| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : I have great pleasure in speaking in the Third Reading debate on this excellent Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on the way in which he has taken it through the House. He answered debates with great clarity, conciseness and knowledge and he introduced a constructive Bill. We all know that over 20 years he has built up a substantial reputation for helping those with disabilities. During the passage of the Bill, he has reaffirmed in the most effective way his commitment to that excellent cause, so he deserves all our congratulations and our thanks.
I am delighted to confirm that the Government wholeheartedly support the Bill. I am glad that it has all-party support. We have had an excellent debate today. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) came in at a late stage with some rather carping remarks which must cast doubt on his judgment in other matters.
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. We all know the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) as a progressive and effective roads Minister. He is always too modest about his achievements. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has also worked long and effectively on the subject of disabilities. My hon.
Column 663
Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) gave detailed thought to many of the amendments and I thank him for that.I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who may not be a radical Turk, but who is certainly capable of clear and precise thinking. My hon. Friends the Members of Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) also contributed effectively to the debates, and I thank them for that.
I welcome the Bill because it not only provides employment for those who are disabled--those opportunities should increase as car technology develops--but increases the pool of driving instructors who are able and willing to teach other disabled people. It will give a significant boost to all efforts in that direction.
I am grateful for the interest shown in the Bill, as expressed by the amendments that were tabled. However, I am pleased that the Bill has not been amended today, although I take the point that we must examine the one particular area of specification. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will do that and that some changes may take place.
In general, the Bill strikes the right balance. It removes an area of discrimination against disabled people. But also, most importantly, it does not threaten road safety interests, in which, of course, I am most interested. When the Bill is enacted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be pleased to make the order to bring the legislation into effect and to make the necessary regulations under the legislation, such as those that prescribe the detailed nature of the emergency control assessment.
The emergency control assessment and the certificate that follows it are at the heart of the Bill because they provide the safety aspect and a statement that someone who is disabled is capable of keeping absolute control of the car. In that respect, I, too, pay my respects to the Mobility, Advice and Vehicle Information Service at Crowthorne, where much of the work and help will be undertaken. We have heard about the mobility roadshow. The next one will take place later this summer. The work done at the roadshow helps to provide advice to disabled people every day of every week of the year. It has some standard production cars fitted with a wide range of equipment and adaptations. Someone who is disabled can go and find out the exact car to meet his or her wishes. Currently MAVIS assesses more than 400 people every year, so it is at the centre of what we seek to achieve. We are all grateful for its work and we congratulate it on its constructive efforts.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter on his achievement. It is no less than we would expect from a man of his quality, but this is a happy day on which the Bill has every prospect of entering the statute book.
12.43 pm
Ms Walley : There is no doubt that far more needs to be done to improve the civil rights of disabled people. Important advances need to be made. None the less, we have here a Bill which will bring about some real and much needed improvements for disabled people. It has been adequately steered through its proceedings so far.
Column 664
I do not wish to detain the House further. We have other important business before us which desperately needs to be debated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has rightly pointed out.We believe that the Bill offers significant improvements for disabled people who wish to become driving instructors and we look forward to its enactment. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on the Bill.
12.44 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley : The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) spoke for the House and I support what she said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his part in the long- term coalition of interests that has overcome apathy, ignorance and barriers.
The Bill will not affect many people, but it will set them free and give them a chance to earn a living at what they want to do. That chance is as important as providing such people with more opportunities to park a car, which is the merit of the orange badge scheme. The Bill has the same purpose as the register of the disabled has in providing employment opportunities ; more needs to be done, however, to adapt that scheme or to draw more people's attention to it.
The Bill must be judged in the context of the work of the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which was driven forward by Department of Transport's disability unit. It is an alliance of people who are unwilling to tolerate injustice in terms of civil rights or the idea of passing by on the other side.
Mobility is a key part of people's lives. It needs to be a matter for legislation where appropriate and debates on the detail of the legislation can be as important as detailed debates on legislation in other areas.
There is a need for a coherent approach, because journeys on the railways, buses and on foot are just as important as those in cars. As long as the House has Members who can reflect the interests of their constituents and sometimes of their families, I suspect that we can do nearly as much as the other place in carrying forward changes. Some changes are possible because of technological improvements or cost reductions. All are known to MAVIS at Crowthorne.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done. The fact that, every year, thousands of people will be able to get information and practical guidance on their capabilities from a central point to enable them to live a better life is a marvellous thing.
