|
CONFERENCE DIARY, SUNDAY
You can never quite tell what is around the corner at conference, and that is what can make it fun. So, last night I found myself at a dinner hosted by Evan Harris, on behalf of Hacked Off, with Hugh Grant. This left the female element in the Webster household (a firm majority ), rather resentful. There were also diners from the decent end of journalism and parliamentarians.
Conversation ranged over press regulation, libel and privacy. These are areas which clearly need tackling, but which are complex and which will require a calm analysis to deal with.
When looking at the balance between privacy / public interest, I have a lot of sympathy for the Hugh Grant point of view: it’s not difficult to distinguish between situations in which an intrusion into privacy is in the public interest, and when it is not. Contrast, by way of example, the love life of Ryan Giggs with the financial interest (published by the Guardian on Friday ) of the junior minister responsible for the legal aid provisions of the current bill in a Lloyds syndicate which stands to benefit directly from the government's proposals on the costs rules. We can see clearly the difference between the two and we can safely leave it to the judges to be able to distinguish between the two.
Another bone of contention is press regulation. It is obvious that the PCC has been utterly inadequate and I shall seek to speak on the motion tomorrow.
Conference passed a motion on drugs policy. Two years ago, this was the subject of our Annual Conference at Cambridge and we tabled a motion for conference which was not taken. The motion passed by this conference was along the same lines. I was called to speak and was able to share some of the information which we had been given at the LDLA Conference: not least the remarkable figure from the Home Office that for every £1 invested in early treatment, no less than £9 was saved downline in other costs: a remarkable rate of return.
The money saved by changing our failing policy on drugs could be, in part, invested in better alternatives to prison, and better training inside prisons.
Last night, we also held our EGM which was necessary to amend the constitution so as to retain SAO status. HQ had sent a stream of correspondence to a non-existent email address, which was less than helpful. Graham Colley has done an excellent job, together with Amy, in resolving the situation.
We were then addressed by Sarah Ludford on European Arrest Warrants, followed by Garry Mann, an individual who had clearly been on the thick end of an EAW. His story is a salutary one which highlights the dangers of measures passed with good intentions, but without fully thinking them through.
Tonight, we will have our fringe meeting on legal aid. The provisions of the bill are very regressive and plain foolish in some respects. Tom Brake will have his task cut out tonight!
On a positive note, Tom McNally has asked me to go and see him. Let's hope we can find some common ground and ways of improving the proposals. I was quoted in today's Observer as describing the proposals as |"dire". It was an entirely accurate quote ( and an accurate description, on my part ).
| 