Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said. I also have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She has shown that she is a doughty campaigner; she passionately believes in her cause, and she has every right so to do.

I want to dwell on just one aspect: the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. I hope that I have shown that I am not afraid to vote against the government line; I have done so frequently recently and I do not regret it, because I have done what I thought was right.

When we take such a line, we ask the other place to think again. However much the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, may regret it, the other place has thought again. This is not the moment to introduce new amendments—to protract the ping-pong by bringing in a new ball. With proper deference to the elected House, we have to accept the line that it has taken. There are of course other arguments that one could deploy—it has been said that this is not the right Bill and all the rest of it—but the matter has gone to the other place; it has made its decision. We would be overemphasising our constitutional legitimacy if we sought to reject what it has said.

[Lord Prescott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, but equally I think that we are in danger of making this yes or no, black or white and getting ourselves boxed into corners. Something remarkable happened a couple of weeks ago. The Sun carried a story based on a report from the Resolution Foundation. I shall not go into the full details, but the Resolution Foundation had found that private renting was likely to increase by one-third over the next couple of decades and the Sun reported that there would be an 80% fall in owner occupation in that period, which it had somehow deduced from the one-third increase. That is not remarkable, but what is remarkable is that the charity Full Fact, of which I am deputy chairman, pointed out the error to it and—do you know what happened?—it apologised and corrected it.

This may just mean that the Sun has completely changed its coat and that, in future, we can expect page 3 to consist entirely of corrections of its errors, but there is another explanation, which is that the Sun realises, as does the whole press, the pressure that it is under from these Houses of Parliament and from the victims to mend its ways. The danger, however, is that that will last just so long as Section 40 has not been repealed and there is no Leveson 2, and then it will return to its old ways.

I think that there is a way through on this. In Amendment 109, the Government are introducing a requirement that the Information Commission review after four years how the press and media are getting on with data protection. If they were to widen that concept of a review after four years, it would keep the pressure on the newspapers to behave differently. I believe that they have made some progress. The institution of the arbitration scheme by IPSO, which was the glaring fault in its original constitution, was a big step forward even though it has its flaws. If we can keep the pressure on in the way that I suggest, by Ministers agreeing to extend Amendment 109 to a wider forum, we may find a solution to this mess without us having Lords versus Commons. Rather, we would meet a common need to have a better press free to report, as is its duty.

[Lord Prescott]

I am sorry for my earlier intervention. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a Labour Member.

I declare an interest: I have twice been a victim of this. I do not have the clever words of the lawyers who constantly dominate this debate but we are talking about credibility, about a promise and about a Parliament that has agreed an action but is now about to reject it. That is a very important issue for both Houses to face. I say to the Minister that I support the noble Baroness’s amendment on a second inquiry. Indeed, I am pleased to see that Lord Leveson himself did so when the Government consulted him on it. To that extent, this is a political decision—a very political decision—that the Government have made.

I have three questions; I know that time is limited and I do not want to delay the House. My first question is based on my experience. I think that a second inquiry is necessary and should not just be into the events of the time. I do not think that things have changed, even with the so-called independent press body. We need to ask ourselves, what did the royal charter mean? When it was presented to the Commons, when I was still a Member there, we were told that the matter would be taken out of the political field—that it will be dealt with in a royal charter, we can all agree it together and there will be no division. Well, there is certainly division now, and it is still under the Queen’s charter. I ask the Minister: did they discuss this with the Privy Council or the Queen? We have actively involved her in a deliberate breach of a decision between the two Houses. We are, in that sense, divided. It is very political and on political lines, although it is all the opposition parties in the other place that have actually agreed on this. Did the Government consult the Queen on this? I was always told that you do not involve the Queen in the politics; that is why we use a royal charter. Well, by God, we have certainly involved her now, and we are divided. What is the position? Has she been advised about it and does she agree it? Is there any obligation to talk to her, and did the Government do so?

My second question concerns my interest as someone who was phone-hacked. I went to the courts and it was denied by everybody—by the press body, the police, the public prosecutor—so I had to win my case on the grounds of human rights, European human rights. I had to get it established that the hacking of my phone was a breach of my human rights. Since then, everybody has been telling me: “That is now the past; things have changed and you don’t have to worry. We can just get on with the business and not have a second enquiry”. Then, along comes the Sunday Times and Mr Witherow, its editor. We know from recent announcements in ongoing court cases that a man called John Ford was hired to commit criminal acts against individuals, including me and the Prime Minister at that time, Gordon Brown. It is clear from his statements, his bank accounts, his personal effects and the solicitors that we were all hacked and the victims of criminal acts by this Mr John Ford, who has made it absolutely clear everywhere that he was employed by Mr Witherow.

Now, of course, you might play around with the word “employed”, but he was paying him for 20 years. He might have been a separate investigator, but he was committing criminal acts and breaching the human rights of everyone involved. That has been announced in public statements by Mr John Ford. Indeed it was Mr Witherow who, when asked about the Leveson inquiry, when Gordon Brown was challenging him about things that happened then, said there was no truth in it. Well, Mr Witherow, you appear to be a liar. I know those are strong words used here, but you did not tell the truth, you did pay the money and you did commit criminal acts against people and breach their human rights. That, surely, in any democracy is wrong. Leveson showed it was wrong; he even pointed it out. We just ignored his recommendations. We are not entitled to do that, in my view. You can force the issue if you like and talk about the powers, telling us that we can disagree on day one but not on day two. You can say that as much as you like. There are very important issues involved here about the human rights of individuals. I am not talking about the real victims who have been betrayed by the Government, due to a manoeuvre with the Irish. But leave that aside—we can all have our opinions about that.

My third and final question is on something that I have never understood, although I have asked about it in every debate here. If the argument is about having these press regulations as recommended by Leveson, or most of them, why is it that they accuse us of a threat against democracy? They say that if editors are forced to register with government then that is the biggest threat to democracy. But I will ask again, although I never get an answer: why is it that every one of these newspapers registers in Ireland? The accountability in Ireland is controlled by a Minister in its Government but I think nobody is suggesting that there is no democratic accountability in Ireland. If the same newspapers can sign up for the same kind of accountability under a form of state regulation in Ireland, why can they not do it here? Perhaps they cannot do it here because of what they can get away with under a Government doing what they are at the moment.

Remember that there have been seven full inquiries into the press and they have always recommended a regulatory framework. That has always been defeated and it looks as if it will be defeated again. No doubt it will help among the press with me being just a politician. Perhaps it helps what they print if they have a Government supporting their issue. It might influence their opinion. For my mind, the issue is in the three questions that I have posed in all these debates. Why in Ireland? Why are they are at it again since Leveson, using illegal, criminal acts to breach the human rights of people? That is what the accusation was about and nothing has been done about it, except to protect them even further. As for the Queen, I would be interested to hear if it was talked over with her.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and in doing so I declare my interest as chair of the Manchester Arena review. Indeed, it is on this that I would like to speak first as it was referred to in the debate in the other House. I will come back to the noble Baroness’s amendment later. If your Lordships look at the terms of reference of the review, you will find no mention of us looking into the behaviour of the press. However, both the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the review panel were clear from the outset that the experiences of the bereaved families, the injured and others directly affected should be at the heart of the review process. It was through the contributions of those directly affected that the issues of media behaviour emerged.

The panel commissioned the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to support its work. Over 200 contributions were received via the NSPCC, most through email and a dedicated phone line. Members of the panel also met with those directly affected to hear their experiences in person. The panel itself heard from the family and friends of 11 of the 22 people who died. These contributions were made on an individual basis. They were strictly confidential apart from the need, should it arise, to share them with the coroner. I salute their enormous courage in reliving that experience in order that we might learn for the future. On a personal level, I felt truly humbled by their contributions.

Most of the participants who commented on their experiences of the media in the aftermath of the attack were negative. People talked about being hounded and bombarded; about having to force their way through scrums of reporters at hospitals who “wouldn’t take no for an answer”. Specific mention was made of photos being sneakily taken through the glass windows at the Etihad Stadium, when the families were being given news of their bereavement. Several people told of the physical presence of crews outside their homes. One mentioned the forceful attempt by a reporter to gain access through their front door by ramming a foot in the doorway. There were at least two examples of impersonation.

