Leveson Report: Media Plurality

Lord Lipsey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on bringing this important issue before us this afternoon. I just want to make a few short, almost staccato, points about the importance of media plurality.

In doing so, I do not underestimate the benefits that some of the big media companies have brought to the people of our country. Sky, for example, has revolutionised everything from sports coverage, where its standards have had to spread to other broadcasters, to, for example, the arts, where Sky Arts is frankly often upmarket of the pot-pourri that is now BBC Four. Therefore, there are advantages and they must not be forgotten. I have had advantages myself since News International provided me with a comfortable living after the electorate unaccountably removed the Government whom I served in 1979. I am grateful to it for that.

That said, monopoly in general is a bad thing and monopoly in media is a particularly bad thing, as it affects not only one sector but the whole of society. I just want to reflect on some episodes in recent history that I think have brought home the extreme importance of, certainly, holding the line against further media concentration and, preferably, rolling back the concentration that still exists, despite the impact of the internet. It is a scary thought that if it had not been for the fact that the hacking scandal broke precisely when it did, the then Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, would have waved through News Corporation’s takeover of the 60.9% of BSkyB that it did not own. He came within days of doing so before the company realised that it would have to withdraw the bid. It came that close.

We have also seen the dangers of monopoly in the way that the Leveson debate has been conducted. I have felt that we have been living in parallel universes. There has been the universe of the reasonably rational debate that has been occurring in Parliament, taking a progressive direction and ending with three-party agreement—a rational process and a rational debate where advocates of minimal parliamentary interference have made their points along with those who have said that something had to be done. I think that we came to quite a good solution. But you would not have the faintest idea of what that debate had comprised had you relied on the newspapers.

I cite as an example a debate in the Chamber on 25 March. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Black—and I will choose my words with great care—made a contribution that most noble Lords present did not feel was among the most distinguished of that particular evening. But in the newspapers next day, in particular the News International newspapers, only one contribution to that debate received a single mention—that of the noble Lord, Lord Black, in defence of the very extreme position that he has taken. That is not plurality.

Another example and an important caveat is that sometimes the newspapers say, “Yes, we must be allowed to amalgamate to develop things. Of course, we will offer safeguards if there are threats”. I now draw attention to another incident of which very little will have been read by anyone in any national newspaper. When James Harding decided to quit as editor of the Times—we will not go into the reasons—Rupert Murdoch wished to appoint as his successors John Witherow at the Times and Martin Ivens at the Sunday Times. I should say that I have the reverse of any objection to either of them. Martin Ivens has been a good friend of mine over a number of years, although we do not see eye to eye politically. I know why the appointment was suggested.

However, a system was set up at News International as a result of the contested takeover, now 20 years ago, whereby the national directors have to approve the appointment of editors. For reasons that I will not go into today, although I may at some future point, they have not approved the appointments. What has happened? What you would expect to happen with Mr Murdoch has happened. They continue as acting editors. That is the title that both of them hold and they will no doubt continue in that vein for as long as is necessary. Put not your faith in safeguards: they will come to nothing.

The final point that I will make might have some appeal to the Minister and the Government. If the British Government do not do anything, Brussels is now chomping at the bit in its desire to get involved and to interfere in a very fundamental way with the press. I quote from the consultant Alison Sprague. She says that a recent EU consultation,

“advocates a much more proactive role by the Commission in the areas of media freedom and plurality in member states”.

I was in the House recently when a pressure group was advocating precisely such interference on a European basis. By God, I do not know what that would do to the press if it ever happened, but I know what it would do to the Conservative Party. I trust, therefore, that we will find a home-baked solution to this and not wait for Brussels to impose a Brussels-based solution.