Press Regulation

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I understand fully, as I have in many of the exchanges we have had on this matter, that the priority is to ensure that there is a resolution in place so that the victims can be reassured that it can never happen again. It is clearly in everyone’s interests that the committee acts swiftly to consider the charter in a manner consistent with delivering a robust and justifiable decision.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, the agenda, the rules of decisions, the timing and attendance are determined by Cabinet Members. They have decided to give the press charter greater priority. Is the Minister aware that there is division on the press charter as a number of the papers do not support it? It is not consistent with Leveson’s request for independence—free of government, free of Parliament and free of the press. In giving priority to this they have chosen to make a controversial political decision inside the Privy Council. That may inevitably mean a division of opinion between Parliament and the monarchy.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I do not agree, although I can understand the noble Lord’s point about priority. There are due processes and legal opinion, so we have had to consider the PressBoF charter first.

[Lord Prescott]

Why?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

There was an application to the Privy Council. The cross-party royal charter could not be referred because a number of outstanding points needed to be dealt with, including making it Scottish compliant because on 30 April the Scottish Parliament asked to be included in the matter. That is the position. There is no sense of priority; it is about dealing with the matter through the procedures that are required.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the overwhelming majority of the recommendations, suggestions and thought process that Lord Justice Leveson has gone through have been accepted by us and, no doubt, by the press. I say “no doubt”—I very much hope that that applies to the press. There are issues that we believe need to be explored more thoroughly, particularly about the role that legislation should play. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he had issues on the principle, the practicality and the necessity of that. These are issues that we can explore in the near future.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, I speak as a victim of our free press. The failure of the PCC and the Metropolitan Police is well recorded in this excellent report by Lord Justice Leveson, who has given us solutions to that failure. I welcome the report, as it recommends change and accepts the recommendations that I made for change, including the voluntary and statutory framework, when he invited me to do so in giving evidence to his inquiry. Does the Minister accept that Lord Justice Leveson was well aware that there could be a failure, as there has been in the past six inquiries into the press, as to whether they would carry out their promises and make the change? In those circumstances, is the Minister prepared to consider in the legislation that will come before this House a sunset clause that makes it clear that, if the press fail to carry out their promises, we have the authority in the Bill to bring forward a statutory framework, which Lord Justice Leveson said was the only alternative?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord was clearly wronged by elements of the press. He is right to say that Lord Justice Leveson has comprehensively exposed a failure in the PCC, which cannot continue any more. He largely absolves the police from blame, although he has made some important recommendations on certain changes relating to the relationship between the police and the press.

I know that there are a lot of speakers. I shall try not to make my answers too long so as to get in as many as we possibly can, but I remind noble Lords that there will be another Statement along in a minute.

Public Disorder

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Hornsey]

My Lords, I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said. Many remarks have been made with which I am in full agreement. I have a four short points.

First, we need to recognise that we cannot arrest our way out of this. The short-term proposition that we are looking at right now is necessary, but how do we move on from there? In relation to that, as well as having robust custodial sentences, are any plans in place to lock restorative justice on to that? That is the kind of work that has a deep impact on people: to make these young people, and indeed the older people, who have been involved in these despicable acts face up to the communities that they have helped to destroy and get involved in work to repair those communities.

Secondly, this situation has been brewing for ages. People are fed up with the kind of government leadership that comes in at the last moment and says, “We’re going to set up an inquiry”, even if they say they are going to move away from academics in Whitehall. Any initiative that is around an inquiry needs to be much more community-based and community-focused. It needs to be led by people on the ground who have experience, ideas and knowledge. They know how they could fight back against some of the terrible things that blight their communities if they had the resources and the back-up support to make that work.

Thirdly, any such initiative needs to be multidisciplinary. We have talked about citizenship and education, but it is also about health and a whole range of other issues. There is no point in any initiatives unless we can involve all those different parts of Government, local government, sport and culture. All those areas have a role to play.

Fourthly, we ourselves need to take responsibility. If we talk about young people engaging in violent games and the kind of influence that that has on them, we must also say that recent publicity about the behaviour of the press, the media and politicians—people who are supposed to set examples in our society—has not been above reproach. We must look to ourselves and see what we can do, not only to ensure that our behaviour is a much better form of leadership and role modelling but to make active contributions to those communities.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, is there a recognition that this violent disorder is very different from past civic disorder? Do the Government recognise that and the need for a special policy? The announcements that have been made by the Minister about the policies that the Prime Minister has suggested today are covered by the Public Order Act and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act. Why did the Government not use this legislation for the very proposals that they have at this time? We might then have solved the problem earlier. Was it because there were not sufficient police to arrest people under those circumstances? Is it not time that we took a less partisan position on police numbers? The Government should consider how many police are needed for them to carry out their duties, and perhaps at the same time recognise—I welcome this in the Statement—that it is time we took on the criminals who clothed their faces to avoid being recognised in their criminal acts. I am glad that that proposal is there.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, first, we will have a couple of thousand of these people at our disposal for a year or so. Can we please have some proper academic research, using them, into the whys and wherefores? This is a new phenomenon for us. We really ought to try to understand it; this is an opportunity that we should not miss.

