The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Certainly. I think in terms of -- the purpose of this is not to be punitive to the press but to stop malpractice. That is the purpose, I think, that we are engaged in. I think if people produce an article that is blatantly wrong and an independent body determines it is blatantly wrong, I think rather than going in for large damages or reparation, an apology in a position of equal prominence to the original article would be appropriate. I think any body established should be in a position to insist on that with the press.

Secondly, there might be occasions for a nominal cash payment to the aggrieved party, but I do not favour large sums of compensation, provided a credible apology is offered in a credible position in the newspapers.

Thirdly, I think if there are repeated abuses in a particular newspaper, I think the regulatory body should have the power to impose sanctions, by which I mean either fines on the newspaper or, in serious examples, perhaps a loss of their VAT exemption for a period, which would be financially quite punitive, although there are obviously legal problems with doing that.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech