Press Complaints Commission

HC Deb 17 March 2003 vol 401 cc733-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

10.8 pm

Ian Lucas (Wrexham)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I approach the debate with some trepidation, because there is often a great difficulty in raising issues that relate to confidentiality and children. It is very important to try to respect the anonymity of children in any description of their difficulties, so I shall refer to actual cases, but not to any names, although I trust that all the facts that I lay before the House will be entirely correct.

By common consent, children are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society and are deserving of special protection. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 affords the protection of anonymity to children who are suspected of committing criminal offences and, indeed, to those who are convicted of committing criminal offences. For the most part, that legislation is uncontroversial. It is well recognised and accepted that adverse publicity can prejudice children's futures and that the press could affect those children's futures if names were to be reported. Generally speaking, the press respect the law and do not publish the names of suspected young offenders. However, some recent cases have highlighted a very serious discrepancy in the way that some children are affected by adverse publicity. When children are victims of a crime, they may be protected by the law. The court can make an order that such children should not be identified. The position is much less satisfactory, however, in two particular circumstances.

The first of those circumstances is where an offence may have been committed, but no charge has been preferred. The court has no power to issue orders in such circumstances. Equally, if an offence is committed abroad the legal protections do not apply. In both cases, the law does not protect the child involved. It is fair to say, however, that an intended measure of protection is offered by the Press Complaints Commission code, which includes a section that specifically relates to children. It recognises, as does the law, that children deserve special protection. In the light of recent cases, however, I am not certain that the code offers sufficient protection.

It is worth pausing to consider how profound can be the effect of media attention on an individual in the modern world. In a previous role, when I was a solicitor, I represented an individual who was the victim of a crime that attracted worldwide media attention. The press are absolutely relentless in such circumstances. Many members of the press believe that they have a right to question such a victim, to highlight and invade their personal life and to tell the world about it. Some reporters do not seem to understand that the long-term effect that such attention can have on a person is very potent. When the story no longer has "legs", the press move on, but the victim still has to deal with its aftermath.

The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is investigating the subject, and I look forward to seeing its report. I have attended one of its evidence sessions because of my particular interest. I hope that some of the press reports that I have read, which suggest that the Government will reject its concerns out of hand, are inaccurate.

I want specifically to concentrate on how press reporting can affect children. In two recent cases, young girls under 16 appear to have been the victims of crime. I will not identify them, although at all stages the newspapers and broadcasting media have done so. One girl disappeared in this country and the other disappeared abroad. Both appeared to be having relationships with older men. The Press Complaints Commission code says at paragraph 7.1: The press must not, even where the law does not prohibit it, identify children under the age of 16 who are involved in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims or witnesses. In one of the cases to which I refer, a national newspaper seemed to have no doubt as to the nature of the adult's relationship with the child. It interviewed other women who had had a sexual relationship with the man concerned and published their findings. One, who was identified as having been "bedded" by the same man, said: He's obviously a pervert. I believed that a series of articles about the child were in breach of the Press Complaints Commission code, especially when I read in its preamble that it should be honoured not only in the letter but in the full spirit. I therefore wrote to the PCC.

I was surprised by the letter that I received in return, which stated: we could not investigate anything without the co-operation of the child's parents. The code does not specify that. I was also told that I should have complained about the story within one month of publicaton. The code does not state that. either. When I read the letter, as a former solicitor, I took the view that it was a good defence response to an allegation by the prosecution. I had not understood that that was the PCC 's role. Its objections were further undermined by additional reporting of the same story within two weeks of my complaint.

The further reporting provided the additional detail that the child had been put on a school "runaway watch". The child's comments about her treatment at school were quoted and the school was identified. Even the timing of her private tuition lessons was published.

In the second case, the child's school was identified after she had been traced. Her home address was also identified. The central irony is that if either girl had, committed a criminal offence rather than been the victim of such an offence, it would have been illegal to print all that information.

I decided to take a different tack and write to two of the editors. They took the view that as the children's names were in the public domain, their obligation was simply to inform their readers of the facts. They had no comprehension of or sympathy for the interests of the child. Those interests were irrelevant to them.

