Prison Officers: Occupational Pension

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Attlee]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government until what age a newly recruited prison officer must stay in post before they are able to claim their full occupational pension.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, a newly recruited prison officer may draw the full occupational pension on reaching state pension age, which is between 65 and 68, depending on their date of birth, and must have had at least two years’ membership within the scheme to be entitled to receive a pension.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am 65. In my time, I have undertaken military operations overseas and international aid operations overseas, but I am no longer fit or strong enough to do so—nor could I undertake the duties of a prison officer, including exercising control and restraint over prisoners. Does the Minister think it morally right to ask a prison officer to serve until he is 68 years of age?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, while the Government acknowledge the challenging environment in which prison officers work, we consider that, by comparison with emergency services such as the police or fire brigade, while the environment is a challenging one, it is to an extent controlled, which those other occupations are not. In that context, we consider that 68 is indeed an appropriate age at which to retire.

Offender Management: Checkpoint Programme

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bates on introducing this QSD. I agree with everything he said, and I look forward to the answers from my noble and learned friend the Minister. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about his points on positivity, and I can assure him that I have read his report very carefully.

Your Lordships will recall that I recently proposed to the House that we have a new sentence available to the courts of being “Detained for Training” at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Like both Checkpoint and Turning Point, my proposal contains a strong element of training designed to address the offending behaviour and act as an alternative to short prison sentences that all noble Lords know—and agree, I believe—are ineffective. My proposal is very much as a part of the criminal justice system, but these two approaches are absolutely complementary and would work together. The whole point of Checkpoint is to keep young people out of the criminal justice system and therefore I very strongly support it.

My understanding is that, very cleverly, Checkpoint is not too intensive, as this would be counterproductive and make matters worse rather than better. The architects of these schemes are to be congratulated.

Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for his explanation of the order. I agree with almost all of what noble Lords have said, but I part company in respect of austerity. In 2010, we were bust: about £1 in every £4 was being borrowed, according to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was not sustainable. Painful cuts had to be made everywhere—and I am afraid that the party opposite is responsible for that.

It is unfortunate that there was not proper consultation on this order, because the feedback that Ministers would have received might have dissuaded them from taking this course of action. We cannot amend the SI—that is perfectly proper—but we need not worry too much because we will have a sentencing Bill fairly soon and that will give us a great opportunity to look at these matters in detail.

My noble and learned friend said that these changes would provide more time for rehabilitation prior to release. We have all read the chief inspector’s report. Very frequently, in respect of purposeful activity, it is said that it is boring, repetitive and often not relevant to employment on release, or words to that effect.

I have spent the last two years taking a very close look at the UK’s prison system, and I have concluded that it is fundamentally flawed from top to bottom. It is truly terrible. The rehabilitation efforts are pitiful, partially because it is so difficult to do it in the current prison system. Longer sentences will only make matters worse. How could anything else be the case?

I worry that these changes might make it more difficult to maintain discipline in prisons, because there will be less time available to add to a sentence in the case of misconduct. I fear that this is a foolish policy, for all the reasons so well articulated by noble Lords.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have always been a fairly hard-nosed enforcer in terms of policing and thought that punishment was really important as part of a sentence. However, I am not sure that I support these measures. With around 85,000 people in prison, there are far too many already.

Prison broadly fails. Having 85,000 in prison is at least one mark of success of the criminal justice system. It is often complained that the police arrest no one, the Crown prosecutors charge no one, the courts find no one guilty and even if they do, they never put them in prison. Well, 85,000 people got there somehow, and they have been increasing in large numbers over the last 30 years, so I think that, by one measure, we ought to have confidence that the criminal justice system can work.

But I am afraid that the prison system is failing. It has failed because the proportion of people who commit offences within two years of release is well over 80%. It is the least effective form of preventing recidivism of all the forms we know, and it is the most expensive. Of those who go into prison, two-thirds have a drug habit, but by the time they leave 80% do. One of the most secure places in the country cannot stop drugs getting in, it appears.

My brief final thoughts are these. It seems to me that if we are to take this measure—and I understand why there is some intuitive support—then there have to be some of the counterbalancing measures that some noble Lords have discussed. First, we have to look at sentencing guidelines. These have always drifted upwards. I cannot remember the last announcement from the Government that said, “This prison sentence is far too long, and it is about time we reduced it.”