Secondly, as a resident of Battersea, this week it was immensely distressing that the police station 100 yards away from the centre of disturbance did not produce anybody for the first hour and a half of what was going on. As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said, we need to look at that. It is totally unacceptable that that should be the service that the businesses and people of Battersea had.

Public Confidence in the Media and the Police

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, those are two valuable ideas. I agree that there is a tremendous opportunity but that equally there is a danger of having a knee-jerk reaction. We are all too well aware of this in both Houses of Parliament. We have an opportunity to get it right and we should go forward on that basis, particularly dealing with the issue of leadership.

Secondly, on the whole question of leadership, the Government are taking this immensely seriously and we want to move forward on it with the police. The noble Lord’s knowledge and understanding of this issue is extremely important, and I know that the Home Office will very much welcome his input.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, as one of the victims referred to, I welcome the Statement by the Leader of the House who has made clear the commitment to get to the bottom of the hacking, the inadequate police inquiry, and indeed the IPCC.

However, is the noble Lord aware that in July 2009 I sent a letter to the Prime Minister—he was the Leader of the Opposition then—warning him of the appointment of Andy Coulson as press adviser? It was clear that Mr Coulson was in the middle of the News of the World phone hacking allegations, and I advised the Prime Minister that he was not fit to enter Government as No. 10’s director of communications. Can the Leader confirm that within 12 months of that the Prime Minister was to refuse advice from the police, newspaper editors, the Guardian, the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed his own chief of staff? All these warnings were ignored, and it is simply not good enough to hide behind the excuse of 20-20 hindsight.

Can the Leader of the House also confirm that in the dozens of social and political meetings that he held with News International, the Prime Minister now appears to have adopted the Murdoch corporate policy, best displayed by the three monkeys: hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil? Will the Leader agree that this is a definition of the lack of judgment which the Prime Minister is now rightly accused of?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, many in the House have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, as one of the victims of the hacking scandal. However, he belittles himself by making these rather fetid political points. If he was writing to anybody in the summer of 2009, it should of course have been the then Prime Minister, asking him why he had failed to do anything or to respond to any of the reports from the Select Committees, the Information Commissioner and all those other people who raised these issues.

Draft Defamation Bill

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, the Leader of the House asks for an increase in the time available for examination of the Defamation Bill, which is addressing responsible investigative journalism and the internet. Will he also give attention to the conspiracy of the press and Twitterers in relation to acts of libel and other criminal acts which are part of this press campaign on injunctions, and in contempt of Parliament and our judges? Is it not time that the Government, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General stood up for the judges and the administration of justice in this country as well as for the Human Rights Act, as embodied in Section 8 and as Parliament so decided?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is of course entirely up to the committee to decide what it discusses. However, given the events of the past few weeks and days, I am sure that it will wish to examine in some detail some of the issues that the noble Lord raises. This extension comes at the request of the committee, and I believe that it will give it the opportunity to complete its work before the end of October.

G20

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend’s last question is a good one, which I wish I had thought of myself when I was discussing such matters with those who know the answers. It is right that we should set up visits to other countries. I do not know where next in the world the Prime Minister’s eye will fall upon, but I am sure that he will be as gratefully received as he has been in China and India.

My noble friend is also right about the case that we have made for reducing the deficit—consolidation, as it was called at the G20—and that there was universal agreement that this was entirely the right direction to take. Equally, the reduction of corporation tax will make us more internationally competitive, will help our businesses to export and will also increase jobs in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, given that the Statement today was about the Prime Minister’s visit to China as well as to the G20, it is a little disappointing that it says so little about climate change. I welcome the Statement where it says that the Government’s intention is to fight climate change and that they will,

“spare no effort to reach a balanced and successful outcome in Cancun”.

That is precisely what was said at the Copenhagen summit, which failed largely because people attempted to enforce a legal agreement. That is the difficulty that we face at the moment. Having visited China and Japan in the past two weeks, I can tell the Minister that a legal agreement does not have a chance of being agreed at Cancun. Will the Government perhaps consider changing their policy and supporting the voluntary system embodied in the Copenhagen accord, under which nations commit themselves to cutting greenhouse gases and providing action plans? That would mean that we were likely to get some agreement at Cancun—perhaps a small step for mankind—whereas failure would be a disaster.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s words and his reporting back of his own visit to China. He is right that there are elements of the protocols on climate change on which we have to go a great deal further. As the premier economic forum, the G20 is right in recognising the importance of low-carbon growth in preventing climate change and creating a sustainable global economy and in sending positive signals ahead of Cancun, but the meeting at Cancun is the key forum for negotiation on climate change. None of us should have false hopes about what is going to happen at Cancun. Immensely difficult decisions need to be taken. It is only a few weeks away now, and we shall have to wait for the results of that to see whether we have succeeded in our objectives.