We have already mentioned the mobility roadshow and I believe that hon. Members should try to visit similar events in their own constituencies, because disabled drivers are often off on tours around the country. It is remarkable how those people, if given half a chance, take for granted what we take for granted. That is where the coherent approach shows its benefits.
More needs to be done, and the Bill is a step along the way. The House will be grateful to hon. Members of all parties for their help in bringing the Bill to the statute book.
Column 665
12.47 pmMr. Peter Atkinson : I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). The Bill will be warmly welcomed by many disabled people.
We have had a good debate and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter does not believe that we have been picking over the bones unnecessarily. The Bill has had a swift passage and the Report stage has given us a great opportunity to obtain further clarification on a number of matters of particular concern.
I am glad to note that the Opposition Back Benches are now filling up, because I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) felt rather lonely for most of the debate. I am grateful for her recent contributions because they showed a certain interest in the passage of the Bill, which was lacking before. We have not seen a Liberal Member today--no doubt they are all too busy at Newbury.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said about the Bill helping to enlarge the freedom of disabled people, which is most important. To enlarge the freedom of a vulnerable section of society makes the Bill worth while, unlike the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, which we are about to debate, which does just the opposite and is designed to censor the British press. 12.49 pm
Mr. Luff : Despite the provocation of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) I shall restrict my remarks in the interests of making progress with his Bill as well as the one that we are debating.
There are three reasons for welcoming the Bill. First, it takes a pragmatic approach to the problems of disabled people. Secondly, it will enhance the mobility of disabled people who otherwise might not take driving instruction, but will now feel encouraged to do so by the availability of a disabled person as an instructor. The third reason is the simple ground of justice.
As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir
Column 666
J. Hannam) would admit, the most important single issue in the sphere of discrimination is the changing of attitudes. In that context, it is important to put on record the healthy and civilised attitude demonstrated by all the professionals involved in driving instruction. I pay tribute to the Motor Schools Association of Great Britain, the Driving Instructors Association and many individual driving schools such as the British School of Motoring and those in my constituency. I had intended to say more about their attitudes but, sadly, and in the interests of making progress with the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I am unable to do so.Mr. Soley : I could be struck by lightning.
Mr. Luff : Do not tempt me. I could say yet more about such schools ; I have a lengthy list.
There are two reasons why I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. First, it is important to put on record that disabled people who see the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament should not rush to set up driving schools. It is a precarious business and, before they set up schools, they should ensure that there is a market in the district where they are thinking of establishing one. Schools are opening and closing with alarming regularity in my constituency.
I have a serious point to make to the Minister. I have been alarmed at the number of occasions on which general practitioners do not seem properly to have understood the implications of a disability on the qualification of an individual to hold an ordinary driving licence. I want to alert the Minister of the possibility of him and his officials in the relevant agency using disabled qualified driving instructors to provide a second opinion to the general practitioners' opinion for all those people who wish to drive but are disabled and need medical proof of their ability to drive before they can obtain a licence.
I commend the Bill to the House and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter on everything that he has done to enable it to come before us.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Column 667
Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1
Editorial guidelines
.--(1) Each newspaper shall make available for public inspection at its registered office a copy of any editorial or journalistic guidance provided for the use of its staff.
(2) Such guidance shall be open to inspection during the normal working hours of the company.'-- [Mr. Peter Bottomley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
12.53 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Early-day motion 1809, tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was mentioned earlier. The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber and said that he was distressed as the movers of amendments to his Bill should have spoken to him before. I find that an amazing cheek as he had never mentioned anything to me about tabling his early-day motion, which is full of gross irregularities. The amendment tabled to it in the names of my hon. Friends helps to put the record right. But I have received representations from an enormous number of organisations and it is grossly wrong to suggest that I have been approached only by News International. The hon. Member for Hammersmith knows perfectly well that representations have been made from many organisations. I have offered to show him my files. I have in my hand representations from the Newspaper Publishers Association, which included eight newspaper groups. These groups include Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, News International, the Telegraph, the Observer, the Financial Times, the Guardian and Manchester Evening News, Mirror Group Newspapers and Newspaper Publishing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : How does the hon. Gentleman's point relate to new clause 1, which is the subject of the present debate?
Mr. Thurnham : My point of order relates to the Bill and to the way in which the hon. Member for Hammersmith has tabled an early-day motion regarding my conduct. What it says is grossly wrong. I should like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be fully aware of its gross inaccuracies and to make it clear to the House that I do not consider myself to have been used by News International. I have taken advantage of all the representations sent to me. News International is only one of eight newspaper groups that have made representations to me through the Newspaper Publishers Association.
