Media Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I also speak to Amendment 12, which is consequential on Amendment 11. There would be no point in agreeing 11 unless we also agreed Amendment 12, because that is the commencement provision—and actually it was the commencement provision that caused a problem with Section 40 in the first place.

This amendment was debated in Committee only yesterday afternoon. I regret that I have not been able to carefully study any of your Lordships’ speeches, but the arguments in favour of these amendments remain the same. I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords in this matter.

This amendment would retain the carrot component of Section 40—that is, the protection it affords to regulated publishers—while dispensing with the stick element, which could disadvantage unregulated publishers. I have to be honest with the House and say that I understand the dangers that publishers might see with the stick component. Suppose that, at some point in the future, our police got out of control, as if we were in a third-world, failed state; and suppose they managed to corrupt the only approved regulator. The publishers would be stuck, because there would be no escape. They would not be able to go back to where we are now. However, if these amendments were to be accepted, there would be no detriment whatever to the interests of the national or local press, even if they refused to join any form of regulator. If there are any detriments, I am sure the House would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say what they are.

The Conservative 2019 manifesto says:

“To support free speech, we will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which seeks to coerce the press”.


These amendments would achieve that objective. A newspaper signed up to IPSO would no longer be adversely affected by Section 40; it would just have to hope and pray that the courts would protect it from rich and powerful litigators. However, if a newspaper signs up to an approved regulator, it will be protected, because any person trying to sue it would pay all the court costs, win or lose. So free speech would be protected and not harmed.

My noble friend the Minister says that it is government policy not to incentivise membership of one regulator over another, even if one is superior. So can my noble friend explain why, in data protection and other areas of legislation, the editors’ code used by IPSO is recognised in statute over and above other editorial codes? Is it not the case that the Government give special treatment, not on the basis of which regulator offers better protection to the public but on the basis of which regulator represents a national newspaper whose support they crave?

The truth of the matter is that the opponents of the Leveson reforms want the only approved regulator to wither on the vine by denying it the benefits of Section 40, as envisaged by the Leveson reforms. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving Amendment 11 and for his brave and wise speech. I hope that the Minister has thought again overnight and will accept Amendments 11 and 12, which have a lot of support within the House, without our needing to divide. What message does it send to voters when a clause that has been heavily debated and voted on, and to which amendments have attracted cross-party support, is persisted with by the Government under an expedited process?

I and other noble Lords do not think that this is an appropriate way of conducting the business of this House. Our democratic system, with all its checks and balances, is sacred, and I urge the Government to respect it and either withdraw this clause or agree to Amendments 11 and 12, which propose a finely balanced compromise between competing views.

Media Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hollins]

83: Clause 50, page 115, line 32, at beginning insert “Section 40 of”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in my name which seeks to provide the same protection against court costs for a journalist working for a publisher which was a member of an approved regulator as would be enjoyed by the publisher.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 84 to 86 in my name, and my comments will be relevant to other amendments in the group to which I have added my name.

At the heart of these amendments are the recommendations of the Leveson report, which followed a 12-month public inquiry ordered by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in 2011. I received clarifications from Sir Brian Leveson that are highly relevant to the debate, and I will share them with the Committee before I speak to the details of my amendment. First, I declare an interest in that I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry about the personal and family impact of unacceptable behaviour by the media, and I am co-party to a civil claim against a newspaper group about alleged hacking of personal data. The claim is at the pretrial disclosure stage.

The Leveson report recommendations aimed to balance press freedom with the rights of the public. The chair of the inquiry, then Lord Justice Leveson, proposed a new regulatory framework that was independent of political influence and would protect people affected by press wrongdoing. Although some legislative progress was made, those recommendations have been returned to repeatedly in this place over the past 10 years, with some noble Lords asserting seriously flawed arguments against reform—for example, that Lord Justice Leveson proposed state regulation or that his recommendations would imperil the survival of news publishers.

Sir Brian Leveson himself has never publicly responded to those arguments. I wrote to Sir Brian to put these oft-repeated arguments against reform directly to him. I was grateful to receive a detailed reply from him and, furthermore, I am grateful that he has agreed that I and other noble Lords might quote him in Committee today. I have put this correspondence into the hands of the independent body established by the royal charter, the Press Recognition Panel. It is now available on the Press Recognition Panel website for those interested to read it in full. It is an extremely helpful letter that forensically takes apart falsity after falsity. First, Sir Brian makes it clear that the principle behind Section 40 did not originate from campaigners or politicians but was inspired by the testimony of a national newspaper editor. He describes testimony from a national newspaper editor who could see merit in a framework that encouraged parties to seek out low-cost arbitration, rather than the vast expense of court proceedings, and how this could protect publishers from rich and powerful litigants and, at the same time, protect ordinary people from rich and powerful publishers.

That is the symmetry of protection that lies behind Section 40. Some noble Lords, even speaking on behalf of the Government, have claimed that Section 40 would force publishers to pay costs, win or lose. But Sir Brian explains in his letter that this is not true. Other noble Lords will cover this point in greater detail, but I am going to quote briefly from his letter. He says:

“Neither my recommendation (nor, as I read it, s. 40) ‘forces’ news publications to pay costs when they win”,


and

“the Act does not require an adverse award of costs against a successful organ of the press which is not a member of an approved regulator”.

I put to him the argument made by some that the recognition system constitutes state regulation. He replied:

“I simply do not understand how this assertion can be made”.


He continues:

“As I understand it, the Royal Charter was specifically designed to ensure independence—independence of the press and independence of politicians”.


He then concludes that

“the suggestion that it is some kind of ‘state regulator’ of the press flies in the face of all that it was set up to do”.

Another argument commonly made is that the problems the inquiry addressed are now out of date. Sir Brian is scathing on this point. He says:

“My Inquiry was set up … to make recommendations inter alia for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press … while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards. Allegations of libel, invasions of privacy, misuse of personal data remain equally as relevant today and are as pressing as ever”.


I conclude from that that the reason that national newspapers are opposed to the Leveson recommendations is because they are opposed to the principle of accountability. It was never about political interference nor the financial risk to publishers, objections which Sir Brian Leveson confirms in writing have no basis in fact.

My Amendments 83, 84, 85 and 86 would allow the partial repeal of Section 40. They would ensure that publishers inside an independent regulator would be protected from vexatious litigation while allowing the part of Section 40 which would disadvantage unregulated newspapers to be repealed. In other words, these amendments would retain the carrot of Section 40—that is, the protection it affords regulated publishers—while dispensing with that element which would provide access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing to which national news publishers so vehemently object. It is a heavy compromise, designed to meet concerns of the national press that many of us find somewhat disingenuous. However, given the Conservative Party manifesto commitment to repeal Section 40, it is a way, perhaps, of ensuring that we can still make some progress. If my amendments are accepted, there will be no detriment whatsoever to the interests of the national press, even if it declines to join an independent regulator.

In addition, my amendments support regulated, independent and local newspapers in addressing the threat of vexatious litigation known as SLAPPs. If His Majesty’s Government oppose them, can the Minister explain what specific objection could justify blocking the prospect of such a potent defence against SLAPPs for the local press? Indeed, my amendments go further than Section 40 in protecting press freedom from SLAPPs. They would also protect individual journalists from the threat of litigation where they have written for regulated publishers.

This package of amendments which I am supporting today would introduce unprecedented protection for our free press and the journalists working every day to expose the truth. These amendments would all retain compelling incentives for newspapers to abandon the industry-controlled IPSO and join a genuinely independent and effective regulator instead, and in doing so, they would protect members of the public who have been affected by intrusion, harassment or lies at the hands of the press. They would do so without threatening detriment or disadvantage to any publisher which refused to do so other than the reputational consequences of declining to make themselves accountable for what they publish.

Over 200 local and independent newspapers have sought the protection afforded to them under Section 40 by joining Impress, the independent regulator approved by the Press Recognition Panel. Your Lordships should not be in any doubt: repealing Section 40 in full would undermine the freedoms and interests of local and independent newspapers.

