The 1990s have seen considerable debate over the role of the press and the relationship between freedom of expression and the protection of individual privacy.

During 1993 a number of reports and consultation papers have been published which focus on the central relationship between the government, the media and the individual.The year has also been dominated by concern over the imposition of VAT on cover prices, the MMC reference into national newspaper distribution, and the forthcoming Deregulation Bill - with possible changes to newspaper and broadcasting ownership rules.The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), set up in January 1991 in response to the report of the committee on privacy and related matters (Cm 1102, June 1990), was given 18 months to demonstrate that 'non-statutory self-regulation could be made to work effectively' (see 'Media law review 1991/92' [1992] Gazette, 14 October, 18).

The industry has united in its commitment to self-regulation.

The PCC's first annual report, published in May 1992, demonstrated that in nearly two-thirds of the complaints pursued (just over a quarter of all complaints) the commission succeeded in reconciling complainants and editors.

The commission was required to adjudicate upon only 6.5% of the total number of complaints, of which half were upheld.

The PCC's majority lay membership has been strengthened during 1993, as has its appointments commission, the code committee, and the PCC's procedures.It is regarded as an essential element of self-regulation that the industry should be responsible for its code of practice and that the code has the confidence of the public.

An amended code, ratified by the PCC on 30 June 1993, now includes a ban on the use of long-lens cameras and clandestine listening devices, and the interception of private telephone conversations (unless in the public interest).

A new clause deals with 'jigsaw identification' and adopts the practice of the local and regional press so that in reports of cases involving sexual offences against children the adult should be identified, but the child should not; the term 'incest', where applicable, should not be used; the offence should be described as 'a serious offence against young children' (or similar); and 'care should be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child'.In July 1992, at the end of the 'probationary' period, the government asked Sir David Calcutt to institute an assessment of how self -regulation had worked in practice since the committee's report.Inevitably, there were differences between the new system and that proposed by Calcutt.

Despite this, the Press Standards Board of Finance Ltd (PressBof) believed that, with only minor variations, the industry had done what was asked of it.

Reporting in January 1993, however, (Cm 2135) Sir David took the view that the PCC had 'not been set up in a way, and [was] not operating a code of practice which [enabled] it to command not only press but also public confidence'.

It was not the 'truly independent body' he had wanted to see.Calcutt's ensuing raft of recommendations was headed by a statutory press complaints tribunal.

The tribunal had the power (inter alia) to restrain publication of material in breach of a statutory code of practice; to inquire into complaints; to require the printing of apologies, corrections and replies; and to award compensation or impose fines.The national heritage select committee published its report in March 1993.

It recommended the introduction of a Protection of Privacy Bill and a number of criminal offences resulting from unauthorised use of 'invasive technology' and harassment.

It was suggested that a statutory press complaints tribunal should not be established, but that voluntary regulation would be 'strengthened' by a five-tier structure of responsibility.

This would involve:-- editors' contracts of employment requiring them to enforce the industry's code of practice;-- the appointment of readers' representatives; -- the replacement of the Press Complaints Commission by a press commission charged specifically with upholding press freedom and with the power to order corrections and apologies, to award compensation and impose fines; -- the appointment of a statutory press ombudsman; -- the ombudsman having power to seek a High Court order in the event of a newspaper refusing to pay a fine or compensation.Repeated calls for a Freedom of Information Bill have been answered in part by the publication, on 15 July 1993, of the government's 'White paper on open government' (Cm 2290).

Introducing the white paper in the Commons, William Waldegrave said that its objective was to 'initiate the publication of information that is of practical use to people'.The government 'sees value in statutory access rights in certain specific circumstances where the rights of individuals are directly involved, for example when the accuracy and privacy of personal information held by government needs to be assured'.

It proposes to introduce two new statutory rights of access to information: a right for people to see personal information relating to them held by a range of public sector authorities; and a right of access to health and safety information, except in cases where disclosure would betray 'necessary confidentiality'.The government has said that it will continue to provide information on targets and performance under the citizen's charter, and that other new proposals will involve:-- a new (non-statutory) code of practice on access to information held by central government and public bodies, which will require a positive response to reasonable requests for information;-- a role for the parliamentary commissioner for administration - the ombudsman - in investigating complaints that departments have not complied with the code, with access to their internal papers;-- reducing the number of public records subject to retention for more than 30 years.The white paper has been challenged for failing to put in place a policy of true open government, its basic weakness being that, in the end, it will continue to be a minister who decides what information will be released.Comments were invited by 15 October on the white paper's proposals and on the draft code of practice, which is due to be introduced from 4 April 1994.On 30 July 1993 the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper pursuant to Calcutt's recommendation that the government should give further consideration to the introduction of a civil remedy for infringement of privacy.The green paper suggests that there should be a new statutory right in respect of infringement of privacy, in preference to development at common law which is characterised as 'uncertain, both as to timing and as to content'.It is proposed that all cases should commence in the county courts, for reasons of cost and accessibility, with power to transfer up to the High Court if circumstances so dictate.

