I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert:

`subject to an appeal under section (Press Commission Appeal Tribunal).'.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful if I say that I am willing to accept new clause 4 and amendment No. 75.

I call the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to speak to his new clause with that in mind.

I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has said. However, I am in some difficulty because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) are not convinced that the new clause is necessary. I must, therefore, place on record the reasons why the new clause should be added to the Bill. In doing so, I hope that I can persuade them to join the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and me in supporting the new clause.

I should make my position clear from the outset. I oppose the Bill, but I do not rise to defend the worst excesses of Fleet street and Wapping. I am not saying that everything is perfect with the British press. I remind the House that this is not merely a debating Chamber. It is a legislative Chamber. The House must consider what would happen if the Bill became law.

In my view, the Bill is a dangerous threat to press freedom. It would undermine editorial direction and stifle investigative journalism. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is a barrister-at-law and I have to tell him that in my view a newspaper is more than a mere passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment and advertising. The choice of the material to go into a newspaper and decisions as to the limitations on size and content of the newspaper—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is trying to make a serious speech about new clause 4 in the face of barracking, noise and laughter. Press freedom is a serious matter. Press freedom is at stake. I want to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting out, even now.

Order. I hope that the House will listen to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is moving his new clause, although my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has already said that he accepts it, so what is the point of making a speech about it?

Let us get on with the debate.

As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can only be half awake at this hour in the morning. When I rose to my feet I made it clear that it is all very well for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie to say that he accepts my new clause, but I know that there are serious reservations on the Conservative Benches about—[Interruption.] I am seeking to persuade—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

He is being paid ·60,000 to come here this morning.

I cannot imagine that anybody would ever pay the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) anything to turn up anywhere. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether you can hear me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on my point of order, but I could not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) was saying because of the barracking of a number of Opposition Members who do not respect a free press and do not, furthermore, respect free speech in this House. Could you be so kind as to ensure that the debate is conducted in a manner in which I, at least, can hear what my hon. Friend is saying?

Order. I hope that we shall get off to a good start on these important debates and that the House will listen to the hon. Member for Derby, North, who has the Floor.

Before the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch appeared to have a fit, I was saying that a newspaper was more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment and advertising. The choice of material and the decisions about the size and content of a paper and the treatment of public issues, public officials and politicians, whether fair or unfair, involve the exercise of editorial control and judgment. I have yet to be convinced that Government regulation of that crucial process can be exercised consistent with a free press.

My hon. Friend mentioned that some Conservative Members had expressed reservations about new clause 4. Does he agree that the Bill is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, given that there are 1,800 provincial newspapers, many of which are held in high regard in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they report local affairs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that when he has heard my arguments, he will decide that if we have to have the Bill it will be better with the addition of new clause 4. [Interruption.] Opposition Members keep shouting that it has been accepted, but I will repeat for the third time that although the promoter of the Bill has been persuaded that he should accept new clause 4, I am surrounded by hostile hon. Friends who do not accept the need for new clause 4 and intend to divide the House. I am seeking to persuade my hon. Friends that they should not do that and that new clause 4 should be added to the Bill.

I understand that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is prepared to accept only amendment No. 75 and new clause 4, both of which I have put my name to and I am pleased that he is prepared to accept them, but the only basis on which the Bill would be acceptable to me would be if the other amendments in the group, providing for an appeal to the courts, were also accepted. If there is not to be an appeal to the courts, a radically different approach to the group of amendments and the issues they raise is necessary.

I realise that I have to add my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) to the list of my hon. Friends who are unhappy about the new clause. I hope to persuade them otherwise during my speech.

It would be easy for opponents of the Bill to take a negative attitude and merely seek to divide the House on Third Reading, but I hope that the House will realise that we are trying to be constructive and improve the Bill. If the amendments are accepted, I hope that the Bill will be more acceptable to the House.

Before developing my argument in support of new clause 4, I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on the good-natured and fair way in which he steered the Bill through Committee. Even his opponents recognised his good nature and courtesy in Committee. He has been more good natured than some of my hon. Friends. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) will join us this morning, but ever since we concluded our proceedings in Committee, I have kept bumping into him in corridors and hearing him moan about the worst excesses of Fleet street. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of his company later.

Although the Government have made it clear that they are neutral, I hope that two of my hon. Friends who are Ministers will attend the debate, and although they cannot take part, will join me in the Division Lobby. I am referring to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who has said that he agrees with most of my amendments to the Bill. I have not discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but on reading through the Official Report, I noticed that during the debate on the Parking Bill he said:

"I look forward to attending the historic towns forum that is to take place … However I may wish to return early so that I may be negatively neutral on the Right of Reply Bill. Given my job, if I had a formal right of reply, half the newspapers would be full of items explaining that they had misunderstood me. I am one of the more misunderstood Ministers".— [Official Report, 7 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 520.]

While on the subject of those who are misunderstood, what representations has my hon. Friend received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

I was rather surprised not to receive any representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I have not seen him in the House for quite some time, perhaps because the House has not been considering matters that the Government consider particularly contentious. Perhaps that is the reason for my right hon. Friend's absence.

He is advertising cheese.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough informs me that one of the reasons for my right hon. Friend's absence is that he is currently advertising cheese products on television.

New clause 4 introduces the right of appeal, which can be exercised by either party against the press commission to a press commission appeal tribunal which may affirm the original decision or make any other determination. The new clause also gives the Secretary of State powers to make rules to regulate the practices and procedures to be followed in connection with appeals. My hon. Friends may ask why we need an appeals procedure. I remind the House that the Bill as drafted gives powers of High Court enforcement. I consider that the Bill's provisions for the hearing of evidence are entirely unacceptable, and that an appeals procedure should be provided.

The Bill does not provide a right to be heard in person by the commission. It does not even provide a right to be legally represented, and parties are not required to give evidence under oath. Therefore, it is clear that there will be no right to cross-examination or to the examination of any relevant documents.

My hon. Friend is making a very interesting case, but will he address a fundamental point that worries me? The very first line of new clause 4 refers to the Secretary of State. Many Conservative Members are worried that because of the excesses of two or three national titles, the 1,850 regional daily and weekly newspapers, which do a good job and try to act responsibly, may be clobbered. Much as we regret the excesses of one or two national titles, Conservative Members are fundamentally committed to press freedom and we are not convinced that my hon. Friend's new clause, in fiddling around with the Bill, will in any way improve it or address that problem.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The main answer to his question is that the Bill should be opposed, but, as I said a few moments ago, we are considering a Bill on Report and I felt that it was more constructive to seek to alleviate some of the problems that the Bill will cause than simply to oppose it. My hon. Friend referred to clobbering the press. If he reads new clause 4, he will realise that it seeks to alleviate the clobbering of the press by providing a right of appeal.

I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend's development of his argument. Subsection (1) of new clause 4 states that the appeal body should be composed of a panel of members of the commission. Is that not the same as having the right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission to a panel of members of the planning committee which refused the application in the first place? Is it not a vicious circle into which those who fall into the clutches of the commission will be bound ever more tightly? How will the appeal be independent? Is it not a mere charade and facade?

My hon. Friend has been rather harsh in his criticism. One hopes that those appointed will be responsible and independently minded people who have some knowledge of the working of the newspaper industry and who, therefore, would exercise their judgment freely when asked to review a decision of the full commission.

I am not happy about new clause 4, because it seems merely to complicate the Bill without giving any real assurance of the freedom of the press. The debate is about appointing a press commission, not a right of reply board. I disagree with my hon. Friend over whether the commissioners, or whatever we choose to call them, should sit on appeals against their own judgments. I think, as my hon. Friend does, that the commissioners would be responsible men and women and, after all, it should not be my hon. Friend who is criticising this but Opposition Members. They claim frequently that there can be no proper appeal or investigation of matters, for example concerning the police, because the police conduct the inquiries themselves. We always say that the police, like the commissioners, are honourable men and women who can be trusted to do a proper job. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain how the appeals will be conducted. Will they be conducted with barristers, lawyers, and cross-examination? How will they work?

I shall deal with my right hon. Friend's first point now and his other point later. I do not think that he chose a good analogy when he referred to complaints initiated against the police. In that instance, a police officer from another constabulary will carry out the investigation. I am not suggesting that editors from another newspaper should sit on the appeal board. It will consist of people appointed by the Secretary of State and they would not necessarily be editors who are currently in charge of a newspaper. Therefore, that point was not particularly valid.

My hon. Friend has missed my point. The appeals procedure he is setting up is not for appeals against the view of editors but for someone who wants to appeal against the decision of the commissioners. Yet the commissioners will be sitting on that appeals board. The Bill stinks. The concept of commissioners being appointed by the state to govern the press is anathema to most Conservative Members. However, my hon. Friend missed my point and perhaps he will deal with it in a little more detail now.

