| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Llwyd: I regret to say that I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)
rather patronising. He implied that Opposition Members have no regard for the rights of children, and I am sure that I speak for all of us in disagreeing with him. I am vice-chairman of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Wales, and I have consistently advocated the rights of children since I was elected to Parliament. I shall continue to do so.
My commitment does not undermine my need to examine legislation. If I thought that the Government's proposal would further the interests of children in any way, I would not speak against it, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would not adopt such a patronising stance. Speaking as a father, I can say that we all respect children.
Mr. Dawson:
May I make it clear that I did not intend to be patronising? I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to children's rights, and am glad to hear him express it.
Mr. Llwyd:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that acknowledgement and for putting the record straight.
This part of the Bill will have huge repercussions. Earlier, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) used the word "draconian"; that might be an understatement. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) described the offence that would be created. The only way to avoid the risk of prosecution is for editors to apply to a court to lift the ban when it is in place.
There are other concerns about the procedure. The Home Office suggests that the police will decide when the ban is triggered, and that the police will be the first to apply for a court order in such cases. In relation to free speech, are we happy for the police to acquire even greater influence over what can or cannot be published before legal proceedings? Will there be a risk of public prosecution if editors publish uncontroversial stories that magistrates do not like?
I too have seen disgraceful reports, but they are not the general rule; they are very much the exception. By and large, our regional press are extremely good; they serve the interests of the public and of politicians. They do a darn good job. We should not tar them all with the same brush because of the one or two instances of indefensible behaviour to which reference has rightly been made.
A ridiculous situation is envisaged in the measure: that if a group of youngsters were to be named, it would be possible to ask for permission beforehand. That is rather cumbersome. The veto would further complicate matters; it could be manipulated to avoid publicity--for example, where a parent might be in dispute with a local authority as to the standard of its care of his or her child. Even a technical objection would neither give nor veto consent. The public interest defence to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred is not a catch-all to meet concerns. Day in and day out, editors will no doubt be at risk of committing a criminal offence for routine reporting.
Of course, the type of reporting to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred should be criminal behaviour. However, such reporting does not occur often, thank heavens. By and large, we have a responsible press. Like all hon. Members, I receive letters
from the regional press. I refer especially to the Western Mail and the Daily Post--the daily newspapers that serve Wales. Those papers do a good job, although they do not report enough of my party's doings--I shall not go into that now. [Interruption.] However, to be serious, they do a reasonable job. I have been reading those newspapers for about 30 years and, with hand on heart, I can say that I have never seen a report of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. No doubt, he was talking about a tabloid report.
We must try to put the matter into context. Do we really want editors to be constantly looking over their shoulders, having to second-guess whether a court would decide that a public interest defence will succeed or fail? That is not healthy for any kind of press. It is not healthy for freedom of speech--as was pointed out earlier. The measure is astonishing from a Government who are talking about freedom of information.
Editors would be able to plead public interest or written consent in defence before a magistrates court. However, if the Crown Prosecution Service decided to prosecute for the identification of witnesses, the only defence would be that the editor did not know that the ban had been triggered and that the material published identified the young person concerned. It is a tenuous and unsatisfactory matter. The Government have not proved the need for automatic restrictions--especially on the identification of young witnesses. That is not justified.
It is questionable, at least, whether the Bill conforms with article 10 of the European charter relating to freedom of expression. Apart from the uncertainty about when the ban is triggered, there are problems over the written-consent defence, and the reasons why a public-interest defence application for the ban to be listed for the sake of justice might not well apply to many uncontroversial stories.
Of course, the papers can go to the trouble of finding a magistrate or instructing a lawyer, but that is not really practicable, especially in the case of the regional press. I feel that a rather large sledgehammer is being taken to crack a rather small perceived nut. Let me again refer to the section 39 orders, which apply to the identification of youngsters. Evidence suggests that magistrates will be restricted, and that cannot be good for free speech.
Finally, let me say that the absence of a requirement for the Attorney-General's fiat for prosecutions deprives the media of a safeguard, in the form of consistency in prosecution policy. I consider that to be a public-interest matter, and a very important one.
I have the greatest possible regard for children's rights, and if I thought they were being infringed I would not be speaking in this way. I sincerely believe, however, that this part of the Bill is wrong in principle, and may well lead to a denial of free speech. That cannot be good for any of us.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
Let me reassure the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that I am not implacably opposed to the Bill, or to clause 44. I mention the hon. Gentleman because something that he said underlines my reason for wishing to speak. If I remember correctly, he said that the media did not understand children. My guess is that huge numbers of editors, sub-editors, photographers, reporters et al are
It is a pleasure to ask this Minister questions, and I know that he will respond to them fully. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Bill seeks to achieve, and, in principle, I do not oppose the powers that are being sought in clause 44. Of course abuses are taking place, and harm is being done to some young people; but--and it is on the "but" that I think we should focus--censoring the media, for whatever reason, should not be undertaken lightly. However sensible the motive may be, it is still censorship of the media.
Let me make a confession. I am one of those people who, every so often, have an overwhelming desire to censor the media. It usually takes me late at night, when I have stopped thinking too clearly. When, on the following morning, I muse on my thoughts of the night before, a little mature reflection reminds me of the inherent dangers of what I advocated the night before. Even when my motives of the night before were good, I realise the following day that reflection pays. I feel that a little mature reflection this afternoon, and a little mature reflection before these powers are used, is needed now.
More significant is the need for a spot of mature reflection before the powers, if they are approved by the House, are used, and that is the purpose of the new clause. It would defend the Government of the day, whatever their political persuasion, from the late-night, snap decision forced through the House when perhaps people like me are not thinking as clearly as we might and a bit of time for consideration would not come amiss.
When I look back on some of my instantaneous judgments, I often realise that my motives, the research that was carried out, the analysis I made of the issues and amount of time I spent consulting other people and listening to them were somewhat lacking. I have a sense that the same would be true of any Government that instantly decided to introduce a ban. Just as I try to test my motives the next day, the Government must provide the opportunity for the public at large, the affected media and the House to test their motives, test their logic, listen to their justifications and ensure that they have consulted and arrived at sensible conclusions.
That is why I support new clause 3: all it does is protect the Home Secretary of the day from getting it wrong by indulging in knee-jerk reactions. It simply requires the
Home Secretary, before he uses the powers in clause 44, to give notice that he is going to do so--instead of just instantly doing it, he announces that that is what he intends to do. He is then given the opportunity to consult before using the powers. Consulting and listening never did anyone any harm, and the more serious the powers in question, the greater the need for consultation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |