Unattributable Press Briefings (Hansard, 8 December 1988)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, unattributable briefings are one of the techniques widely employed in this country and elsewhere to communicate information.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, while accepting that very clear statement by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may I ask whether in his opinion there have not been cases recently when matters have been raised at these briefings which should more properly have been raised in the first instance in Parliament? Further, may I ask the noble Lord whether there have not been cases where matters have apparently been raised at these briefings which have subsequently been denied by the Government, thus causing confusion in the public mind?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the prime source of information from the Government is, and should remain, Statements and Answers to Parliament; but the lobby system of unattributable briefings supplements that flow of information. I remind the noble Lord that it is welcomed, as I understand it, by the press. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, my answer is that I do not agree with him.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, is it not the case that there is considerable concern about the alleged misuse of the lobby system? Would it not therefore be in everyone's interest if there were a reconsideration of the ground rules, including a review of the role of the Prime Minister's press secretary?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to note that in today's edition of The Times there is a very good example of unattributable briefing from Shadow Cabinet sources about what happened at the Shadow Cabinet last Wednesday. All parties use unattributable briefing. I believe that is something that is welcomed by the press, and I hope it will continue.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was not contesting the case he made generally on unattributable briefing? Is he aware that I am saying that there is considerable concern about the alleged misuse of the position at the present time? Therefore, would it not be advisable, in order to remove the concern, to have a good look at the ground rules?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, if he would like to give me a specific case I would find it easier to answer.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, is it not the case that two leading newspapers now refuse to take part in the lobby system? Does not that destroy the Government's case that the system is universally popular? Further, can the noble Lord tell us how it is that the details of the Statement about British Shipbuilders were all contained in yesterday's morning newspaper when the noble Lord maintains that the main means of communicating information should be through Statements in the House?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, in answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I would say that I did not know about that incident. I deprecate that that should have occurred. The answer to the first part of his question—an important question, I think—is that, yes, indeed, it is the case that two newspapers do not attend the No. 10 briefings. However, I understand that those two newspapers are nonetheless ready to receive non-attributable briefings by government departments and others.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, when these briefings are taped, can the noble Lord ensure that the machine is in working order?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that is a highly desirable step.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be a sad day for both parties if banana skins became an unattributable part of our diet?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I take on board what my noble friend says.