I understand my right hon. Friend's point. I would not envisage that a commissioner who sat on the original hearing would be one of the commissioners sitting on the appeal. If my right hon. Friend is thinking, "Well, new clause 4 does not say that", I should point out that the new clause makes it clear that there are to be rules laid down by the Secretary of State to determine the manner of the hearing of the appeals and other matters ancillary thereto.

I am hoping—no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear when he replies—that such things would be dealt with in the rules. I accept that there may be criticism and that some of my hon. Friends may think that I should have added the rules to the new clause. I thought that the matter should be reflected upon in the light of today's debate. Therefore, when I drafted the new clause I wanted it to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider our debate and then formulate the rules. I want to give my right hon. Friend some flexibility in the light of our proceedings.

There is an important point to which my hon. Friend has not referred. Under new clause 4 some members of the commission will be allowed to hear an appeal. My hon. Friend has told the House that the commissioners will be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, when reference is made in the Bill to "Secretary of State" does that not mean any Secretary of State, so that, for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales could appoint commissioners? Why does my hon. Friend have greater confidence in the ability of the Secretary of State for Wales to choose commissioners than in his judgment on monetary and economic matters?

If the commissioners were to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I hope that he would appoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because it would at least give him something useful to do with his time.

Clause 4(4) forces the commission to deal properly with any complaint. Hon. Members will know that it must give a decision within 28 days of receiving a complaint unless, according to the Bill,

"it is not reasonably practicable to do so within that time limit."

It does not say to whom it must be "reasonably practicable". Is it to one of the parties, both the parties, or the commission? The 28-day period does not allow time for correspondence, let alone consideration of the evidence.

My hon. Friend is coming to what I think is one of the fundamental flaws in the concept of the Bill and I am interested to know how he will deal with it. If there is a voluntary system, it could—though it does not in the case of the Press Council—operate quickly and effectively. When one moves, as the Bill does, in the direction of statutory rights, one needs statutory protection as well. As the role of the press commission develops, we shall lose all its informality, flexibility and potential for speed because of the inevitable need to protect the rights of both parties involved.

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I think that he may be coming round to the view that there should be an appeals procedure to remedy any injustice that occurs. I hope that that is his ultimate conclusion.

My first preference would have been that the remedy should lie in an accelerated procedure to county courts in the first instance rather than to the press commission. Having regard to the strong feelings expressed in the Bill that matters should be dealt with through a press commission, I would go along with that as long as there is the opportunity to appeal within it and then the ultimate appeal to the courts.

I am grateful for that clarification.

I remind the House that the commission is given further power to order a right of reply where it feels that a newspaper has not responded with sufficient urgency to allow the commission to make a judgment within 28 days of the receipt of the complaint. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any definition of what is "sufficient urgency". The procedure contained in the Bill has nothing to do with justice but everything to do with making a quick decision.

In order for justice to be done in such cases as would arise under the Bill, it is essential that there should be a speedy right of reply. A right of reply that happens months after the original statement is made will serve no useful purpose for the person who has been libelled by the newspaper. Therefore, I oppose the new clause because it will make the procedure even longer than the system proposed in the Bill. Speed is of the essence in any right of reply.

We all agree with that. However, I hope that, in his pursuit of speed, my hon. Friend is not willing to sacrifice justice. That is my fear.

That is all very well, but one has to look at what the Bill is seeking to achieve. It seeks to give somebody who has been accused in a factually incorrect manner of having done something, or of being something that he is not, a right of reply to put the opposite case. That is all the Bill is trying to achieve. My hon. Friend talks about justice. The amount of inaccurate rubbish that one reads in national newspapers these days is so appalling that surely it must be right for the House to take the view that somebody should be able to rebut it and that the editors of the newspapers should have a duty to publish that rebuttal.

Yes, but I do not know from where people will be found to sit on the commission who are infallible. I am worried that the commissioners may make a mistake, and under the Bill as it is drafted no remedy is available, except an expensive legal process.

My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of justice, about which I entirely agree, but does he accept that it often tends to be expensive? Under the new clause, the appeal procedure being proposed will be expensive for not only appellants but defendants. Who will pay the costs of the appeal procedure? Who will pay the costs of newspapers against which complaints of little substance have been made?

New clause 4 is far less expensive than some of the other appeal procedures, such as an appeal to the High Court.

Does my hon. Friend realise that he is getting himself into an awful muddle? Supporters of the Bill, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), say that speed, simplicity and cheapness are of the essence. My hon. Friend is trying to impose a quasi-judicial appeal procedure on what should be a simple and rapid system.

I am not in an awful muddle. I am trying to drive a course down the middle between my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who are on opposing sides. Surely we can achieve a compromise between no appeal procedure and the only available alternative of the High Court.

In trying to drive down the middle, is not my hon. Friend beginning to understand that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to drive a middle course? There must either be a legal procedure, which we have enjoyed in this country and which protects individual rights, or a statutory procedure. A quasi-judicial process cannot be imposed on a statutory procedure, which is the problem facing my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend and I are at one in our views of the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends may not have heard because of the racket emanating from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, but at the outset I said that I opposed the Bill. New clause 4 finds a middle way and improves what I still regard as a defective Bill. My hon. Friend's excessive pleading for the existing system of justice is tinged by the fact that he is a member of the legal profession and may fear that if the new clause were passed it would deprive lawyers of their fat appeal fees. I say that, without malice, as a lawyer.

I am relieved that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) shares my concern about this matter. As a lawyer, I say that we do not wish to perpetuate the system, but from our long experience we know that injustice arises when one tries to take short cuts. One may be able to make summary decisions in many instances about a factual inadequacy, but in many circumstances the issues will be extremely complex, such as allegations of fraud or malpractice that fall short of criminality. I do not understand how a statutory procedure under which qualified lawyers cannot operate, which has no power to call evidence under oath and to subpoena witnesses or documents, can possibly achieve justice in such complex cases. The fabric of the Bill is based on simple cases and ignores the complex.

I am not sure that my hon. Friend makes a good point. The new clause provides for new rules to be laid in due course. I expect them to contain requirements for the calling of witnesses and oral hearings at which witnesses can be cross-examined. We are debating not an investigation into complex fraud matters but a factual inaccuracy in a newspaper to which someone is seeking a right of reply.

If a newspaper implies, for example, that a second-hand car dealer has been guilty of malpractice, whether or not criminality is implied at the same time, the issues could be complex.

I take my hon. Friend's point. When the rules are laid in due course, I expect them to make provision for the legal representation of both parties appearing before the tribunal. I hope that the Home Office will agree, but I believe that the rules should make such provision.

Does my hon. Friend accept that he is being a little naive in expecting that the issues that will fall to be determined by the commission will be clear cut? Surely there is hardly a newspaper in the country that would not be prepared to correct a simple and straightforward inaccuracy. Complaints will arise when facts are disputed and cannot be readily established. In such circumstances, the issues involved will be similar to those in a libel case.

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right. Contention will arise not just on whether a statement of fact is accurate but under clause 1(1)(1), which says that the factual inaccuracy must be such that

"any reasonable person might deem to be damaging to the character, reputation or good standing of that person or body of persons."

Most challenges will be to that part of clause 1(1).

Despite my hon. Friend's explanation, does he agree that the establishment of what is a fact is much more complex? Is it not true that in the Chamber, day after day, we dispute so-called facts? Will that not now be carried over into the press?

According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is something that is

"certainly known to have occurred or be true".

On appeal, it will be not a particular fact but the effect of a factual inaccuracy that will be in contention.

My hon. Friend is in deep difficulty. Let us consider cases alleging misdoing in the City, such as insider trading. Initially, such accusations frequently surface in the press. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if someone took such allegations to the press commission, required a newspaper to set the record straight and publish a correction, the commission would be able to come to a conclusion without an examination as rigorous as if someone were charged with a criminal offence and appeared at the Old Bailey? Such proceedings, especially given that my hon. Friend has said that lawyers should become involved, could go on not for days or weeks but for years, as some major fraud cases do. The press commission itself would not work, let alone the appeal committee of three unfortunate perhaps not legally qualified men or women sitting on an appeal, on a matter that already had been before the commission for two or three years.

My right hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, especially as the Bill does not explain what the burden of proof before the commission should be. I have proceeded so far on the assumption that the person making the complaint would need to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, but the commissioners may take a wholly different view. I accept what my right hon. Friend has said on that, but I should have thought that if the Bill became law, there would be an incentive for editors to ensure that they had the correct facts at their fingertips before they proceeded to publish an article. If they were unable to show that they had the factual details to hand, I would expect to see them lose before the commission and the right to reply to be given.

