House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Jul 1995

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Today may not be the best time to have a dispassionate debate about privacy and the freedom of the press, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that, although a breach of privacy is easy to recognise, it is difficult at law to define what privacy is, should not prevent us from seeking to do so?

Would my right hon. Friend therefore reconsider Calcutt I and ensure that that comes into force, as recommended by the Calcutt committee, as soon as possible? If she is not minded to do that, would she, when considering the powers of the Press Complaints Commission, allow it not simply the power to award damages out of some fund, but the power to award damages against the newspapers and to make those awards enforceable at law?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his suggestions. When he has time to read the document in detail, he will see set out the intractable and complex issues involved. I want progress on the compensation fund, and I shall pass on his comments to Lord Wakeham for further consideration.

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton): Would not the moral basis of the House for dealing with that section of the press that obviously represents the worst of journalism be immeasurably increased if a Freedom of Information Act were on the statute book? Will that not require the election of a different

Column 1335

Administration from the present one--one who also will be able to direct attention to the abuses that our constituents suffer as a result of the malpractices by sections of the press at present?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman refers to a Freedom of Information Act. He knows full well that we applaud the ends but not the means. That is why there has been such substantial progress on the White Paper on open government, which has been developed throughout Government Departments--not least, as I said earlier, in the Department for which I previously had responsibility.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and on at least giving some dentures to what has previously been a toothless bulldog--the Press Complaints Commission.

I do not understand, however, why my right hon. Friend speaks about intractable difficulties in introducing legislation. Most of the states of the United States have managed it, and they operate under English law. The French have it; the Germans have it; the Italians have it; so why cannot we have it too?

Is not something wrong when in this country members of the press are unable to look into the Robert Maxwell situation--journalist friends of mine knew what Robert Maxwell was up to but were unable to do genuine investigative journalism because of the fear of gagging writs--but they are able to look into the gym of the Princess of Wales?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend talks about watchdogs. To quote Lord Wakeham again, he says:

"We are a watchdog with sharp enough teeth to bite the hand that feeds us, or we are nothing."

I quote frequently from him because of the clear determination that we now have to improve the service provided to protect the public. My hon. Friend referred to the circumstances in France. I believe that, if people examined in detail the laws in France, few would believe that they were appropriate in this country. I believe that there are serious deficiencies in those, which would not be acceptable in our system of parliamentary democracy.

What my hon. Friend said about Robert Maxwell was related to the law of libel, and it identified once again the fact that, even where there is an existing law, it is extremely difficult to ensure that in practice that law tackles every abuse or misuse.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Both in her letter to Lord Wakeham and her statement, the Secretary of State spoke rightly about the need to head off potential abuses by way of, presumably, the so- called hotline, which would be available both within and outwith so-called business hours. What kind of measure is that--how practicable and how efficient? How can an ordinary person who is being besieged by so-called journalists from the tabloids prevent an upcoming story from appearing in, for example, a newspaper, in 24 or 48 hours? Surely the right of reply, the apology and the compensation are much more effective deterrents than that hotline.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am not altogether in agreement with the hon. Gentleman because I believe that most people

Column 1336

want above all to prevent the material from being published in the first place. Any redress that takes place afterwards is on the basis that the damage has already been done.

The hotline, which would be widely advertised, would ensure that the Press Complaints Commission could indeed make contact urgently with the editors of the newspapers concerned. A help line is already available so that the public may go straight to the editors. We are talking about one in which the Press Complaints Commission would be involved.

There are other examples of progress, such as that prompted by concern for those experiencing grief and shock. The police and Army have a practice of advising people whose relatives have lost their lives in traumatic circumstances. As the report says, we wish to develop that as good practice to ensure that people have the skills, and know where to turn, so that in such circumstances they are able to protect their interests long term, but we want pre-emptive action above all.

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): Although I recognise the Government's reluctance to legislate, is my right hon. Friend aware of the public revulsion for tactics such as those used by the press in doorstepping the wife of the late hon. Member for Dudley, West, Dr. John Blackburn, only days after his death last November? Although it is important to talk about compensation where the Press Complaints Commission is concerned, would not even that be inappropriate in such circumstances, and is it not more appropriate to talk about penalties that the Press Complaints Commission could levy on recalcitrant newspapers?

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend identifies a set of circumstances in which the code of practice recognises that that procedure should not be deployed.

