| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1356
benefits of their freedom tend to be? Thus the defenders of the freest possible press are never more needed than when press freedoms are most abused.Mr. Davies : That is an unexceptionable and worthy statement of aims.
The second important reason for making use of the opportunity that the Bill presents to discuss these matters is that it is quite clear that the Press Complaints Commission is a paper tiger It no longer has any credibility in any section of society, except of course in the section that dominates the PCC--the proprietors and the editors. The fact that the PCC is dominated by the industry is a weakness which even Lord McGregor, under considerable pressure, has had to recognise.
The Press Complaints Commission suffers from other defects. It is a toothless as well as a paper tiger. No sanctions are available to it and, in their absence, its judgments are likely to be treated with some contempt by those who do not respect the commission's aims, which are in themselves highly laudable.
I have read the commission's last two reports and I was struck by the extraordinary tone of complacency that they reflected. They seemed to suggest that the commission was saying, "Everything is perfect in the best of all possible worlds. We have seen off the enemies of press freedom. Everyone is happy with what we are doing. If we do not pass judgment against newspapers, generally it is because there are no complaints or because the complaints made have no merit." It seems that the continued existence of the commission is not in the public interest. It acts as a screen behind which the worst abuses will continue. If the initiative of the hon. Member for Hammersmith does nothing else--the same can be said of the Calcutt report I hope that it will bring about sorely needed reform. I am prepared to be convinced that we should support the Bill. I look forward to its consideration in Committee. The House and the country will greatly appreciate the opportunity to examine in great detail and with much care the important issues that the Bill raises. I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about privacy. It is the Government's intention to look favourably at the possibility of introducing a tort for breach of privacy. They have a commitment to look favourably at making illegal several of the mechanisms that have been used recently by the media to invade privacy. It seems to be an even more important issue than the regulation of the press. It is based on a fundamental principle to which I believe we all subscribe, which is that in a free society everyone must have the maximum freedom that is compatible with the freedom of others. That principle leads us inexorably to the view that there is an area of everybody's personal life that should be secure from invasion.
My personal belief is that if someone is in public life there is a quid pro quo for entering it, its being a voluntary act. That person must accept that any aspect of his activity that could have any bearing on his public activities or publicly stated opinions should be open to public scrutiny. Therefore, any privacy Bill must have a public interest protection clause.
I am aware of some sad cases of invasion of the privacy of some of my constituents. One, for instance, is by no stretch of the imagination a public figure. He found that two pages in the News of the World were devoted to his
Column 1357
private life. That is inconsistent with the basic principle that in a free society people's privacy should be immune from attack in that way.Various methods have been used by the media recently to invade the privacy of citizens. They include the bugging of telephone conversations, purchasing purloined photographs or private correspondence, corrupting so- called friends or acquaintances of the media's targets and the use of surreptitious electronic or photographic surveillance devices of various sorts. It is not an exaggeration to say that we have the use by the media here in the 1990s of methods that are more usually associated with the operations of secret police forces in totalitarian societies. That is a serious matter and a practice that should be brought to an end rapidly, and I hope that it will be by the implementation of the proposals to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
Mr. Fabricant : Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if privacy as a concept is introduced into civil law--it has been said already that it is those who are perhaps weak and financially less able to defend themselves who are most at risk--the tort will be available only to those who are rich and powerful unless we provide legal aid or another mechanism to enable those most at risk to use the civil courts?
Mr. Davies : I do not want to be drawn too much into the important matter raised by my hon. Friend, but I can give him three short answers. First, surveillance methods such as bugging should be brought within the criminal law and, therefore, subject to criminal prosecution in verified instances of such behaviour. Secondly, there should be a civil tort of privacy, enabling individuals to gain some protection from those who attack their privacy. Thirdly--this is not a matter on which you would allow me to go into any great detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it is rather wide of the debate--there is a major problem because sadly civil legal redress is, in practice, restricted to those on income support--who thereby qualify for legal aid--and those who, unlike myself, are genuine billionaires and can afford to pay lawyers.
