Protection of Freedoms Bill

To describe this as a probing amendment is perhaps to stretch parliamentary procedure a bit far. However, I do so in the light of the parliamentary Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on 31 August, which referred me to the Bill and the proposed code of practice in response to my Questions on pixelation. I should tell the House that I gave the department notice of the subject behind the amendment, which is, as I said, the issue of pixelation—the deliberate scrambling and distortion of televised images of people, a practice used by TV production teams to disguise the identity of individuals, more often than not for legal reasons. I believe that there is far too much pixelation in the live media. I understand that TV companies tend to follow rules, some say guidance, set under the Ofcom broadcasting code, which appears to call for, "““caution to be required in programmes covering relatively common but illegal behaviour such as dangerous driving, speeding and criminal damage””," and state that programmes should not, "““condone or glamorise violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour””." I further understand that the broadcasters also follow the Information Commissioner's code of practice, which provides guidance on how best to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the eight data protection principles. Page 13 of the Information Commissioner’s code covers disclosure of images from a CCTV system to a third party, which may well be a television company. The effect of my amendment would be in an oblique way to bring those who transmit the images, TV companies, under the umbrella of not only the two codes to which I referred but the new code, in that the two codes, after suitable amendment, would have some regard to the code covering the operation of surveillance cameras as proposed under Clause 29. There might also need to be further amendment to the Data Protection Act. I readily accept that that is a rather untidy way to raise the issue of pixelation, which in my view is now completely out of control and contrary to the public interest. Broadcasters have become far too sensitive in the use of such images. I perfectly understand why innocent bystanders—that is, people in the crowd—should have their privacy protected under the various codes. Why should a person committing a driving offence, such as driving with no insurance, grossly exceeding the speed limit or being drunk in charge of a vehicle, or urinating in the street, resisting arrest, attacking a person in a public place, being caught in the act of theft, swearing in a public place, using racist language, or swearing at a police officer, breaking into a shop front, as in the recent riots, or being caught in the act of abusing the benefits system or public servants, shoplifting, acting in a corrupt way through bribery—all acts which can be caught on camera—be protected from exposure and transparency by pixelation of their image in the act of wrongdoing? The camera does not lie. What the camera sees, those present—very often the public at the scene of the incident—can see and witness. To argue, as the broadcasters do, that their actions are intended to ensure that the legal process is not prejudiced is no more than a cop-out. The judgment that the broadcasters should have in mind is not so much whether they are prejudicing legal proceedings, which is rarely the case, as whether transmission would leave them open to a civil action for damages, which could arise only if the transmission of an image misrepresented the action of an individual or individuals. I can only repeat that in the circumstances and examples I have given, the camera does not lie, and the public have a right to see the reality and not a distorted, pixelated image. I think that all broadcasters should learn from the position taken during the recent riots by Sky television. It ran lots of pictures of looters and the public responded in a very positive way. I personally go back to the theory that stands at the heart of my political philosophy and my approach to public life and life in public: transparency changes conduct, whether it is surveillance cameras in public places and shops, buses and trains, Members of Parliament and their expenses, bankers’ bonuses, commission payments on financial services products, calorific information on restaurant menus, or open kitchens in restaurants whereby people can see what is happening in the kitchen. These are all examples of how transparency works and influences conduct. Transparency invariably affects conduct. It is the new agenda and, in my view, along with environmental politics and industrial democracy, it will dominate the next century. I believe that it is up there at the centre of discussions about political philosophy. Where anti-social behaviour and wrongdoing are involved, broadcasters should be far more liberal in their attitude to transmission. I reiterate that the public have a right to know. However, this is not an ideal amendment on which to raise this issue. It is a peg on which the House can at least hang the opportunity to consider pixelation and its effect on the growth of the transparency agenda. I beg to move.