I should therefore like the Minister to consider the discrepancy in the law and examine two possible courses. In the first instance, I have been dissatisfied with the response from the PCC. I acknowledge that legislation on such matters is sensitive, difficult and a step that no Government wish to take. Freedom of the press is intensely valuable. However, it is limited by law in the case of individuals, including children, who commit criminal offences.

I believe that the press should accept that it is in the general public interest not to broadcast or publish the names of children who are victims of crime. I hope that that argument is uncontroversial. The press work within such limits regularly when they report from the courts, and I believe that they appreciate that children need special protection. I ask the Minister to join me in making representations to the PCC and to consider carefully the way in which it report; cases that involve children, especially when such cases are salacious, have a sexual element or have a profound effect on the individuals.

Those young people have the rest of their lives to experience what the press has told the general public about them. When the press moves on to the next story, it does not appreciate the way in which the publication of the private affairs of young children can remain fresh in their community, town and life for all their days. If we are to be honest and straightforward about deciding that we have an obligation to the 'youngest and most vulnerable people in our society, we have an obligation to act and to try to persuade the press to be more responsible in the way in which it reports these matters.

I sincerely hope that the Press Complaints Commission will see the validity and strength of these arguments, but if it does not, and if it takes the view that the victims of crime deserve less protection than those who commit crimes—even though they may be juveniles—the Government should look closely at amending current legislation to ensure that the protection given to those who commit criminal offences is extended to the victims of offences, whether the offences are committed in this country or abroad.

10.20 pm

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for raising this important and topical subject. He spoke eloquently about two particular cases. It is not for me to offer judgment in individual cases. I have great sympathy for members of the public who find themselves suddenly thrust into the public eye. That can be a harrowing experience, particularly as that exposure often comes at a time when they are particularly sensitive or vulnerable, but I know that my hon. Friend agrees that we need to have a sense of perspective when considering these issues.

Every week, some 162 million newspapers are sold in this country. This is a hugely successful industry that reflects, and has an impact on, every aspect of our lives. We cannot, and do not, expect to like or agree with everything that is printed. Governments, in particular, would occasionally like the media to agree with them, and to appear to understand them. I have reason to know that that is not often the case. But, although this is sometimes a cause for frustration, I am, on the whole, glad of it. We have a vibrant and irreverent press that is undoubtedly free, and we know that this country would be a far poorer place without it.

That certainly does not make our press perfect, but, considering the vast number of publications, copies distributed, and articles that they contain, the number of complaints and concerns is actually very small. All can be considered against the newspaper industry's own code of practice, which is overseen by the Press Complaints Commission. The code is voluntary, but practically every publication in the country signs up to it, although a few small, independent newspapers do not. It contains 16 clauses covering, among other things, accuracy, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief or shock, and children. Some of those clauses contain exclusions that apply if publication can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The public interest is not an easily defined commodity, and lawyers, journalists and politicians debate it every day. It can include the detection or exposure of a crime, the protection of public health and safety, and the prevention of the public from being misled. It is not defined as whatever the public are interested in, or whatever they might find amusing, titillating, or frankly outrageous.

Last year, 2,630 people complained to the PCC about items in newspapers and magazines. About one third of all complaints were outside the remit of the PCC, covering legal issues or issues of taste and decency, or were from people not directly concerned. The commission is not in the game of offering legal advice; nor is it a censorship body in any shape or form. As a rule, the commission considers complaints only from people who are directly involved, although, in exceptional circumstances, it will act of its own volition, often provoked by letters from members of the public.

Of the properly constituted complaints, most were about inaccuracy, while about a quarter were about some aspect of privacy. After investigation, no breach was found in 26 per cent. of cases, and in most other cases, the PCC helped the complainant and the newspaper to reach a satisfactory agreement, such as the publication of a letter setting the record straight, or of an apology. In only 36 cases was a full adjudication needed; 17 cases were upheld and 19 rejected.