I personally heard from a family whose daughter was visited by a reporter at their home and given condolences on the death of her brother, while her parents were at the Etihad stadium waiting to hear the news. This took place on the morning following the attack. The families were not told that their son was likely to be among the fatalities until later that day. In another case I heard I was told of an injured member of a family being rung on her mobile by a journalist while in a hospital ward recovering from multiple operations to deal with her injuries. I could go on, but noble Lords can read the account for themselves in chapter 2 of our report.

It is important to say that a number of families spoke in praise of the sympathetic reporting, particularly by the Manchester Evening News, but also by other papers local to the bereaved. But overall, the panel were shocked and dismayed by these accounts. To have experienced such intrusive and overbearing behaviour at a time of such enormous vulnerability seemed to us to be completely unacceptable. By any measure, these actions fell well below the standards set out in the editors’ code of conduct.

The report does not name individual publications or news channels. This is because neither we nor the families concerned where in a position to confirm, when a journalist said they were from a particular publication, that this was indeed the case. Nor have there been many individual complaints to IPSO. The level of trauma experienced by these families, which they were still living with when I met them, meant that even if they were aware of the opportunity to complain to IPSO, the reality is that that was very unlikely to happen. Their focus, quite rightly, was not on press intrusion but on coping with family tragedy—something that consumes most if not all of the time and energy available to them. But I am in no doubt that a number of journalists, albeit a minority, behaved very badly towards these very vulnerable families and it is highly unlikely that they were all from foreign media.

In contrast to the fire and rescue service and Vodafone, which immediately issued full apologies on the issues we raised, the response from IPSO and other representative organisations to our media findings was very disappointing. To his credit, though, the chair of IPSO, Sir Alan Moses, has in subsequent correspondence with me acknowledged the seriousness of the issues and IPSO has produced an action plan to address our recommendations.

It was not the role of the review’s report to comment on the wider ramifications for the press. Our focus was on what specific action could be taken to prevent this happening again. But there is a real relevance to our debate because it points to the fact that, whatever improvements have been made in recent years, real issues still remain about the behaviour of the press, and in significant parts of the press there is still denial about these issues. I should say that I am a passionate believer in the independence of the press and its importance in a free society. Indeed, to the annoyance of some of my colleagues in central and local government, I argued forcefully against new proposed restrictions to the Freedom of Information Act being put forward by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, one Matt Hancock. It is certainly the first and probably the last time I will receive a favourable comment on the front page of the Daily Mail.

This love of papers was imbued in me from an early age. One of my father’s personal treats at the weekend was to buy a couple of extra newspapers to read. He always went for papers which did not reflect his particular views so that he could get a rounded picture. My love of newspapers, inherited from him, is not conditioned by whether or not they say kind things about me or even this House. If the price of having a free press is for noble Lords to put up with being described as “ripe for the abattoir”, that is a price worth paying. However, that licence cannot and should not be extended to ordinary members of the public who are vulnerable and not in a position to respond.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Prescott Excerpts

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

[Lord Prescott (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give this House a legal opinion but I can give an opinion based on experience. I declare an interest: I attended the Leveson inquiry because I was on the end of illegal tapping of my phone. Public interest was not defined there; it was defined by the editors of the papers. They said it was not illegal, but clearly it was.

I support what the noble Baroness has said tonight. She is absolutely right and I am glad that there is a lot of support for her amendment. However, I am concerned that it addresses only a small part of what Leveson recommended. He made recommendations about public interest—it is an important issue and I welcome the amendment—but even though we all voted unanimously for the royal charter and the proposals of Leveson, we keep hiding away from debating his main recommendations. He made 37 recommendations and only 12 have been implemented. We have taken a small step forward but to have a serious debate about public interest you have to cover all the things that Leveson recommended—and we do not do that. We have to ride on the back of a single piece of legislation, and the answer always comes that it is not realistic to put such a proposal in the legislation. I am glad that tonight there has at least been agreement—presumably by both sides, for whatever political reason—that we have to move to do something about the important issue of public interest.

I will not go on about that. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer. I wonder whether we are taking into account here the hacking actions that are going on at present in the courts. The Government have always said that they will wait until the courts have finished, but hacking actions are continuing. Statements have been made in court that hacking is still going on, involving and paid for by some members of the press.

