Examination of Witnesses (Questions 760-769)
TUESDAY 1 APRIL 2003
RT HON
BARONESS SCOTLAND
OF ASTHAL,
QC, MR NICHOLAS
HODGSON AND
MR DAVID
WILLINK
760. You have mentioned payment to witnesses.
What about payment to police officers?
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) That is equally objectionable.
Most police officers in proceedings will become witnesses so I
would have thought that many of them will be caught. Payment to
witnesses provisions have a slightly different focus because they
prohibit the payment of witnesses once proceedings are on-going,
but you are talking about straight corruption.
761. Yes, so it is slightly different. I am
not meaning where a newspaper pays a police officer for telling
the story they have told in court. I mean where a police officer
spots that somebody has been a victim of crime at West End Central
police station and has an arrangement with The Sun or The
Mirror or The Mail or whoever to give them a tip-off,
and it then appears in the newspaper. Do you understand that to
be an offence? I think it is pretty clearly an offence for the
police officer, but do you think it is an offence for the newspaper?
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) I am not sure that it
is an offence for the newspaper. Certainly enforcement of the
law in terms of practice for the police officer is a matter for
the police and the prosecution. We understand from the CPS that
there has been an increase in the wrongful disclosure of police
information. Criminal law, of course, is a matter for the Home
Office, and you may wish to ask Home Office ministers specifically
about this issue. There is no doubt that such behaviour can be
prosecuted as a serious criminal offence; in particular section
1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 provides for up to
seven years' imprisonment for both the giver and the receiver
of a corrupt advantage such as a payment, and therefore, if it
fell within the definition, both the newspaper and the officer
would be at risk in that regard. Now obviously the Home Secretary
has overall responsibility for the police service and the Police
Act 1996 gives the day-to-day running to the police forces so
it will be a discipline matter for them, and the Police Conduct
Regulations in 1999 set out a code of conduct for police officers,
and this outlines principles that should guide their conduct.
So it is, as far as I am concerned, unlawful behaviour but you
would have to look at the specific issues and I am sure the Home
Office would be delighted to come here and answer them.
762. You are probably aware that the editor
of The Sun said that her newspaper had paid police officers
for information in this way. Who do you think should be pursuing
that then? The Crown Prosecution Service? The Home Office?
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) I think I should best
say it is not a matter for me.
763. Coward! You refer to the PCC enforcing
their self-regulation "properly and robustly". What
do you mean by "properly and robustly"? You referred
to it in terms of the payment of witnesses.
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) I think they have across
the board sought to address these issues properly. You will be
aware that we had concerns, and they were quite serious concerns,
as a result of a number of cases in relation to the payment of
witnesses and it was an issue about which we were very troubled
indeed. Now if, and I make no bones about it, the PCC had not
been minded to change their rules and their code of conduct to
reflect the sort of proper balance that we thought needed to be
there in order to bite on that particular vice—and it was
a vice—so as to stamp it out both culturally and particularly
so we have no more cases of this sort, then I think the Lord Chancellor
made it absolutely clear that this was a case when we would have
had to legislate, and it was not something that we were minded
simply to allow to continue. So basically we wanted to hear from
them very clearly whether they wanted to discharge their duty
or whether they wanted us to do it for them. Now, I am very relieved
indeed and delighted that they thought that they would like to
do it themselves because I think self-regulation is better because
you have the willingness then of the editors to police it themselves,
to inculcate it into the journalist, to make people realise that
this sort of behaviour is intolerable, and we have a much better
chance of stamping it out than if we are fighting against a culture
that feels it is out of step with what we want. So I am delighted
that they have taken that on board and that is why I say, if they
are going to do it robustly, which they clearly have on this issue,
then I am—and we are as a Department—content for them
to do so. If they are not then, of course, we would take a different
view.
764. We were told by Michael Tugendhat that
his reading is that the PCC's status as a self-regulatory body
is now a matter of name or procedure only and not a matter of
substance, in effect saying that the Human Rights Act means they
are going to have to follow the law as laid down by Strasbourg
and the English courts, and they are not going to be effectively
self-regulatory at all. Do you think that is fair or not?
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) No, they are good. You
can say that about every single body because we all have to operate
within the law. We are all bound by the law. It is not a pick
and mix—"I do not fancy it today"; we are all
having to work within those parameters. The question is: "How
do you fashion the Code against that backdrop?" I think they
are a self-regulatory body; they are able to influence the way
in which their profession works, and hopefully get a better product
as a result. I do not think that that is fair; attractive and
seductive as an idea maybe, but I do not think it has much substance,
I regret to say.
Ms Shipley
765. Apart from payment to witnesses, can you
give me any other example where the PCC has behaved robustly?
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) I think they have tried
to respond to complaints quickly; the fact that they are fast
or compared to other regulatory bodies in getting resolution I
think is—
766. That just sounds efficient. It does not
sound "robust" in the way the witness payment sounds
robust.
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) I think the witness
payment is the clearest and most recent evidence of that. I think
the Code has been developed, as you know, over a period of years,
and it is clear that in the past there have been challenges, perhaps
similar to the witnesses issues, where they may have needed to
be encouraged to enhance their Code.
767. Well, there is the rub, because you say,
"Well, the PCC must behave robustly", but the only example
you can give is where you have encouraged them with some tenacity,
a lot of force, and a great big stick—and quite rightly
too—but in other areas which you have not as yet taken up
they are behaving very far from robustly. The one example I put
to them was their coverage of paedophiles, particularly those
who were yet to be charged, so nobody knew whether they were guilty
or not—there was nothing against them—and far from
behaving robustly there they thought it was not up to them. Paul
Dacre, however, said very clearly and very well that it was not
an area where things were behaving as they should in newspapers
and that there should certainly be an improvement. So do you think
you will be moving in with your big stick in the future and, if
not, why not?
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) I think there has to
be judicious use of the sort of encouragement we are giving them
over witnesses.
768. I would put to you the chances of someone
being lynched would mean that it was a good idea at this moment
to encourage them.
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) There has to be a balance,
has there not, between those areas where we feel that it is important
to put pressure and not, and I am not saying that this necessarily
is not an area which has keenly excited its own debate because
I know there has been a lot of debate in the PCC as to how to
respond, and you have just alluded to it yourself. I do not know
how we could, without saying, "You will now have a regulated,
government intervention on everything", encourage them further.
Obviously we will look to see if there are further and other areas
that need this sort of attention that we have given to those,
and we will operate and act even when that proves to be the case.
769. The PCC told us last week that this was
not an area that they had any intention of doing anything about,
and in the newspaper they have alluded to the fact that they think
this is in the minority and nothing much to do with them. Not
true. So I would suggest to you that this is an area where you
do need to go away and implement whatever it was that you did
for the payment of witnesses, because it was clearly effective
and very necessary.
(Baroness Scotland of Asthal) Obviously we will listen
to anything said by this Committee very carefully but I think
I would give a caution. We have come down in favour of self-regulation
because it seems to have worked so far in most of the areas with
which we were most concerned. I just say, and of course we will
look very carefully at any recommendations the Committee may make,
that one has to tread a very careful line on some of this if one
wants to remain effective.
Chairman: Baroness Scotland, I have a
very high regard for the Lord Chancellor and I hope he will not
take this the wrong way but I am very glad he could not come!
Thank you very much indeed for the clarity of your answers.
|