No one expects anything better from the general run of the miserable rabble of mediocrities who are conducting this charade, but would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is sad and pathetic to find a former Secretary of State reduced to the level of Friday morning filibusterer? Could the hon. Gentleman arrange among his colleagues for a £10 a head whip round to give the former Secretary of State a sense of being of more central importance in life?

I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. What is rather pathetic is that, although the Labour party has said that it supports the Bill wholeheartedly, I observe that there are only a small number of Labour Members in the Chamber at he moment.

Does my hon. Friend note the incongruity that Opposition Members argue that there should be a statutory right of reply against factual inaccuracies, vet they have advanced their case this morning only by heaping abuse on those who happen to disagree with them? Does my hon. Friend consider that there is some ambiguity in their approach which reinforces our real fear that the Bill is an Opposition attempt to gag the press?

My hon. Friend is right. I shall now return to the argument I was developing a few moments ago. Despite the composition and powers of the commission under the Bill, no right of appeal is contained in it. The only appeal open to aggrieved parties would be by way of a judicial review in the High Court.

I thought that my hon. Friend was going to elaborate further on his reply to our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). My hon. Friend has left me confused about his view on the burden of proof required. He started by saying that the complainant would need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the facts were as stated and that damage had been suffered. He then said that he would expect the newspaper to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it had a factual basis for its article. I thought that he left the matter in mid air because of the intervention by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). My hon. Friend leaves me up in the air. I am not clear what he considers should be the burden of proof when appeal is heard by the tribunal.

The reason that I left my hon. Friend in the air was that the Bill leaves the issue in the air. The Bill is badly drafted and does not state what the burden of proof should be. I left the matter in the air because I was merely speculating about how the process might operate. My hon. Friend is right. Where does the burden of proof lie? Does it lie with the complainant or the newspaper? We do not know, because the Bill does not tell us. That is why I began my remarks by saying that I was opposed to the Bill. Its drafting is awful, because it does not resolve the issue. If it is the will of the House that, bad as it is, the Bill should proceed, we should graft onto it a right of appeal which may not be perfect but would seem to remedy some of the difficulties that would, undoubtedly, arise should the Bill become law.

As I said before my hon. Friend the member for Slough intervened, the only way that someone could challenge a decision by the commission would be by applying for a judicial review. That is a wholly inappropriate method of appealing against decisions by the press commission. It would mean that a party would have to show that the commission had acted ultra vires, had misinterpreted the law, or acted wholly unreasonably in the circumstances. That cannot be to the benefit of either the complainant or the newspaper or periodical.

I was delighted to see that point picked up by Mr.Bernard Levin in an excellent article in The Times on 18 April in which he said, referring to the press commission:

"And the "judgements" of this kangaroo court are final: there is no form of appeal (for either side), and anyone who is dissatisfied by a ruling has no recourse other than to go to the courts for judicial review, which inevitably means that only millionaires can afford to seek justice from this appalling contraption."

Hear, hear. Mr. Bernard Levin has got it right. It is an appalling contraption and to allow an appeal only by way of a judicial review will not remedy the defects that the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, talked about in Committee. He said that the Bill was intended to be a way of achieving cheap justice so that the common man could have the facts put right. If the Bill allows an appeal only by way of judicial review, only someone like Tiny Rowlands will be able to seek to have decisions overturned. The man on the Clapham omnibus will be left facing an injustice if the comission decides unfairly against him.

Does my hon. Friend know of any appeal procedure in our jurisdiction where the members of the appeal tribunal are drawn from the court of first instance? Is that not the worrying and serious point that Conservative Members are trying to address? This is not a charade; it is a serious matter of press freedom and upsetting traditional judicial procedures. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is in the newspaper business himself—the working man's Murdoch, although he did not declare an interest. We are obliged to submit the Bill to the closest possible scrutiny. How can my hon. Friend meet the point that the members of the appeal tribunal made the decision in the first place? Does that conform with the principles of natural justice in this country? Of course not.

My hon. Friend is rather overstating the case. I would not expect to see the panel for the appeal composed of those commissioners who took part in the original decision. Let me give an analogy. If a police officer is charged with a disciplinary offence, he has an ultimate right of appeal to the Home Secretary. It could be argued that the Home Secretary has an interest in the matter because he is responsible for the police in the first instance. My hon. Friend's fears are not as weighty as he would have the House believe. A system of appeals to review certain decisions is a familiar part of society today.

I want to pursue the matter further. The analogy with the police is not satisfactory. It is suggested that of the 21 commissioners, three should be taken out. To speak about them as though they would be a wholly separate group, as one police force is separate from another, is wrong. The commission will be a small and coherent group of individuals. To say that three of them will question the decisions of the other 18 is an absurd proposition.

It is not absurd. We are discussing intelligent and independently minded people who will have the interests of the press at heart and a desire to see justice done. The situation will not be as bad as my hon. Friend suggests.

We can only deal with the new clause as it appears on the amendment paper. It does not make it crystal clear that someone who has heard a case in the court of first instance will not also hear it on appeal. That is the fundamental problem. Could we not use the more traditional way of going about things and provide for appeals to the High Court? Surely that would be preferable to people sitting in judgment on their colleagues.

As the debate proceeds, I realise that it was perhaps an error not to include in the new clause the rules that I envisaged that the Secretary of State would ultimately lay. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—

That is not good enough.

I would expect proper rules to be laid in due course to provide for a fair system of appeals. If that does not happen, there is no point in providing for rules to be laid in the first place.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend a way out of this difficulty? Could he not table a manuscript amendment to make it clear that no commissioner who had taken part in the original proceedings should be allowed to be part of the panel that would consider an appeal against that decision? Might not that be a way forward if Mr. Deputy Speaker were prepared to accept a manuscript amendment at this stage?

I am not prepared to table a manuscript amendment at this stage. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my theme and explain the reasons behind the new clause. Then, if I have not convinced him by the end of the debate, and if he wishes to table a manuscript amendment, I shall not seek to divide the House. I expect these matters to be properly dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in due course. On reflection, I do not think that it would be right and proper for me to set down the rules in the new clause, because the rules should be laid after careful consideration.

As my hon. Friend knows, I support new clause 4, although I have some reservations about the way in which it might work. If we decide against the initial court proposal, we should use the model of industrial tribunals and the employment appeal tribunals as a structure that would be generally acceptable in dealing with the matter. The difficulty that we face is that the membership of industrial tribunals is much more circumscribed than is provided for in the Bill and the membership of the employment appeal tribunals is drawn from an entirely different group of people, who do not sit at a court of first instance. Therefore, while I share my hon. Friend's belief that the Minister will come up with a procedure that works very well, it seems to me that the Bill would prohibit the Minister from putting in place a structure that has proved satisfactory elsewhere.

I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the structure of the Bill; it is a badly drafted Bill. I know that my hon. Friends are still not happy about this point, but the Home Office has experience in such matters. We have a system of immigration appeals with rules laid down by the Home Office, and I have every confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to deal with the matter properly and fairly. I know that he will try to ensure that justice is done on appeal.

The Bill provides for the press commission to issue guidance on the question of editorial standards.

What?

It is there in the Bill. I do not like it, any more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) likes it. The press commission's advice on such matters would be better received by the press if it arose from case histories that had been subject to scrutiny by the press commission appeal tribunal that the new clause seeks to establish.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to justify the new clause with reference to the later guideline provisions. An amendment in my name, which has been selected for debate, seeks to strike out that part of the Bill, which seems to me to lay down a framework for censorship.

My hon. Friend is right. I, too, would like that provision to be deleted from the Bill. I am proceeding on the assumption that that will not happen and that we are lumbered with it and I have tabled the new clause to make it more palatable.

As I have said to my hon. Friends, there are precedents in the immigration procedure and the police disciplinary appeals procedure. I believe that there is also a system of appeal under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.

I take a fairly flexible view of the rules that I should expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to lay. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has made an important point. You will be aware that amendment No. 50 deals with a vital matter—the guidelines on editorial freedom. In view of the importance of that amendment, might it not be convenient if our proceedings on the new clause were suspended so that we could debate amendment No. 50? We could return to the new clause thereafter. Interesting though I find the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet is important. It goes to the core of the Bill and the points about which we are worried. We have limited time and we want to discuss these matters. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider suspending our proceedings on the new clause and returning to it later?

I think that we had better get on with the debate. If we proceed along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), we shall soon get into a great muddle.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have been extremely generous in giving way to my hon. Friends, and perhaps I should try to make some progress. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has entered the Chamber. I hope that he is here to give me his support on this important matter.

Having welcomed my hon. Friend the member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), will my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Knight) now give way to him?

If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way, even though he is wearing a rather garish jacket.

I cannot allow that to pass without comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley is impeccably dressed, as always. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his remarks.

My remarks were not intended as a slur but merely a comment on the fact that my hon. Friend's taste is different from mine. I shall not get sidetracked into discussing my hon. Friend's dress. Perhaps I should not have made the remark in the first place.

