Media Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Lord Lipsey

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Lord Lipsey

Ping Pong (Lords Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Commons has spoken and we must, as usual, bow the knee, even if it took us twice to get round to it this time. I take some consolation from what the Minister said, because at least the consultation document is something concrete which has an end date. However, we know that Governments can take an awfully long time after the end date of consultations deciding and announcing what they are going to do, and the present situation is very unsatisfactory. Section 40 sits there in the ether, with nobody knowing whether it is in or out, and we get rumours in the papers about the Government’s purported attitude. This is not how this matter should be dealt with; it should be dealt with quickly.

If anyone thinks there is no problem now with the press post-IPSO, they should read the coverage of what has happened to poor Prince Harry and his girlfriend. With the privacy issues involved in that, do they really feel that this shows—although there are, no doubt, two sides to the case—that the press has put its badnesses from the past behind it? I submit that they should not. This is a matter that requires urgent treatment—although I agree, not in the Bill.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I should like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions to debate on the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill, both on Report and at Third Reading. These amendments aimed to hold the Government to account over their failure to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a key element of the post-Leveson inquiry cross-party agreement. The vote on Report, on what was only the second day back after the Recess, was passed with a majority of 102. I am told that this was the joint fourth highest majority in the House this Parliament. I was very grateful, in particular, to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches who either voted content or spoke in support of what we seek to achieve. The size of this majority made the Government take note and I welcome that acknowledgement by the Minister today.

Just before the Lords reasons were debated in the other place, the Government, perhaps fearing a rebellion among their own MPs, attempted to head this off by announcing a sudden and short consultation on whether to commence Section 40 at all. The idea of a consultation is somewhat astonishing for three reasons. First, Section 40 was enacted by Parliament three and a half years ago, and there was no doubt then that the Government would do anything other than follow the normal constitutional practice of commencing a law passed by Parliament, especially since the terms of Section 40 were part of a formal agreement signed by the three party leaders at the time.

Secondly, the consultation will consider whether the Government should cancel the promised Leveson part 2. Part 2, as has already been agreed, is intended to look into allegations of police corruption and corporate press cover-up underpinning the hacking scandal, the reporting of Hillsborough, why police and public officials were convicted of taking bribes from newspapers, police co-operation over scores of controversial convictions and much more.

Thirdly, two important conclusions of the Leveson report were that the era of political deal-making between politicians and the press must end, and that the Government should have no future influence over press regulation. My concern is that this cross-Parliament agreement may have been turned on its head by a consultation which has to consider whether to listen to the press lobby or listen to the ordinary victims of press abuse, who are relying on Parliament to give them the protection they need. This is relevant to noble Lords’ contributions to this consultation.

In the Commons, the Government suffered something of a rebellion, with a number of Conservative Members speaking out for Section 40, but they still sent the Bill back to us. On 2 November we asked the Commons to think again and they did so yesterday. The impression given by some in the other place was that I was raising this issue to protect celebrity victims of press intrusion or their families. Of course, celebrities, the Royal Family and our judiciary are entitled to a degree of protection from an intrusive tabloid press but, like the newspapers, many celebrities have expensive lawyers to protect them. I am pleased, therefore, that what I heard in debate was concern mainly for the vast majority of victims of press intrusion who are ordinary members of society, usually previously unknown, who do not have access to the remedy they need to protect themselves from unethical and unlawful newspaper conduct. People such as the Dowler family, Christopher Jefferies and the McCanns—I have met these and many more—whose privacy has been invaded and against whom huge injustices have been perpetrated, all in the interest of selling newspapers.

I may be unelected but I seem nevertheless to represent a constituency of vulnerable people whose stories are not being heard by some of those who, although elected, seem to prefer to defend big media. I am not seeking to punish; I am waiting for the regulatory change that the Leveson inquiry showed is needed, as well as a culture change that would require the press to tell the truth if it is in the public interest and has been obtained by legal means. I emphasise that “of interest to the public” is not the same as “of public interest”.

The feeling expressed eloquently by the Minister is that this is the wrong Bill for this amendment. Respecting the important work that has been done on the Bill and its crucial purpose in protecting us all, I do not intend to divide the House. I can hope and be reassured that the Government will show your Lordships’ House and procedural propriety equivalent respect by commencing laws that have received Royal Assent. I thank the Minister for his courteous response and thank many other noble Lords who have given me huge personal support and encouragement during this debate. I intend to return to this matter on a more suitable Bill in the future.

During the consultation period, I urge the Government to take note of the serious concerns expressed by your Lordships and to find a way to listen to the voices of ordinary people who will not have the resources at their disposal that will be deployed by big corporations. Discerning the truth should not be difficult; however, the loudest voices may not be the most valuable ones to listen to.