If I may be allowed to make a personal plug, I attempted to deal with the problem through a ten-minute Bill during the last Parliament, which would have overridden the rules of the Law Society and the Bar Council that currently prevent lawyers from taking on briefs on a contingency-fee basis. If we had contingency fees, the problem would be solved without a great burden on the Treasury. There would be no danger of a great many frivolous law suits because lawyers taking on such briefs would have to be sure that the cases had merit and a reasonable chance of success or they would not be paid. That would be a useful discipline.
The methods to which I have referred and the whole squalid morass of corruption and intrusion that has grown up in Fleet Street has brought about a new industry which has replaced the traditional industry of blackmail. Throughout the history of society--ours and others--there have been blackmailers. They are unpleasant criminals and we have always treated them as such, with high penalties for those convicted.
The blackmailer has been put out of business because anyone who purloins some document or photograph or bugs some conversation that might be used against an individual no longer has to go to that individual and say,
Column 1358
"Unless you pay me money I will reveal all", get £1,000 or £2,000 from his poor victim and risk 10 years in gaol ; he has only to go to Fleet Street or Wapping to get tens of thousands of pounds for the information and be hailed a hero, without risk of any penalty. We have not so much given a new lease of life to blackmail as replaced it with something much more attractive and with much greater economic inducements. We have produced a new and squalid industry that has been the cause of a number of scandals, to which I do not need to refer as they are fresh in our minds.The House cannot for much longer continue to sweep the matter under the carpet. The hon. Member for Hammersmith has provided us with a splendid opportunity. The Government's initative in setting up the Calcutt inquiry did the same. We have now reached the stage where, as a House of Parliament, we must take some important decisions in the next few months. I hope that, whatever we hear during our debates, we do not hear any more of the argument that we are being premature and that we can continue to avoid making difficult decisions.
1.39 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : I know that we are not allowed to see beyond the Chamber, but it is a pity that our debate has not yet succeeded in attracting more than half a dozen members of our free press to the Press Gallery.
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on the dignified, restrained and careful way in which he presented his case. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, in a previous incarnation I was a journalist. For a time, I was the editor of a small but distinguished publication entitled Tribune. All the issues that we discussed today presented themselves to me in that capacity but never caused me any difficulty. It was always taken for granted that if we made a mistake, as we sometimes did, we would correct it and that we would apologise when we were wrong.
I always took it for granted, not merely on questions of fact. If someone of a different opinion felt that it had not been properly represented in our publication, I gave them an opportunity to put their point of view. Previous and subsequent editors did the same. Mr. Stewart Steven, editor of the Evening Standard was quoted the other day as saying, "You have to be in a profession to understand it well enough to make proper judgments upon it." Many hon. Members who have spoken are in that profession and have made proper judgments on it--and I am glad to add my name to theirs. I have been in that profession 20 years and understand it all too well.
I understand that while we have journalists and newspapers of integrity, they are a minority. I understand that most national and many regional newspapers are controlled by multinational corporations motivated by a ruthless desire for profits regardless of facts twisted or lives ruined. Our worst newspapers are no more than a branch of the entertainment industry run by unscrupulous men and women willing to do whatever is necessary to make money for their proprietors, their shareholders and themselves. They have to some extent debased our way of life and the profession of journalism. I understand also that some newspapers are owned by proprietors whose interest is not only making profits but
Column 1359
seeking an outlet for their political prejudices. That was more the case in the past, but it is still true today. At least some of the old press barons were frank about that. Lord Beaverbrook told the 1947 royal commission on the press, "I own the Daily Express for the sole purpose of making political propaganda and for no other reason." Nowadays, the Maxwells and Beaverbrooks are a dying breed ; money is the main motivation now.I understand that it is one of the functions of much of our tabloid press to assume the role once performed in the Soviet Union by the KGB--the hounding of dissidents on behalf of the state. All the talk about independence from the state is nonsense. The tabloid press often acts as an agent of the state. When the Government have been offended by the actions of a particular individual, a tidal wave of hatred is unleashed on that person. We can all think of examples. One of the most vicious attacks in recent times was perhaps on Peter Tatchell, who had the good fortune to be selected as Labour candidate in Bermondsey. I believe that today politicians of all persuasions are ashamed of what occurred in that by- election. That man's life was ruined : his house had to be boarded up, he came under siege, he received enormous amount of hate mail and he was attacked in the street--on one occasion, by people chanting from a headline in The Sun --and all because of false reporting.