My hon. Friend has referred several times to the rules being laid by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He also referred by analogy to immigration appeals tribunals. But the control of the rules for those tribunals is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, and for a very good reason. Any proceedings before any appeal tribunal are, in essence, judicial proceedings and should come under the senior Law Officer in the Government—the head of the judiciary—and not a departmental Minister whose other responsibilities may well conflict with his duty to ensure that a free and fair judicial procedure is available as envisaged in the new clause.

Order. I remind the House that we are not in Committee but on Report, and interventions must be brief.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is technically right when he says that the Lord Chancellor has responsibility. However, in drafting the new clause I took the view that, as the Bill deals with the press, and as responsibility for the press is clearly a matter for the Home Office, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be the appropriate Minister to lay the rules.

I have been following my hon. Friend's argument closely. The process is as follows. The adjudication officers and the adjudication appeal tribunals are, indeed, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That system was set up two years ago to show their distinct identity from the Home Office. The Home Office sets and puts the immigration rules before the House, and it is the job of the adjudicators, appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, to interpret those immigration rules.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He has shown that the drafting of the new clause is in order and is not as unusual as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough appeared to think.

I now ask my hon. Friend the Minister several questions. I hope that, when he replies, he can confirm certain matters. Will it be feasible for the rules, when they are laid in due course, to contain provision for costs? I notice that in other matters in which there is a right of appeal the Secretary of State may direct that an appellant pay the whole or any part of his own costs. That is important to deter a frivolous appeal from the decision of the press commission. I hope that the rules will contain a provision to allow costs to be awarded—not necessarily in every case, but when it is right and proper to do so. When an appellant is found to have pursued a frivolous and worthless appeal, he should be condemned in costs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that it is possible to mention that point in the rules.

Does my hon. Friend consider it appropriate—I certainly do—that the press commission should be required to give written reasons for its appeal decisions? That is imperative. The rules under the police disciplinary procedure make it clear that an appellant may attend proceedings, conduct his appeal, or be represented. I hope that that matter will be covered in the rules. It is certainly my intention that anyone who wishes to pursue an appeal should be able to be represented by whomever he chooses —a friend, lawyer or, perhaps, someone else who has knowledge of the newpaper industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is in order for the rules to require that the appellant or his representative may make oral or written representations in support of the appeal? I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the rules should state that the appellant may adduce evidence only if it is evidence which, for valid reasons, was not adduced at the original hearing. The appeal procedure should not be a complete re-hearing with new evidence without justification for its being admitted. Such a matter could be contained in the rules made by my hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

If an original hearing can be conducted on the basis of written representations only, one of the grounds of appeal would be that insufficient weight was given to certain aspects of evidence, or that a conflict between the written evidence given by both sides was inadequately determined and did not follow the weight of the facts. Would it be incumbent on the appeal tribunal to read evidence—perhaps first-hand evidence—on the subject? I hope that my hon. Friend will not suggest that that would be excluded.

When I was considering the matter, I noticed that paragraph 26(6) of the 1985 police disciplinary regulations stated:

"The appellant or his representative may make oral or written representations in support of the appeal but may only adduce evidence which could not have been adduced or which was not adduced for reasons which satisfy the person considering the appeal at the hearing at which the charge was found proved."

We need a rule along those lines to prevent a sloppy complaint being made, an appeal being pursued, and evidence being produced on appeal which was readily available at the hearing of the initial complaint before the press commission but which, for no valid reason, was not produced.

I have great difficulty with that proposition. It is inherent in the conflict between having a voluntary procedure and moving to a statutory procedure. My hon. Friend said that he was trying to steer a middle course between the two. If we are trying to have something informal in which people do not need legal representation and have easy access to the press commission, as in many other tribunals, a complainant's initial stab will probably be inept and incomplete, and he may not put in the necessary evidence to do justice to his case.

My hon. Friend has taken us back to something with which the majority of Conservative Members agree. The Bill is sloppily drafted. It is a requirement that the chairman of an industrial tribunal is a legally qualified person. That being so, the chairman of the tribunal of first instance will guide an unrepresented complainant through his case and try to elicit information which that person would not otherwise have put before the tribunal. The danger with the Bill is that there is no requirement for the chairman of the press commission to be a legally qualified person.

10.45 am

In that case, there may be the problem that the chairman of the press commission will not guide an unrepresented applicant through his case. There is a good argument for the Bill being amended—perhaps in another place—to make it a requirement that the chairman of the press commission is a lawyer. That being so, the problems which my hon. Friend envisages would not arise.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I have given way a lot. I will give way again, but I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument.

As drafted, the Bill specifies some aspects of the composition of the press commission, but it does not specify a legally qualified chairman. Consequently, when my right hon. Friend lays down the rules, he would not be able, in secondary legislation, to specify that the chairman of the commission, panel, or appeal must be a lawyer.

My hon. Friend is right to a point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be able to interfere with the chairmanship of the press commission, but, in laying the rules for the hearing of an appeal, he probably could insist that the chairman of the appeal tribunal should, if possible, have legal qualifications. That could be written in the rules. I agree that it would have been far better if the Bill had that requirement in it.

What worries me about what my hon. Friend is saying is that, on a Friday morning, in a throwaway line, he starts laying down rules of evidence. He said that what has not been heard at first instance should not be heard on appeal. As a lawyer, is my hon. Friend aware that the rules of evidence in ordinary judicial courts have taken seven centuries to develop? We will have a voluntary system, a statutory system, or a system of common law. I return to my original point, which I made nearly an hour ago. My hon. Friend is in a muddle.

My hon. Friend is a lawyer. I do not know whether he has a blue bag or a red bag. If he has a red bag, it should be taken from him, and he should be given back the blue bag. He has not been listening to what I have been saying. I am not trying to lay down rules of evidence. I ask my hon. Friend to read new clause 4. I have made provision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be able to lay rules in due course. I am seeking to elicit from my hon. Friend the Minister what sort of rules he envisages being laid. I am giving him some suggestions.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way in a moment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make a frivolous intervention. I have given way many times today. No one can accuse me of being ungenerous. However, I want to make progress because there are many other amendments to consider.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that I am seeking today not to lay down rules of evidence but to make the point that the Secretary of State should be given the power to determine in due course what rules should be made for the appeals commission.

The police disciplinary regulations 1985 state:

"The person considering the appeal may in his discretion admit written evidence which would not be admissible but for this paragraph but which would have been admissible if given orally."

I hope that such a rule will be included in the proposed legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet says, we must be flexible and take account of the unrepresented appellant who may, for example, produce documents but forget to ensure the attendance of the author of those documents as a witness.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are throughout the country many people who are deeply aggrieved by the way in which the British popular press operates? Radio 4 carried an excellent item this morning about the way in which the people or Liverpool have been maligned by The Sun journalists in particular and others from the Murdoch empire. Many of those who have been maligned are looking to Parliament today to provide them with an avenue of redress. I refer to ordinary people—not wealthy people or public figures—who look to Parliament to provide them with redress against the gross misuse of power by many sections of the media, including the Murdoch empire.

Many of those people who will be reading of this debate in tomorrow's newspapers will realise that the hon. Gentleman has made a crude attempt to filibuster on behalf of the Murdoch moguls and the Murdoch empire to prevent ordinary people from having redress against gross injustices by the press. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that ordinary people who are maligned, misrepresented and lied about by journalists should have the right of redress against the media's abuse of power? Why does not the hon. Gentleman bring his contribution to an early close so that other right hon. and hon. Members may contribute to the debate and so that the House will have an opportunity to vote on this important matter?

The only crude part of my contribution was my reference to the jacket being worn by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, which I withdrew.

I did not notice the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in his place when I started moving new clause 4, so I assume that he missed my opening remarks. I am sorry that he is delaying the proceedings even further, because he compels me en passant to repeat my opening comments. I am not here to defend the worst excesses of Fleet street or of Wapping. However, this is not merely a debating Chamber—we are considering legislation. Even if we accept that the press makes mistakes and that reports appear in the press that are not right, the House has a duty to ask today, "Is this the kind of legislation we want to see on the statute book?" My answer is a resounding no. Having said that, right hon. and hon. Members opposed to the Bill have a duty to be positive and not negative. That is why I seek to graft on to the Bill a right of appeal.

As to the many thousands of people throughout the country that the hon. Gentleman says want something to be done about press abuse, I will gladly let the hon. Gentleman know the address and telephone number of Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, the new chairman of the Press Council, because the public can pursue such matters through the avenue of a complaint to the council. I have every confidence in Mr. Blom-Cooper, who has made it clear that he wants to revamp the council and make it more effective. He should be given a chance to do just that.

