HL Deb 16 June 1998 vol 590 cc1446-8

2.53 p.m.

Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the outcome of their inquiry into the events surrounding the publication of Cries Unheard concerning the case of Mary Bell, with particular reference to any lessons to be learned by the supervising authorities and the media.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

My Lords, the Home Secretary announced on 30th April that he had asked the Permanent Secretary to investigate the circumstances in which Home Office officials had become aware that Mary Bell was proposing to co-operate in the writing of a book about her life. My right honourable friend has asked for the investigation to be completed by the end of this month and will publish the main findings. A separate internal review of the legal position concerning criminal memoirs is continuing. I understand that the Press Complaints Commission is still considering a complaint that the newspaper serialisation of this book was in breach of the industry's code of practice.

Lord McNally

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of public concern about the issues raised back in April by the publication of that book and that kicking the matter into the long grass in Whitehall is not an adequate response; neither is it for us to rely on the Press Complaints Commission, which seems to be adept at slamming the stable door rather than dealing with press abuses? Can the Minister give an assurance that the House will return to this issue constantly until we have a proper response from government and from the Press Complaints Commission and better behaviour from the media themselves?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, there is no question of kicking the issue into the long grass. The investigation was announced on 30th April and I have just indicated that the Home Secretary has directed that he wants it concluded by the end of this month. That is two months, which is not a bad effort. As regards the PCC, I know from my conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that it is considering this matter. But it is not an easy matter, capable of a simplistic answer.

Lord Henley

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that if the Government are contemplating legislation—I do not know whether they are: we shall have to wait until the end of the month—the matter may be difficult to resolve without contravening the provisions of the Human Rights Bill which was recently passed by this House and is now going through another place? Will he give a commitment that the Government will consider carefully the relevant aspects of the Human Rights Bill in relation to these matters?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Yes, my Lords. It is important to bear in mind that I drew a careful distinction between the internal investigation to which I referred in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and a review of the legal position. If one wants a review of the legal position, legislation may be required which would have to bear carefully in mind Article 10 on freedom of expression. However, other articles are important; namely, the right to decent respect for private and family life.

Lord McNally

My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify a point about an often repeated desire by Ministers not to see criminals profit from their criminal past? Does this apply to those who have been convicted of criminal offences abroad?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I do not think one can give a global answer to that question. Some people will have been convicted of criminal offences abroad which neither the noble Lord nor the rest of your Lordships would think ought to be correctly designated as crime. Therefore, one cannot produce a simplistic answer. It is our view that it is morally wrong for criminals who have been convicted in this country of what is properly described in a civilised jurisdiction as crime should profit from crime. But the noble Lord will know that the ability to recover funds from those sources is limited to six years. In the case of Mary Bell, she committed her crimes and was convicted of them as long ago as 1968.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the distressing aspects of this case was the way in which journalists hounded Mary Bell and her daughter, who was under age? Is that to be part of the PCC investigation?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, my reference in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about a decent respect for privacy and family life was directed to the daughter of Mary Bell, who is wholly innocent of any wrong-doing and has had her life irredeemably damaged. Whether or not the Press Complaints Commission will consider that aspect I do not know. However, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, as I do, I think it more likely than not that it will.