I commend Sir Brian on his intervention. He does not engage with the politics of the matter but has chosen to engage on the accuracy of the debate. He was sufficiently concerned to respond to my letter and to remind us of the facts. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are listening and will take the opportunities offered by these amendments to think again. I hope that the next Government will have higher aspirations for a safer and more ethical culture and an accountable press. I beg to move.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose name was to the amendment just so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. He had a back procedure this morning, is in great pain and has gone home. As he and I have been comrades in arms on this, I am glad to make myself a poor substitute for the great man.

Since we started this debate on the Bill this afternoon, the whole picture has been dramatically transformed by the Prime Minister’s announcement. There is to be a general election on 4 July. Why so? The Bill cannot complete its parliamentary passage by next Thursday, when the House is dissolved. That has a straightforward consequence: it goes into a procedure—I think it is called wrap-up, or it might be wind-up or whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will certainly read the correspondence. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for quoting from it. I think it bears reading in its entirety, which I will be glad to do.

To continue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watts, there now exists a strengthened independent self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Despite Section 40 never having been commenced, both Impress and IPSO offer arbitration schemes for legal claims relating to defamation, privacy and harassment. These schemes are either free, through Impress, or low-cost, through IPSO, for claimants. We do not think it likely that the repeal of Section 40, to which we have long been committed, would have an impact on access to low-cost arbitration.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in support of these amendments. The distraction of live election news during my speech probably contributed to me being misquoted by some noble Lords, so I repeat that my amendment would cause no detriment to the interests of the press. I am sad that the Minister has offered no options for protecting ordinary people. I trust that my arguments, and Sir Brian Leveson’s letter, will be read carefully, because a number of things that have been said are just not true. I hope that this will be reviewed carefully before proceeding to wash-up. It would be wise to remove Clause 50 before allowing an otherwise good Bill to pass. I hope that the Opposition have the courage to insist on this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

Media Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I too will speak about Clause 50. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, with whose views on this clause I agree.

The repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has been lobbied for by national newspapers for over a decade. Other noble Lords have questioned why it should appear now in a Bill about broadcasting. The Minister asserted that the purpose is to remove “burdensome obligations” on the press, but, as the Press Recognition Panel’s briefing explains, joining an approved independent regulator would protect them.

I have spoken on the issue of press standards for a number of years. I declare an interest, as I am co-party to a civil claim against a newspaper group about alleged hacking of personal data. The claim is at the pre-trial disclosure stage. As many in your Lordships’ House know, my family suffered relentless intrusions and inaccuracies after my daughter was attacked in 2005. Although the circumstances of what happened to my family were unique, the experience of coming up against large and powerful newspapers bullying and abusing ordinary people is not.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, used the phrase “odious and shameful”. Perhaps I should gently suggest that that is exactly what wrongdoing by the press is. It is an abuse of power by a very powerful industry. That is why, in 2013, all parties made promises to implement the Leveson system of independent regulation for newspapers and news websites.

The lack of independent regulation of the press and its online operations is anomalous among other industries. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is right: there is insufficient confidence in current self-regulation. We regulate medicine because it matters to our health. We regulate law because it is critical to upholding justice. Thanks to the Online Safety Act, we regulate social media, because we as citizens have responsibilities in how we treat each other online. But the media matters too. It is an important industry. It is, sometimes with good reason, described as the lifeblood of democracy. While we recognise the importance of a healthy broadcast media and require the regulation of broadcasters, we do not do so for newspapers and their websites. This is an oversight that undervalues and underestimates the importance and power of the press.

Please do not be fooled into believing that these problems are all historic and everything has changed—a narrative so often repeated by the press that one just might be tempted to believe it. In the years since Leveson, barely a week goes by when we do not hear of another invasion of privacy, distortion of the truth or other discriminatory content. We should be clear what the repeal of Section 40 will mean unless there is an alternative mechanism to underpin independent press regulation. It would be an endorsement of the status quo: that national newspapers prefer membership of IPSO, which upholds fewer than 1% of the complaints it receives. It is run by the press and has never investigated or fined a newspaper. Those of us in the Chamber committed to press freedom might think that IPSO, even if it cannot protect the public, could at least safeguard press freedom. I do not think it can do that either, as it features active parliamentarians as its chair, on its rule-controlling body —the regulatory funding body—and on its appointments panel. These are noble Lords for whom I have respect.

Let us be clear that support for Leveson is support for free speech, for the highest ethical standards in journalism, and for regulation totally free from political oversight. By contrast, repeal of Section 40 is a tacit endorsement of IPSO’s model: a complaints handler controlled by the press and run by parliamentarians. I suggest that that compromises press freedom.

Independent press regulation is better for the public and for the press. That is why more than 200 local and independent newspapers are signed up to Impress. Many of them are investigative newspapers for whom press freedom is not just an empty slogan but an essential foundation of their journalistic work. I have spoken about this issue on a number of occasions. The Government often give the same response to amendments seeking action on press standards. They say, “Not in this Bill, and not at this time”. So why now?

The point has been well made already. I hope the Minister will reflect on the coherence and appropriateness of using this legislation to attempt to dismantle the Leveson system. In every other respect, it is a Bill that promotes the public interest. In respect of the press alone, it profoundly compromises the public interest. I believe it is important that journalists and the public have protection from the consequences of a powerful, unaccountable, unregulated newspaper industry, which, through online readerships, reaches more people today than ever before. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the Government’s approach.

Online Safety Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank Mencap and the Royal College of Psychiatrists for their briefings. I will speak against the change in the other place which waters down the protections offered to adults, and focus in particular on adults without capacity.

The original Bill included protections for adults under the umbrella of “legal but harmful”, which gave robust directions to platforms on what content to remove. These protections must be reinstated; the triple shield is not enough. Your Lordships are presented with a system where social media platforms must filter only

“to the extent that it is proportionate to do so”,

assuming that all adults are capacitous all of the time and that they will be responsible for making their own choices to avoid seeing harmful content.

I recognise that there is an intended new duty for services to undertake a risk assessment on the impact of certain material on children, and to tackle the promotion of sites which share harmful content and to prevent children witnessing it, but this applies just to children. I agree with my noble friend Lady Kidron that tech companies must design for safety, just as we expect in the physical environment.

My main point is that there is no clear distinction between childhood and adulthood when it comes to mental health. I am concerned about the mental health consequences for anybody, whether child or adult, of seeing some of the images, messaging and push notifications which relentlessly pursue anyone who has ever engaged with one of the horrific sites like those seen by 14 year-old Molly Russell. These images are harmful to 14 year-olds; they are harmful to 24 year-olds; and they are harmful to 74 year-olds. Once seen, it is very hard to unsee them.

Misinformation and negative messaging are harmful to anyone who may struggle to belong and feel valued, whether at a vulnerable moment in their lives or as part of an ongoing struggle with depression. One in 20 Google searches is for health-related information. People in the UK apparently make 27 searches a minute for “depression”, 22 a minute for “stress”, and 21 a minute for anxiety. Given the waiting times for mental health support in the community, perhaps it is unsurprising that people seek help online. This Bill must have an emphasis on prevention. The Bill places duties on regulated providers but, as of June 2022, more than 500 hours of video were uploaded to YouTube every minute. This is content created and viewed by its users at a rate where any reactionary approach is doomed to fall quickly behind.

As legislators we must think of society as a whole, not just those who are fully engaged and economically productive citizens who currently feel invulnerable. Making sure that legislation works for people with a learning disability and those who may not have the understanding needed to protect themselves from harmful content should not be an add-on. Could the Minister suggest how the Bill could deliver greater protections to people with a learning disability or other cognitive or mental health reason for increased risk of online harm?

As I have said before, if we could get it right for people with learning disabilities, we could actually get it right for everyone.

Cairncross Review

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the Government have rejected the flagship recommendation from the Cairncross Review of an institute of public interest news. It was the only recommendation to promise direct support for public interest news. Its proposed role was to draw together many elements of the other recommendations, including gathering funding from other sectors, the administration of the innovations fund and the management of the local democracy reporters’ scheme.

An institute of public interest news could be established entirely independently of the state, much like the press recognition panel established after the Leveson inquiry. Will the Minister explain the Government’s plans to directly support journalism in the public interest through new organisations and initiatives?