I have to say to those of my hon. Friends who want a statutory approach whereby every misdemeanour is enshrined in legislation as subject to court proceedings or legal activities, that I believe that such an approach would create a monster that we would live to regret. I do not believe that such legislation could be framed for every circumstance. Its administration would be out of all proportion to its benefits and there are, as I have said, severe difficulties about the public interest defence and about the development of show trials, which in many ways exacerbate the misery that causes them.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West): Does my right hon. Friend realise that, as a mark of the attitude that the House and Members of the House have towards the press and the great fear that they have, I have been strongly advised not to intervene or to ask any questions for fear that the press, who are up there in the Press Gallery, will start terrorising me again, as they did a year and a half ago and as they did all last week?

Most Members of the House feel that the Government are taking a thoroughly gutless and supine approach, that we should break up the press and that we should have a privacy law.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people cannot obtain legal aid and simply cannot afford to sue in a libel action? I had cause to monitor the press for about six weeks, and I found that it was not wealthy or public figures who were libelled day after day, but perfectly ordinary people, whose lives were being shattered by the press. We should

Column 1337

be protecting those people just as much as people who are in the public eye. They have no recourse at all; nothing that we do helps them. We really must have some type of privacy law to protect people like that.

We must also break up the press. Is my right hon. Friend aware that papers such as The Sunday Times do not fire the shots? They put the information through to The Sun down to Today , and Today fires the shots. It is a rotten rag. I do not suppose that anybody in this Chamber reads it. We should break up the monopoly of the Murdoch press. The Labour party will not do that--it is off to Hayman Island with Murdoch.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks with great emotion and strength of feeling, for good reason. I have great sympathy with his comments and respect them. My hon. Friend and many other hon. Members-- either for themselves or for the sake of their families--feel bruised and scarred by personal experience of the press behaving reprehensibly. My hon. Friend is concerned about not only those of us in public life, who elected to stand for public office but whose privacy should not be as curtailed as some might wish.

My hon. Friend spoke about the accessibility of procedures for men and women throughout the country. He speaks as a lawyer. Many people do not feel that the legal processes, however defined, would be user friendly, easily accessible and flexible as a means of redress. It matters that the Press Complaints Commission acts swiftly and flexibly--without great cost to users--to prevent wrongdoing before it happens. Anything after the event is after the damage. Surely we should be pressing most vigorously for pre- emptive action.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Secretary of State realise that her statement has received virtually no support from any part of the House? In the light of hon. Members' response and our lack of confidence that the right hon. Lady's proposed steps will give any real protection to the privacy of ordinary people or enhance the legitimate freedom of journalists and the media, will the right hon. Lady withdraw her proposals and think again?

Column 1338

Mrs. Bottomley: After a two-year delay in responding to the Select Committee's report, I do not believe that the House would want me to think yet again. Having considered the complex and difficult matters in question at great length, the Government have set out their decision. We do not rule out legislation for all time, but we believe that the changes in hand and those that we are requiring from the Press Complaints Commission offer the prospect of better protecting the public.

This debate has largely concerned the national press. There are many regional and local newspapers throughout the country. If a statutory approach were adopted for the local and regional press, that would have a profoundly adverse effect on many of those people whom a few of us, in our constituency capacities, wish to criticise. They are also part of the picture.

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker: We must now move on.

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In 21 years, I have never sought to challenge the Chair, but I seek your guidance. Those of us who wanted to raise on behalf of our constituents-- the little people against the big battalions--the invasion of privacy in recent months are naturally frustrated that we have not caught your eye, Madam Speaker. Can you give some assurance that you will seek to take into account those of us who have been unable to catch your eye today, when the matter is considered again--as I believe it must?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have a list of hon. Members who have not been called. I am as frustrated as the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he raised the matter. I have listened for more than an hour, and at the beginning I hoped to call all hon. Members who were seeking to catch my eye. Although I intervened, many hon. Members insisted on making long statements, and there were long answers from the Dispatch Box. When that happens, I am unable to call all hon. Members who rise. The answer lies to a large extent with Back Benchers, as with the Secretary of State--who often gives long answers.

Column 1339

Orders of the Day

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order [19 December],

That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th July, do adjourn till Monday 16th October.--[ Dr. Liam Fox. ]

Question agreed to.

Column 1340

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

Permitted hours in licensed premises

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert--

("(3) In subsection (6) (off-licences), the words "or Good Friday" shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, shall begin at ten in the morning".")

5.15 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree witthe Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Baker: The amendment to clause 1, and the consequential amendment to schedule 2, will make the hours that off-licence shops may sell alcohol on Good Friday 8 am until 10.30 pm, rather than l0 am to 10.30 pm as the Bill provided when it passed from the House to another place. There are no restrictions on the hours when shops such as supermarkets may open on Good Friday, and many supermarkets open quite early on Good Friday morning. A starting time for off-licence hours of l0 am would therefore mean that between, say, 8 o'clock or 8.30 am and l0 am, supermarkets would have to cordon off their stocks of alcohol to prevent sales taking place. That is precisely the kind of practice that the Bill is intended to do away with and is a source of understandable annoyance to shops and shoppers.