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is unfair to you, because it is not really a point of order for you ; but if you are considering it as a point of order, you will bear in mind the fact that we are allowed to table early-day motions at the Table Office for consideration by the Speaker when hon. Members are named in them. In my EDM I merely
Column 668
regret what the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East has done. There is nothing morally wrong with it, as I have often said. Indeed, I said that in Committee. All that I am doing is regretting the hon. Gentleman's actions. It would be amazing if we did not regret such things.Madam Deputy Speaker : I have heard enough to know that this is not strictly a point of order for me. If hon. Members want to raise the point in the course of the debate when it is germane to the new clause or amendment under discussion, I will allow that, but I shall listen with close attention and jump from a great height on anyone who speaks irrelevantly.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : I draw an analogy with "Erskine May", which provides guidance on what is acceptable behaviour in the House. "Erskine May" suggests that an hon. Member who intends to say something critical about another hon. Member gives him notice. I do not suggest that we go quite as far as that with journalism. I do not suggest that newspapers have to inform someone in advance if they intend to criticise him. But it is wise to follow that convention in the House.
If, say, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) wants to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) of--to use his own strong word--colluding with a private sector body, I would regard it as right to follow the conventions and to ask my hon. Friend whether he minds and, even if he does mind, whether the statement is accurate. The fact that the hon. Gentleman failed to check the accuracy of his allegation puts him at grave risk of being caught by his own Bill--except that he is not an editor, proprietor or journalist.
It is not for me to criticise the selection of amendments, but I note that my proposal to call this the Press Control Bill was not accepted for discussion. For the purposes of the debate, however, let us call it that--
Mr. Soley : The clearest possible example of the sort of inaccuracy that the hon. Gentleman describes comes in the amendment in which he states that the National Union of Journalists opposes the Bill. It does not. Having considered the Bill more carefully--that is more than the hon. Gentleman has done--the NUJ is now in favour of it. so that inaccuracy can be corrected in precisely the way allowed for by my Bill. Matters of opinion cannot be--that is the difference.
Mr. Bottomley : The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying two things at once. Earlier, I said that I was not a good enough politician to face in two directions at once. The hon. Gentleman is going one better. The press is as important to democracy as is the House of Commons ; there is no dispute about that. In the House we have virtually no controls over what hon. Members say. We have virtually unlimited privilege. We can call someone a liar, a thief or a murderer. We can say that he holds unpleasant opinions. This power is seldom abused, for various reasons. A person who goes over the top too often gets disregarded. Some of us may be disregarded without having to do that, but it is an alternative way of reaching the shelf of bypassed Members. We have to face criticism and have our credibility tested. My argument would be that a newspaper that too often wrongly uses whatever freedom it has will lose credibility, market share and influence. People contribute to newspapers for one of two reasons--they want either to
Column 669
make money or to have influence. Often, what they want and what they get are not the same. Lord Beaverbrook was always after propaganda. I can think of few successful campaigns with which he was associated, but that did not stop him going on for decade after decade, recruiting journalists who were specialists in vituperation. It is a matter of congratulation for Michael Foot that he was recruited on those grounds, not because his views were the same as those of Lord Beaverbrook. In fact, they disagreed on almost everything except the fun of strong argument.1 pm
There is no argument in favour of a newspaper going in for inaccuracies. It would be marvellous if they could be as accurate and discriminating in their political and social reporting as they are in their sports reporting. A newspaper that was wrong about who had won the boxing or the football match, or about the ratio of wickets to runs, would soon be laughed out of the news stands. People would no longer buy it. However, it would not look to newspapers to follow the standards set by Members of Parliament because we have had an example this morning--that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith--of an hon. Member returning to the Chamber and telling us what had gone on in his absence. Perhaps he, like me, should have been a journalist. I should declare one or two interests. I earn occasional sums of money from writing--not normally very much, especially when my editor is Mr. Auberon Waugh. I have had my legal expenses paid by various parts of the media. I am grateful for that, but I hope that they do not make it necessary again. I am prepared to ring up the newspapers and criticise, as I did yesterday with The Sun. I asked to speak to the editor and I was told that Mr. Kelvin McKenzie was away on holiday. I thought that he never went on holiday, but I left my complaint with his secretary.
