Parliament should keep out 'parasitical' journalists, suggests Labour MP
Parliament should not let "parasitical" journalists report on the activities of MPs in the House of Commons, a Labour MP has suggested.
Jim Sheridan, a member of the media select committee, launched an outspoken attack on the media for its critical reporting about MPs and peers.
He accused some reporters in parliament of being "parasitical" and "hiding behind their pens" when they criticise politicians.
"These people, I don't understand why they're allowed to come into this place and behave in the way that they do," he told fellow MPs on the committee.
His remarks are likely to alarm newspapers the day after MPs proposed greater regulation of the press. A watchdog will be set up under Royal Charter and new laws in order to keep the press in check in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.
Mr Sheridan has previously been the subject of criticism by the press. The Daily Telegraph reported in 2009 that the Labour MP claimed a 42-inch plasma TV costing £699.99, a leather bed and hundreds of pounds worth of furniture through his parliamentary allowances.
He defended his expenses as "authorised by the Fees Office and receipts were provided against all claims."
The MP has previously complained about Commons sketchwriters who gave a nickname of Gorbals Mick to Michael Martin, the former speaker who resigned over the expenses scandal.
At the time, Mr Sheridan defended Mr Martin as a man of the "highest integrity", who had been a victim of "bad advice" from his officials during the expenses row.
In a hearing on press regulation today, the MP also criticised the "hysterical and exaggerated response" from newspapers about the prospect of a new watchdog in the wake of the Leveson Report.
"Self-regulation has been tried and failed badly," he said. "I dont see see any problem with journalists being asked to present the truth."
David Cameron has been accused of creating a “threat to press freedom” by an international body which polices human rights in some of the most autocratic countries.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which usually polices elections to ensure against human rights abuses, said that the phone hacking scandal should not be used as an "excuse" to restrict free speech.
The intervention was made after the Prime Minister was accused of putting together a “grubby deal” after he dropped his opposition to use legislation to underpin a new system of press regulation.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders met with a Conservative minister in secret talks which lasted until early Monday morning to hammer out a deal which could see the press regulated by a new Royal Charter.
Those who refuse to sign up, including websites, now face “exemplary damages” if they are taken to court.
Several of the country’s biggest newspaper groups, including Telegraph Media Group, issued a statement expressing their initial concerns over the proposals.
There is growing speculation that some newspapers and magazines may boycott the new system amid claims it violates fundamental human rights.
Mr Cameron unveiled the plans in Parliament as several MPs - exposed for their own failings in the media - welcomed the crackdown.
In a statement, a spokesman for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said: “A government-established regulatory body, regardless of how independent it is intended to be, could pose a threat to media freedom.
“I still believe that self-regulation is the best way to deal with ethical lapses and failures to comply with professional standards.
“The phone-hacking scandal was a criminal issue and the people involved are being prosecuted. This should not be used as an excuse to rein in all print media.”
The Index on Censorship, a campaign group chaired by veteran BBC broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, said creation of Britain’s first official newspaper regulator for 300 years marks a “sad day for press freedom”.
Mr Dimbleby said he is “dismayed” that politicians will now get power over the regulation of newspapers. The board has the gravest anxiety at the residual political powers the now expected outcome and system will give to politicians,” Mr Dimbleby said.
“The two thirds block on any changes to the royal charter could be abused in the future – not least when today’s emerging consensus shows that the parties can come together in both houses to agree on press regulation.”
In the Commons, Mr Cameron sought to draw a line under the phone hacking scandal which started with the claim that the mobile phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler was hacked by reporters and led to scores of journalists being arrested and a full blown judicial inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson.
Insisting that the cross-party deal on press regulation would defend the principle of a free press, Mr Cameron told MPs: “My message to the press is clear. We’ve had the debate. Now it is time to get on and make this system work.”
He defended the need to enshrine the royal charter in law, which could be amended by peers and MPs at a later date, insisting: “It is legislation to protect the royal charter, it is not legislation to recognise the royal charter.
Setting out his reasons for opposing more fundamental legislation, he said it would be “wrong to run even the slightest risk of infringing free speech or a free press”.
He added: “As Winston Churchill said, ‘a free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize, it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny’. By rejecting statutory regulation but being in favour of a royal charter this House has defended that principle.”
The royal charter will be submitted to the Queen for approval in May, once the necessary legislation has been approved by MPs and peers.
Read the draft royal charter in full:
Mr Cameron insisted that he had not “crossing the Rubicon” towards a press law because the role of the regulator was not defined in law.
He said only “two very important but relatively small legislative changes that need to be made” principally to threaten exemplary damages to incentivise publishers to sign up to the new regulator, and to enshrine the protection of Parliament in law.
The plans were criticised by MPs from his own party, as well as representative of the newspaper industry. Peter Lilley, a former Cabinet member in John Major’s Government, told MPs: “When both frontbenches are agreed we invariably make our worst blunders.”
He added that he hoped other media outlets “will have the courage to, follow The Spectator magazine” which has indicated it will not sign up to the new rules.
Charles Walker, Tory MP for Broxbourne, said that the plans “very much like statutory regulation and legislation”.
He told the Commons: “I have the greatest sympathy by those who are, turned over by the press. But the truth is, more than 50 journalists ,have been arrested – they face a date in court. The police seem to be getting their act together.”
Douglas Carswell, Tory MP for Clacton, described the proposals as a “disaster in the making” as all publications of “news-related material” will be covered by the rules.
He said: “I grew up in a central African country run by various dictators who controlled the newspapers. Perhaps that is why I find the idea of state regulation of the press in Britain so shocking.
“A big part of me thinks that this is a disaster in the making. A small part of me hopes these proposals go through so we can see the utter balls up that follows.”
There was anger that Labour asked the pro-press regulation group Hacked Off to take part in the talks, which ended in the early hours of Monday morning.
Conor Burns, a Tory MP leading the campaign to protect press freedom, also criticised the “grubby” circumstances of the deal.
A joint statement from organisations and publishers representing commercially-successful newspapers, including Telegraph Media Group, complained that no one from the press had been asked to attend the talks over the weekend.
It added: “We have only late this afternoon seen the Royal Charter that the political parties have agreed between themselves and, more pertinently, the Recognition Criteria, early drafts of which contained ,several deeply contentious issues which have not yet been resolved with the industry.
“In the light of this we are not able to give any response on behalf of the industry to this afternoon’s proposals until we have had time to study them.”
Follow link in headline to see comments by an MP about the law. A pompous simple minded buffoon.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment