Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 579
Mr. Aitken : I cheerfully plead guilty to the mote in my eye and to believing in openness and in the freedom of the press. I am not ashamed of that, any more than my hon. Friend should be ashamed of some of his origins which are cloaked in mystery.
The amendment comes down to the kind of society that we want to live in. There is nothing wrong with the concept that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) wants to personalise--perhaps I do, too. On the one hand, we have the openness and journalists' mentality--let us not forget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) was a most distinguished editor and newspaper owner in his day-- and on the other hand we have the Whitehall mentality of the Treasury Bench.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the Whitehall mentality has become gravely tarnished in the past few years as a result of excessively authoritarian behaviour by the Government of the day. Let us look at the "Spycatcher" affair and the way in which the Gibraltar press matters were handled. I am talking not about security matters but about the briefings that were put out about the Gibraltar affair. The Government have unclean hands when it comes to freedom versus authoritarianism. The ghost of Peter Wright stalks through the pages of the Bill. There is the absurdity of going after another Peter Wright, and being able to clobber him and, above all, letting the threat of prosecution dangle like an unpleasant sword of Damocles over the head of every editor, so that they will face enormous costs if they dare to take a risk on a second publication.
It is nonsense to spend vast sums of public money trying to chase after a horse that has already bolted and to slam a stable door that cannot be sensibly closed, unless one is in the vindictive and authoritarian frame of mind that the Government got into in the "Spycatcher" affair.
I remind hon. Members of Jefferson's famous phrase. He said that if he had to choose between a Government without newspapers or newspapers without a Government, he would choose the latter. I would choose the Bill without this clause, because it is a threat to newspapers which are still a healthy influence in our society.
Mr. Richard Shepherd : It is a rare privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on a theme that is central to the issue. We are concerned--I willingly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and observe the points made by the former leader of my party--because the Bill is constructed in such a way as to reject any of the balances and contentions that a free society needs. It is allied to the Security Service Bill, which created several absolute offences. Even the construction of this Bill, with its absolute offences and low damage tests, creates a new offence in connection with publication. Clause 6 prevents the repetition in the United Kingdom press of information leaked abroad by someone not subject to the Bill--for example, a foreign civil servant or an EEC official. We have pursued this matter, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted it as far back as the White Paper. It was a narrow addition to the limitations on the press to publish, but it was a limitation. It is now graver and more serious. We have a portrayal of
Column 580
the Government's increasingly authoritarian attitude to the press. It is a genuine worry, and it is why we support the contention behind the amendment.By the Home Secretary's hypothesis, they are matters which concern us, and we appreciate the fineness of the judgment in this area, but it is clear that he has constructed a Bill which does not provide the balance that our democracy needs. The prime purpose of a free press is to preserve public control over the men and measures of Government, to use a well-known expression.
The Home Secretary did not give an example where the second publication could cause harm. This is the creation of a new publishing offence. A newspaper may not publish, without the possibility of prosecution, information that has been leaked in Belgium or in Italy or information given by the British Government to one of those Governments. If it is published in one of those countries and is then published again in this country--currently, that is not an offence--it may be an offence under the Bill. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that, yet it remains in the Bill. That must mean that he is creating a new offence, and I still do not understand the necessity to create a new offence against the press. This is the Wright trial all over again. One of our judges said in that instance :
"The Crown is only entitled to restrain the publication of intelligence information if such publication would be against the public interest"--
we agree with that--
"as it normally will be if theretofore undisclosed. But if the matter sought to be published is no longer secret, there is unlikely to be any damage to the public interest."
I quote that from Lord Brightman. I will not speak at length because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham wishes to address the Committee. The amendment is worthy of consideration.
Sir Ian Gilmour : I am surprised that the Home Secretary did not use the most obvious example of damage that could be done the second time round, which was the action in the "Spycatcher" trial. That caused damage because it spread a great deal of knowledge--I do not know how much of it was right ; clearly a great deal of it was wrong--around the world. That was perhaps the best example that could have been given, but it was not employed.
I was not joking when I was said to be cavalier by some of my hon. Friends, who are perhaps themselves in danger of being pompous. I said that the amendment was designed to help the Government rather than the people of the nation because it would prevent cases such as "Spycatcher", a case which did great damage to the Government and the intelligence service. That is a serious point because if damage is to be done--which is extremely unlikely, apart from in that case--it will be done by bringing the case.
It has been said that none of my hon. Friends has been able to produce a serious example of how damage could be done the second time round. The Home Secretary did not do that either, although after being interrupted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) he made an effort to do so.
Mr. Hurd : I spent some time explaining--as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) acknowledged--how there was, in my view, quite a serious risk that,
Column 581
from a second disclosure, states which supported state terrorism or terrorist organisations might learn information which they badly needed about techniques, equipment or personnel involved in the counter-terrorist effort. It is true that I could not produce an actual past case, but it is not true to say, as has been said repeatedly, that I did not adduce dangers that could happen, because I did.Sir Ian Gilmour : I thought my right hon. Friend's explanation on that came after the interruption by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but I accept that it came earlier. I still do not see how that could happen. I cannot see how any newspaper in this country could behave in that way or how, if it did, it would be affected by the clause. To that extent, it is unreal.
However, we are aware that there are risks to the freedom of the press. It used to be thought that taking risks with the freedom of the press was just as bad as, or even worse than, taking risks with security. I do not believe that there is a risk, but if there is, it can be easily met by an amendment incorporating a provision dealing with counter-terrorism, which would stop the terroristic use of clause 5. It is clear that it could be used to intimidate the press, and that if left unamended clause 5 will intimidate and stop many things being published. It will mean the British press not learning things that the press of every other country will know.
If, on reflection, my right hon. Friend seriously believes that any newspaper would behave in the way that he described--
It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman-- proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution [15 February], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The Committee divided : Ayes 97, Noes 247.
Division No. 99] [10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Aitken, Jonathan
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Battle, John
Beith, A. J.
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Benyon, W.
Bermingham, Gerald
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Buchan, Norman
Buck, Sir Antony
Buckley, George J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Cartwright, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Crowther, Stan
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dykes, Hugh
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fisher, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Galloway, George
George, Bruce
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gorst, John
Haynes, Frank
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Holland, Stuart
Hood, Jimmy
Howells, Geraint
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Leighton, Ron
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Livsey, Richard
McAvoy, Thomas
McFall, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Maclennan, Robert
McWilliam, John
Madden, Max
Marek, Dr John
Martlew, Eric
Meale, Alan
Column 582
Michael, AlunMurphy, Paul
Nellist, Dave
Pike, Peter L.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Prescott, John
Randall, Stuart
Richardson, Jo
Robinson, Geoffrey
Rooker, Jeff
Rost, Peter
Ruddock, Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Snape, Peter
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Steel, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Vaz, Keith
Wall, Pat
Walley, Joan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Winnick, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Frank Cook and
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.
NOES
Adley, Robert
Alexander, Richard
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Beggs, Roy
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Chope, Christopher
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Colvin, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James
Cran, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen
Eggar, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Evennett, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael
Favell, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Fishburn, John Dudley
Fookes, Dame Janet
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Forth, Eric
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Fox, Sir Marcus
Next Section
| Home Page |