We all share resentment of abuses by some sectors of the press. I can see how the Press Council could provide a remedy against biased or overstated reporting in the tabloid press, but I cannot see how the Bill as drafted could provide any remedy for the people of Liverpool.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.

To save time, I gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).

In Committee, we argued at great length in an attempt to sharpen the Bill. However, the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) highlights one point to which we have never been given a satisfactory answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend's proposed appeals procedure will deal with this point. I refer to the criticism that the people of Liverpool are unable to seek redress. Would they be able to do so as a body of persons?

If I address new clauses 1 and 2, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rebuke me. The Bill refers to

"A person or a body of persons"

—meaning an unincorporated association, or a company. One of the other fears shared by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends is that a political party would be able to seek a right of reply. As I understand it, an organisation such as the IRA would be allowed to seek a right of reply to what it regarded as an insulting article. At the end of the day, I should like to see the Bill defeated.

All kinds of people have said all manner of things about the Hillsborough tragedy, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). I have tried to have my comments reported in the press, but I have not managed to do that. The hon. Member for Hallam made a disgraceful statement that was reproduced in The Sun on a major scale. The Sun maintains that its report is true. How can we enjoy any redress if moguls such as Murdoch do not allow it? The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is making remarks on behalf of people like Murdoch.

I know that Opposition Members enjoy criticising Rupert Murdoch but it is stretching things a bit far to criticise The Sun for accurately reporting the comments of a Member of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) must answer for his own remarks. If the hon. Gentleman is upset by my hon. Friend's remarks, I hope that he will seek to clarify them. However, we cannot criticise the press for accurately reporting hon. Members' remarks.

The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) make extremely important points. There is undoubtedly a great deal of hurt and indignation felt on all sides about reports that have appeared in may sections of the press about the Hillsborough tragedy. An inquiry into that disaster has been commissioned, and it will eventually produce a report and set out what it believes to be the facts. The Bill will require the press commission, within 28 days of receiving a complaint of the type that the hon. Member for Hillsborough might strongly feel justified in making, to reach a conclusion as to the facts of the matter. It would have the power to force a newspaper to publish "facts" that subsequently might be found to be not the true facts. This is a perfect example of the dilemma that I put to my hon. Friend earlier.

There is not one hon. Member who regards Hillsborough as anything but a disaster. We are all upset about those who lost their lives, and feel sorrow for their families. There is a good case for maintaining a dignified silence about that tragedy until the inquiry has reported. If it reveals that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam—who is not in his place—were incorrect, I am sure that he will be the first to clarify the position.

Can my hon. Friend tell me from his reading of the Bill whether a disputed opinion reported in a newspaper, such as the comments attributed to our hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), could be considered a factual inaccuracy affecting a person or body of persons, which could include the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)? My understanding is that it could not. If the newspaper had reported accurately what our hon. Friend said, it cannot be guilty of a factual inaccuracy. Other hon. Gentlemen may have a different opinion, but I cannot see that the Bill would give any redress to the sort of grievance raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. Perhaps a sponsor of the Bill would like to seek your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene and clarify the point. It is of considerable interest as two hon. Gentlemen have intervened on the misunderstanding that the Bill would provide redress in those circumstances.

I accept the concern of hon. Gentlemen about the Hillsborough tragedy and it is shared by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is right. The Bill would not help in those circumstances. As I said in my first reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), if The Sun accurately reported what an hon Member said, there would be no remedy under the Bill. It is for hon. Members to argue in the House about the opinions expressed.

I am being waylaid into irrelevancies. The Bill is not relevant to that tragedy. I hope to convince the House that if we must have the Bill, we should have an appeals procedure included in it. I know that I have convinced the promoter but that some of my hon. Friends are uneasy about having the Bill at all. I ask them to agree that, if the Bill is to become law, we shall improve it by adding an appeals procedure to it.

I shall welcome some clarification. My hon. Friend's new clause suggests that the claimant would have to go through the right of reply adviser and the press commission, and that if he was not satisfied with the result, he could take his case to appeal. If the applicant had gone to the adviser who had said that he did not have a case, but, as in the recent football tragedy, that person or body of persons felt that they had a case and went to the press commission, which would not accept the case, could they go through the appeals procedure? If those two bodies ruled against his case, could a claimant make an appeal?

My hon. Friend is under some sort of misapprehension about the role of the right of reply adviser. I do not see him as an adjudicator. Clause 5 makes it clear that he is there in the capacity of a sort of Official Solicitor to give advice on how to present a complaint and to assist with it. I do not envisage his having a role in telling someone whether he may pursue his complaint for a right of reply. I think that the intervention was somewhat misplaced.

The right of reply will exist and it will be for the person who makes the complaint to prove that a factual inaccuracy has occurred that has damaged his good standing. If the commission rejects his complaint, although he has had the advice of the right of reply adviser, he would still be at liberty to pursue an appeal. The right of appeal should not be fettered in any way. Perhaps my hon. Friend is thinking of the need for leave to take a case to the House of Lords. This appeals procedure would not work in that way. A complainant, whether a member of the public or a newspaper, will have an absolute right to appeal to the appeals tribunal. Nothing should fetter that right and nothing does fetter that right as the new clause is drafted.

I would expect the rules to provide that, where a frivolous appeal was pursued, there would be power to order costs.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I want to draw my remarks to a close, but I give way for the last time.

My hon. Friend is talking about factual inaccuracies. The Bill seems to be limited to factual inaccuracies, but part of the problem may be an omission. Selective reporting of facts or a speech causes the same difficulties, but my hon. Friend does not seem to cover that.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has pinpointed a defect in the Bill. An omission could not be called a factual inaccuracy, so there would be no right of complaint.

This is a bad Bill and I should like to see it defeated, but if we must have it there should be a right of appeal in it. Surely that is reasonable. I hope that the House will reject amendments Nos. 33, 91 and 100. Resort to the courts is superficially attractive, but it would be too slow and too costly. If we include an appeals procedure, the appeals tribunal would specialise and would gain expert knowledge of the matters relating to the Bill. As I said at the outset, I hope that the tribunal will be composed of people with a genuine interest in seeing a healthy press.

I hope that the House will support my new clause, which is reasonable. I notice that the promoter had the good grace at the outset to accept this change, so I hope that we shall not divide and that the House will accept the new clause.

This morning it has been disappointing to see the tactics used by the opponents of the Bill. Many people are sick of the excesses perpetrated by some sections of the press and look to the House to tackle the issue seriously. It is most disappointing that those who are being obstructive are acting on behalf of people who are virtually journalistic thugs.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not play the same games as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I want to advance the debate.

I freely accept that there could be a good case for introducing an appeals procedure. What is most important is that the procedure is quick and deals with relatively simple issues. The Bill provides redress for factual inaccuracies in order to deal with some of the excesses.

I am aware of the risks of interfering with press freedom, but if the press lie, that is a diminution of freedom. If someone with a megaphone shouts, his view will be heard and the person with only his own voice will be drowned out. Rupert Murdoch with a megaphone would be a menace, but Rupert Murdoch in control of large sections of the press is a considerable threat to freedom.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not intend to take interventions during his speech, as is his right. That being the case, many of us may wish to make speeches in order to deal with points that might otherwise have been dealt with in questions to him. I sincerely hope that in those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should any requests be made to you by the sponsors of the Bill artificially to terminate the debate, you will bear that point in mind.

The whole House knows that the Chair does not anticipate hypothetical situations.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The issue of freedom is important. The Bill is centrally concerned with the wrongful exercise of power by the press, but it is my belief that, if we could lay down a yardstick or a benchmark of accuracy, many of the other faults—perhaps of distortion or of bullying—could also be dealt with. Almost every story about which people have complained has had within it that essence of inaccuracy.

I know full well that the Bill does not tackle everything that is wrong with the press at present. That is why I hope that during the debate Conservative Members will allow the Minister to speak, but by their tactics they are denying the Minister that opportunity. I hope that the Minister will respond to what has been the great success of the Bill, which is that it has brought the issue of press abuse of power into the centre of politics. Conservative Members who have spoken are aligning themselves with some very dubious characters, who are abusing their constituents, who are at present subject to the unfettered use of power. The disgraceful thing is that this country is supposed to be a democracy, but, to me, democracy means equality before the law. A feudal state is one in which there are different laws for different classes of people. When it comes to defamation and abuse of the people we have a feudal state, because there is no chance of the ordinary person getting redress from the law. The Minister and Conservative Members have ignored that. Conservative Members have not attempted in this Bill, or at any other time, to address that fundamental denial of civil liberties.

rose—

I shall not give way. It is time for Conservative Members to listen. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about our right of reply?"] The right of reply will come to Conservative Members in due course.