There was the case also of Carmen Proetta who, while washing up in her kitchen in Gibraltar, happened to see from her window the killing by the Special Air Service of three IRA people. It was not as though she planted herself there--it was her own home. Her version of events differed somewhat from the official version. I will not get bogged down in those two versions, but a tidal wave of hate was unleashed also on Carmen Proetta-- with some encouragement from the state. Here is one of the better-known examples :
"The Tart The Sun discovers shock truth about IRA death witness Carmen she is an ex-prostitute, runs an escort agency, and is married to a seedy drug peddler".
All that was false, and ultimately had to be paid for in libel damages, but if a correction ever appeared in The Sun --I certainly did not see one--I bet that it was a bit smaller than the article that committed the original offence.
Towards the end of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said that those who dared to suggest that there was anything wrong with our system of justice had had to endure a certain amount of hatred in the early days, generated by those who took a different view. I regret to say that that was sometimes encouraged by members of the Cabinet. I am proud to have on my wall, framed, my own front-page headline from The Sun in letters several inches high : "Loony MP backs bomb gang". I also possess various editorials, "Mr. Odious Is there a more odious man in Britain than ".
I do not mind any of that. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, politicians are not really entitled to complain. People who depend on votes for a living, however, find it somewhat regrettable that those who peddled such nonsense chose not to deal with the arguments, but, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), preferred to tell my constituents that I was motivated by a love for "the men in balaclavas". I am afraid that a lot of the mud stuck. As I have said, it does not bother me much ; those who run public
Column 1360
campaigns find that a good denunciation is something to be grateful for, because it shows that they have managed to catch the attention of people whose attention needs to be caught. In such circumstances, the worst that the press can do is to ignore one. That, however, was not the position of Carmen Proetta, an ordinary citizen who, when washing up in her kitchen, just happened to witness events with which she was unconnected. She was given the full treatment.I treat with contempt any suggestion that the likes of Kelvin MacKenzie are protecting our liberties from the excesses of the establishment. Mr. MacKenzie's loyalty to the establishment is exceeded only by his loyalty to his proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. We must all be amused by the spectacle of editors demanding independence from the establishment while simultaneously queueing to accept knighthoods from the very establishment from which they claim to protect us. What more loyal lickspittles of the establishment can there be than Sir Larry Lamb, Sir Nicholas Lloyd, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, Sir David English and Sir Alastair Burnet--oh yes, Sir Alastair Burnet too? Anyone in doubt about why those knighthoods were handed over by the state should read the coverage of recent general elections or of the miners' strike. If we have to depend on such people for our liberties, we are all doomed.
I believe that a free press is the lifeblood of democracy. My only regret is that we have no such free press. I feel rather like Mr. Gandhi who, when he came to this country in the 1930s, was asked what he thought of British civilisation. He replied that he thought that it would be a very good idea. If I were asked what I thought of a free press I, too, would say that I thought it a very good idea. The Bill takes a small step in that direction- -although, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, it is only a small step.
Having spent most of my life in inquiring journalism, I would not support any measure designed to shackle press freedom, but the Bill does not threaten press freedom in any way ; it merely legislates for a minimum standard of integrity, in an area in which all attempts at self-regulation have failed.
