The model in the report envisaged, as Members are aware, the appointment by the Government of a press council with substantial statutory powers to procure compliance with its rulings. There are two fundamental issues here which should not be confused. The first is whether a press council should be statutory or purely voluntary. That issue raises the question as to whether a press council, if it is desirable in the first place, should have power or status of any kind in statute such as to require the press to implement any finding made by it arising out of a complaint by a member of the public. Returning to the defamation conference, there seemed to be a consensus that any worthwhile press council would need statutory underpinning of some kind, no matter how the council was composed or who was appointed or elected to it. For very simple reasons, such as giving some form of legal privilege to its reports, that would be necessary. It has happened on occasions that an editor has apologised as demanded by a solicitor acting on behalf of a person claiming to have been defamed, immediately following which apology the journalist has sued the editor for defamation. If one has a system whereby there is any formal intervention in the suits between newspapers and those written about by newspapers, it is almost by definition requisite that there should be some form of statutory protection, at least from legal suit, for that council.