Secondly, the only people who think that prison is a pleasant place are people who have never visited one. Whether it is four, six or eight years is almost immaterial, but there needs to be honesty in sentencing. What happens now is that people are announced to be going to prison for 14 years when what is meant is that you are going for seven and, in the event that you misbehave in prison, you will stay for 14. It is far better to be honest and transparent in those announcements.

Thirdly, I would invest in technology post release, such as the sobriety scheme we discussed briefly yesterday that monitors people’s alcohol intake, their drug intake and sometimes, perhaps, if they have a mental illness, whether they have taken their medication. These are things that really can have an impact on release.

Finally—and this may seem to be an abstract point, but I think it is really important—one reason we are having so many difficulties, I am afraid, in controlling our prison population is to do with the corruption of some of the staff. I do not say that they are all corrupt, because that would be very unfair, but I am afraid that the Prison Service lacks a prison investigation command. The last Prisons Minister did instigate a prisons intelligence system to look at corruption, but it is no good having intelligence that no one is going to investigate. Many of our prisons sit in rural areas with our smallest forces, and they do not regard it as a priority to look at prison staff corruption and see whether there is a criminal act taking place. I urge the Government to look at that seriously.

Perhaps if we were able, even if we were to extend the period before a licence is considered, to reduce the overall prison population by changes in sentencing, the savings we would make could be invested in some of the things we have all talked about today. It would be wise to make sure that we are safer in the future and that we have a more liberal approach to the detaining of people who are, at the end of the day, convicted of serious offences.

Feltham Young Offender Institution

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I cannot accept either proposition put forward by the noble Lord. The ministry has certainly not been asleep on the job. Our dedicated staff of civil servants and the immediate staff in these establishments apply themselves to the very demanding tasks with regard to the youth custody regime. We must remember that we are dealing with young people in the age group of 15 to 18 who, in some instances, have a tendency towards violence, may be disturbed and do have other problems. Earlier, I mentioned the very real issue of securing motivation before you can effect rehabilitation.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I recently visited Feltham and saw these young offenders. They are unbelievably difficult to look after. I saw high-quality teachers struggling just to get them to go into the classroom, let alone pay attention to what they were trying to teach—so it is not surprising that we get these difficulties.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend. The issue very often is not the availability of staff or resources, or the ability to provide education and rehabilitation, but the underlying need to secure the appropriate motivation in what is often a difficult and disturbed cohort.

Scottish Government: Discussions

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble and learned Lord is correct. There needs to be parity of esteem in all these discussions. The intergovernmental review should look at the functioning of the frameworks. The existing joint ministerial committees can be improved, and I suspect that the improvements will emerge from the intergovernmental review.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the Scottish Government decided to lower the blood alcohol limit for drivers, but I have not been able to find out whether that has been successful in reducing the casualty rate. Can my noble friend tell us whether it has been successful? If not, will he undertake to write to me with the stats?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I will very much undertake to write to my noble friend with those statistics—I do not have them to hand.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for initiating this debate. I agree with everything that he said. The Corporal Major “H” case appears to be even more unfair than I thought hitherto.

Many noble Lords have talked about the statute of limitations, and I strongly support that. One proviso is that we need different provisions according to the circumstances. The most important consideration is: was the relevant incident reported and investigated properly?

There is a very serious risk attendant on these historical inquiries. The military needs prudent risk-takers and decision-makers. However, they may be deterred from joining the Armed Forces because neither Ministers nor the chain of command appear willing and/or able to protect service personnel and veterans from unfair treatment. Who wants to have imprudent risk-takers in the Armed Forces?