Many hon. Members have referred to the appalling state of the tabloid press, and I agree with all that they have said. Indeed, I can add to it, but it is a little too easy to justify what we are seeking to do on the sole ground of the worst example-- The Sun. In fact, the problem is not confined to the gutter press. When I went to Vietnam for the first time, in 1973, I was amazed to discover that The Daily Telegraph's Saigon correspondent--who appeared in the paper every day under the name "John Draw"--was actually Nguyen Ngoc Phac, a captain on the general staff of the Saigon army, responsible for press relations. So confident was he that his cover would never be blown that he even used to appear in the Reuter office to tap out his dispatches among all the other journalists, wearing his uniform. When I went home I dropped a letter to The Daily Telegraph which at that time was, I believe, edited by Lord Deedes. It refused to publish my letter, despite having agreed in advance to publish one. It then wrote back with a lie, saying that while I was correct in assuming that the correspondent was Nguyen Ngoc Phac, and not John Draw, it had no idea that he was an officer on the general staff of the Saigon army.
Column 1361
To test how far freedom of the press went, I then offered this snippet to the diary columns of The Times and The Guardian. From The Times there was only silence. From The Guardian, the reply was that it thought that this news was a bit "so what-ish." I then took the matter to the Press Council, as it then was. I still have the fascinating correspondence that I had with the Press Council over a period of nine months or a year. It went up hill and down dale with reasons why it could not touch this thorny issue with a bargepole. Lest anyone think that 1973 was a long time ago and that The Daily Telegraph has cleaned up its act since then, I will offer a more recent example, In August of last year The Daily Telegraph increased the price of its Saturday edition from 50p to 60p, without passing on the increase to the newsagents. That followed a reduction in the retailers' percentage 18 months previously. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents attempted to take out an advertisement in The Daily Telegraph to explain the position of its members. The advertisement was refused without explanation. When I raised the matter with the editor, I received a reply from the circulation director, Mr. C. J. Haslum, which we should bear in mind when told that we have a completely free press which is open to all schools of thought. He said :"It is very well established that no newspaper publisher is ever obliged to include in his newspaper any advertisement to which he takes exception, whether on the ground of taste or because it is not in his commercial interest to do so."
So commercial interest, not principle, guides certainly The Daily Telegraph and, I suggest, most of our press.
In Sunderland we have a newspaper called the Sunderland Echo, whose commitment to impartiality is not so great as to prevent its board from donating money, from time to time, to the Conservative party. My relationship with the Sunderland Echo is not bad now, and I am not complaining about it--I hope that they can hear me up there--but it got offer to a rocky start. Now we have a good working relationship. The editor, Mr. Andrew Hughes, is a man of integrity. He is also a member of the Press Complaints Commission. He wrote in The Times on 27 January that my hon. Friend's Bill could turn into a malignant tumour on democracy.
I want to give an illustration from my own experience--only one of a very large number that I could give--regarding the Sunderland Echo, edited at the time by the same gentleman. On 20 May 1989, in a front page lead story, the Sunderland Echo falsely reported that I had attacked leaders of the local Labour council at a public meeting on coal imports. As that was the lead story, it presented some difficulties for me. The paper then rang the leader of the council and put that falsehood to him and got him to attack me. The paper made that the lead story on the following Monday, its next edition. I contacted the editor of the Sunderland Echo. After five days of negotiation and in return for these two false front-page leads, I was rewarded with a five-line correction on page three. The paper was not all that quick in coming forward with that correction ; nor was it all that keen to publish it.