It is significant that nowhere in her report did Dame Frances propose any form of direct support for the three companies, Reach, Newsquest and JPI Media, which dominate the local newspaper sector. These companies own close to 70% of print titles and associated websites. They rely on business models of acquisition, consolidation, and ultimately redundancies and closures, which are seen as destructive of journalism in the sector and have been criticised by the National Union of Journalists, among others. It is evident that these three companies are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Other government pledges will consider VAT relief for online newspapers. Such a proposal, while having virtues, could disproportionately benefit the companies that own national titles and run successful news media websites—not only those companies that produce public interest journalism and own local titles. Some of the companies that would have most to gain are the very same ones defending extensive phone hacking and other litigation to this day.

Will the Minister explain what protections the Government will put in place to ensure that public subsidies and other support go to the local, independent, public interest-focused news providers that need it and are not diverted to unreformed companies with rather dubious ethical records, which remain the subject of sensitive litigation, including allegations that they covered up wrongdoing and continue to do so?

I end by reminding the House of how I became interested in this subject. First, I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry as a victim of phone hacking and intrusion that was not in the public interest. Secondly, some of my concerns—quite differently—are about the vulnerable situations that people with learning difficulties, whom I particularly speak up for, find themselves in online through a lack of their own media literacy and adequate support.

Online Harms White Paper

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, most of the focus in the media and in Parliament about online harms has rightly been on children and young people. However, I suggest that government, social media companies and the new regulator also think about people with learning disabilities and other vulnerable adults. I remind noble Lords that Article 9 of the UNCRPD requires states to enable disabled people to participate fully and to have access on an equal basis; for example, to information and communication technologies.

According to research published by Ofcom this year, about 70% of the 1.5 million people with learning disabilities in the United Kingdom have a smartphone and a laptop or computer. While this is significantly lower than the proportion of the general population, it still indicates that a majority are active online. For those who go online, there will be clear benefits.

Having a learning disability often means that people have fewer friends and fewer opportunities to socialise than the general population. Social media could be an effective way to connect with others and to build friendships and relationships with like-minded people. However, many have not enjoyed these good outcomes but instead have had distressing experiences.

Many have been financially exploited by people who prey on the fact they have an intellectual disability and are less able to spot a scam. Scammers might pose as a business offering a product or service, as a health professional or as an individual offering friendship or a romantic relationship. This type of “befriending” is often referred to as “mate crime” in the disability sector—there is a tragic history of this occurring both online and offline—and is intended to exploit them financially, physically and sexually. This type of online grooming might begin with the inappropriate sharing of images. Some people with a learning disability, particularly those with limited support, find it difficult to recognise that it is inappropriate and dangerous; nor do they know where to seek help.

Such negative experiences may lead people simply to retreat from social media platforms. As part of the online harms White Paper consultation, I suggest that government need to engage directly with people with learning disabilities as well as with the organisations that represent them, such as the Royal Mencap Society, Dimensions and the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.

The 2018 digital charter had several principles, one of which was that people should understand the rules that apply to them when they are online. This raises questions about whether some people with learning disabilities do not have the mental capacity to use the internet safely and what measures social media providers may need to take to make the internet safe and inclusive.

In a recent judgment in February, the honourable Mr Justice Cobb in the case Re A (Capacity: Social Media and Internet Use: Best Interests) commented:

“Online abuse of disabled people has become, and is, an issue of considerable and increasing national and international concern”.


He concluded that A, a man with learning disability, must be able to understand that information and images he shared on the internet might be shared more widely, including with people he did not know; that privacy settings might enable him to limit what is shared; that other people might be upset or offended by offensive material that he had shared; that some people he met online might not be who they said they were; and that someone who called themselves a “friend” on social media might not be friendly. He also suggested that some people whom he did not otherwise know might pose a risk to him.

It was a very thoughtful judgment, which concluded that A did not have capacity to use the internet safely. Mr Justice Cobb also made the point:

“The use of the internet and the use of social media are inextricably linked; the internet is the communication platform on which social media operates … It would, in my judgment, be impractical and unnecessary to assess capacity separately in relation to using the internet for social communications as to using it for entertainment, education, relaxation, and/or for gathering information”.


I would add that access to the internet is also needed for, for example, telecare, which is important for many disabled people.

I, too, welcome the proposed “duty of care” for social media companies. This must include reference to vulnerable adults, including those with learning disabilities. Social media companies have powerful algorithms working to clamp down on copyright and other infringements and it makes sense that these should also protect people from abuse, scams and grooming.

The consultation states:

“The regulator will also have broader responsibilities to promote education and awareness-raising about online safety”.


I strongly suggest that central to this is ensuring that people with learning disabilities are also provided with the skills, tools and knowledge to keep themselves safe online as well as to know where to go to report incidents and get the right guidance and support. Only with this education will people be able to understand online safety and be included in this new technology.

I look to the Minister for an assurance that, in creating this new framework, government will include the needs of vulnerable adults in its scope so that social media companies and others will work together to protect people with learning disabilities from abuse, scams and grooming.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

A free and vibrant media is vital to democratic discourse, and we need to tackle the challenges that threaten it. I humbly submit that these developments embody exactly the kind of proportionate solutions that we have been seeking and that we need. High-quality news provision is vital to our society and democracy. Over many centuries our press has held the powerful to account and been free to report and investigate without fear or favour. These principles underpin our democracy and are integral to the freedoms of our nation. Clauses 142, 168 and 169 would derail this Bill and harm the vital work that we are doing to strengthen the future of high-quality journalism in this country. The elected Chamber has debated them and rejected them, and I urge noble Lords to do likewise. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 62A, which states:

“as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62, at end insert ‘, and do propose Amendment 62B instead of the words so left out of the Bill’”.

Let me explain why I have tabled this amendment after it was considered in the other place last week and narrowly defeated.

First, the need for completing this inquiry continues to grow. The illegal conduct which led to part 1 of Leveson is now known to be far more extensive and to go beyond phone hacking. More revelations emerge every week. It is an inquiry into criminality, corruption and abuse; in any other industry the press would be demanding an inquiry, and yet their opposition is uniform. We now know that the Sunday Times employed a blagger for 15 years to unlawfully access the phone accounts, utility bills and even bank accounts of ordinary people and government Ministers. The blagger, who has become a whistleblower, also said that they organised the theft of rubbish from the houses of Cabinet Ministers, published the stories they uncovered and then blamed it on a Civil Service leak. My noble friend Lord Turnbull was, it seems, moved to call in the Security Service to investigate the Cabinet Office mole, who never actually existed. This involved the personal details of the noble Lords, Lord Prescott and Lord Hague, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and they are among hundreds of victims. This was concealed from part 1 of the Leveson inquiry by the same executives now campaigning to stop part 2. Noble Lords may have heard of similar behaviour by other newspapers.

Secondly, firm promises were made to victims of press abuse.

Thirdly, I believe that the arguments made against completion of the inquiry were misleading, and that the other place should reconsider the matter.

Finally, I have made some adjustments to the amendment which I believe will help the other place to reconsider it, if we are to pass it today. Let me explain these adjustments, made after listening carefully to the debate in the other place. The first addresses the concerns of the Democratic Unionist Party that part 1 of the inquiry could have examined the situation in Northern Ireland more closely. Just before last week’s debate, the DUP was made a last-minute offer by the Government: a non-statutory review with no powers of evidence or witnesses into press conduct in four years. Having considered the matter, I am proposing a change that addresses the party’s proper and reasonable concerns and puts it before Parliament.

Let me clarify how my amendment relates to that offer by the Culture Secretary. Last Wednesday, in response to a question from the DUP Member for North Antrim, the right honourable Ian Paisley, the Culture Secretary said that the Government plan to have,

“a named person review the standards of the press in Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/18; col. 712.]

This interchange came just before the Government, backed by the DUP, narrowly defeated the amendment that would have required the second stage of the Leveson public inquiry into media ethics to be completed. The Culture Secretary’s surprise announcement was welcomed by Mr Paisley who described it—and this is important—as a “Leveson for Northern Ireland”.

