things right when they go wrong during the editorial process, and it seeks to police a voluntary code of practice that was drawn up by members of the industry. Its board has 15 members: seven are senior editors and the other eight are lay members. The PCC operates under the slogan “Fast, Free and Fair”, and its voluntary code states that the press must take all due care not to publish “inaccurate, misleading or distorted” information in text or in picture format. It also states that a “significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence”. If appropriate, an apology may also be published. The code continues by saying that the press, while free to be partisan, must be clear in their distinction between content, conjecture and fact. Finally, it also states that any publication must report fairly and in an accurate fashion “the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.” That is the PCC’s voluntary code as it stands at the moment. However, despite its adoption, the number of complaints to the PCC is increasing. As recently as 2003, the total was up by 39 per cent. at 3,649 complaints, more than half of which related to the accuracy of reports. Despite that alarming rise, and against the backdrop of an increasing lack of trust in tabloid newspaper journalism, the PCC wrote to me, in response to the Bill, to establish its view that no review of its practices was warranted. The National Union of Journalists and I disagree with the PCC’s position on that matter. The NUJ has for some time suggested that the PCC should be declared a public authority, to bring it within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That would make for a more transparent system, in which the PCC’s workings were opened up to public scrutiny. At present, cases brought before the PCC are dealt with in secret, and only the final judgment is made public. The NUJ also argues that the best way to ensure adherence to the PCC’s code of practice is for journalists themselves to uphold it. However, many journalists are increasingly forced to violate the code as a result of commercial pressures, or pressure from editors, some of whom are members of the PCC. The NUJ argues that if journalists had a contractual right to refuse to carry out assignments or tasks that required them to breach the code of practice, the result would be greater accuracy and less need for complaints. Such a “conscience clause” would perhaps be the biggest step towards a return to a fairer, free press. There have been suggestions from some quarters that if we made the press complaints procedure more accessible and effective, our newspapers would be full of nothing but apologies and retractions. That view is clearly absurd, as the only foreseeable reason why a paper would be full of corrections is that it had been full of inaccuracies in the first place. In addition, many countries such as Germany, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Switzerland and France have just as robust, or even more stringent, systems to ensure that their citizens are afforded protection from inaccurate press reporting. In the UK, the current voluntary code of practice leaves newspapers free to print what they like, irrespective of the personal consequences for those involved. In the majority of cases in which members of the general public are the victims of inaccurate reporting, they do not have the resources—financial or otherwise—to mount a legal challenge against those responsible. There is an increasing body of anecdotal evidence to suggest that in situations in which victims feel that they have a strong case, they are bought off with minimal out-of-court cash settlements, and with a small retraction buried in the depths of the newspaper. There are, of course, some high profile cases, such as that of the McCann family, whose lives have been made a misery, not simply because of their own actions, but because of subsequent unsubstantiated, and frankly outrageous, reports about their situation. In my view, the McCanns are due every penny of their successful claim. However, what about the case of Mr. Murat, at one time the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, who was cleared of any involvement, but whom the British media decided to convict, and whose life now lies in ruins? The principle of innocent until found guilty seems not to be held to by the tabloid newspapers, which choose to persecute people in the court of public opinion, although what they say has little or no basis in fact. There are many cases like Mr. Murat’s, and that must give Members of the House, and the public, great cause for concern, as anyone at any time could fall prey to the vicious practices of the often unrepentant British press. A recent newspaper report was a prime example of inaccuracy; it made statements to the effect that a group of Muslims had attacked a house in Windsor that they thought was being purchased by four members of the armed forces returning from a tour in Afghanistan. The report was made despite the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that the vandalism was caused by Muslims. The story even included a quote from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Subsequently, evidence emerged that indicated that the local Army barracks had received three anonymous telephone calls the previous week from local residents who objected to the presence of soldiers, fearing that they would lower property prices in the area. As I made clear at the start of my comments, I do not wish to restrict the freedom of the press in the Bill. A free press is an essential tool in maintaining any forward-thinking democracy, and in avoiding—
- Time
- 15:39
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)Labour
Mr. SpeakerCrossbench