By . Matt Chorley, Mailonline Political Editor . Justice minister Simon Hughes said there is not 'right to be forgotten', only a right to request that information be deleted . There is no such thing as a right to ‘be forgotten’ online, the Government insisted today. Justice minister Simon Hughes argued that people do not have an ‘unfettered’ right to demand the removal of links to internet articles containing information about them. It follows a controversial ruling from the European Court of Justice that search engines like Google have to consider requests to wipe links to news stories. Mr Hughes likened the ruling to Communist China which has been criticised for 'closing down people's right to information'. The purge of search results applies to Google's local search pages covering the EU's 28 member nations and four other European countries, encompassing more than 500 million people. But users in Europe who switch to the firm's American domain, Google.com, will find unaltered search results. The 'right to be forgotten' is based on the premise that outdated information about people should be removed from the internet after a certain time. But after links to stories started disappearing, Google last week performed a u-turn began reinstating some of them. Mr Hughes told members of the House of Lords Home Affairs Committee that to suggest there is a right to be forgotten is not 'accurate or helpful. He added: 'Clearly in the modern world that we live in there are many challenges about how you balance data protection and freedom. ‘In many ways you could say we are at a crossroads and the very fact that this get to the European Court shows that. 'Under the present law individuals clearly do have the right to request deletion of their personal data where it is irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate. 'But it is also clear in the legislation that there will also sometimes be a public interest in retaining the information. 'There is no right given by the judgement for people to have there personal data deleted from the search engine results. There is no unfettered right. 'There is no right to be forgotten. Not in the law of the UK, not in directives, not in the judgements of the court.' He said it was 'unacceptable' for people to try to have criminal convictions deleted. He added: ‘We have criticised the government of China... for closing down people's right to information. There are other countries with strict information access. ‘It is not a good position for the EU to be in to look as if it is countenancing restrictions in the access of the citizen to access to information because it could be a very bad precedent.’ Earlier this month the BBC’s economics editor Robert Peston asked why he was being 'cast into oblivion' by Google after the BBC received an alert saying a 2007 blog about a chief executive leaving investment bank Merrill Lynch would no longer appear in Google searches in Europe. The company was accused of over-zealously tearing down links to webpages following demands from people claiming their so-called 'right to be forgotten'. But links to articles which had previously been deleted have now re-appeared on the website after public outcry at what many viewed as unacceptable censorship of the internet. Google is thought to have a backlog of more than 250,000 censorship requests to deal with . A MailOnline article about a Scottish referee found to have lied about his reasons for giving a penalty during a top flight football match was among those re-instated. The webpage had been among the first removed from Google after the new rules came into force. Head of communications Peter Barron said last week: 'We have to balance a whole range of things - free expression, privacy and the public's right to know. 'This is new territory for us all. We opposed the ruling. There's no right of appeal in the ECJ but we think it's important to have a public debate about this. This is a very, very important issue for the future of privacy, free expression and journalism.' Google is thought to have a backlog of more than 250,000 censorship requests to deal with and is deleting links purely because people did not want their comments on news stories to be viewed online. Mr Barron said: 'The European Court of Justice ruling was not something that we welcomed or wanted, but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law.'
Controversial European court ruling gave people 'right to be forgotten'
Google has since been sent 250,000 demands to remove links to webpages .
Simon Hughes says talk of a right to be forgotten is not 'accurate or helpful'
Insists people do not have an ‘unfettered’ right to have web links removed .
By . Matt Chorley, Mailonline Political Editor . Justice minister Simon Hughes said there is not 'right to be forgotten', only a right to request that information be deleted . There is no such thing as a right to ‘be forgotten’ online, the Government insisted today. Justice minister Simon Hughes argued that people do not have an ‘unfettered’ right to demand the removal of links to internet articles containing information about them. It follows a controversial ruling from the European Court of Justice that search engines like Google have to consider requests to wipe links to news stories. Mr Hughes likened the ruling to Communist China which has been criticised for 'closing down people's right to information'. The purge of search results applies to Google's local search pages covering the EU's 28 member nations and four other European countries, encompassing more than 500 million people. But users in Europe who switch to the firm's American domain, Google.com, will find unaltered search results. The 'right to be forgotten' is based on the premise that outdated information about people should be removed from the internet after a certain time. But after links to stories started disappearing, Google last week performed a u-turn began reinstating some of them. Mr Hughes told members of the House of Lords Home Affairs Committee that to suggest there is a right to be forgotten is not 'accurate or helpful. He added: 'Clearly in the modern world that we live in there are many challenges about how you balance data protection and freedom. ‘In many ways you could say we are at a crossroads and the very fact that this get to the European Court shows that. 'Under the present law individuals clearly do have the right to request deletion of their personal data where it is irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate. 'But it is also clear in the legislation that there will also sometimes be a public interest in retaining the information. 'There is no right given by the judgement for people to have there personal data deleted from the search engine results. There is no unfettered right. 'There is no right to be forgotten. Not in the law of the UK, not in directives, not in the judgements of the court.' He said it was 'unacceptable' for people to try to have criminal convictions deleted. He added: ‘We have criticised the government of China... for closing down people's right to information. There are other countries with strict information access. ‘It is not a good position for the EU to be in to look as if it is countenancing restrictions in the access of the citizen to access to information because it could be a very bad precedent.’ Earlier this month the BBC’s economics editor Robert Peston asked why he was being 'cast into oblivion' by Google after the BBC received an alert saying a 2007 blog about a chief executive leaving investment bank Merrill Lynch would no longer appear in Google searches in Europe. The company was accused of over-zealously tearing down links to webpages following demands from people claiming their so-called 'right to be forgotten'. But links to articles which had previously been deleted have now re-appeared on the website after public outcry at what many viewed as unacceptable censorship of the internet. Google is thought to have a backlog of more than 250,000 censorship requests to deal with . A MailOnline article about a Scottish referee found to have lied about his reasons for giving a penalty during a top flight football match was among those re-instated. The webpage had been among the first removed from Google after the new rules came into force. Head of communications Peter Barron said last week: 'We have to balance a whole range of things - free expression, privacy and the public's right to know. 'This is new territory for us all. We opposed the ruling. There's no right of appeal in the ECJ but we think it's important to have a public debate about this. This is a very, very important issue for the future of privacy, free expression and journalism.' Google is thought to have a backlog of more than 250,000 censorship requests to deal with and is deleting links purely because people did not want their comments on news stories to be viewed online. Mr Barron said: 'The European Court of Justice ruling was not something that we welcomed or wanted, but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law.'
Hughes argued that people do not have an ‘unfettered’ right to demand the removal of links ruling to Communist China which has been there is a right to be forgotten is not 'accurate over-zealously tearing down links to webpages