The National Union of Journalists called for absolute clarity on the scope and nature of any such review. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport later explained that there is no review planned for Northern Ireland into press standards and that the Cairncross review of quality journalism is in fact UK-wide, specifically relates to examining media compliance with new data protection regulations and is to be undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Culture Secretary referred to having a named person for Northern Ireland, but there will also be a named person appointed for Scotland and separately for England and Wales, and they will each feed into the overall review.

The other adjustment that I have made is specifically to exclude the local press from the scope of the inquiry. That will address the concerns of those who have argued, rightly or wrongly, that a public inquiry will somehow impose a burden on local newspapers.

I will not rehearse the arguments for completing this inquiry again—we know them well—and the case for the amendment makes itself. It is an amendment to complete a public inquiry, repeatedly promised, to investigate allegations of illegality, corruption and improper conduct among newspaper corporations, the police and other media organisations responsible for holding personal data. As we all know, contrary to claims made by its opponents, these issues were excluded from part 1 and have never been properly investigated.

We are also familiar with the arguments against. These are, as I understand it, that this inquiry would be too expensive, would hurt local publications, would be a chill on free speech and would not be forward-looking. The honourable Member for North East Somerset in the other place said that the promises to victims of a previous Prime Minister can be ignored. None of those arguments has any validity.

Would any of us accept an argument that investigations into mass criminality or years of concealment in, say, social work or the building trade should be abandoned because they were too expensive? Exposing the full scale of corruption in the police and press is just as vital as are recommendations to ensure that they are never repeated. Abandoning a public inquiry will damage the credibility of other inquiries. What about the Grenfell Tower inquiry?

As for the local press, they were never the main subject of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry and under this amendment they are excluded entirely. It states:

“In setting the terms of reference for the inquiry the Secretary of State must … include exemptions or limitations designed to exclude local and regional publishers from the scope of the inquiry”.


It could not be clearer.

It is also absurd to suggest that an inquiry designed to be transparent, to expose the truth and make fair and proportionate recommendations in the public interest could possibly interfere with free speech.

Finally, the inquiry is specifically designed to look forward as well as back by exposing the full extent of wrongdoing by examining the reforms that have actually been implemented since part 1. Part 2 will be able to make practical and proportionate recommendations for the next steps.

Both parts of the original inquiry were welcomed with huge cross-party support from both Houses. The relevant Select Committee in the other place, chaired by a Conservative, recommended unanimously that Leveson part 2 should proceed. The chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Leveson, has recommended that it should proceed. I circulated his letter to some noble Lords today as a reminder. Many respected people have written to noble Lords today. I understand that Sir Harold Evans, the former editor of the Sunday Times, believes that part 2 is needed to restore integrity and public confidence in the press. Some 126 academics from 35 institutions, including former journalists and those teaching the journalists of the future, have also written, as has the mother of a victim following the Manchester Arena bombing, where press behaviour was, quite frankly, appalling.

To cancel this amendment is an act of gross censorship. The promises to the victims of press abuse still hold. This Government are breaking those promises. What is the role of this House if not to ensure that the Government act with honour and integrity and are held to their word?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hollins]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 62B instead of the words so left out of the Bill”.

62B: After Clause 141, insert the following new Clause—
“Data protection breaches by national news publishers
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations.
(2) Before setting the terms of reference of and other arrangements for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Scotland;
(b) consult Northern Ireland Ministers and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Northern Ireland;
(c) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims of data protection breaches committed by, on behalf of or in relation to, national news publishers and other media organisations; and
(d) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of national news publishers and other media organisations (having regard in particular to organisations representing journalists).
(3) The terms of reference for the inquiry must include requirements—
(a) to inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations in respect of personal data;
(b) to inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to failures to investigate wrongdoing at media organisations within the scope of the inquiry;
(c) to review the protections and provisions around media coverage of individuals subject to police inquiries, including the policy and practice of naming suspects of crime prior to any relevant charge or conviction;
(d) to investigate the dissemination of information and news, including false news stories, by social media organisations using personal data;
(e) to consider the adequacy of the current regulatory arrangements and the resources, powers and approach of the Information Commissioner and any other relevant authorities in relation to—
(i) the news publishing industry (except in relation to entities regulated by Ofcom) across all platforms and in the light of experience since 2012;
(ii) social media companies;
(f) to make such recommendations as appear to the inquiry to be appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals are balanced with the right to freedom of expression, while supporting the integrity and freedom of the press, and its independence (including independence from Government), and encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards.
(4) In setting the terms of reference for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(a) have regard to the current context of the news, publishing and general media industry;
(b) set appropriate parameters for determining which allegations are to be considered;
(c) determine the meaning and scope of references to “national news publishers” and “other media organisations” for the purposes of the inquiry under this section; and
(d) include exemptions or limitations designed to exclude local and regional publishers from the scope of the inquiry.
(5) Before complying with subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the judge or other person whom they intend to invite to chair the inquiry.
(6) The inquiry—
(a) may, so far as it considers appropriate, consider evidence given to previous public inquiries;
(b) may, so far as it considers appropriate, take account of the findings of and evidence given to previous public inquiries (and the inquiry must consider using this power for the purpose of avoiding the waste of public resources); and
(c) must, in particular, consider to what extent previous public inquiries have investigated, and made findings in relation to, events in connection with Northern Ireland within the inquiry‘s terms of reference, and must take such further evidence and make such further recommendations in respect of those matters as the inquiry considers appropriate.

[Baroness Hollins]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and for supporting this amendment, and I should just say that I do not enjoy ping-pong. The amendment returned from the Commons was defeated by only nine votes and I have endeavoured to address the concerns raised in the three adjustments that I have made to the amendment. I want to make a couple of brief comments about those.

First, the amendment addresses the DUP’s proper and reasonable concerns in a transparent way by offering a proper inquiry into press conduct in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I have made an adjustment to exclude the local press from the scope of the inquiry altogether. Thirdly, in response to misrepresentations in some parts of the media, I have added a requirement for the inquiry’s recommendations to take full account of the need for freedom of the press to achieve a vibrant and independent media, and the importance of the independence of the press from Government.

Holding an inquiry will not restrict freedom; rather, it will support it by shining a spotlight on what has been done illegally and unethically to the detriment of hundreds of ordinary people, including my daughter and my family before I became a Member of your Lordships’ House. As explained by my noble friend Lord Kerslake regarding his findings after the Manchester Arena bombing, there is no evidence that enough lessons have been learned by all sections of the media or that there is adequate accountability. I do not consider that the review by the Information Commissioner is in any way a substitute for completing the inquiry. The job has not been done, and with respect to IPSO, I believe I am right in saying that so far only around 12 of more than 90 of Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations have been implemented. In formally moving my amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting Hansard: House of Lords
Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hollins]

127A: Before Clause 137, insert the following new Clause—
“Inquiry into issues arising from data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of news publishers
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by, or on behalf of, news publishers.(2) The inquiry’s terms of reference must include, but are not limited to,— (a) to inquire, in respect of personal data processing, into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within news publishers and, as appropriate, other organisations within the media, and by those responsible for holding personal data;(b) to inquire, in respect of personal data processing, into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at news publishers;(c) in the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for personal data protection in relation to freedom of speech; and(d) to make recommendations on what action, if any, should be taken in the public interest.”

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, some in this Chamber have taken the view that the Leveson agreement, which united all parties across both Houses just four years ago, has been overtaken by events and that yet another inquiry into press regulation is now needed. That is precisely the pattern of events that has followed virtually every single inquiry into press misconduct over the last 70 years, when Governments of both left and right have first prevaricated and then surrendered to concerted press lobbying, with missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Let us be clear where we are: Parliament has already legislated, with the help of a cross-party consensus, for much of the Leveson frame- work. We have a royal charter and a Press Recognition Panel, both following the Leveson recommendations. We have the establishment of a recognised press self-regulator, which meets the Leveson criteria. So a failure to fulfil the whole cross-party agreement does not represent a failure of the Leveson inquiry, or of the recommendations that followed, but rather of political courage to complete the jigsaw.