I shall give another example from the quality press. I am concerned about the idea that this is all to do with The Sun and the Star. It is not. It is the whole lot of them, basically, with the most obvious exception of The
Column 1362
Independent, which is an honourable newspaper and the brightest thing to occur in British national newspaper history in recent years.I recall a big battle in the Labour party in September 1981. I shall not bore you with the details, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you were around at the time. The Times published a profile of the three candidates for the deputy leadership. It inserted a false statement about one of the candidates, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) : "City sources speak of a Stansgate trust registered with the Bank of Bermuda", from which members of his family were supposed to be beneficiaries. I rang the Bank of Bermuda to ask whether that was true and it said that not only was there no such trust but that nobody from The Times had bothered to ring to check. I asked the journalist who had written the profile about it and he said that the paragraph that he had included in the article had been removed and replaced with this deliberate falsehood. In due course, but not before the damage was done, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield was awarded a one-line apology at the end of a letter.
The only views of newspapers editors to which I listen with respect are those of editors such as Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith of The Independent , but I must, with respect, disagree with him. He said that self-regulation has been successful. It has not. In every example--the City of London, that much-derided body--the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, the police investigating the police and the Advertising Standards Authority--self- regulation has been tried but has not worked properly. That is why, not for the first time, we are discussing a modest measure of this sort. If the media are not happy about the Bill, they have only themselves to blame.
It is my pleasure to support the Bill. I regard it as only a small step in the right direction. Honest journalists have nothing to fear from it and, as an honest journalist, I am proud to support it. With respect, I do not think that the Bill addresses the real issue, which will await later legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) gave us a clue in his excellent speech, in which he outlined the real problem in a democracy. A democracy depends on the free flow of information, without which there is no democracy. It cannot be right that one proprietor should have five national daily and Sunday newspapers and control of all satellite television. It cannot be right that almost all our national newspapers are in hock to enormous commercial interests rather than to the principles to which they pay lip service.
I look forward to the day when a Government genuinely committed to a free press introduce a little liberal anti-monopoly legislation designed to break up the media empires, but until that day dawns I am happy to support the Bill.
1.57 pm
Mr. Michael Carttiss (Great Yarmouth) : The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not one of the hon. Members with whom I normally find myself even within spitting distance of remote agreement, but I endorse much of what he said. He must not assume that all of us who believe in market forces necessarily think that it is good if market forces lead to the media being owned by one or two people. That is not part of my philosophy.
Column 1363
I share the hon. Gentleman's objection to knighthoods. He expressed his objection to the journalists who accept knighthoods, but I express it to those who recommend them for knighthoods. It is a prostitution of their profession that they accept a knighthood from a Government, and it is a wrong tactic for a Government to seek to buy them off by giving them knighthoods. I must tell the House that, if I am here long enough and Her Majesty the Queen is recommended to offer me one, I shall refuse it. I hope that Kelvin MacKenzie will, too. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I must constrain myself. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not mind if I do not launch into paeans of praise. However, I wish to put on record my admiration of his speech today and the way in which he has tackled the problem. He has made an enormous effort. It is an example of this place at its best when an hon. Member goes ahead in that way, strikes a chord across the party divide and involves what we call "ordinary people"--I hope that we put it in quotes because we are ordinary people, too--who would not normally be involved. I commend him greatly for that.The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is another Member with whom I would blush to agree, but today I find myself in agreement with almost everything that he said. He shares the name--we once chatted about the possibility that he might have his ancestry--of the famous Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth, Miles Corbett, who lost his head for freedom. He was one of those who signed Charles I's death warrant. When Charles II exercised retribution, Miles Corbett lose his head.
One of my predecessors lost his hand in the interests of press freedom in the reign of the previous Queen Elizabeth. He had written a piece that suggested that Queen Elizabeth I should not marry a particularly ugly and senile French duke who was being promoted for her hand. We Yarmouth people have always been rather disinclined to view European potentates with any great favour. My predecessor lost his hand, not for daring to question the Queen joining in matrimony with the ugly French duke, but for suggesting that there was no point in her marrying because she was too old to bear children. The hon. Member for Erdington highlighted, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, the hypocrisy of the editor of The Sun. I also highlight the hypocrisy of the editor of the Daily Mirror. They suggest that they are the free press upon which the liberties of the nation depend. They are in hock to their proprietors. The Sun is owned by Mr. Murdoch. I am not sure who owns the Daily Mirror now. When Maxwell owned it, he honourably set forth his support for the Labour party. But it is no good the Daily Mirror or The Sun pretending that they are independent.