We can look for examples in large newspapers as well as small ones of articles giving misleading impressions. For example, The Times diary yesterday reproduced part of a story from the BBC staff magazine, which said that Mr. John Birt had a new bathroom at work. However, Ariel gave the explanation for that, which was that the plumbing throughout the building had been changed. For a newspaper to put in the joke element and hold someone up to scorn is fair game, but it would be better if it were to publish a correction. It would also have been better if The Times had bothered to put in a correction when it described Lord Runcie, when Archbishop of Canterbury, as not being able to make up his mind about the Falklands campaign. Lord Runcie was clear at the time, and in written publications afterwards, that he supported throwing the Argentine invasion forces out of the Falklands. In many sectors, one can provide examples where newspapers do not live up to the standards that they have set themselves.
Mr. Soley : I should like the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on more serious examples. Most of the less serious examples get resolved easily and, where they do not, there is no great problem. I am worried about stories like that which appeared in The Sun at the time of the tragic Jamie Bulger murder. The headline said, "Boy, 12 held for Jamie murder". The police said at the time, and it was in the story :
Column 670
"Nobody in this police station is being held for Jamie's murder." The story and headline lead to the harassment of the family of that boy, who were in no position to complain. It could have led to wrongful conviction, as it has in the case of many other stories. Can we focus on the more serious aspects? By trying to talk out the Bill, the hon. Gentleman is not only continuing his practice--he has voted against press freedom many times and I can give the examples if he likes--but denying families such as the one involved here the right to have stories corrected. In that case, the boy had never been held for murder.Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That was rather a long intervention.
Mr. Bottomley : It is not my purpose to justify mistakes, just as it is not my purpose to justify the mistakes that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I would criticise the newspaper. If people argue that we must have a system that deals with newspapers in a way that is different from how it deals with others, so that they can never make mistakes, we should have a further debate on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key) : Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Evening Standard, which I gather is currently on the streets, there is a definitive report of our debate and its outcome? Apparently, we are in the middle of a furious Commons row.
Mr. Bottomley : Well! I think that it is a very good thing that newspaper journalists will not always reveal their sources. I shall not accuse anybody about where that report may have come from. I do not believe that it came from a Member of this House.
Mr. Soley : Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point and turns to --
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before we turn to anything, may I remind the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that this is not a Second Reading debate. We are debating a new clause. The hon. Gentleman must address himself strictly to the merits of the new clause.
Mr. Soley : I understand that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I anticipated it, to some extent, for I felt that we were going a bit wide. Nevertheless, I am all in favour of that. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) voted recently in favour of journalists being made to reveal their sources. That is one of the problems with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and why Channel 4 Box Productions ended up in court last year. The hon. Gentleman voted for it. He never spoke out against it at any stage.
Mr. Bottomley : I do not dispute that. That was not, I thought, what we were discussing. Can I just make one remark on what we were discussing-- the standards that journalists should reach. The hon. Gentleman held up the front page of a small-sized newspaper. My criticism of newspapers, besides the specific point that the hon. Gentleman has fairly made, is that 240 two -year-olds die unnatural deaths each year, most of them predictable, most of them avoidable, and most of the means by which they die being given virtually no attention whatever. If I were to make a criticism of the media, it would be that they report unusual incidents, such as mo
Column 671
Under the guidelines, which I believe should be open to inspection and which is the subject of the new clause, the media should be asked to think about their role in trying to understand common incidents which lead to avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap. Each year, an average of seven people die in motorway fog crashes. Each day, an average of 14 people die in built-up areas. Which gets the attention? Which gets coverage on television or on the front page? It is the rare motorway fog crash. Which death of a two-year-old gets all the attention? It is the rare occasion, such as we have seen in the north-west, that grabs the headlines. What we do not hear about are the two-year-olds who die in, if I may describe it this way, packets of 16 or 20 each year in predictable ways. It is not my purpose to stand here and point to all the problems with the media. There are problems with the media, but the House needs to understand that legislation is unlikely to be successful. If that course were pursued and people broke the legislation, there would be a growing demand, as I said when I ended my speech on Second Reading, for barbed wire around the pen.I am holding the "Index on Censorship" to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred, as well as to the prevention of terrorism provisions and other measures. Some of them could be debated on their merits, but the general point that I make in the new clause is that we should ask proprietors, editors and those who control journalists and newspapers to tell us what standards they are after. I would not want such a provision to be incorporated in the Bill, because I do not want the Bill to be passed. My first words on Second Reading were that I did not want the Bill to get through. My aim is not to talk about it, but to destroy it. That follows the line I took when I voted against John Browne's privacy Bill--not because I do not believe in the right to privacy, but because I believe that legislation does not make all people perfect. It does not work.