This amendment, tabled by me and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord McNally and Lord Lipsey, would require the Government to proceed with a public inquiry into data protection breaches at national newspapers. I am grateful for their support and for the encouragement I continue to receive from so many Members across your Lordships’ House. But a brand new inquiry is unnecessary, as the spirit of this amendment would be fully satisfied by the completion of the second part of the Leveson inquiry. That is my amendment’s intention, which is why the terms of reference specified in the amendment so closely resemble those of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, within the scope of the Bill with respect to data protection.

There are three reasons why part 2, or a very similar inquiry, should go ahead. First, there is the sheer scale of unlawful conduct and the lack of any accountability. Secondly, there are the traumatic consequences for the many ordinary people who are victims. Thirdly, there are the ongoing implications for the conduct of powerful press organisations today. I shall deal with each in turn briefly.

Part 2 of the Leveson inquiry was designed to delve into the extent of criminality, its cover up, and the collusion between press and police, how it was able to persist, and who was ultimately responsible. We know, for example, that private data belonging to thousands of individuals was illegally accessed on a more far-reaching scale, and in many ways more consequential, than in phone hacking. This type of data theft was rarely in the public interest and was therefore unlawful. We know that these activities were not restricted to the News of the World—far from it: they took place at the Mirror, the Sunday People and the Sun, while evidence has emerged that they took place at the Daily Mail, the Express and the Times as well.

A six-week civil trial of the Sun for four claimants, with 50 more following, is starting imminently, alleging widespread data theft from 1998 through to this decade and an illegal cover-up. There has still been no inquiry into this widespread illegal conduct, and the only senior newspaper executive held to account is Andy Coulson at the News of the World. If corporate misbehaviour on this scale had occurred in any other industry, our newspapers would quite rightly have been calling for heads to roll and for government to intervene.

It is perhaps unusual to mention this, but I have some special guests today who have been personally affected by the misuse of their personal data. I have not spoken personally before, and it is not easy to do so, but it seems that some people do not understand what goes on in our media. Members of your Lordships’ House may be familiar with some of the abuses and intrusions that my family suffered and know that I gave evidence to part 1 of the Leveson inquiry, but they may not be aware that our data rights were repeatedly breached by newspapers. One consequence of having your personal data stolen, and not knowing how, is what it does to your own behaviour. I actually withheld information about my daughter’s progress from close family and friends after her life-threatening spinal injury because I began to suspect people I knew of speaking to the media. I stopped trusting people, even people in my own family, my neighbours and my best friends. I did not trust them. I did not know about hacking and blagging. I actually used to joke about how I thought perhaps the journalists who sent flowers to the hospital every day had put a chip in them so that they could capture our conversations in the waiting room when my daughter was fighting for her life in intensive care. That is what I thought. My daughter’s story was primarily a good news story, the triumph of hope over adversity, a story of recovery, not tragedy, but we had to cope with frequent door-stepping and long-range lenses being used to steal pictures, and the intrusion went on for months and months.

At the time of my daughter’s injury, I was a university professor and the head of a prestigious academic professional college. I was amazed by the prevalence of plagiarism in the press. Plagiarism in academia is a dismissible matter. I had no idea, until my family was the subject of intense media scrutiny over many months, just how commonplace plagiarism is. Typically, one paper’s so-called news on Wednesday would simply be downloaded and reprinted, virtually word for word, in a second unrelated paper on Thursday and in another on Friday, and if the second and third papers added a couple of new words, they might even call it an exclusive. When I, as an academic, publish findings, they have to be accurate. One newspaper article had 28 supposedly objective facts, of which only two were correct. The noble Lord, Lord Black, will be pleased to know that the Daily Telegraph was the most restrained newspaper, but your Lordships’ House may be surprised to know that the only serious and accurate article about the implications of a high-level spinal injury for a pregnant woman was in Hello magazine. It was a good article.

Data theft—often disingenuously referred to as leaks—also affects public bodies. I asked to see the Secretary of State in the Department of Health after a story about my learning-disabled son appeared in the Daily Mail. The account was uncannily similar to some evidence he had given in confidence to a government taskforce. The Secretary of State apologised and said it was the fourth data leak that month, but could not or would not tell me how this intensely private information came to be published in a national newspaper. I spoke about that to the Leveson inquiry. The response was that the information was already in the public domain. It was not, and my son was a vulnerable adult, and printing his photograph put him at risk.

Some people experienced much worse than this, and their names are etched in all our memories. Remember the heartache of the Dowler and the McCann families? Alongside other media assaults, these families had personal data stolen and processed by the media. There are countless other private individuals whose lives have been irrevocably changed by hostile and misleading reporting, often following data breaches through the theft of medical records, bank account details, phone numbers or other private data.

Before today’s debate, I met with Edward Bowles, whose 12 year-old son Sebastian lost his life in a bus crash in Switzerland. At a time of such trauma, his and his family’s suffering was made worse by the conduct of national newspapers which, in addition to repeated other intrusions, stole images of the family and published them without consent. These included images of Mr Bowles and his nine year-old daughter grieving after Sebastian’s death, and family photographs taken from Edward’s private Facebook account. Sebastian’s last personal messages to his family from the school’s website were obtained and published without even asking the family.

These data breaches were committed by newspapers with no public interest whatever and occurred in the middle of part 1 of the inquiry, when the press were supposedly on their best behaviour. This is why we still need to understand how such gross and widespread abuse was allowed to happen in the first place and to ensure that ordinary people are protected from those who steal private data to further their own corporate interests. We do not know how much improper and unlawful use of our data was going on, or may still be going on, because of a widespread cover-up. Corporate governance structures remain unreformed and many of the same newspaper executives remain in place.

I chaired a meeting for journalist whistleblowers before the Recess and we heard evidence of the kinds of data theft that they were commissioned to carry out by their editors in pursuit of stories with no public interest whatever. They were confident that these practices persist today, despite assurances from editors and proprietors that those days are gone. Their stories deserve a wider audience. Part 2 of the Leveson inquiry would allow them to be told and allow us to understand from the past how we can better protect the public interests of both private individuals and journalists in the future. The Government have been consulting on whether to complete the Leveson inquiry since November 2016—over a year ago. It should never even have been a matter of consultation but simply a matter of good faith that an inquiry promised to victims of crime should be completed. The failure to go ahead brings public inquiries into disrepute.

It is time to stop prevaricating and act decisively. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be in a position to assure your Lordships’ House that he has a firm commitment to commence part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Without such a promise, I intend to divide the House, and I hope the House will support both my amendments and the important amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, Amendments 147, 148 and 216, which are tabled as a package. I hope we will make serious and genuine progress towards independent press regulation today. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 147 and the consequential Amendments 148 and 216 in this group. It may be convenient if I suggest to the House the choreography of how this group might work. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has moved her amendment, which is what we are debating now and will decide on. I will speak to my amendments only once now, and other noble Lords can contribute to all the amendments being debated. I expect that the Minister will reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will respond, and we will then deal with her amendment. After the formalities with other amendments, I will formally move my Amendment 147 and deal with any points arising from this debate in respect of it. I believe it is in order for noble Lords to make a substantive contribution after I move my amendment, at that time, but it may be more convenient for the House for noble Lords to do so now, during this current debate.

It goes without saying that I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in her Amendment 127A. We must get to the bottom of what has been going on. My amendments would incentivise media operators to sign up to an independent press regulator in respect of data protection claims. This is achieved in the same way as the yet-to-be-commenced Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. My consequential Amendment 216 ensures that Amendments 147 and 148 come into effect on Royal Assent, and deny Ministers the discretion not to implement what Parliament might agree to, as has been done with Section 40.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful response and to noble Lords who have spoken. I was accused of bullying the press during the last debate on this Bill in December, and of harassment today—astonishing accusations under the circumstances. These amendments are designed precisely to provide access to justice and protection from the real bullies—the corporate publishers, the wealthy proprietors, their editors and their well-paid lawyers. Victims have to be psychologically very robust to take a case to court and to take on these bullies, and most choose not to. My family chose not to.