This is not divisible business, but the next quinquennial review of the Armed Forces Act is, I think, in 2020—not that far away. If any noble Lord tabled a suitable amendment on the statute of limitations, I would support it, no matter what my friends in the Government’s Whips’ Office said.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

What do the Government have in mind? Am I right in assuming that in relation to this specific review the Information Commissioner is able to serve an assessment notice or an information notice that relates to journalistic material? If so, there is a problem there, because I do not think that it would be right for the Information Commissioner to be entitled to ask for information before publication. Nobody is in favour of prepublication material being available. Let us suppose that a newspaper tricks a doctor into giving confidential medical information about a patient and then publishes it. Should the Information Commissioner, when he comes to do his cyclical review, be able to serve an information notice on a newspaper saying, “Is it true that you did the following in relation to getting material about somebody from a doctor?” I do not know what the Secretary of State has in mind here but he appears to be pointing in two rather contradictory directions. Can the Minister assist us with what is intended by the after Schedule 16 powers to which my amendment relates?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, although it is perfectly correct to debate the Government’s Motion to agree with the Commons, I am not convinced that it is a good idea even to debate a further Lords amendment in lieu at this point. As my noble friend Lord Cormack pointed out, we are out of time. I agree with my noble and learned friend the Minister that the Bill is good enough and, if there is a vote, I will support the Minister.

I share the worries about the new role of the Secretary of State but unfortunately I do not think that it is an appropriate role for the Press Recognition Panel. The PRP has a very specific role, which is to test whether the approved regulator meets the standards laid out in the royal charter.

The House will be pleased to hear that I have cut out seven minutes of my speech. Nevertheless, I will be engaging with my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood to explore how we can achieve what we all want: a free, vibrant, sustainable, competent press that adheres to the rules and acts decently, but which cannot be chilled by a very rich complainant.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the test has been given to us: we have to assess whether or not this Bill is good enough to pass. It is not the test I think we were expecting. It is quite refreshing in some ways because it means we do not have to look at every jot and every tittle, every “i” and every “t”, to make sure they are correct—we can just say that it is good enough so go with it. I am not sure it is the test that will sustain in your Lordships’ House for time to come, and perhaps we can draw a veil over it once we have got through this short period.

Is the Bill good enough to pass? Yes it is, and I have no doubt that it will pass today. However, it leaves behind two or three unanswered questions and some substantial issues that we will have to come back to. I think we have heard enough in the speeches today to know that these issues are not finally vanquished: they are present and they will be back, and we should think about that. If we wanted any assurance that this goes across all parties, all disciplines and all times, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, put us absolutely on the spot. There is a sense that a great injustice has happened and a sense of fairness among UK citizens to want to see it organised better and done again. There was an all-party consensus—the evidence is that there still is an all-party consensus—that we should do it.

This was not the right Bill—I always said that it was not—but we have made huge changes to the way in which the Government were proposing to legislate in this area, changes which I welcome. Victim of the timing as we are, if there had been more time available, we perhaps could have sorted out many more of them. But we are not going to be able to do that because we must get the Bill through before midnight on 25 May. I absolutely subscribe to that.

What is left to do? There is no doubt that we have to know more about who did what to whom in the period running up to the Leveson inquiry being announced in November 2011. My Amendment A2 would have given the Information Commissioner powers to look at that and to provide what would effectively be a benchmarking report to allow subsequent work “looking forward”—in the words of the Secretary of State—to have a proper sense of what it was they were testing. I still think that that would be the right solution, but the noble and learned Lord made some welcome remarks from the Dispatch Box at the beginning of the debate and I accept those as being sufficient to make sure that I can withdraw the amendment at the appropriate time.

There is the narrow question of whether we should look at the particular points raised in the two other amendments. I think they are victim to the problems that we have had with this Bill, in that we have not been able to give detailed scrutiny in Committee or on Report to issues that we perhaps should have done had they been around. It is good that they are there and that the Government have listened. It is fantastic that they are prepared to work with us on these issues; much of the wording here has come out of discussions and debates with Ministers outside the House, and we have seen the benefit of that.

However, Amendment 62BC as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, worries us, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made the point very well. It states:

“The Secretary of State must, before the end of each review period, lay before Parliament a report produced by the Secretary of State or an appropriate person on … the use of relevant alternative dispute resolution procedures … and … the effectiveness of those procedures in such cases”.


That goes a bit too close to whether it is politicians—the Secretary of State in this case—directing how independent assessments should go forward. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could comment on that. It may well mean that the Secretary of State has the power but the actual work is done by others and, as was always going to be the case, that it is just a report and not a review. The confusion comes, I think, from having “review period” specified in the Bill, which is something that we would have picked up earlier.