The quality newspapers are not independent either. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South concentrated our attention on the quality newspapers-- this is not all about tabloids. The first time I came to this place, I was about 15 or 16. I had always believed everything that I read in The Daily Telegraph . That is probably why I am a Conservative--I never got over the experience. I sat in the Gallery when I was 16 or 17--I am going up in age because I must have been older than 14. I am sure that I did not read The Daily Telegraph when I was 14. When I read the
Column 1364
next day The Daily Telegraph report of the debate that I had attended here, it bore no resemblance whatever to the debate that I had heard.Mr. Patrick Thompson : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Carttiss : I shall not give way to anyone because we are running short of time. I apologise to my hon. Friend. Too many Members have given way today.
I share the anxiety that has been expressed about party allegiance. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister that I suggested that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be intimidated. No one could intimidate my hon. Friend the Minister. I said it in case I was not called. I thought that it would be a good soundbite for my local television and radio stations.
Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie addressed the National Heritage Select Committee. He said, "You guys would be nuts if you wanted the American privacy law". I go to the United States quite a bit and I admire the privacy law ; indeed, I am wearing a Cape Cod tie. I should be happy for us to have similar privacy.
Because Miss Whiplash has evidently entertained Members of this House, it has been said that we would be nuts to allow the list to be published. Who are those guilty men? Let them be named.
Mr. Ashton : They are all public schoolboys.
Mr. Carttiss : Do not believe it. What about the journalists and editors? We know that the editors of two quality newspapers have had a liaison with a lady of questionable character. Let us publish the Miss Whiplash list, and not merely the names of Members of Parliament on it. Why is Kelvin MacKenzie not publishing it? The best argument that I have heard for the Bill is the fact that he said, "You must be nuts if you want to publish it". If he did not want to publish it, it shows that the United States legislation on privacy and the press is a good law. Let us copy it. The hon. Member for Hammersmith has not. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) mentioned the problem of defining the truth and my colleagues have also referred to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was concerned about the question of truth and accuracy. However, truth cannot be defined and that is not what we are talking about. There can be different views of the truth.
My. hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has left the Chamber. He put up a number of Aunt Sallies and shot them down and he mentioned many matters that are not dealt with in the Bill. Hon. Members tried to use truth as a synonym for accuracy, but one can be accurate but untruthful. It is easy to determine whether something is accurate.
I have no real complaint about my local newspapers, even though they have never contributed to the Conservative party in all the time that they have been in existence. However, one thing has always bugged me. Three or four years ago my local authority applied for assisted area status. I thought that it had no chance of getting it, and it did not. Lord Tebbit was then Secretary of State for Trade and he was not going to give anyone anything. I told the Conservatives and socialists on Great Yarmouth borough council that there was no chance of getting that status and said, "We must stand on our own two feet." The headline on the front page of my local
Column 1365
newspaper that week was, "MP says You must stand on your own two feet'". That was inaccuracy. It was not telling an untruth as that was what I meant but, by suggesting that I was separating myself from the people that I represent--in an area where generations of my family have lived and worked--it was pretending that I was adopting a position that was inappropriate for me as a Member of Parliament.Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the local newspaper made an error in that headline, by and large, reporting standards and accuracy in regional papers are higher than those of the national press, the reason being that they cannot afford the heavy cost of a libel action? Their sales depend on credibility, which means accuracy.
Mr. Carttiss : My hon. Friend has stated her case, but I do not think that it was a mistake. The headline was a deliberate inaccuracy and it was in quotation marks--the sort of inaccuracy that we have been discussing.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool was concerned about truth and accuracy in relation to the royal family. He said that the newspapers were talking about the marriage between the Prince and Princess of Wales being in a rocky state, which turned out to be the truth. The fact of the matter is that the prince and princess were pushing the story. I saw a problem with the hon. Member using that as an argument against the Bill, which is concerned with accuracy. That is not a matter of accuracy. People are entitled to express a view about a marriage.