The Government propose that the amendments should be accepted. As Good Friday is a religious festival, we accept that there may be issues of conscience. We therefore envisage a free vote, in the event of the amendment being pressed to a Division.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North): The issue is not, contrary to the Minister's remarks, enormously important or controversial. The Sunday question was settled in November 1993, with the introduction of the Sunday Trading Bill, when hon. Members who wanted Sunday kept a special day effectively lost the argument.

Speaking in favour of the amendment for the Opposition in another place, Lord McIntosh said that it was a tidying-up measure--and the Minister accepted that argument. Amendment No. 1 will allow supermarkets with off- licences to start selling alcohol on Good Friday between 8 am and 10 am--a provision that the original Bill excluded. Consequently, alcohol will be treated in the same way as other products. For the Government, Lady Blatch drew a distinction between licensing law and ordinary Sunday trading law, emphasising that Good Friday is an important day in the Christian calendar. There has since been a change of heart by the Government, but both Lord McIntosh and the Minister in the other place made it plain that the issue was best left to individual conscience and to a free vote. On balance, I am inclined

Column 1341

to support the amendment if the House divides. However, my hon. Friends are perfectly free to follow their own consciences.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): I am not inclined to oppose the amendments, but I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that some people live in tenemental property above shops. Often, they do not enjoy the rest to which they are entitled. The situation is different for people living in a semi-detached property or in a four-in-a-block house with no shops underneath. Residents living in tenemental property over shops in which alcohol is sold find that buyers often drink their purchases on the premises.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): The complaint that my hon. Friend has outlined has been brought to me by many of my constituents. Traditionally, the only day of freedom from the public drinking that my hon. Friend has described, from the entering and leaving of shops, has been Sunday. That freedom is disappearing and many of my constituents will not get a day of rest from public drinking.

Mr. Martin: I agree with my hon. Friend and take his point. Where alcohol is being purchased, especially from shops above which people are living in tenemental properties, there should be more policing to ensure that those who purchase it move on to their homes or to other places so as to give peace and quiet to those living above liquor shops.

Young people sometimes congregate in what we in Glasgow call the close mouth of a tenement. Sometimes they consume alcohol and urinate in the closes. Even on a Sunday, residents of some tenements do not get any rest. In some instances, they are embarrassed to bring their friends and relatives to their homes. They are often well-kept homes--indeed, palaces. If there are people loitering in the close mouth, residents do not want their friends and relatives to visit. In the old days they used to get a good Sunday. Now they will not get a Good Friday. I ask only that some consideration be given to residents of tenements.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Column 1342

Child Support Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

Applications for departure directions

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 2.

5.21 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with thLords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Mitchell: Amendment No. 1 concerns the time limit for making a departure application. The amendment deletes subsection (4) of new section 28A of the Child Support Act 1991 inserted by clause 1 and removes the time limit for applications. Applicants would be able to apply for a departure at any time.

I should remind the House of our original purpose in including a time limit for application for a departure direction. Our intention was to reduce as far as possible the period of uncertainty both for the person with care and for the absent parent while there was still a possibility of a change to the amount of maintenance fixed by the assessment. We wanted to avoid delays in applications, but we always agreed that if there were good cause for a late application, it should be accepted. We felt that it would be unfair to the other party if either the absent parent or the person with care were able, perhaps after a considerable period, to request a departure direction that would affect the amount of maintenance due right back to the date when liability first started.

We accept that it would be unfair to exclude someone from any chance of a departure because he or she had failed to act promptly. We have therefore accepted a compromise solution. The proposal is that an application made later than 28 days from the issue of a maintenance assessment will be accepted even if there is no good cause for the delay. Any direction that results, however, will not be backdated beyond the date of application. We shall achieve that by bringing forward regulations under subsection (4) of new section 28G as introduced by clause 7.

Amendment No. 3 is consequential to No. 1. New section 28I, as introduced by clause 9, contains a reference to subsection (4) of new section 28A, which has been removed by amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3 removes the reference, which is now redundant. The amendments represent a sensible way forward and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington): I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new duties, especially as his first speech on the Child Support Bill is designed to tell the House that the Government are prepared, in effect, to accept an amendment that I moved in Committee, which would have had the same effect as the Lords amendment. It is pleasing that, as a result of the pressure that has been imposed in another place, the

Column 1343

Government have reconsidered their position. In the Minister's explanation, I think that I could hear my very words being spoken in justifying my amendment in Committee. I am pleased that a time limit will not be imposed. I am pleased also that the concession has belatedly been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): I support the amendment. It is not only fathers, however, who are not paying maintenance.