These amendments are about providing accountability and curbing the abuse of power through understanding the extent of the data breaches that have taken place, and I believe—and I am not alone in believing—that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. Journalist whistleblowers speaking to Members of your Lordships’ House before Christmas gave us good evidence that data breaches continue.

To the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say that if newspapers took data breaches seriously they would be clamouring for the Leveson inquiry to be finished, to get to the bottom of it. I would ask: why have the Mirror Group and other newspaper groups been trying to cover up for so long if they are committed to reform? If Sir Brian Leveson were to advise that part 2 is not needed, it would be easy enough for this clause to be removed later.

I am sure that we are united in wanting high-quality news provision. There are many challenges to achieving this, whether in print or online. With no disrespect to the Minister, I suggest that my Amendment 127A provides just the incentive the Government need to focus their attention on unfinished business from the Leveson inquiry, as well as the serious longer-term issues mentioned in the debate. It would require—encourage—the Government to proceed with a public inquiry into data protection breaches by the media, whether this one or the existing part 2 of Leveson. It is mildly insulting to be told that my amendment is premature. Frankly, the Government have had long enough to think.

I spoke briefly earlier about some of the personal consequences of data theft for me and my family, and I want to bring your Lordships’ House back to a consideration of the victims. Nothing prepared my family for the media frenzy that followed my daughter’s life-changing injury, and it continued for months. The relentless intrusion, stalking and data stealing by the press was a life-changing experience for me. I once said that it was worse than adjusting to my daughter’s injury. Even 12 years later, new evidence is emerging about the probable theft of my daughter’s medical records. My eyes were opened to inaccurate, corrupt and illegal practice and yet the public still believe what they read. From the comments made by some noble Lords today, I sense continuing ignorance about the current low standards in some publications. It is very difficult to believe. I found it hard to believe what happened to me and what I see still happening to people today. It is hard to believe that it is really happening.

The Minister promises serious future attention. This is a Government whose intention was laid out in their election manifesto: to abandon part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, which could have been well under way, and thus to abandon the victims of press abuse. The terms of the Leveson inquiry were established by Parliament for good reasons and they are as relevant today as they were six years ago. Leveson part 2 is overdue and it should begin without delay. It is an inquiry begun by government and delayed by government, hence the purpose of Amendment 127A.

Perhaps I could end by reflecting on the last time a Government failed to stand up to the power of the press. The Prime Minister at the time, Sir John Major, admitted to Sir Brian Leveson that it was a missed opportunity. We must not allow it to be missed again. Parliament could provide a little extra encouragement and support to government by agreeing to my amendment today. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendments 50 or 50A are agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 51 or 52 by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, the government amendment is excellent and I support it. However, it does not go far enough. I have therefore introduced a manuscript amendment.

My Amendment 50A would simply add two further provisions—my Amendments 51 and 52—into government Amendment 50, and would do no more than what Lord Justice Leveson recommended: to rebalance data protection law and prevent speculative trawling for stories. Operation Motorman was a police investigation in 2003, which I have mentioned before in debate, and it found that private data was being stolen on behalf of newspapers. That information, taken from private, medical, police, local authority, bank and many other confidential records, was used for stories or to hack phones. Those findings were considered by Leveson, who also reviewed the submissions of media organisations, and he was able to cut through some of the rhetoric—the kind of rhetoric that we have seen splashed across several newspapers today. He found that data protection law was fundamentally imbalanced in favour of publications at the expense of the public. That is not right. Just as the Human Rights Act strikes a balance between Article 10 speech rights and Article 8 privacy rights, so the GDPR obliges us to strike the same balance on data protection. This is not just following our own precedent; it is the right thing to do and is a legal requirement.

This amendment would implement some of Leveson’s recommendations. First, it would change the test for the exemption to apply to ensuring that the data processing in breach of the individual’s rights was necessary for future or continuing publication rather than undertaken just with a view to publication, as in the DPA and currently in the Bill. This is Leveson recommendation 48A and would protect the public from fishing operations when journalists process data without any specific intention to publish. Let me be clear: the data itself would not have to be published but the processing would need to have been done with an intention to publish—that is all. Secondly, this amendment would ensure that the exemption should be available only where the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest in publication. This properly strikes the balance between privacy and freedom of expression—this is Leveson recommendation 48C—and this balance is specified in the GDPR.

These amendments are the product of representations from all sides at the Leveson inquiry which sought a compromise—a way to protect the free-expression rights of publishers and to ensure that the public are protected. I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Stevenson, who have supported this amendment, and I also acknowledge assistance from a number of sources including the victim-representative organisation Hacked Off. I hope the House will support these reforms to bring balance to data protection law.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments I support government Amendment 50 and oppose, therefore, the plainly incompatible manuscript amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, just spoke. Its incompatibility is surely obvious. First, and perhaps most critically, in proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(a) it would substitute the words,

“necessary for the future or continuing publication”,

for the Minister’s words,

“being carried out with a view to the publication”.

There would be two important consequences of that. First, as the noble Baroness said, it would involve establishing the necessity of processing, plainly a steeper and more exacting test to be satisfied than the test of processing “with a view to” publication. I respectfully suggest that necessity is too high a hurdle to demand with regard to processing data in these most important areas of our life—journalism, academe, art and literature. Linked to that, the proposed change would seriously inhibit prepublication preparatory work, most obviously and particularly work of investigation and research with a view to publication but which may in the end never result in publication.

As the noble Baroness also rightly told your Lordships, the second change from the Minister’s draft is the proposed addition by her of new sub-paragraph (2)(c), which again is designed to stand as a possible obstacle to the journalistic processing of data. Essentially, I am sure it will be accepted that Amendment 50A attempts to tip the balance rather against journalists and others who are seeking to invoke these exemptions. They tend to introduce a presumption in favour of privilege whereas I suggest it ought properly to be a presumption in favour of freedom of speech.

I would respectfully remind the House of Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is headed “Freedom of expression”. It basically forbids any restraint on pretrial publication unless the court or tribunal,

“is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed”;

and it requires that particular regard be had to the importance of the convention right to freedom of expression and, so far as journalistic, literary or artistic material is concerned, regard also to the extent to which publication would be in the public interest.

I respectfully urge the Minister to stick with his draft, brought before us in the shape of Amendment 50.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Hollins]

50A: Schedule 2, page 142, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) Sub-paragraph (2A) applies to the processing of personal data carried out for the special purposes if—(a) the processing of the personal data is necessary for the future or continuing publication by a person of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material,(b) the controller reasonably believes that the publication of the material would be in the public interest,(c) the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest in publication.(2A) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to the extent that the controller reasonably believes that the application of those provisions would be incompatible with the special purposes.”

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I want to take a moment to respond to some points made by noble Lords who do not support my amendment. I suggest that they protest too much. Some noble Lords have suggested that the necessary test is too high, but I stress that the amendment simply requires an intention to publish, not a requirement to publish. I also understand that in 1998 the noble Lord, Lord Lester, argued that the provision “undertaken with a view” was too speculative. He did not support it at that time, so it is surprising that he opposes my amendment today.

My advice from eminent lawyers is that these amendments do not in any way breach human rights law. Instead, they reinstate an equal balance between freedom of speech and personal privacy. Nor is there any reason why, for example, this amendment would require footage from Hillsborough to be destroyed. It would stop newspapers hanging on to data illegally for any unspecified period. That is just one of the good things this amendment would do. The amendments would not allow debate on necessity from the subject of a planned story. The subject would not know about it, and many journalists have commended the importance of these amendments.

I have thought about these amendments. I think there has been some wilful misrepresentation of the role of the Press Recognition Panel. None of the amendments in this or the later group would favour Impress over any other recognised independent regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Black, implied in Committee that he believed that IPSO would meet the Leveson criteria if it applied to the Press Recognition Panel for approval. It could move towards recognition, so to say that this is about trying to favour Impress is nonsense.

I remind the House that my family was subject to data-fishing trips with no genuine public interest. Have the media changed their behaviour? I suggest not and I give a couple of quick examples. IPSO is not the game changer that has been suggested. It is still not a very clean game. I remind noble Lords of a couple of front page code breaches followed by tiny footnotes for a correction with no equivalent prominence. “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”.