So we come back to the question of what we would do. In this country, 30 per cent. of males aged 30 have already been convicted of a criminal offence for which they could have gone to gaol for six months or more. That number of people will be added to by journalists, sub-editors, editors, publishers and distributors. It is far better to ask ourselves what it is that we are trying to reduce. We are trying to reduce inaccuracy and unacceptable intrusions into privacy. We also have to decide what our approach will be to the casualties--those who carry the cost of the free press. To some extent, as I said at the TSB Forum on the power of the press yesterday--the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was also present to hear the distinguished editor of the Financial Times , Richard Lambert, speak--we have to accept that trying to have the press with total accuracy is like trying to have war without casualties : it does not happen. We must ask ourselves how best we can reduce the number of casualties without circumscribing or curtailing the press too much.
I do not agree with all the criticisms that have been made of the new Press Complaints Commission ; it has done a far better job than has been suggested. It would work better if we tackled the problem from the point of view of what the proprietor and editor are willing to tolerate and what standards the journalists are trying to maintain.
Let us consider the point of view of the proprietor. It is perfectly reasonable for the BBC to produce guidelines on
Column 672
news, current affairs, documentaries, magazine programmes, features and factual programmes. Newspapers should be encouraged to do the same. I pay tribute to the South East London and Kentish Mercury Group, which regularly prints corrections on page two. It clears up ambiguities and corrects omissions and no one thinks less of it for doing so. I also pay tribute to a journalist, Jerry Green, of the Eltham and Sidcup News Shopper. He is one of few journalists whom I know who has never got a thing wrong. He checks and double checks. His news sense may not always be the same as mine, but he uses information that is true and accurate and makes it clear when he is quoting an opinion. If that standard can be achieved by a journalist in my constituency, it is the standard that others should be aiming for. The disagreement between the hon. Member for Hammersmith and me is that he and the Select Committee on National Heritage believe that it is possible to sew up the process of news gathering, of news tasting and of news editing in such a way as to ensure that mistakes and deliberate actions do not happen. I do not think that it is like that.Mr. Soley : I should hate the hon. Gentleman to address an argument that does not exist. I agree with him. I have been encouraging newspapers to run correction columns because it is not always possible to get things right. The first article of the code of the Press Complaints Commission calls for accuracy. It tells newspapers that they should make a correction and adjudicates on it. The argument is not whether inaccuracies appear, but how they are corrected and, above all, who adjudicates. Editors adjudicate on themselves : that is an issue which the hon. Gentleman must address.
Mr. Bottomley : I think that, in the main, editors should adjudicate on themselves and that the majority on the Press Complaints Commission should be editors because that would be the best way of exerting the most pressure.
I want to keep the attention of the House for a moment on the benefits of leaving responsibility where it is. I know that I have been affected by the relative success in reducing drinking and driving in Britain. That was socially acceptable ; people often knew that it was wrong, but continued to do it or tolerated other people around them doing it. The incidence is still too high, but it has been reduced at the levels where it has the most consequences by more than two thirds in the past 15 years by social change- -by what people are willing to accept. If people are willing to discuss the matter explictly and to involve editors, proprietors and
journalists--although not particularly the NUJ because any self-respecting journalist would reject the decisions of its executive and most NUJ journalists do not know what is being decided in their name--and if the House can make it clear that the group that will be most concerned to protect the freedoms of the press are Members of Parliament and that the press will be the next keenest group, we shall get a long way further forward. By giving people responsibility and by talking about it openly, we can reduce most of the problems.
Proprietors should have a better reason than I have heard for not having a published code that they want people to follow. Editors should be pretty sure that their staff know, and are reminded of, the standards that the newspaper sets itself. Richard Lambert said that the Financial Times relies on its reputation for accuracy, and the paper gets upset when it gets anything wrong. The
Column 673
Reader's Digest believes in not only accuracy but punctuation and getting everything right. It checks facts twice, which is one of the reasons why it is one of the most read and best selling periodicals in the country, but producing the Reader's Digest is a very different operation from producing a daily newspaper.I think that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will confirm that the major problem is not with the local or regional press but with the national press. We should be clear that we are talking not only about small newspapers but about the broadsheets which have the same capacity to be inaccurate. Let us agree that we are talking mainly about inaccuracy or severe distortion. I am not concerned about newspapers being partial, biased or propagandist.