On my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendments, there are issues around whether we are, in some senses, giving a responsibility to the Information Commissioner but not the powers to do the job that we want done. Again, some words from the Dispatch Box might help. I have covered my Amendment A2, in the sense that I think that responses have come back.

Is there a future for work in this area? Yes, there is. IPSO has made a significant change to its working practices since it was established and is now doing good and effective work. I do not disagree that the right thing is to let it continue on its path, watch how it goes and look at the reports that will be made on its effectiveness under Amendment 62BC.

We should not be tempted to change the structure of the PRP and its approval of independent press regulators. It may seem otiose but, as there are now 100 titles signed up to it, at least it is doing something right. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, that system may well have something to offer Facebook, Google and others who might be interested in making sure that they are properly regulated.

Given that we are looking forward and the worry that we have in a liberal democracy of being able to see the kind of quality press and comment that we have in our present print journalism, which I support entirely, the review being carried out by Frances Cairncross will result in a number of recommendations and it is possible that we will need to legislate for that. These issues could come back relatively soon and I hope they do. There is enough all-party support in this House and the other place to get some movement on that and we will be happy to do so. For the moment, we wish the Bill well. It is good enough and we hope it will come into force and do the job it is meant to do.

Prisons

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the NCS is due to expire on 31 March 2018 and will do so on that day. There would have been an option to extend it for a further period of six months, but consideration of the variable delivery of services, and of in-custody services in particular, led to a determination that the contract should not be continued. Alternative means are now being considered.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the Sentencing Guidelines Council takes no account of the prison population. What would happen if we changed the rules so that the council did take account of the population and had a duty to make sure that we do not exceed the certified normal accommodation of the prison system?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we have not exceeded the certified capacity of the prison population, even over the last 20 years. We came very close in 2007, at which time the Labour Government had to introduce an executive licensing system to take pressure off the prison population—but at present we remain below capacity.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 89A in my name would remove the reference on page 137, line 14, to the IPSO editors’ code—written mainly by newspaper editors and enforced by their own, industry-controlled regulator—and replace it with a reference to any code operated by a regulator which meets Leveson’s criteria for independence and effectiveness. It is wrong, in principle, to place the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice in the Bill alongside the BBC guidelines and Ofcom code of practice, which are the approved codes of statutory bodies. Parliament has approved a procedure whereby a press regulator may apply for recognition from the Press Recognition Panel, which is an integral part of the charter system, devised by Parliament to oversee press regulation. One of the criteria set out by the panel for effective self-regulation is that the regulator,

“should be independent of the publishers it regulates”.

I do not know whether the IPSO code would pass this test, because it has never been tested; IPSO has never applied for recognition. However, I doubt it, because the code is drawn up and managed by the editors’ code committee, which is made up of nine editors and newspaper executives and three lay people, with the chairman as an ex officio member. What is more, that code could be changed by that particular committee of the newspaper industry any time it wants and there is nothing that Parliament could do about it. That means that it is quite wrong for the IPSO code to be singled out, for reasons of freedom and information, for the full range of exemptions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred. It would be quite wrong for it to get that status.

My amendment seeks to confine the media code of conduct to the BBC guidelines, the Ofcom code and any code recognised by the Press Recognition Panel set up by the royal charter to provide a credible balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy. I hope that the Government and the whole House will give it sympathetic consideration. I am sorry that I did not consult more widely beforehand: I am trying to finish a book which the publishers are screaming for, but I should have done that. However, I hope that this amendment will receive consideration.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for speaking to these important amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, need not worry about not priming the House, as it were, as we are only in Committee and this is a very early stage in the process.

I am sure the Committee will agree that data protection requires the proper balancing of rights, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, address that balance in the key area of journalism. Freedom of expression must include genuine public interest journalism. It must be right that journalists and the media have special rights in respect of data protection. It is obvious that the media have a vital role in ensuring that parliamentarians and others in public life adhere to the seven principles of public service. That role would be frustrated if there was a general right for everyone, not just politicians, to know what, if anything, the media “had on them”, if I may put it that way. These amendments do no more than strike that balance correctly: to protect public interest journalism while preventing the systemic abuse of citizens’ data rights. That abuse happened at the News of the World most infamously, but it also happened on an industrial scale at Trinity Mirror titles and other newspapers.