I have written to the Department about one of my constituents who, because of certain circumstances, allowed her husband to look after her children. After 10 years, her circumstances have changed to the extent that she holds down a good job. At the same time, she looks after the children almost every night. In the evening, however, she takes the children to the father's house. During weekends, she takes the children and looks after them. She works early in the morning in a fruit market and is required to ensure that someone sends her children to school.

It appears to me that the father is only a glorified babysitter and that the mother is facing her duties. The Child Support Agency has ruled that she must pay a substantial proportion of her earnings to the husband. Surely that is extremely unfair. Perhaps the Minister will look into the matter with a view to future amendment of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I shall bear in mind. If he writes to me with specific details, I shall consider the matter carefully.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. I am sure that he will fill it with energy and commitment.

I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider departures and time. I have four constituency cases at the Child Support Agency, of which two would have benefited from departures on Saturday. If we are not careful, those who are least able to afford the consequences will be caught, rightly up to a point, by maintenance orders. Those who are able to say that they are self-employed, for example, will avoid having to make payments. In those circumstances, the low-paid in second marriages will be in real trouble if a partner of the first marriage is able to announce that he or she is self- employed. Departures will be extremely important. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when thinking about implementation.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale): I welcome the Minister to his new post, which I consider to be a poisoned chalice. I also welcome the amendments. I wish that the Government had seen fit to accept more amendments, especially those tabled in another place.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised important points about the workings of the departure system. She will know that we intend to pilot the departure system from next April. We are determined to get the system right, and all points will be carefully taken on board. I hope that the hon. Lady will approve of the piloting system as a means of achieving our goal.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Column 1344

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 17, at end insert-- ("(7) Schedule 4A has effect in relation to departure directions." )

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 13.

Mr. Mitchell: These are all minor drafting amendments. Lords amendment No. 2 is a minor but necessary drafting repair, which inserts a new subsection into new section 28A, as introduced by clause 1 of the Bill. New schedule 4A of the 1991 Act is inserted by clause 1(2) of the Bill, but no mention of it is made--as it should be--by new section 28A of the 1991 Act, which is inserted in clause 1(1); the amendment rectifies that omission, and I commend it to the House.

5.30 pm

Lords amendment No. 4 resolves a minor technical inconsistency in the wording of clause 19, which occurred when an amendment was made to the clause on Report in the House of Commons. Clause 19 addresses the problem that the making of a deliberately spurious claim for benefit will allow a parent with care to come within the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency, when in fact she will not be within its jurisdiction because she has a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993 or a court order for maintenance. Subject to certain safeguards, the provision requires the Secretary of State to treat the application for child support maintenance as if it had not been made if he becomes aware that the benefit claim has been withdrawn or disallowed.

As originally drafted, clause 19 referred to "the person with care", but it later referred to the same individual as "the parent with care". The amendment corrects that minor inconsistency by using the phrase "the parent with care" in both instances.

Lords amendment No. 11 is a clarification of an earlier amendment introduced in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill as originally drafted made provision for regulations made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 4D of the Bill as originally introduced to be subject to affirmative procedures. However, prompted by an Opposition amendment to reconsider the schedule, we judged that it would be right for all regulations made under it to be approved by both Houses before coming into effect.

It is possible that the amended wording of section 52(2) of the 1991 Act could be interpreted to mean that affirmative procedures apply only to regulations made under part I of schedule 4B, but that was neither the Opposition's intention nor ours. The proposed amendment would put the matter beyond doubt, and I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment No. 13 is a minor technical amendment that rectifies omissions from the 1991 Act, which currently refers only to "part I" and "part III" of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and does not indicate to which schedule the parts belong. The amendment makes it clear that it is parts I and III of schedule 1 to the 1975 Act that are amended. The amendment also rectifies a similar omission from the

Column 1345

parallel amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly

Disqualification Act 1975, where again the relevant schedule is not indicated. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the necessity for these drafting amendments, which we have pointed out before-- especially in regard to Lords amendment No. 11, which clarifies the affirmative procedure. We have always said that, as Bills now rely so much on regulations, affirmative procedures should be adopted whenever possible, and with clarity.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 21

Fees for scientific tests

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 31, after ("out") insert

("(otherwise than under a direction or in response to a request)")

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Next Section

Home Page