1.15 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : The new clause refers to editorial or journalistic guidance. Prior to the Calcutt report on privacy, the whole debate was occasion by the incident with Gorden Kaye when someone from the Sunday Sport burst into his hospital bedroom and behaved appallingly. The editor later described it as a great old-fashioned scoop. Does the guidance referred to in the new clause include such incidents which are nothing to do with accuracy--I am sure it is accurate to say that a journalist from the paper behaved in that way--but simply involves appalling behaviour?
Mr. Bottomley : The BBC's guidance--I recommend that hon. Members and people outside read it, but not adopt it if they work in the media-- makes it clear that there should be good reason, and that the matter should be referred upwards, if someone intends to break the normal guidelines.
There are difficulties in trying to legislate for some related issues because if people are seeking evidence of serious wrong-doing, they often have to work with secret microphones or to film secretly. I do not claim to have sufficient knowledge always to put the dividing line where it should be, but it is like telling the difference between an elephant and a hippopotamus : one can normally distinguish one from the other, and in the same way, one can usually tell whether something is acceptable or not. In matters about which a significant part of the general public disagrees with an editor or a proprietor, having a debate or argument makes sense.
I have twice tried, unsuccessfully, to put three other groups on the same basis as journalists. The first was political parties in respect of their advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority said that it was impossible to determine whether a political party's advertising is capable of being judged right or wrong and it is, therefore, not covered by its standards.
The second group was lawyers in court. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and any other lawyers present, I believe that lawyers spend a lot of time putting ideas to people in such a way as to try to get them to agree to something that is not true. They say, "I put it to you " when they know perfectly well that what they are about to say is highly unlikely or a contradiction of the truth, but they say it because they have been instructed to say it or have made it up themselves, and wish to test people's arguments. It is impractical to require lawyers in
Column 674
court always to avoid doing that. It sometimes means substituting their judgment for what they have been instructed, like the journalist who has written the story in the Evening Standard about our proceedings today.The third group is Members of Parliament. It is not a serious suggestion, but it would be interesting to consider how we could live up to standards that many people require in terms of avoiding privacy disclosures or inaccuracy. How might we allow a member of the general public to say that, on Friday 23 April, Peter Bottomley said something that was ambiguous, damaging or wrong, or a combination of those things? It is not practical, so we come back to what is most likely to have an effect in the medium term.
It can be agreed that legislation will not always work. Even if we had legislation covering the limited question of how to enforce a judgment made by a Press Complaints Commission--let alone an authority--what happens if and when an editor disagrees?
I give as an example a hypothetical case of a journalist who, after someone has been convicted of an IRA murder, says that the person who has been convicted is innocent. That journalist would be flatly contradicting the judgment of the original court, of a jury, of the Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords. The fact that five, 10 or 15 years later it becomes clear that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice does not help anyone trying to make a decision about a complaint that might have been made about that report when it was first published.
We should be very careful about putting legislative requirements on the media. We could debate the many requirements that already exist. I am still waiting for a letter about the existing restrictions on the media. I forget whether it should be from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, from the Home Office or from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is responsible for the citizens charter. There are probably about 200 restrictions in one form or another--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order I do not see how this relates to the new clause.
Mr. Bottomley : We are talking about whether it is possible for my proposal for having journalistic and editorial guidance to be a substitute for legislation. I do not intend to explain at length what is in my mind. As I understand it, we are discussing a Bill which would introduce legislative and statutory requirements. I propose a substitute for that. In doing so, I may occasionally stray towards the limits of order. I fully understand the guidance, correction and instructions from the Chair. I believe that it is better to concentrate on what proprietors, editors and journalists say are the standards to which they want to live up.
I go one stage further. Part of the instructions should be that when there is a significant ambiguity or inaccuracy, the periodical or newspaper concerned should say so at once. That would reduce any subsequent damages if there were a case for defamation or for libel. I suspect that that could deal with one or two cases that may yet come to court. In the case in which I was involved, if the editor had said straight away, "We did not mean to say that and we now understand that it was wrong", that would have been a standard met by the media which would have got rid of the need to employ lawyers.
Column 675
The purpose of our debate today is not to reduce the costs of accuracy to newspapers. It is probably to raise the costs to them of accuracy. We are talking about newspapers, unless they are like the Sunday Sport which is losing circulation fast, with 70,000 copies out of circulation during the past year, and which will disappear from news stands relatively soon. We are talking about newspapers that class themselves as newspapers. If we ask how many times The Sun, to pick one example, is being sued for libel now compared with the figure for five or 10 years ago, the answer is very seldom.Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : That is no measure.
Mr. Bottomley : The hon. Gentleman says that that is no measure. I believe that it is relevant.
| Next Section
| Home Page |