What Conservative Members are ignoring and are giving no appeal against are the kinds of abuse that have been occurring in recent years. In recent times we have heard a lot about how there should be investigative journalism. I would accept that fully, but one of the things that has not happened is investigative journalism by the press of the press. There has been a concealing of some of the outrages that have occurred. One can take as an example the tragic case of Russell Harty. When he was on his death bed window cleaners were being bribed so that cameramen could take pictures of what was happening.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is giving us his views on why we should pass his Right of Reply Bill today, but, in fact, we are debating new clause 4, which is about a press commission appeal tribunal. The hon. Gentleman's points have nothing to do with the new clause. I should have thought that, having heard my hon. Friend from Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and if he approves of the clause, he would be anxious to conclude.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is the promoter of the Bill. I am giving him the opportunity to paint the picture before he comes to the new clause, which I am sure he is about to do.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) dealt specifically with the new clause, which concerns a narrow issue, and much of the debate has been about the legal implications. What we have now is a crude attempt by the promoter of the Bill to get into the tabloid press by talking about Russell Harty. Are we to have a serious debate on the new clause or not?

I have given the hon. Gentleman a hint, and I am sure that he is now about to come to the new clause.

I am trying to establish why, in the kind of cases we are dealing with, a right of reply to a matter of factual inaccuracy is important, why we do not have that right at present and why we accept the case for there to be an appeal within the framework of the press commission. We should look at the kinds of cases that have occurred and see that behind them is the fundamental issue of inaccuracy. I was referring to the case of Mr. Russell Harty, when window cleaners were bribed to allow photographs to be taken of a ward, attempts were made to steal doctors' records, there were impersonations of doctors and nurses and there was a hounding of suffering relatives and friends. Conservative Members are defending people who take such action. They are failing to set up a procedure, through the press commission, that would allow an appeal against such press behaviour.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman brings it on his own head, because he will not give way. The hon. Gentleman appears to be speaking to an entirely different Bill from the one that I have in front of me. I wonder whether there has been a procedural error and he has a different document. None of the circumstances he has mentioned is relevant to the Bill in front of us.

rose—

Order. I hope that the House will leave matters of order to the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is now addressing himself to the new clause.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has intervened repeatedly, as, indeed, have other Conservative Members. They are filibustering. They are trying to stop the democratic procedure in the Chamber by hounding my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who has introduced the Bill. That is entirely in line with the way in which Conservative Members are defending the people who own the press.

rose—

Order. What has been said so far is in order. It is my job to ensure that the rules of order are observed. The hon. Gentleman has assured me that he is about to address his remarks more closely to the new clause.

Once again, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certainly, I want to demonstrate why I think we should have, as the new clause proposes, a better appeals procedure. The Press Council, which is the present appeals procedure, is inadequate because its methods are extremely faulty. What I am proposing—aligned with the proposal of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight}—would be infinitely better. At present, about 1,700 or 1,800 appeals against press misconduct go to the Press Council each year and of those about 4 or 5 per cent. are upheld. About 850 to 900 simply disappear each year, because people see that there is no point in taking their cases to a body that is so steered towards the needs of the press. A press commission would be a much fairer and more open system of appeal. I am happy to add to that proposal the further tier proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North. When one considers the kind of bias that is implicit in the Press Council's judgments, it is clear that we must have a better system of appeal.

One Press Council judgment, which I cited to the Committee, illustrates the need for a better system of appeal. A school felt that it had been abused by a local newspaper and the head teacher refused to talk to the paper because her experience was that its reporters distorted what she said. The Press Council judgment, against which there is no appeal, stated:

"the Press Council deplores the practice of some schools, education authorities and local authorities in refusing to speak to particular newspapers or answer their inquiries. Organisations which do so have little ground for serious complaint if inaccuracies are published in good faith as a result of their absence."

In other words, if someone's experience is that a paper distorts what he has said and he therefore decides not to speak to that paper, any subsequent inaccuracies are his fault. That is an outrage. There is no appeal against such judgments and that is why we need a less biased approach.

Another example of the present lack of appeal procedures and the biased practices of the Press Council may amuse some hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) appealed to the Press Council about an article in the Sunday Express, which said:

"Three times in the previous 14 days Mr. Brown, Labour MP for Leith, telephoned the home of Chris Moncrieff, political editor of the Press Association. Each time he reversed the charges from Kabul in Afghanistan at £9.37 a time. Twice Mr. Moncrieff was out and his wife answered, but the third time Mr. Brown got through. He asked Mr. Moncrieff to tell the Labour Whips the weather was bad in Afghanistan and that he might not be back in time for Monday's vote on the Scottish Housing Bill. Mr. Moncrieff was as speechless as he must now be penniless."

My hon. Friend the Member for Leith legitimately appealed against that press story on the grounds that he had not reversed telephone charges three times from Kabul. The Press Council, however, found against him and upheld the report. It was only because my hon. Friend forced the Press Council to reconsider its decision and forced Mr. Moncrieff to produce his telephone bill, which showed no report of any reversed charges from Kabul, that his appeal was upheld. Currently, there is no right of appeal on a Press Council decision, but somehow my hon. Friend got his case reopened. It is necessary to have a right of appeal in such cases.

rose—

I shall give way just to give myself a breather.

The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Press Council report. It is clear from that report that only 10 per cent. of complaints relate to matters of accuracy. The hon. Gentleman said that most cases have something to do with inaccuracy, but that is not correct, because far more cases refer to matters of taste and decency.

For the past few months I have gone through the annual reports of the Press Council. I have only been able to look at a limited number of adjudications and in the majority of cases it is clear that the press report has been built upon inaccuracy. From that basis issues of distortion, taste and privacy follow.

If I had introduced a Bill that gave a right of reply on reports relating to distortion, taste and so on as well as inaccuracy, Conservative Members would have said that it was unworkable. I believe that things have reached such a state in the press that it is necessary to demand that the press be accurate—that is a minimal demand. If the press is not accurate, there should be a statutory right of reply, because, at present, the press has gone too far.

Because of the present inadequate system it is necessary to establish a press commission and an appeals procedure. The Government have asked us to trust the Press Council to reform itself. The very people who have stood by while press standards have plummeted are now to be entrusted with the job of pulling the press up by its boot straps. I have immense respect for Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, but even he is rather daunted by the messianic powers that are now being attributed to him.

It is regrettable that the representatives of the press proprietors have not given the type of undertakings that would make it possible to withdraw the Bill. What have we heard from News International? There is an interesting leader in The Daily Telegraph of this morning which says that standards of modern journalism rest overwhelmingly in one or two people's hands:

"Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Maxwell, who own most—though not quite all—of the newspapers which give rise to most offence, could change the scene tomorrow, if they chose. The power lies with them."

Mr. P. Rack is the representative of News of the World and News International on the Press Council, but what has he said about what that group will do in future to ensure the achievement of higher standards? He has said absolutely nothing. There is no credibility in the belief that the Press Council will be able to reform itself, because we have had no such undertakings from our major newspapers. The most cynical thing that has happened recently has been the appointment of an ombudsman by The Sun—he is its managing editor. Some of my hon. Friends may think that that is a joke, but it is no joke because that man represented The Sun when the Press Council investigated the infamous Ealing rape case story.

rose—

No, I will not give way.

What happened with the Ealing rape case demonstrates why it is necessary to have a better appeals procedure. The Press Council said:

"four days after the attack, this front view full length, photograph occupied three full columns on the front page. It showed her leaving church after a service the previous day. On the photograph her features had been obscured by a black line or label masking the eyes. The story with it began by identifying but not naming her and went on

`raped in her home prayed yesterday'

Its second paragraph described her as a pretty, dark-haired girl, identified the vicar's church precisely, and defined their relationship."

It was accurate, then.

I will come to that point in a moment.

11.30 am

The managing editor of The Sun said

"that the paper did not consider use of the picture tasteless and would not have published had it had thought so. Rape was a sordid and callous crime which The Sun believed it was its duty to present in a way that illustrated contempt for 'these savages'. The letter said that the picture was published to show the victim's 'ordinary, girl-next-door qualities'. It was never their intention to upset, annoy or cause offences to the victim or their readers, and if they had they were sorry."

That is what was said by The Sun's ombudsman. What undertaking has been given by its representatives on the Press Council that it will abide by the findings of the Press Council in the future? The Press Council's code on privacy is broken daily and repeatedly, and a reformed Press Council would be acting on that. Intrusions into privacy occur every day in the press. There must be a better system than the Press Council, which cannot deliver: there must be an appeal procedure.

The Government's silence on the issue has been disturbing. As a result, abuses of people in the press have been allowed. A fortnight ago a leaked report appeared in two newspapers, The Guardian and The Independent:

"Minister backs press law review".

The Minister, to his credit, admits that the tabloid journals have reached a very low level. But two weeks ago he was considering a comprehensive review of press law, including such issues as right of reply, confidentiality, defamation, the abuse of press power and other matters that currently concern us. It was wrong of him to leak that to the press, and I hope that he will now make a statement about the Government's present proposals.