The royal charter involves the monarchy in politics. It is where the divisions are and why I resigned as a privy counsellor. I thought it was designed to keep the monarchy out of it, but now it is right in the middle of it as we get more and more into whether we are for or against the Leveson proposals. Is it still the Government’s policy that they will wait until all the court trials have finished before they give their view of the many recommendations in Leveson? Is it the position that the Government do not want to accept Leveson’s recommendation for a second inquiry into the relationship between the police and the press, which is still at the heart of many of these problems at the present stage?

To show that I am intellectual, I read in the Times—which is not a paper I support—an editorial headed “Free Speech in Peril”, which covers the very things we are discussing at the moment. It states:

“A number of peers have seized on a chance to curb press freedom by meddling with new data protection legislation. They should desist”.


I hope that tonight we will not desist but will carry it through.

The charge levelled in the Times—that this is an attack on press freedom—is signed by 70 newspaper editors. In fact, that means it is signed by seven owners of different papers. Seven cabal owners decide to describe Leveson as a big attack on press freedom, so why is it that the same papers that object to interference, in regulatory form or by government, all sign up for press regulation in Ireland? Every one of the papers we are talking about, which tell us that we are threatening freedom, have now signed up recently. I do not know whether they are less democratic or whether their freedom is threatened in Ireland, but they are the same people. It is hypocrisy.

Have the Government looked at what they have done in Ireland? A Minister is in charge in Ireland, not an independent regulator as proposed by Leveson. In Ireland a government Minister—a direct political person—decides whether the press is acting in a responsible way and, presumably, in the public interest.

The amendment is a small step forward and there is a long way to go yet, without a doubt. I hope that we will give more consideration to those factors. Basically, there is a lot more to be done. I am thankful that the Government, as I have heard, are supporting the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It is a small step but there is a lot more to be done. These threats to press freedom are not coming from the politicians but from the press—and it is about time we took account of that.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

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

I will say a brief word first about Amendment 50 and the other government amendments in this group. These amendments seek to deal with a number of the problems raised in Committee by noble Lords across the House, as my noble friend said. I have a number of times during the course of the Bill commended the Government for their commitment to consultation on all the issues impacting on media freedom and for their willingness to discuss them with interested parties. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has approached these issues and I strongly support the amendments.

Manuscript Amendment 50A, like Amendments 51 and 52—especially in combination with later amendments with which we will deal in due course—point, I fear, in absolutely the other direction. The issue surrounding them has been eloquently and cogently set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick. I could not improve on what they have said in any way, shape or form. Those amendments would, in short, cripple investigative journalism for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out.

Above all, they would create a deeply repressive data protection regime for all those involved in journalistic, academic, literary and artistic activities. It is not only journalists on national newspapers, who are so clearly targeted by these amendments, who would be punished but the local press, broadcasters, academics, film producers, playwrights, book producers and many others. As they all use data regularly in the course of their activities, it would make their day-to-day work almost impossible. This House, which contains so many people drawn from academia, the arts and the world of literature—I see many around me here today—has always prided itself on championing the UK’s creative industries. How ironic that we should even be debating these repressive amendments, which would be a body blow to the entire sector. They would place all those who work in it—many tens of thousands of people—at a huge disadvantage compared with their colleagues and competitors in the rest of Europe and elsewhere in the world.

On the amendments concerning the designation of codes by which the media should reference the public interest in publication, Amendments 54 and 56 seek to downplay the role of the Ofcom code, BBC guidelines and the Editors’ Code of Practice, all of which the 1998 Act sought to safeguard, and Amendment 55 would sweep them out completely. Amendment 55 seeks to give a statutory regulator, the Information Commissioner, power to determine codes of practice and guidance for the purposes of operating the journalistic exemptions and applying the public interest criteria within the Bill. This, again, is a significant departure from the terms of the 1998 Act, which has worked so well.

The Information Commissioner could choose not to determine particular codes even though they are recognised by the courts and elsewhere in legislation. She could even draw up and determine her own codes and guidance, without any reference to the long-established regulators of the broadcasters and the press, which would then have legal status. Even to a non-lawyer such as me, codes and guidance with legal status determined, drawn-up and administered by a statutory regulator is a system of statutory press regulation in the making—to which the vast majority of Members of this House say they are opposed—and is therefore a dangerous step which we should not take.