I make no complaint about the intrusion of the press on the private lives of Members of Parliament. No hon. Member has mentioned Sunday Sport, but I am going to give it a plug because I have been in it several times. The famous occasion--famous for me--when I suddenly decided to vote for the Government, something I do reluctantly every day-- [Interruption.] Wait a moment. When I see the alternative to the Government, that forces me to vote for them. There was a suggestion that the Whips had used all sorts of blackmailing tactics to persuade Conservative Members to go in the Lobby on the Maastricht Bill. It was suggested that some people had changed their vote, not for the reasons they gave or because of the issues, but because someone knew something about their private life. The next day one of the journalists in the Lobby said to me, "Are you aware that one of your colleagues was threatened that if he didn't vote with the Government the Whips Office would reveal the name of his mistress to his wife?" He asked me what I thought and I said, "I am not worried about my colleagues' mistresses--I've got too many of my own to concern myself with."
Mr. Carttiss : Read it in the Sunday Sport.
The next day the Daily Mirror sent two people to the village where I live, where my mother was born and before her my grandparents and great- grandparents. For two days they went around asking my neighbours about my private life. Those neighbours were free to show those journalists the door, as they did. One dear old lady of 80, who has known me since I was a baby, said, "You send the Mirror down to me, boy." I will have to clean up the language. "The only thing that that paper is any good for is to wipe your backside on." I was away from my house,
Column 1366
but those two newspaper people were outside my door. My neighbours kept asking them to go, and eventually they telephoned the police. If I had changed my vote in the House because I was fearful of some private scandal coming out, the public have the right to know that. If a Member of Parliament puts himself forward to the electorate as a family man, which I do not, and fresh from going to the photographer to be photographed with his wife and adoring children, he then consorts with his mistress, telephone bugged or not, the public are entitled to know.So, members of the press have a duty which we should be supporting, but they have abused it in many ways. The hon. Member for Hammersmith has done a signal service not just to the House but to the country in obliging us to focus attention on these issues in a small way. If that prods the ample form of my hon. Friend the Minister into coming forward with suitable Government legislation, the Bill will have served its purpose, even if it gets no further. However, I hope that the Bill will reach Committee where the issues will be debated ; and there I promise to reveal more of my private life.
2.13 pm
Ms. Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : I should like to join the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and others, not in the pages of Sunday Sport, but in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) not only on introducing the Bill but on the amount of work that so clearly went into it before it was presented to the House. I believe that the title of the Bill, "Freedom and Responsibility of the Press", is a model for what my hon. Friend is attempting to produce. Freedom of the press is essential to any society that wants to be free. However, as we have heard today, that freedom within this country has, in some sections of the press, devolved into licence and its concomitant responsibility has been conspicuous by its absence.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is not in his place. I was puzzled by his misunderstanding of my hon. Friend's Bill, which contains no attempt to reduce the freedom of the press. Indeed, in his splendid opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith took time to say how the freedom of the press is and has been diminished. His Bill attempts to ensure that news and information is presented and disseminated accurately by prompting codes of ethical and professional standards that will produce the highest standards of journalism.