In addition, newspapers are bound by the general law that binds us all, but the code goes further than the law in many respects. For instance, the use of listening devices is not illegal, but the code bans it for journalists hoping to obtain information. As the code is voluntary rather than statutory, it has built-in flexibility to respond to new challenges where necessary, and there have been changes since it was established in 1991. They include prohibitions on some uses to which telephoto lenses are put. We have to accept, however, that no matter how well intentioned and how well thought through the code is, it does not cover every eventuality.

Any code or law is always open to some interpretation, so there is often still a debate to be had. One area that still attracts debate is the handling of cases involving children. All areas of the code cover children, so they have the same protection as adults from misleading or inaccurate reporting, intrusions into their privacy and so on, but sections of the code are specifically devoted to the coverage of stories involving children.

There are additional restrictions on what a newspaper may print about a child, and the tenets are these: young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion; journalists must not interview or photograph a child on subjects involving the welfare of the child, or of any other child, without the consent of a parent or guardian; pupils must not be approached or photographed while at school unless the school authorities have given permission; there must be no payment to children or parents for stories involving the welfare of the child unless it is demonstrably in the child's interest; and where material about a child is published, there must be justification for publication other than the fame or notoriety of his or her parents.

Ian Lucas

One area that I am concerned about is that it appears in certain cases that parents perhaps do not act in the best interests of the child. That could be the cause of grave anxiety. I was concerned to learn that the PCC would not countenance a complaint, even from a Member of Parliament, when the parents did not agree to it. Could that be looked at?

Dr. Howells

I intend to come to that in a few moments, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, because it is an important point that needs careful deliberation.

In cases concerning sexual offences, the PCC rules are even tougher. Even where the law does not prohibit it, the press must not identify children involved in a sexual offence, whether as victims or as witnesses. My hon. Friend has raised that issue, inside and outside the Chamber. An adult may be identified, but the word "incest" must not be used if that could lead to identification of a witness or a victim, and care must be taken to ensure that the relationship between an accused and a child could not be inferred from anything in the report.

That all sounds very clear and straightforward, but there are always "what ifs". My hon. Friend has just raised one. What if the child is the victim of a sexual offence, but does not consider himself or herself to be one? What if a child and his or her family willingly talk about the story? What if a child goes missing and the family eagerly recruit the press to maximise public awareness, but it then turns out that he or she has been the victim of a sexual offence?

We have seen examples of all those recently, and my hon. Friend has spoken to us this evening about two such cases. One shows several of those elements. It seems that the girl at the centre of the case and her parents chose to speak out, which is the point that he just raised. They have the right to do so. At that point, there was no suggestion that she was the victim of any offence. The details were widely published, and it is possible that they may have helped the police to find the girl and reunite het with her family. I do not know; my hon. Friend will know more about that. At that stage, there were again comments to media organisations, and again, the family had the right to make such comments.

Although so many details are already in the public domain—they cannot, of course, be retracted—there is still protection under the terms of the code. If the girl in that case, and her parents or guardians, now wish to remain silent, even though they have spoken to the press before, they have the right to do so, and they will have the protection of the code. Furthermore, if they believe that there was a breach of the code, they should contact the PCC immediately. As my hon. Friend has had experience of dealing with the PCC, I am certain that he will assist the family in their endeavours.

Those facts, without speaking particularly about that case, highlight certain moral issues. Decisions about whether a child should speak to the press are, in effect, made by parents or guardians on their behalf. Sometimes there are doubts about whether allowing a child to speak to the press really could be said to be in that child's best interests. We may believe that in certain cases it is not, but that is a matter of opinion, and as long as parents behave within the law, it is a matter for their judgment. We may not agree with their decision but, in principle, I believe that we must support their right to make decisions for their children.

Sadly, there are times when parents make very wrong, or even—as my hon. Friend has pointed out—harmful decisions for their children, and that is when social services might become involved. However, unless that is the case, parents have the right to speak to the press about their child as they see fit. We have no right to complain about their comments, and must keep our disapproval to ourselves.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have listened to what he said and that we are extremely sensitive to the important issue that he raised. I thank him once again for giving the House the opportunity to hear his analysis of a difficult but important subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.