Britain: The British government last night made it clear it would continue to resist calls for a privacy law to protect individuals from media intrusion.
The influential House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee reignited the debate over press regulation after it warned that some form of privacy law was now inevitable.
In its keenly-awaited report on privacy and media intrusion, the committee said the government had effectively "sown the seed" of a privacy law with the Human Rights Act of 1998.
It urged ministers to legislate in parliament rather than leave it to the courts to develop a body of judge-made law.
The committee also called for a series of reforms to strengthen the system of press self-regulation through the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which handles complaints by the public against newspapers.
The committee urged the PCC to start taking a firmer line.
It also said the PCC should have the power to order monetary compensation in the most serious cases.
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport said that privacy legislation was not "on the cards" and that ministers still supported self-regulation through the PCC.
However, a spokesman said that the PCC needed to take calls for reform "very seriously".
Culture Secretary Ms Tessa Jowell said: "The government continues to believe that a free press is vital in a democracy and that self-regulation is the best regulatory system. That does not mean that there is no room for improvement."
PCC chairman Sir Christopher Meyer said that he had already drawn up an eight-point plan to improve the commission's workings, but he would study the committee's recommendations.
"It is important to remember, however, that as an independent body - independent from newspapers, politicians, lawyers and any other interest group - the PCC is not obliged to accept any of them," he said.
He added: "The PCC is not perfect. But it works better through 'self-regulation plus' - a Commission in which tough-minded lay members outnumber editors - than any alternative on offer."
In its report, the committee argued a privacy law was needed to fulfil the government's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, which was enshrined in English law by the Human Rights Act.
It cited the recent case brought by Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones against Hello! magazine claiming breach of confidence after the unauthorised publication of photographs of their wedding.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Lindsay warned that the existing law was "inadequate" and said that if parliament did not act, the courts would.
The committee said: "It seems that the right to respect for private life, introduced into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, has indeed sown the seed of privacy law.
"If so, the really pragmatic question is whether its growth should be under the care of the courts, on a case-by-case basis, or of the Government and Parliament subject to the extensive consultation processes now available for legislative proposals.
"On balance we firmly recommend that the Government reconsider its position and bring forward legislative proposals to clarify the protection that individuals can expect from unwarranted intrusion by anyone - not the press alone - into their private lives." - (PA)