GEORGE STRAUSS, who was the long-serving MP for the south London constituency
of Vauxhall and Minister of Supply in the Labour government led by Clement
Attlee fifty years ago, took on the old London Electricity Board in a famous
libel case. At issue was whether information provided by Strauss to a
constituent and then repeated by the constituent to the LEB, then a public body,
was subject to parliamentary privilege. The LEB claimed that it had been defamed
by Strauss in his letter to a constituent. He lost, and ever since MPs have had
to be careful what they say and write outside the confines of the chamber of the
House of Commons.
With the Freedom of Information Bill now about to go to the House of Lords, I
was curious how data-protection legislation and the consequences of the new act
would affect MPs. I asked William McKay, the senior clerk of the House of
Commons. He replied that his department is working on a booklet for MPs, and is
in discussions with the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure that what the
booklet says about this complex area of the law is correct.
My own view is that privilege should be resorted to only when there is a
matter of serious public interest, where MPs acting in good faith have to be
protected against exorbitant legal fees that would inhibit them from doing what
they believe to be right.
Advertisement
THE setting up of radio masts for mobile telephones is causing endless
trouble in many constituencies. I have already said as much to Richard Rumbelow,
the public affairs manager of Orange Communications. Orange鈥檚 contractors sail
into people鈥檚 back gardens and erect masts without so much as a 鈥渂y your leave鈥�.
And the law allows them to do so鈥攑rovided the masts are under a certain
height. Clearly the aim is to provide a cheaper mobile phone service in as many
neighbourhoods as possible. Indeed, Orange鈥檚 literature states that it aims to
make fixed landline telephones redundant.
I am troubled, and not just by the anger of voters about the masts. Many
people believe that the radio emissions from masts are in some circumstances
endangering public health. We now have it on the word of the 10-month-long
inquiry led by William Stewart, formerly the government鈥檚 chief scientific
adviser, that mobile phones themselves do not pose a health risk to users. But
until we have an equally detailed report on the health risks posed by the base
stations we should be sceptical. Whatever happens, new masts must be made
subject to full planning control and their erection banned near schools.
AT LAST, war has been declared on substandard ships. The break-up of the oil
tanker Erika off Brittany last December brought added urgency to solving a
problem that nowadays crops up all too often. The European Commission is
proposing that the phasing out of single-hulled tankers should be speeded up
(快猫短视频, 1 April, p 12).
I asked Keith Hill, the junior minister
with responsibility for shipping at the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, for his view.
Hill said that the government is at the forefront of the drive to improve
shipping. It is claimed that vessels more than 15 years old are most likely to
be involved in serious accidents. But the government doesn鈥檛 want to dump older
tankers simply because the US intends to do so. Britain considers that the
European proposal should be subject to an economic impact assessment and that
any significant changes in international regulation be agreed with the
International Maritime Organization.