“Queen backs Brexit”. These reflect some of the most important topics being debated in the country today, yet they are not corrected adequately. Or the Mirror front page: “Ebola terror as passenger dies at Gatwick”.

In fact, nobody had Ebola, there was no terror because nobody knew about it and it was not at Gatwick. The Mirror printed a tiny apology and IPSO did nothing about it. Or the lady who lost a huge amount of weight and agreed to a feature in a local magazine which described her successful weight loss. She said she had had to shower before she lost weight because she could not fit in the bath. The Daily Star picked up the story: “Too fat to wash! Grubby gran who weighed 27 stone didn’t bath for 20 years”. This was not true, was not the story and IPSO did nothing.

I have listened to the Government’s arguments. All that Amendment 50A does is to raise the bar for processing data to be “necessary” for an intended future publication. I am an academic myself. I argue that the ethical standard of the processing of personal data being necessary is a standard that is already in place in our universities. These are Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. He considered that the Data Protection Act was not in balance. I think that it is right that the public’s privacy rights and publishers’ free expression rights are properly balanced to protect the best of both. We will not make progress in achieving this balance by some of the hyperbole we have seen in the press and in the House today about these amendments. We will make progress by listening to all sides, considering the arguments and coming to a reasoned conclusion. That is what Sir Brian Leveson was appointed to do.

I have heard the suggestion of noble Lords that it is not the right moment to vote on this amendment and that there is going to be an opportunity to debate these issues further in the new year, by which time, perhaps, we will have the result of the consultation that was begun as an urgent 10-week consultation a year ago, on the day that a previous amendment in a similar vein was to be voted on in the other place. We have still not got the report from that consultation. I think I want to wait to see what is going to emerge from the consultation and I hope that it will be forthcoming before we reach Third Reading.

Amendment 50A not moved.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hollins]

53: Schedule 2, page 142, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (3)

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Blencathra, for supporting this group of amendments, which flow directly from three fundamental principles with which I believe the majority in your Lordships’ House will agree. First, we are entitled to the same rights over our personal private data as we are to our personal privacy and family life; secondly, a healthy democracy requires that journalists are free to expose corruption, incompetence or wrongdoing in high places; and thirdly, it is imperative that we protect citizens from those who might seek to abuse those protections and in doing so cause great personal distress.

Perhaps it would be helpful to offer some context here. Last week, several of the many foot soldiers who have assisted newspapers to obtain information illegally came into Parliament to describe the sheer scale of that abuse at a meeting for a group of parliamentarians. Two of them have written to noble Lords supporting these amendments. Their revelations were extraordinary, going far beyond what is in the public domain, and not just confined to tabloid newspapers. We heard how individuals of interest to the press were remorselessly targeted in the quest for stories—ordinary people, whose personal and private data was harvested and exploited, not to advance the democratic ideal of public interest journalism but to sell more newspapers. I do not know whether these practices have stopped, but new titles are still being implicated. Even if they have stopped, the competitive pressure on newspapers makes it possible that they will start again. We heard how hard it was for these whistleblowers to speak up and how others employed to engage in similar illegal practices have been silenced with money. I publicly applaud their courage and note the extraordinary stress and fear that they live under because of their positions. They were being employed to do illegal acts at the behest of newspaper proprietors and editors. It was not about freedom of speech—it was an abuse of power. The main perpetrators were not the foot soldiers, yet they are the most likely to be held to account. That is why we need adequate protection for the public, and for journalists, who may be prevented by the editors from speaking up.

The Bill quite properly imposes constraints on how businesses, institutions and even charities can use our private data, but it will allow the rules to be broken under certain circumstances. It is our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that those who are permitted to break those laws—to breach the data privacy rights by which everyone else is bound—are in fact acting in the best interests of democracy and not simply on a journalistic whim: to put it crudely, a fishing trip, or something purely for personal or corporate gain.

In that spirit, this group of amendments would achieve a number of things: to address the current imbalance in the Bill whereby the newspaper’s right to publish overrides a citizen’s right to a private life; to enhance the protections in the Bill for public interest investigative journalism; to implement recommendations in the Leveson report in respect of data protection law; to protect the public from data misuse; and, finally, to provide an incentive for newspapers to sign up to an independent regulator so that the public can have faith that their interests are being safeguarded.

This group of amendments, working together, follows the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s report in respect of data protection legislation, specifically the special purposes exemption and his recommendations to reform the Data Protection Act 1998 in line with public interest. When these recommendations were put to the Government in 2012, their response was to ask us to wait for the right legislation to be debated in Parliament. This is the right Bill.

Amendment 53 removes the existing clause in the Bill that gives the right to free expression precedence over the right to privacy. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, argued that removing the clause that elevates free expression above privacy would be incompatible with the GDPR. However, my advisers suggest that article 85 of the GDPR allows for exemptions only where they are necessary to reconcile the protection of personal data with the freedom of expression. There is no special importance for free expression; the rights must be balanced. Our default position must surely be compliance with the GDPR.

Amendments 54 and 56 are designed to ensure that when public interest is being considered for the purpose of the journalistic exemption, the codes assist journalists whether or not their publication is governed by one of the designated codes. The present wording would mean that, for example, a Guardian journalist—whose publication is not governed by any of the codes mentioned—would not have to consider any of them. Changing two of the words in the Bill—“must” to “may” and “relevant” to “appropriate”—provides more flexibility.

I move on to Amendments 59 and 64. Leveson said that, to protect investigative journalism and sources, all publishers should continue to enjoy several important exemptions. However, after hearing evidence from lawyers, newspapers and victims, Lord Justice Leveson concluded that a number of exemptions in the 1998 Act were superfluous to the purposes of investigative journalism and should be removed to protect the public from abuse, and could be done so at no risk whatever to genuine public interest journalism. These amendments offer a compromise.

Where Leveson recommended that certain exemptions be entirely removed—recommendation 49(a) to (f)—my amendments would retain them for newspapers that have demonstrated their commitment to accountability by joining an independent press self-regulator. Furthermore, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Black, in Committee, I have tried to reflect his wishes by including some new exemptions in Amendments 60, 62 and 63 for such newspapers. Belonging to a self-regulator that has been recognised under the Leveson system is the mark of a publication that understands the need for independent, effective and transparent accountability. Such publishers should be entitled to the full list of exemptions, because the public can have faith in their commitment to public interest journalism.

However, neither we nor the public can have faith in publishers that continue to insist on marking their own homework. These amendments would allow those publishers to keep the exemptions necessary for genuine investigative journalism in the public interest and to protect their sources. But they would lose access to those exemptions that Leveson deemed to be superfluous and open to abuse.

Publishers committed to genuine investigative journalism have nothing to fear from these amendments. If they wish to enjoy access to the longer list, they need only join a recognised independent self-regulator or bring their own self-regulator up to the minimum standards of effective, independent scrutiny and redress that the public have a right to demand. I will not go through each of the exemptions to which publishers would lose access should they reject independent regulation as it would detain your Lordships’ House for too long—they are listed in the amendment itself. Moreover, they are listed in the Leveson report, and cover such basic requirements as for data to be kept accurately.

Amendment 217 would ensure that these provisions would be passed into law on Royal Assent, so that the Government could not use the same tactics of executive non-commencement as they have done previously, going back on commitments on press reform.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 59 and 64 I remind the House of the declaration of interests that I made on the previous group of amendments.

It will not surprise noble Lords or the noble Baroness that I am wholly opposed to these amendments, which are pernicious in their effect. This is because they fly in the face of the GDPR, which under article 85, as I understand it, mandates us to ensure that there are exemptions for journalistic activities. The amendments set their face against a successful domestic legal regime established by the 1998 Act which, thanks to the work of Gareth Williams and his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench at the time, has worked so effectively for two decades to balance rights to privacy and free expression. They single out legitimate journalism for special punishment in breach of the Human Rights Act. Above all they are simply a crude form of bullying—that is the best word I can use—to force the press into a state-sponsored system of regulation.