The silence of the Government is about to be broken yet again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on the eloquent way in which he spoke to new clause 4. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for their useful interventions, which, I think, helped my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North to elaborate on a number of points. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) did not include the idea of an appeals tribunal in the first draft of his Bill, but we have had a useful discussion about it this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North talked about "misunderstood Ministers". I should confess that I have a personal interest in ensuring that the Bill, however flawed I may think it, passes into law. I was promoted from Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Minister of State some four years ago. The next day I picked up The Times expecting to read a glowing description of this meteoric rise in my career, the Prime Minister's perceptiveness in promoting me, and so forth. The larger part of the article about my promotion, however, concentrated on the fact that I had once portrayed Great-Uncle Bulgaria in "The Wombles of Wimbledon Common".

Unfortunately, The Times had got the wrong Tim Renton. I was never Great-Uncle Bulgaria in "The Wombles of Wimbledon Common". I therefore telephoned Julian Haviland, whom many of us remember as an extremely good, unbiased political editor of The Times, and told him what had happened, in tones of great indignation. He was extremely apologetic and assured me that the matter would be put right. Sure enough, the next day, tucked away at the bottom of page 23 or 27, was a tiny passage of three lines, saying something like "The report of Mr. Renton's career in the pop industry was inaccurate."

Under the Bill, I would have had an obvious claim to take to the press commission. I decided, in fact, that what the paper had said was not damaging to my career; indeed, I thought that it probably enhanced my prospects. There was, however, a sidelight. Among my new responsibilities at the Foreign Office was the post of Minister with duties relating to Hong Kong.

Those in Hong Kong always regard the Minister involved simply as "their man": he is the Hong Kong Minister. Some weeks later I discovered that papers such as the South China Morning Post had run headlines stating "New Hong Kong Minister ex-pop star". Perhaps they went even further and stated "Ex-Great-Uncle Bulgaria new Hong Kong Minister"—which must have puzzled the Chinese a good deal.

Moreover—here is the rub—the Hong Kong papers never noticed the tiny correction in The Times. Throughout the two years for which I had responsibility for Hong Kong, it was assumed that I was, indeed, an ex-Great-Uncle Bulgaria. That may have caused some of the difficulties in the subsequent relations between the United Kingdom Government and Hong Kong: I do not know. Clearly, however, I had a good case for the press commission, and one that could go to the appeals tribunal suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North—and what a lovely can of worms that would have opened.

My hon. Friend argued his case very well. As has been pointed out, one of my other responsibilities at the Home Office is immigration and nationality. In that context, there is an extensive system of appeals, run not by the Home Secretary but by the Lord Chancellor. Decisions made by the immigration authorities can, as we know, have a profound effect on individuals and their families, and for that reason it was considered appropriate to introduce and continue an appeals framework.

It could be argued that decisions made following a complaint to the Press Council also have a profound effect on the lives of individuals, families and organisations. I can well understand that, given the potential importance of the council's decisions, an appeals machinery to review such decisions would be appropriate.

Let me give an example from immigration records to illustrate why the appeals tribunal is so helpful. It is an instance of fact blurring into interpretations of an event by parties who are in disagreement. A Member of Parliament rings my office and complains that a young lady carrying certificates of hairdressing qualifications has been refused entry as a visitor at the airport. The immigration officer has decided, on the basis of the certificates, that she has come to this country not as a visitor but to work. The Member of Parliament has been told, however, that the certificates are simply being carried by a visiting relative to be proudly displayed to her hosts as proof of her qualifications in the country from which she has come. That is just the sort of case in which an immigration appeals tribunal that could have a further and second look at the executive decisions of immigration officers can be a valuable safeguard.

rose—

I see the hon. Member rising to his feet and I know that he wants to ask me a question about the immigration appeals tribunal. I would much rather get on and talk about the press, but I shall give way.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The kind of appeals tribunal to which the Minister refers would be absolutely worthless. In the case to which he referred the girl would be deported. The Minister would not interfere with the immigration officer's decision. She could appeal only in the country from which she came. The procedure that the Minister wants to include in the Bill would be useless.

The hon. Gentleman's Pavlovian reaction to my remark was exactly the one that I had expected. The appeals tribunal's function is to review Home Office decisions. It is no longer the duty of Ministers to interfere with those decisions. That change has been widely welcomed by a large majority of hon. Members.

I do not intend to elaborate on the rules that might support the appeals tribunal. If my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North cares to write to me about it, should the matter progress further, we could then look carefully together at the rules.

I share the general approval, expressed in the Chamber and in Committee, of the good-humoured manner in which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has approached this difficult subject. His good humour seemed to be in danger of cracking for a few minutes this morning, but he quickly re-established his normal equilibrium. I wholly understand and sympathise with the concern that has been expressed about the excesses of the national press, particularly the tabloid press. There is worry about doorstepping, intrusion into people's private lives, persistent trick questioning, the taking of secret photographs and the harassment of ordinary people, especially at times of distress when they are least able to cope. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that lots of people were sick about the way in which the press behave. I agree. However, despite the deliberations in Committee, the Bill is still fundamentally flawed.

The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie praised the new chairman of the Press Council, Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper. I remind him of the first paragraph of an article in The Times today that was written by Mr. Blom-Cooper. It says:

"The nuts and bolts of the Right of Reply Bill have been widely demonstrated to be utterly impracticable — The proposed legislation is also fundamentally flawed, however, in seeking for the first time to regulate the content of a newspaper by law."

There is no point in the hon. Gentleman praying in aid the chairman of the Press Council as a supporter of the Bill. He is not. He regards the Bill as fundamentally flawed. Even the National Union of Journalists believes that it is flawed. [Interruption.] What a pity that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is a member of the National Union of Journalists and who was here earlier, has left the Chamber. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) should know that the NUJ has said that it is determined to regain membership of the Press Council as part and parcel of that more effective structure that Mr. Blom-Cooper is trying to organise. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that development.

Will the Minister give way?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point.

The NUJ considers that the Bill is flawed. It may believe in a statutory right of reply but it has made it abundantly plain that it does not consider that this Bill is the right vehicle for it.

Many NUJ members, including me, do not wish to be protected if we pursue mendacity. All that the Bill does is to remove the right to make factual inaccuracies—in many cases very hurtful and damaging inaccuracies. That is not a press freedom which I or any other responsible journalist wishes to maintain.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. It leads me to exactly the next point that I want to make.

The Bill would certainly allow a correction to be enforced legally where necessary. However, let us examine the point more closely. The Bill's title is somewhat misleading. It does not create a right of reply. Such a term implies a right for an individual to state his case or to respond to published material—factual or not, inaccurate or not—in the same publication.

What, however, does the Bill offer? It creates a right to correct inaccurate statements of fact in published material, provided that the complainant can establish first, that the material was factually inaccurate, secondly, that the factual inaccuracy affected him personally and, thirdly, that any reasonable person might deem that inaccuracy to be damaging to his character, reputation or good standing —in other words, that it is defamatory.

11.45 am

Even leaving aside the notorious difficulty of drawing a clear line between fact, comment and opinion and the further problem of proving that a statement of fact is inaccurate and defamatory, it seems to me that the Bill will eventually only allow a satisfactory reply to unfair reporting in a small number of cases.

Can the Minister explain the constantly recurring problem of what is and what is not fact, which we can all understand causes difficulty? He, as a Home Office Minister, is responsible for, among other things, all the Broadcasting Acts, which lay down specifically that responsibility must be taken for factual accuracy. That is spelt out in the programme guidelines throughout the broadcasting media. How is it possible for the Minister, who is responsible for regulations that make for better broadcasting standards, to say that they are inapplicable to the press?

The hon. Gentleman destroys his own case. There is much discussion and criticism now of broadcast documentaries that have acquired the name of "faction" because they are a mix of fact and fiction. Many people believe that that is a bad trend within many reportedly factual documentaries.

rose—

I think that I should make progress. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss broadcasting on other days.

I want to take up the point about the dividing line between fact, comment and opinion. If, for example, we become involved in a legal suit, we believe that the facts are all on our side. The other side believes that the facts are all on its side. There is no agreement about where the facts lie. As to the borderline between fact and opinion, if the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) went into a restaurant and said afterwards—and it was reported in the press—"The food was not fresh and the service was awful", would that be fact or opinion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Opinion."] Others would say that it was fact.

Will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister give way?

No. We went into this matter in great detail in Committee. There is a borderline between fact, comment and opinion.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie.

The Broadcasting Act 1981 set up the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The commission was given responsibility to stop unwarranted intrusions into privacy. However, that responsibility was not defined. If the Minister can give the Broadcasting Complaints Commission such a difficult concept to deal with, why would it not be possible for a press commission to deal with the much simpler issue of fact?