The government does not propose to make legal aid available because the difficulty in predicting the outcome could mean that the merits test would not be able to filter out most of the undeserving cases and because 'resources are very limited'.

It is, however, suggested that privacy actions could well be suitable for funding through conditional fee arrangements.

There has been concern at the likely dangers for freedom of speech which would follow the creation of a right of privacy in a constitutional system which provides no concomitant right to freedom of expression.

There are fears that such a right could operate to conceal improprieties on the part of MPs and those in the public eye.Comments are canvassed on the introduction of a number of defences, the intention being that 'the more precise the definition of the right itself, the less likely it will be that cases will turn on the defences'.

These are: -- consent, express or implied, a person who has actively sought publicity being afforded less protection than a 'person who has always maintained his privacy'; -- lawful authority; -- acts necessary for the protection of one's person, property or legitimate business or other interests; -- defences equivalent to those of absolute and qualified privilege in defamation; -- 'in many cases', the fact that the information is in the public domain, subject to any statutory or other restrictions on its publication; -- public interest.

Public interest is defined (in the same way as in the Calcutt report and review) as matters relating to:-- crime or 'seriously anti-social conduct' (a phrase which requires clarification); -- public health or safety; -- the discharge of a public function; -- the correction of a misleading statement.The formula favoured by the press is found at cl 18 of the code of practice, where public interest is 'most easily defined' as the detection or exposure of crime or serious misdemeanour; the protection of public health and safety; and preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.

The categories of interest are not closed, although 'in any cases raising issues beyond these three definitions the PCC will require a full explanation by the editor of the publication involved, seeking to demonstrate how the public interest was served'.

This contrasts with the green paper's approach, which envisages a definitive list of what will and will not be a matter of public interest.The green paper touches on pre-publication injunctions, despite fears that these would operate as an excessive restriction on press freedom.

It is sugg ested that damages fixed by a judge alone would not be subject to the criticisms sometimes levelled at jury awards, and could result in fewer appeals.

'Predictability' as to the likely level of damages is considered desirable.

A general ceiling of £10,000, mirroring the 'tariffs' in malicious prosecution and false imprisonment cases is mooted.

Comments on the green paper were requested by 15 October 1993.The report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Cm 2263), which was published in July 1993, has implications for the reporting of criminal cases.In some respects the report recommends that restrictions which currently apply to media reports should be relaxed.

For example, it says that s.8 of the Contempt of Court Act should be amended to enable research to be conducted into jurors' reasons for their verdicts.

This is viewed as a stimulus to informed debate and a disincentive to 'argument based only on surmise and anecdote'.

The commission advocates the relaxation of restrictions on reporting applications for dismissal and preparatory hearings in serious fraud cases (s.11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987).

Their proposals would enable any matter of general relevance to be reported while continuing to restrict the publication of material that might have a prejudicial effect on proceedings in the case in question or related cases.A number of worrying proposals have, however, emerged which would place limitations on oral hearings and argument heard in open court.

The commission also proposes that courts should have greater powers to 'mitigate the fear of publicity' felt by some witnesses.

The report also recommends that a power should be vested in the judge to prohibit 'in the last resort' the reporting of unsupported allegations made during a plea in mitigation.

The commission says that this power should be used only in the 'extreme case of a defendant apparently using the opportunity of a speech in mitigation to do as much damage as possible to the reputation of the victim or a third party without any risk of retaliation'.

The worrying trend towards greater reporting restrictions is also in evidence in ss.40 and 41 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

These provisions enable industrial tribunals to restrict the reporting of cases involving sexual misconduct, harassment, and adverse treatment based on sex.A white paper on press regulation was promised in July 1993.

It has not yet been published.

The white paper was intended to be a response to the national heritage select committee report and to clarify the government's policy towards the Press Complaints Commission, which changed markedly in 1993, Calcutt's proposed criminal offences, which have been criticised on the basis that they were media selective, and Calcutt's proposed statutory tribunal.It is evident from the Lord Chancellor's consultation document on privacy that there is overlap between the document and the white paper, which it has overtaken.

It seems not inconceivable that the white paper will also now embrace the government's response to the consultation document.

It is to be hoped that the sum total of all this activity is not a body of law which fetters still further freedom of expression.