Press independence and state penalties

Section 40 is dangerous humbug. Like Old Marley it must be pronounced “dead as a doornail” after this Christmas consultation.

Gavin Millar, QC

Matrix Chambers, London WC1

Sir, Further to David Aaronovitch’s article (“A free press must not be bullied by the state”, Dec 15), by refusing robust regulation, the press pays lip service only to its role as the eyes and ears of the public, turning a deaf ear to accuracy and a blind eye to fairness.

We who seek to achieve a fair balance between free speech and reputation do not poisonously pen “little streams of menace”, but strive only to protect those who have been sold down the river by an unjustified media attack.

Regulation will not chill free speech by reducing newspapers to swathes of white space, but it could curb the worst excesses of Fleet Street, ensuring that the standards to which the press asserts it adheres are met.

Amber Melville-Brown

Head of media & reputation
Withers LLP, London EC4

Sir, The Leveson inquiry achieved a major step forward: phone hacking was exposed as the most intrusive and horrifying act, and those culpable press outlets were rightly regarded as despicable. Phone hacking is illegal and only an extremely foolish press would now attempt it.

However, nothing that emerged from the Leveson inquiry justifies the setting up of a new state-approved regulator which threatens punitive fines on those media outlets which decline to join.

Access to information, which has to include a free and unfettered press, is the cornerstone of democracy and the price we pay is that some people will be unfairly treated, misquoted, pursued, insulted and offended.

However, there must also be recourse and the Independent Press Standards Organisation complaints procedure in force needs time to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Baroness D’Souza

House of Lords

Sir, David Aaronovitch was right in warning against the dangers posed by the proposed section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. I’ve lost count of the number of journalist contacts across Europe, Latin America, the US and the Middle East expressing horror and bewilderment that Britain, a country they consider synonymous with a free and robust press, should even be considering such a step.

At a time when the president-elect, Donald Trump, appears to have declared war on any mainstream media organisations who dare to criticise him, and President Putin is being linked to destabilising cyber-hacking activities, the importance of a UK press independent of political interference has never been more important.

Paul Connew

Former editor of the Sunday Mirror
St Albans, Herts

BIOLOGICAL PARENTS

Sir, The main reason why parents are interested in “three-parent baby procedures” (news, Dec 16) is because they believe it is important to have children genetically related to them. Indeed, far safer options for having children already exist.

But why is it important to them? Is it because they want children “of their own”? In this regard, it is impossible to reduce biological parenthood to the providers of genetic material since the definition of a biological parent is a person who participates in bringing a child into existence through whatever biological means.

This implies that all persons who participate in creating a child may consider themselves a parent and seek to have a relationship with the resulting child. Similarly, the child may want a relationship with all his or her originators.

It is impossible to not have sympathy for persons with mitochondrial disorders who want to have children “of their own”. It is unfortunate that they are being led to believe that these new procedures will enable them to have such children.

Dr Calum Mackellar

Director of research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics

PROTECTING CHILDREN

Sir, The case discussed by Alice Thomson (“Surrogacy rules treat babies like objects”, Comment, Dec 14) illustrates how surrogacy law does not work in the best interests of any of the parties to a surrogacy arrangement, least of all the children.

In her ruling, the judge noted that the surrogate has no interest in being involved in the twins’ lives, yet does not wish to give consent to the parental order out of a sense of grievance. Regardless of the circumstances, the people who will be hurt most by this are the children, who have done nothing wrong.

The judge has made the unusual decision to adjourn the application, and stated that she hoped the surrogate would change her mind, because a parental order was the only order that properly reflected the twins’ identity and their “lifelong emotional and psychological welfare”.

This case highlights the growing need for the expeditious reform of surrogacy law.

Dr Kirsty Horsey, Kent Law School; Sarah Norcross, Progress Educational Trust; Natalie Smith, trustee, Surrogacy UK

COST OF EMISSIONS

Sir, The £319 billion cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions up to 2030, criticised by Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute (letter, Dec 14, in response to Matt Ridley’s article “Climate Change Act has cost us the earth”, Dec 12), is based on official figures. Mr Ward dismisses it as 1 per cent of GDP. The sum of £319 billion may be trivial to Mr Ward, but it is twice the combined cost of HS2, Heathrow and Hinkley Point.

There is a valid argument about whether more than £300 billion is a price worth paying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So far, including emissions generated to make goods we import, Britain’s carbon footprint has actually risen — these costs have simply encouraged outsourcing our manufacturing to countries such as China.

But it is effrontery for Mr Ward to say this cost is worthwhile to “cut air pollution deaths” when it was climate change lobbyists like him who promoted the switch to diesel cars in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, despite the inevitable increase in lethal particulates.

Although Mr Ward accuses Matt Ridley of failing “to recognise the many [unspecified] flaws” in my calculation, the one issue he mentions — my treatment of energy efficiency programmes — is lucidly explained. The National Audit Office criticised these programmes as costing £100 a ton of carbon emissions reduced which, if included, would increase my figure further.

Peter Lilley MP

House of Commons

ELDERLY INSURANCE

Sir, Steve Webb (letter, Dec 15) states that people should take out insurance for care in old age (“Social care crisis forces May to raise council tax”, news, Dec 12). Perhaps we could call it “national insurance” and deduct the premiums from wages. When I started work 60 years ago, I was told that national insurance was to give me care from cradle to grave. I wonder what happened.

BRJ Simpson

Gosport, Hants

MAKING THE GRADE

Sir, Presumably Bristol University will lower its admission standards for pupils from underachieving private schools as well as for those from underachieving state-funded schools (news, Dec 16).

Peter M Hart

Stevington, Beds

MILE OF THE CENTURY

Sir, Forgive me if I take up the cudgels on my dear husband’s behalf, but he is too gentlemanly to remind your chief sports writer that Chris Chataway went at John Landy’s request to Finland to help him to break the four-minute mile (“Nike’s bid for two-hour marathon tells us more about marketing than sport”, Dec 16).

Come the 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games in Vancouver in August, billed as the “Mile of the Century”, the fever pitch was such that it was the first time the TV was linked between Canada and the US for a sporting event.

Your readers may be surprised that neither Landy nor Roger had pacemakers, and who won? Both achieved the mile under four minutes, but Roger Bannister won by a convincing distance.

Chataway told me years later with a chuckle that he had hoped to do a four-minute mile that famous day and he indeed succeeded a year later. As to Brasher, he was a distance runner and dropped out of the race in May 1954. Both men remained lifelong friends and greatly enriched our lives.

Lady Bannister

Oxford

SAVE THE WASTE

Sir, The dominant factor which causes us to be “Rubbish at Recycling” (leading article, Dec 16) is administrative and within the government’s power to influence. In Essex 12 local councils insist on collecting waste “their way” and refuse to work co-operatively with one another and the county council.

Only a whole-system approach to waste management — from household to final disposal — can drive up recycling performance, and only a legislative merger of the waste collection authority and waste disposal authority will make that happen.

Steven Parkes

Chelmsford, Essex

HARD TALKING

Sir, Margaret Thatcher’s menthol liquorice pellets (“Sweet secret behind the Iron Lady’s steely tones”, Dec 15) do not just clarify the voice: they are also capable of clearing a room when a consumer exhales and, if overindulged, the digestive system too.

In my childhood they were known as “Imps” and were ideal for surreptitious consumption in class as long as you were not asked a question or sitting too near the front.

Peter Sergeant

Hathern, Leics

BEST BOWLERS

Sir, Mike Atherton’s claim that England’s “greatest fast-bowling combination” (cricket, Dec 16) is Anderson and Broad is far from the mark. Statham and Trueman should surely be at the top; what is more, their behaviour was not the boorish attitude often shown by Atherton’s pick.

Richard Warnock

Melton, Suffolk

PARENTAL BRUSHOFF

Sir, You report that schools should be expected to teach children how to brush their teeth (news, Dec 16). Are there any remaining aspects of bringing up children which we can reasonably expect their parents to do?

Andrew Wolfin

London NW3