It is not only the national press that would be affected by the noble Baroness’s amendments but the whole of the local press, from the Maidenhead Advertiser—a great newspaper—to the Barnsley Chronicle, and many thousands of magazines such as Reader’s Digest, Country Life and Angling Times. It would also stifle international media, including the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post. What these many thousands of publications have in common is not that they have been intruding on individual privacy, harassing people or anything of that kind, but simply that they do not want to be part of a system of regulation established by the state and changeable by politicians. They want to be part of a system of self-regulation which has existed in this country for 300 years.

That judgment has not been entered into lightly; it is a matter of deep-seated belief. Even Sir Brian Leveson, whose name has been bandied around a great deal in these debates, expressly acknowledged it as principled. It is also a choice which is entirely lawful. If these amendments were passed they would wholly undermine a fundamental tenet of public law—that it is unlawful to punish someone who has done nothing wrong. Given that the choice of publishers to be part of the Independent Press Standards Organisation and not of Max Mosley’s regulator is both principled and lawful, it is impossible to see how singling them out for special treatment could ever be compatible with the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. I do not believe this House would want to put itself in such a position.

Nor should this House—the defender of our democratic values—want to introduce a legal regime which would undermine legitimate investigative journalism, and that is what these amendments would do. As we heard with the last group of amendments, journalistic exemptions are absolutely vital to enable investigation to take place and to develop. The Telegraph’s exposure of MPs’ expenses, for example, would have been impossible without these protections because it relied on handling of data. Is the noble Baroness really saying that she wants to put on the statute book laws that would make it impossible to subject this House to such scrutiny? I do not expect so.

These are contentious issues which arouse great passion, as we saw with the last group of amendments, which is one reason among many why they should not be played out in a highly technical Bill about data protection and one which is rightly constrained both by the terms of the GDPR and the Human Rights Act. The Bill as amended in Committee—building on the successful operation of the 1998 Act and making it fit for purpose in a digital age—is carefully crafted and balances rights to privacy with the equally fundamental right of free expression. It protects both individuals and free speech. The House will interfere with that balance, which is the foundation stone of our democracy, at its peril.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, while we have already debated amendments that are challenging to a free press, I fear that this group of amendments would be potentially hostile to the concept of a free press. Where there are abuses the answer is to enforce the law, not to shut down the media. I adopt the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft in that regard.

Amendment 53 would remove the requirement to give special weighting to the public interest in freedom of expression and information. This is something that we consider an essential way of ensuring that information that is in the public interest is not buried due to the data protection regime that is put in place. In this context, giving special weight to the public interest in freedom of expression and information is an important way of ensuring that we provide constitutional protection of freedom of speech, as required pursuant to Article 10 of the European Convention and the Human Rights Act.

Amendments 54 and 56 relate to the codes of practice to guide journalists in conducting the essential public interest balancing test that has to be carried out. We have already debated this in the previous group, before the dinner break. Amendment 54 intends to take away the absolute requirement to have regard to the listed codes of practice when determining whether publication would pass the public interest test. This requirement is a way of strengthening the obligations on journalists. In line with the enhanced protection of the GDPR, we are making sure that those journalists who are covered by one of the listed codes must have regard to their relevant code.

In a related amendment, Amendment 56, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has suggested that we alter the language of the condition on the special purposes exemption at paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 to the Bill by changing “relevant” to “appropriate”. This amendment makes it unclear which code should be consulted in a given case. We want to ensure that the code which pertains to a particular set of journalists is the code to which they have regard when carrying out the public interest test.

We are not being unreasonable in resisting Amendments 54 and 56. They may look innocuous, just slightly changing the language of the Bill, but if we are to be true to the GDPR, we must ensure that in our law we have resolved the article 85 requirement to set where the public interest lies in managing the balance between privacy and freedom of expression. If we make the use of these codes discretionary and their application vague, we will simply undermine that balance.

Finally, I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness that aim to create a special group of exemptions only for those journalists who are members of an approved regulator. As drafted, the Bill is designed to protect journalists who should be able legitimately to rely on these exemptions when undertaking journalism in the public interest, regardless of which regulator they belong to or whether they belong to any at all. The reality of the press landscape today is that the vast majority of publishers are not members of an approved regulator. As such, limiting certain exemptions to only those who are members of an approved regulator would limit the ability of most journalists in this country to undertake investigative journalism in the public interest. Whatever the motive or the intention behind these amendments, they are, I am afraid, either wrecking amendments or amendments designed to force publishers to sign up to a regulator to which they object—and that is not acceptable.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was mentioned. As we have previously discussed, the Government are currently considering Section 40 with regard to part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. We do not believe that using data protection legislation is an appropriate means of trying to incentivise compliance with, for example, Section 40.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, observed just three weeks ago, and earlier this evening, that this is not perhaps the place for this debate. He commented:

“I do not think the Bill is the right place to rerun some of the long-standing arguments about Leveson”.—[Official Report, 22/11/17; col. 195.]


I concur with that observation, which he just reinforced with his observations about the need for us perhaps to look more clearly at what the real issue is rather than being distracted by trying to act as tail-end Charlies to a particular piece of legislation on data protection.

There will be a response to the consultation on Section 40 and Leveson 2, but I shall make one comment with regard to the suggestion about delay in that consultation process. Noble Lords may recollect that the Secretary of State was the subject of a judicial review application which made it impossible for her to proceed with the consultation because the terms of the consultation were the subject of legal challenge. Thereafter, when the consultation proceeded, there were more than 174,000 responses. They had to be analysed and considered, but the fact that there was that number of responses perhaps gives weight to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about there being an issue that needs to be addressed, and therefore we must look forward to the response to the consultation. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollins]

Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that he will reflect on this debate, which has been very important, and in the light of the promised consultation report allow the debate to continue in the new year?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I cannot guarantee the continuation of this debate, although the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, appears determined to see it continue in the new year, under reference to his Amendment 165, and I look to engaging with him in a further interesting discussion on the topic at that stage. Beyond that, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government and Ministers are listening and considering these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The position with regard to the consultation and the response to the consultation is as I indicated before the break. Sir Brian Leveson has, very properly, asked to see material pertaining to the consultation and the responses to it because he is a necessary party in this context. Until he has had a reasonable opportunity to do that, it would not be appropriate for us to respond.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I would like just to make one or two corrections for the record. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the amendment, which would reserve some exemptions for newspapers signed up to a recognised regulator, would actually prevent the majority of journalists from engaging in investigative journalism. That is not the case. The exemptions required for investigative journalism remain intact for all journalists, regardless of their regulator.

There are one or two other corrections. The noble Lord, Lord Black, continues to misrepresent the establishment of the Press Recognition Panel, for example by saying that it is subject to interference by the Secretary of State. That is just not the case. It is so patently untrue that I can only assume that the noble Lord has not researched the facts, because it is a point that he has made before.

With respect to my noble friend Lord Pannick’s faith in the legal profession being able to sort out any illegal acts by newspapers, I will just say that affording the money to pay a lawyer and the time to mount a legal claim is not usually possible or a priority for victims of press abuse, particularly when they are in the midst of personal trauma. It is just not a priority. I personally would prefer that newspapers behaved themselves and did not fill lawyers’ pockets with money.

I take exception to being described as a bully. I have heard no compassion or concern for the victims of press abuse. Do noble Lords have any idea what it is like to be bullied by newspapers day after day after day? Any idea at all? To call my amendments bullying is unforgivable. Imagine the effect on the lady I spoke about before, who had lost weight and was described as a “grubby gran”. Imagine what that did to her mental state. I wonder whether she has been able to retain her weight loss.

This is the right Bill for these amendments. They are amendments to data protection legislation, and the victims of press abuse have waited a considerable length of time for an opportunity to take them forward. They are not hastily drawn-up, but the result of an extensive and impartial inquiry, and are as relevant today as they were in 2012. Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations relate to the processing of data, not to the medium of publication, so it is irrelevant that the media landscape is changing.

I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken, in part because they demonstrate just how much there appears to be two parallel worlds. I assure your Lordships that I will return to this matter, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.