The argument that the code proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith would be unworkable falls when considered in the light of existing codes exercised by the BBC and the Independent Television Commission over the broadcasting of television and radio. An example of how such codes of practice can work in the best interests of the public is the world service of the BBC, which is regarded--not only by the people of this country, but by millions of people around the world who, in many instances, are attempting to create a democratic society--as a reliable exponent of accurate facts, news and information.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) spoke of believability tables, in which the press fell way below television and radio in the public's trust. What protection is afforded for our democratic system and
Column 1367
our free society if the press so loses its credibility by abusing its own power? That power should, of itself, be engaged in countering the awesome power of government, and of great wealth, privilege and influence. That credibility is most quickly forfeit when power is exercised without responsibility.The exercise of democracy in a free society is not solely and totally served by our right to place our votes in ballot boxes. We also need accurate information on which to make reasoned judgments about how we wish to be governed. If that information is tainted, so is the political process and democracy. Freedom of expression cannot be tampered with simply because the views expressed are those that we--on whichever side of the political spectrum--do not wish to hear. Another sphere of concern of which we have heard only this week relates to the invasion of the privacy of those in power and high public office. That issue has become the focal point for the debate on press freedom and responsibility. The debate has centred on those issues and, regrettably, in some instances, seems to have become stuck. In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, I believe that all citizens should have privacy rights. I also believe, however, that those who hold positions of privilege, power and influence must accept a degree of intrusion into their private lives, particularly if their public power directly affects and can limit an individual's privacy. To give more power to the already powerful is not to strengthen a free society, but to weaken it. All too often, people with no privilege, influence and, increasingly, no recourse to lengthy and expensive legal redress, fall victim to the excesses of the press.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith referred to good behaviour on the part of the press as part of the code of conduct. The Minister referred to a possible Government Bill which may include a new law of tort on the invasion of privacy. I prefer my hon. Friend's view that the provision should relate to harassment. I can give the House a personal anecdote. A member of my family was criminally attacked, as a result of which he had to be operated on and spent a few days in hospital. On three separate occasions, the already overstretched and overworked staff of my local hospital had to throw off the ward a photographer from a tabloid newspaper. I have not raised that story in the House because of my involvement, but that was a gross intrusion not only on a member of my family but on other patients. It is desperate that those who dedicate their whole lives to the sick and the ill have had more burdens placed on their shoulders. Such behaviour is simply unacceptable.
The press cannot have it both ways. If its right to protect the public interest is to be safeguarded, the rights of the public must be safeguarded from the press. If the press wishes to protect its right to speak freely about the powerful, the public must have the right to reply to the powerful. If the press wishes to pass comment on private individuals, those individuals must be guaranteed the right to respond.
In common with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that the freedom of the press is central to democracy--indeed, to a free society. It is central because the press is one of the vital links between the people and those whom they elect. In many instances, it is the press
Column 1368
who can guard people from abuse by those who, once elected, would otherwise turn their backs on people's needs. It is that link between the interests of the public and of the press which the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith seeks to maintain, and I shall vote for the Bill today.2.21 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House divided : Ayes 129, Noes 11.
Division No. 134] [2.21 pm
AYES
Allen, Graham
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Austin-Walker, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Berry, Dr. Roger
Betts, Clive
Blunkett, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burden, Richard
Caborn, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Carttiss, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cormack, Patrick
Corston, Ms Jean
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Dobson, Frank
Dowd, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Eagle, Ms Angela
Enright, Derek
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Fabricant, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fisher, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Fraser, John
Gale, Roger
Gapes, Mike
Gerrard, Neil
Godsiff, Roger
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Gould, Bryan
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Gunnell, John
Hain, Peter
Hall, Mike
Harris, David
Heppell, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ingram, Adam
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Janner, Greville
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Khabra, Piara S.
Knox, David
Leighton, Ron
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Livingstone, Ken
Loyden, Eddie
Mackinlay, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin
McWilliam, John
Mahon, Alice
Marek, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Meacher, Michael
Michael, Alun
Miller, Andrew
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Morgan, Rhodri
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mullin, Chris
Murphy, Paul
O'Hara, Edward
Olner, William
O'Neill, Martin
Pickthall, Colin
Pike, Peter L.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Prescott, John
Radice, Giles
Randall, Stuart
Raynsford, Nick
Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Rooker, Jeff
Ruddock, Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Short, Clare
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Spellar, John
Stern, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Vaz, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mike
Wicks, Malcolm
| Next Section
| Home Page |