Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy McDowell, back to the House. I reiterate that I have to declare an interest in this matter as a director of Independent Newspapers and a writer. I was also involved in the working party which prepared the proposals for the Press Council. I will not delay the Minister too long on this amendment. I would not die on the ditch for the particular wording proposed but I ask the Minister to consider a particular point. I agree with the essence of what he is trying to do, which is to ensure apologies are timely and proportionate. They should be timely in the sense that they should be published quickly, before people forget about the original matter, and proportionate in the sense that the same prominence should be given to the apology as was given to the original statement. It would not be right to print an apology among the small ads at the back if the original article which caused offence was printed on page 1. Justice will be done if we ensure apologies are timely and proportionate.

I am concerned that the Bill, as drafted, appears to contain an implication that judges should specify the date, time, space and place on which and in which apologies shall be published. With all respect, judges are not editors of newspapers. This provision disregards the process by which newspapers are produced. It also disregards the possibility that on the day a judge ordered that an apology be made the front page story might be that of a tsunami or another natural disaster having happening or another event of major public interest. I would prefer if the Minister would include a provision along the lines I suggest, namely, that the apology would be included in a timely and proportionate way and with due prominence and, if he wishes, with the proviso that the person concerned would have the opportunity to return to court if he or she is not satisfied with the apology given, when the court could then deal with the newspaper concerned for contempt for not having carried out the order of the court. It is right that the court should order a correction, give some idea of the prominence and the proportionality of it, but it would be helpful if the Minister would have regard for the difficulty of producing newspapers and the difficulty that would be created by a judge specifying in fine detail where and how the correction should made.