Press Behaviour (Hansard, 12 June 2003)

§ Lord McNally
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision not to introduce legislation to outlaw behaviour by the press which undermines the judicial process.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the Government see no reason to change their decision not to introduce legislation to outlaw payments to witnesses in criminal cases. We did not legislate because on 19th March this year the Press Complaints Commission strengthened its code of practice absolutely to ban payments to witnesses in active proceedings. It also for the first time prohibited payments when proceedings were likely and foreseeable, unless it could be demonstrated that they were in the public interest.
However, the PCC and other media organisations are in no doubt that the Government will legislate should the strengthened code be abused. To our knowledge, there have been no payments to witnesses since 19th March.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, is the Minister aware that opinion as diverse as that of the editor of the Guardian and Mr Andrew Neil has in the past week suggested that the Press Complaints Commission holds all the terror of a toothless poodle as regards the users of its code? Does he really believe that we shall see from the press the behaviour to which he has referred unless the PCC is audited and assessed by the Office of Communications to ensure that it is a proper regulator, properly transparent, properly independent and thus able to perform the duties expected of it?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I have already rejected a suggestion that I should answer to this House for the statements of Helmut Kohl. I am particularly happy to say that I am not responsible to this House for the statements of Mr Alan Rusbridger and Mr Andrew Neil. But the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is quite at liberty to raise such matters at their appropriate 387 place in the Communications Bill. I hope he will agree that the Government's view is clear in the Answer that I have given.

§ Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Press Complaints Commission has bark but no bite? As the Communications Bill is going through the House, will he consider giving the PCC the power to levy fines on those members of the press who do not follow the code? In matters of self-regulation, fines are accepted by the Government. The body Exodus, which regulates part of the telephony industry, has the right to issue fines and it has issued fines of £1 million. As Exodus has bite as well as bark, why should not the PCC have the same powers?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has not been following the proceedings in the Courts Bill, which has left this House and is about to go into Committee in another place. Clause 93 of that Bill provides for the possibility of a third party court order in the case of serious misconduct. That is not yet in force. I do not know whether it would be applicable to particular cases recently before the courts, but the Government are enacting that legislation in order to give bite to the courts in pursuing serious misconduct.

§ Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, does the Minister agree that as regards payments to witnesses the regulation of the broadcast media is tougher than that of the print media? Does he further agree that that is not as it should be?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, again, it is possible to raise that matter in the context of the Communications Bill. There is a difference between broadcast media and print media. We have a free press; anyone can start a newspaper in this country—if they have enough money—and we preserve that free press very jealously indeed. One of the protectors of a free press is effective self-regulation.
We have made it very clear to the Press Complaints Commission that if its strengthened code of conduct is not adhered to, we are prepared to undertake legislation. Broadcast media are regulated in a different way by licensing.

§ Lord Hoyle
My Lords, does my noble friend—

Lord Renton
My Lords, bearing in mind—

§ Lord Hoyle
My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of this side.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, it is the turn of my noble friend Lord Hoyle.

§ Lord Hoyle
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems is the composition of the 388 Press Complaints Commission in that editors of newspapers are judging the actions of their colleagues? Should not the PCC be completely independent?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, there are lay-members on the Press Complaints Commission. My belief is that they are a majority of the members and the chairman is a distinguished layman.

Lord Renton
My Lords, bearing in mind that an extensive Criminal Justice Bill is coming before the House, with its Second Reading on Monday, would it not be wise for the Government during its Committee stage to put forward a fresh, enlarged definition of "contempt of court" so that the matters complained of by noble Lords can be dealt with?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, that is a matter for those who take part in debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. However, I should point out that the provision in Clause 93 of the Courts Bill, to which I referred, does not involve any extension of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Indeed, the prohibition on payments to witnesses in a case when proceedings are active is wholly compatible with the strict liability rule in the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the freedom of the press. Does he accept that those of us critical of the performance of the Press Complaints Commission have just as much interest in seeing a free press as anyone else? Furthermore, did he notice the results of research from the University of Cardiff, showing that 10 per cent of the public believe what they read in our tabloid newspapers against 70 per cent who believe what they hear on broadcast news? Broadcast news has strict regulations about balance, truth and accuracy while the press does not. Does the Minister not believe that a press held in contempt by the general public is in danger of losing its freedom?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I have never doubted, and would not think to doubt, the sincerity of those who take a different view from the Government on this matter. Clearly, there are different interpretations of the best way to achieve freedom of the press.
I am not clear from the subsequent question of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whether he takes the view that there should he an objective of impartiality on individual newspapers as there is on individual broadcast channels. To start to say that individual newspapers should be impartial is, as I think I said in proceedings on the Communications Bill, a wholly new view of the relationship between the Government and the press. I would suggest that it is a much more interventionist view and one which puts at risk the freedom of the press in this country. I hold that view as sincerely as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, holds his views.