| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
We value enormously the representations that were made by the media in the course of discussion around the clauses. Representations were made through letters from individual Members responding to quite proper communication with their local editors, through national representative bodies, and by individual editors and the Guild of Editors. I can assure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who brings to our debate a wealth of experience from the front line, that we have taken on board the concerns and the representations made by the provincial media, which play an enormously important part that I do not underestimate in the local dispensation of justice. They have an interest, which needs to be protected, and their views have been taken into account.
I must not give in to the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale and others to accept the new clause if, by so doing, I would be fettering the discretion of future Ministers by binding them to any particular course of action. That is why I cannot respond as the hon. Members for Ryedale and for Colchester would have me do, by indicating what they described as our long-term intentions.
As we made clear upstairs--I am glad to affirm it on the Floor of the House today--our intentions are to proceed by recognising the potential of self-regulation to address the issue, as has been demonstrated during the discussion of the clauses. The issue is a serious one--the welfare of children.
I listened with close attention to the contributions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). As a professional solicitor and a social worker working with children, they bring their experience to bear. I hear them both. I do not
believe that there is any great gulf between them. It is a question of tactics, rather than objective. The objective that we all have in common is to protect children.
After much deliberation and consultation, to which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other child protection organisations made an important contribution, that objective led us to go down the road set out in clause 44. We went down that road because of a number of cases that raised concerns about the impact of publicity on children, whether as victims or witnesses--for example, the difficulty for a child of facing his classmates when he has been publicly identified in the local or national press as the son of a wife-beater or baby-killer; or, if he walks to school, the difficulty of having to pass hoardings that identify him publicly with such a tragedy; or the difficulty of being identified as belonging to a family of thieves or drug dealers, even if the investigation did not lead to any charges. That would certainly merit the editor of a local newspaper taking care to consider the consequences of a careless press report. The hon. Members for Colchester and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) will recognise that that is already the case in terms of the code of practice laid down by the PCC. We are not giving the Executive powers to ban the publication of particular material; we are making sure that the best standards of self-regulation are applied.
As several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester, have said, the best standards are already being applied by the press and we are ensuring that they will be upheld and become more firmly entrenched in the general approach of the media--the broadcast media, national tabloid and broadsheet newspapers and local media--at all levels. We have to get the balance right, and I do not intend to make a distinction between the tabloids and local newspapers, which is the path down which he tempts me.
It is important to make sure that standards are maintained and developed by all, and I cannot and will not fetter the discretion of future Ministers in that regard. We are debating a requirement under clause 64(3)(a) for the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the order before both Houses. The order cannot be made unless the draft is approved by a resolution of each House. Obviously, the Home Secretary of the day will take into account all the circumstances, not just a cause celebre, before determining so to do. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members. It is important to recognise that those recommendations, which were published in June 1998, came from "Speaking Up for Justice". They have been the subject of considerable consultation.
I want to deal briefly with a number of points that were raised. The hon. Members for Gosport and for Bromsgrove asked why 18 was chosen. I understand their question. Our law--be it the Children Act 1989, the Bill or a range of measures concerning the age of consent, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove--varies enormously for reasons of history, of vulnerability and of consistency within a particular area. It also refers to various ages, for example 16, 17 and 18. We chose 18 because it reflects the current limit in the youth court and the current limit in respect of court reporting restrictions. It would not have made sense to have chosen a lower age.
There is a debate to be had about the wider issues and, when hon. Members consider this matter, they need always to have in mind our determination to ensure--
It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:--
The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 288.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |