28 Jun 1999 : Column 1

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) in the second session of the fifty-second parliament of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland commencing on the seventh day of may in the forty-sixth year of the reign of

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

FIFTH SERIES

VOLUME DCIII NINTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1998--99


28 Jun 1999 : Column 1

House of Lords

Monday, 28th June 1999.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers--Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Press Complaints Commission

Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether Ministers have had any discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission following recent intrusions into personal privacy by tabloid newspapers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Ministers meet the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, from time to time to discuss press regulation matters. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, for example, met the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, on 27th April to discuss the Government's criminal memoirs review. There have, however, been no formal discussions in direct response to the events to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is referring.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of repeated intrusions into privacy by one or two tabloid newspapers, including the particularly obnoxious example that occurred only a few weeks ago? Does he agree that one of the most unattractive features of that particular example was the newspaper benefiting commercially, followed by an entirely hypocritical apology to those who were involved in that very unhappy episode? Finally, is the noble Lord further aware that one of the most disagreeable aspects of the whole matter is that a number of people who suffer from

28 Jun 1999 : Column 2

the activities of tabloid newspapers decide not to pursue their complaints for fear that, if they do, there will be still further intrusions into their privacy?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not normally comment on individual cases. I imagine that the noble Lord is referring to the Countess of Wessex and the Sun. We were pleased that the matter was resolved without recourse to adjudication. On the noble Lord's final point, yes, I agree with him entirely.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord who asked the Question. Yet, when one examines the alternative of a statutorily based system, one finds that it would cost an enormous amount of money for people to pursue such matters; it would take a great deal of time; and it is very unlikely that the courts would award anything like the kind of damages that would make it worth while. The fact is that people would not use a legally based system--and that is without taking into account even the effect of the Internet. Self-regulation is by no means perfect, but I suggest to the Minister that it is a great deal better than the alternatives.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's view has consistently been that strong and effective self-regulation is better than a statutory regime. But, for that to work, it requires either that people are much more willing to come forward with complaints, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, or that the commission extends the use of the power that it already has to investigate complaints of its own volition.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this practice is even more unacceptable than cheque-book journalism?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are both problems that the press and the media generally have to face. I do not know that I would put a value on

28 Jun 1999 : Column 3

either of them. Cheque-book journalism, if it results in distortion and invasion of privacy, is very bad; intrusion on privacy in itself, even if there is no money involved, is very bad. That is true, whether or not those involved are in the public eye.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, although self-regulation may be preferable to a statutory regime, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has said and as I gather the Minister agrees, would it not be a good thing to warn the press in the strongest possible terms that, unless self-regulation is made to work, a statutory regime may have to be considered?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that strong self-regulation is preferable to a statutory regime. Despite some recent very bad examples, I believe that matters have very mildly improved, because the Press Complaints Commission has had greater self-confidence in recent years than perhaps it had in the past. I am not sure that making threats from the Government Dispatch Box is the right way to proceed.

Lord Luke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most important person in any instance like this is the victim? If that is the case, does he further agree that proactive moves by the PCC, which have been mooted in certain quarters, would inevitably cause distress to victims who, in most cases, would far rather not have any publicity at all?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, discussion about the investigation of complaints on the volition of the PCC must always take that point into account. Clearly, if the victim positively does not want an investigation to be carried out, any inquiry will have to be abandoned very rapidly. That is the difficult kind of balance with which the Press Complaints Commission must deal.

Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the public would have greater confidence in the Press Complaints Commission if it had power to fine summarily newspapers that abused the privacy of members of the public?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that happened the PCC would become, almost by osmosis, a public body and begin to have the powers and sanctions that would arise under a statutory regime. One does not create a statutory regime necessarily by legislation; one creates it if one has the powers to fine of the kind that the noble Lord advocates.

Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the proprietor of many of the tabloids is Mr Rupert

28 Jun 1999 : Column 4

Murdoch, who has recently married, do the Government have any indication whether his new wife will have a positive influence upon him?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no idea--and I do not think I care.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain the difference in terms of impact between a complaint upheld and a complaint dismissed?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if a complaint is upheld by the PCC, the newspaper concerned has a duty to apologise in a form prescribed by the commission.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I rise to assist the Minister. What is the result of increasing circulation by a quarter of a million and defying the Press Complaints Commission? The answer is a slap on the wrist from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Unless the PCC has real teeth, it will continue to be ignored, and everybody knows it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord is edging towards the view of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that there should be a fine to reflect the advantage that the newspaper gains through an invasion of privacy. We do not agree. If we did that, we would de facto have a statutory complaints procedure.

Eastern Europe: UK Enterprise Policy

2.45 p.m.

The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Why they are terminating the joint industrial and commercial attachments programme for British businesses in Russia and central and eastern Europe, and what they intend to put in its place.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the programme is no longer appropriate to the department's priorities for helping the transition process in the region. We are supporting bilateral programmes tailored to country needs. Details are set out in published country strategy papers.

The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which I find rather disappointing. Does the Minister agree that for a mere £5 million a year since 1990 over 900 United Kingdom companies have been active in 25 nations of the former Soviet empire and that their principal objective has been to provide managers with knowledge of British free market systems and business ethics, no doubt with a view to winning contracts in the short, medium and long term? Does the Minister also agree that the Department for International Development is taking an unusually short-sighted view of this matter? Will the noble

28 Jun 1999 : Column 5

Baroness arrange for JICAP to be transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that it can continue under the aegis of the British Council?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Earl that the Government are taking a short-sighted view. Before the decision to stop the programme was taken there was an extremely wide-ranging and comprehensive evaluation of it. That evaluation looked at the core objectives and also the contribution of the programme to the wider transition process in the region and its relationship with our priorities under the White Paper on international development. The result of the evaluation showed that the programme was not contributing much to the goal of enterprise restructuring. There was only patchy evidence of an improvement in enterprise performance, including the building of commercial links with UK companies. The estimate of the trade generated as a result of the programme was modest. Therefore, the decision was taken to look at bilateral programmes that would improve the performance and the relationship. It is not a short-sighted decision. Aid and support will continue but in a different form.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page