However, these amendments would also achieve something further and equally desirable. In retaining the broader exemption for newspapers that have agreed to sign up to an independent regulator, these amendments, while protecting the public, would also encourage newspapers to sign up to a genuinely independent regulator. Your Lordships will recall that in 2013, we voted in support of implementing the Leveson recommendations to provide an incentive for newspapers to sign up to an independent regulator. This was the system the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, recommended to Parliament, which was signed up to by all major parties in Parliament at that time. That system came with incentives because Leveson was not naive enough to believe that newspapers would sacrifice control over their own regulator without those incentives, and neither was this House. It is extremely regrettable, therefore, that the Government have so far not commenced Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which was passed by this House to provide the most critical of those incentives.

The former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, warned at the Leveson inquiry that there was a serious risk of one party breaking ranks on press regulation policy. Making policy sacrifices to the press is a temptation that afflicts Governments of all colours, of course. However, I hope that the Government will recognise the strength of feeling in this House. This amendment would add to the work of the incentive passed by this House in 2013: it would incentivise newspapers to sign up to an independent regulator while still protecting the public.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The proposed designation of the editors’ code is very odd indeed, first, because the Bill names an NGO in primary legislation which might not necessarily exist even next week. Of course, I can fully understand why it would not be appropriate to have the Secretary of State designate a regulator. It would smack of state regulation of the media, which we all want to avoid. Secondly, however, it is because the Crime and Courts Act and the royal charter combined already provide a mechanism for ensuring that any press regulator is genuinely independent and effective. I therefore support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which would replace the code used by IPSO with that of any regulator which was approved by the Press Recognition Panel under the royal charter. Of course, that could include the code of IPSO, if it reformed itself to pass the modest Leveson tests for independence and effectiveness. Clearly, Parliament put the Press Recognition Panel—the independent panel free from politicians and the press—in the sole position of judging the independence and effectiveness of press regulators. The Government should not seek to override their role by specifying the editors’ code in this manner.

Finally, I make it clear that I have already written formally to my noble friend the Chief Whip, indicating that I will vote in support of these amendments on Report if there is a Division. Tonight, however, we should confine ourselves to having a thorough discussion about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in this group of amendments as executive director of Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.

When I saw, not with a great deal of surprise, that this group of interlocking amendments relating to press regulation had been tabled—perhaps their second or third outing in as many years—I was reminded fleetingly of that famous line of President Reagan to Jimmy Carter in a presidential debate: “There you go again”. That is what this feels like. We have another Bill—with only the most tangential link to the media—and yet another attempt to hijack it to bring about some form of statutory press control. As the Times put it last week:

“The Data Protection Bill is meant to enhance protection of personal data. It is not meant to be a press regulation bill by another name”.


But this profoundly dangerous set of amendments seeks to warp the Bill in just that way.

Can we please be crystal clear about the impetus behind these amendments? It is certainly nothing to do with data protection. It is to try, yet again, to force the British press—national papers, regional and local papers, and magazines: in other words, everything from the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph to the Birmingham Mail, the Radio Times and Country Life—into a state-sponsored regulator, with virtually no members and no prospect of any, and almost wholly funded by the anti-press campaigner Max Mosley. Indeed, it is the very same regulator which was recently brought into disrepute when an internal report found that its chief executive and two members of its board had breached internal standards by distributing tweets attacking major national newspapers and journalists. These amendments try to do that by seeking to remove vital journalistic exemptions enshrined in the GDPR from all those who will not, on grounds of principle, be bullied into a system of state-sponsored regulation. Other amendments seek to remove the protection for freedom of expression, which has worked very well in the Data Protection Act 1998, to balance convention rights and make privacy in effect a trump card.