I am very well aware of the Broadcasting Complaints commission and its terms of reference. If the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is considered by the House on Report, we shall have the opportunity to discuss privacy. Today we are discussing neither broadcasting nor privacy, but the inaccurate reporting of facts.

We have had a perfect example of the difficulties about facts this morning when the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to Mr. Chris Moncrieff of the Press Association. Since then I have received a letter from Mr. Moncrieff, who is my constituent, saying that there was some difficulty over the facts because, most notably, the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the disputed telephone calls in the anecdote did not appear on Mr. Moncrielfs telephone bill because his wife did not accept the request for a reverse-charge call. Having read all the accounts of these matters, the hon. Gentleman should have been fair to a journalist.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a precise example of misreporting when one part of the story is carefully left out in order to make a point. It is precisely the sort of nightmare that the Bill would produce.

rose—

I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman as it is his Bill, but then I must make progress.

How is it possible for the allegation to be made that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) reversed the charges from Kabul in Afghanistan at £9·37 a time? How would one know the amount of money?

I do not think that I am responsible for the activities of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). In my days at the Foreign Office, when the hon. Member for Leith moved on from his regular questions about Afghanistan to a question about Albania, I remember congratulating him on making progress down the alphabet, but I do not think that I have any responsibility for his bills. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate, as clearly it is a matter worth pursuing.

We have briefly discussed the press commission. I consider that it would be another quango with no fewer than 21 members on it. What a nightmare of bureaucracy is in prospect with all 21 members having to see all the papers and all the complaints and doubtless having to agree unanimously on the outcome of each complaint within 28 days of receiving the complaint. And what at the end of the day about the Press Council? Will it fade into the distance and beyond? We have heard a great deal of criticism of the Press Council.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (M r. Ashton), who was a member of the Standing Committee, must let me develop the point a little further.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the disappearance of the Press Council, but they forget that it has other important functions such as to preserve the established freedom of the press and to make representations to the Government on appropriate occasions. How will the press commission interact with the Press Council? I asked the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that question in Committee, but I never received an understandable reply. Confusion is bound to occur in the relationship between the Press Council and the press commission.

The Minister reads his brief and confuses question and comment. Will he make it perfectly clear whether he is speaking for himself or for the Government?

I am pleased to say that the Government and I are as one on this issue—and that is most satisfactory. As I have said before—and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) heard me speak about this in Committee and will not be surprised by anything I say —my deepest objection to the principle of the Bill is that it intrudes on the freedom of the press. It introduces a measure of Government control over the press, and who can say what would follow, once one statutory measure had been introduced? We have not had statutory control of the press in Britain since the days of Cromwell in the 17th century.

My hon. Friend has said that if the Bill were passed it would intrude on the rights of the press. He is really saying that it would intrude on the rights of the press to bully individual people and that is the whole question. He places reliance on the Press Council, whose members are very hard-working people, but they have no teeth, and of course they lack credibility. He talks about ombudsmen, but they are seen not as ombudsmen but as "ombudsmice". What the House and the Bill are trying to do is to protect the individual person with ombudsmen —something with teeth.

I heard the phrase "not ombudsmen but ombudsmice" for the first time two days ago in the Committee considering my hon. Friend's Bill. It is a nice turn of phrase, but he does less than justice to the new chairman of the Press Council, Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, who is clearly determined to prove its effectiveness and continues to believe, as I do, in the system of self-regulation of the press. I am very pleased to note the warning given by Mr. Blom-Cooper in his foreword to the recent report of the Press Council:

"Much more should and will be expected from all those in and out of the Press Council who have an abiding interest in ensuring that an independent, self-regulatory body should succeed in averting statutory intervention."

That is at the heart of the matter. Evidence of the new intent and purpose of the Press Council is clear from its speedy announcement this week to investigate the propriety of the photographic coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, which has been mentioned this morning. We should all approve of the Press Council acting so quickly to examine the propriety of publishing those photographs.

How will the Minister's announced review of press law address the question raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the abuses of factual inaccuracies in the press? Does he intend that his review will cover that, and how will it address that point?

Despite all his persuasive skills, the hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my own speech in my own way and in the order that I choose.

It is my very strong view that, despite the lack of action and the feeling of apathy in the Press Council in recent years, we should not undermine its determination to bring about fundamental change.

rose—

With all respect to my hon. Friend, I have give way generously and others wish to speak.

Nor do I think we should lightly jettison the commitment and good will which all sections of the press are showing to the Press Council.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on what he has achieved, not only in bringing his Bill to Report today, but because his Right of Reply Bill has woken up newspaper proprietors, publishers and editors to extent of concern that they have not shown for years. The heavies have thundered against him from Wapping, the Isle of Dogs, Southwark bridge and Chelsea bridge. They have all been telling us about the inadequacies of his Bill. The local newspapers have written to us in the same vein. I have received two letters from two newspapers printed in my constituency pointing out the errors of the Bill and very politely asking me to try and be present in the House today. I received the same message from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has even had the honour of a long and wordy article written by Bernard Levin in The Times. That article is as prolix, complex and emotional as any criticism by Mr. Levin of a bad performance of the Ring Cycle.

Editors and publishers are steamed up. They have been made thoroughly aware of the proper, correct and understandable anxieties of many hon. Members.

Will the Minister give way?

I did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, so I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The editors and publishers are, to put it crudely, in a lather and the pressure must not go away. As Members of Parliament we must ensure that editors and journalists, such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—it is good that he has left Sky television to join us today—

Will the Minister give way now?

Since I named the hon. Gentleman, I shall give way.

The Minister said that there were monstrous abuses by the press and that the Bill was flawed. In those circumstances, the honest and honourable course would be not to praise the Bill with faint damns and postpone everything unto the ides of Blom-Cooper and certainly not to go along with the monstrous conspiracy of the lackeys and lickspittles of the Fleet street magnates on the Conservative Benches and filibuster against the Bill, but to provide Government time either to improve the Bill or introduce his own measure.

The hon. Gentleman has now achieved his 30 seconds on television tonight. Why is it that one is a lackey and a lickspittle if one writes for The Times but not if one appears on Sky television, which is also part of the Murdoch empire? Perhaps he can tell us where the precise line of definition lies.—[Interruption.] I have appeared on Sky television with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and it was great fun. I recommend it to the House.

If, by any chance, the Bill does not receive its Third Reading, the editors and publishers of the national press in Britain are on probation—[Laughter.] They have a year or two in which to clean up their act. If they succeed—I hope that they will—effective, quick and fair self-regulation that protects the position and rights of the private individual and the small man who cannot look after himself very well will remain the order of the day. That will happen without statutory control of the press. If not, Parliament will certainly return to this issue. For that reason and on raising the temperature of the debate I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.

There is a better way out of the difficulties that would be created by the Bill and by the Protection of Privacy Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. Those difficulties have dominated our debate so far today and they dominated our proceedings in Committee. Therefore, it is right that I should let the House know that the Government have decided that there should be a review of the general issue of privacy and related matters —areas with which both Bills are concerned. The review will be conducted outside Government and will aim to report to the Home Secretary within a year.

Who will carry out the review?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question from a sedentary position.

Decisions have still to be taken on who should be invited to chair the review and the precise terms of reference. A formal announcement will be made in due course. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester will regard that as a positive step.

rose—

I will not give way to my hon. Friend.

The review is designed to deal with the problems that have correctly and understandably concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House and I trust that it will be widely welcomed.

People outside the House will be surprised and depressed by the fact that the new clause, which we have been debating for two and half hours, was accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) at the beginning of the debate. They will find it surprising that the Minister, by speaking for over half an hour, has indirectly associated himself and the Government with the filibuster that has prevented the serious points that have been raised both inside and outside the House from being raised. When the Minister said that he hoped the Bill receive a Third Reading—

I did not say that.

He said that he hoped that we would proceed to a Third Reading. His behaviour this morning makes that difficult.

Once again we have seen a confused stance by the Government. They did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading and they did not seek to vote against any of the amendments in Committee. They have remained passive. Yet we understand from the press that over the past few weeks, by whispering and making unofficial leaks to the press, the Government have made it clear that they are now opposed to the Bill. They would have done themselves and the debate a greater service by playing a more active role in the Second Reading and Committee stages.

The Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House know that over the past few years there has been a growing number of abuses, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The Press Council's annual report for the past few years has revealed an increase in abuses by certain sectors of the press. Opposition Members accept that the regional press and the free press do not indulge in those tactics. We know that we are talking about only a small section of the press. However, the damage that can be done to people's lives, marriages, relationships and prospects is grave. If hon. Members who have sought to speak at great length this morning do not recognise the seriousness of that offence and the depth of feeling in the country, they are mistaking the mood of the House and the country.