Let us be clear: the amendments would be a body blow to investigative journalism—at a time when, as we have seen in recent days and weeks, it has never been more vital—by giving powerful claimants with something to hide the ammunition to pursue legal claims and shut down legitimate public interest investigations into their activities even before anything is published. All UK news operations, none of which will under any circumstances join Impress or any body recognised by the Press Recognition Panel, would find themselves under incessant legal challenge, with a profound impact not just on investigations but on news, features and even the keeping of archives. In my view, it is no exaggeration to say that that would overturn the principle that has underpinned free speech in Britain for two centuries: that journalists have the right to publish what they believe to be in the public interest and answer for it after publication—a right upheld by the courts here and all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.

The protections which make investigative journalism possible would in effect be enjoyed by only a handful of hyper-local publishers which have signed up to a state-backed regulator. Are the noble Lords in whose names these amendments stand really content to see the future of investigative journalism in this country invested in The Ferret or insideMoray, rather than in the teams from the Observer, the Liverpool Echo, the Scotsman and the many others which over the years have broken story after story in the public interest? Frankly, if this were not so deadly serious, it would be funny.

If these amendments ever found their way into this legislation, it would be not just a massive blow for investigative journalism and public interest reporting but a further knock to our international reputation as a beacon for press freedom. No other country in the free world has a system such as the one proposed here, where publications are bullied by politicians into some form of state-backed regulation.

It is six years since the Leveson inquiry took place. In those six years, the world has changed—not just in terms of the commercial position of newspapers and magazines, many of which now fight daily battles simply to survive, but also in terms of strong independent regulation. It is time that we moved on too, and I am very pleased that my party has done so by committing itself to the repeal of Section 40.

This Bill is very carefully crafted to balance rights to free expression and rights to privacy, which of course are of huge importance. It recognises the vital importance of free speech in a free society at the same time as protecting individuals. It replicates a system which has worked well for 20 years and can work well for another 20. To unpick it in the way that this set of amendments tries to do, making so much public interest reporting impossible, is grossly irresponsible, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend has made a very interesting speech, which is very helpful to the Committee, but it would also be helpful to the Committee if we could understand what it is in the requirements of the Press Recognition Panel that makes it impossible, or makes IPSO unwilling, to meet those requirements. What is so difficult about becoming an approved regulator?

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, it is not a question of meeting the requirements of the Press Recognition Panel. It is my belief that IPSO probably would meet the requirements. It is a fundamental belief that self-regulation cannot be self-regulation if it is approved by a state-run body. The Press Recognition Panel was set up by royal charter, which is a method of state regulation in all but name, and the press will not and cannot—and in my view absolutely should not—submit itself to something that has state backing in that way.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is extremely helpful to the Committee but I still do not understand how the state and government Ministers would be able to influence the work of the Press Recognition Panel.

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, the Press Recognition Panel was set up by royal charter, underpinned by legislation in this House, legislation to which I was fundamentally opposed. The Press Recognition Panel was set up—I forget the exact figure—with £3 million of taxpayers’ money. It is a state-run body. To have a state-run body which in some way recognises a system of self-regulation negates the whole concept of self-regulation.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord, Lord Black, is being very helpful. The courts are supposed to be independent and they are, but they are funded by the state as well.

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I am going to give way to judicial friends who are probably waiting to speak and will be able to deal with the question about the courts better than I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I am not here on behalf of IPSO; I am not counsel for IPSO. I have simply tried to explain historically why we are where we are and the arguments the press made in the past that I was party to at the time, as was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If there are points to be made about the way in which IPSO works, no doubt they will be made by Members of the House. I stand corrected by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who reminds me that it was not only celebrities who were abused, which is completely true.

What I am trying to say is that no democracy in the world has a system of press regulation that has been formulated post Leveson. It is objectionable to our national and regional newspapers. They will not change and suddenly agree to a different system because of anything which your Lordships say or do. It is a free press and the sensible thing to do is to make the system work. I believe that under Sir Alan Moses it is working, but if it is not working sufficiently, I am sure that they would be interested in any suggestions. It is hopeless if your Lordships believe that you can bully them into giving up their self-regulation in favour of the statutory system which they reject.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord has been very helpful to the Committee. He told us what the disadvantages would be for a media operator if they were not signed up to an approved regulator. Can he tell the Committee what the advantages would be for a media operator if they were signed up to an approved regulator?

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I do not understand the question. It depends on which regime we are talking about. Right now, there would be no advantages.