Media Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I too will speak about Clause 50. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, with whose views on this clause I agree.

The repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has been lobbied for by national newspapers for over a decade. Other noble Lords have questioned why it should appear now in a Bill about broadcasting. The Minister asserted that the purpose is to remove “burdensome obligations” on the press, but, as the Press Recognition Panel’s briefing explains, joining an approved independent regulator would protect them.

I have spoken on the issue of press standards for a number of years. I declare an interest, as I am co-party to a civil claim against a newspaper group about alleged hacking of personal data. The claim is at the pre-trial disclosure stage. As many in your Lordships’ House know, my family suffered relentless intrusions and inaccuracies after my daughter was attacked in 2005. Although the circumstances of what happened to my family were unique, the experience of coming up against large and powerful newspapers bullying and abusing ordinary people is not.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, used the phrase “odious and shameful”. Perhaps I should gently suggest that that is exactly what wrongdoing by the press is. It is an abuse of power by a very powerful industry. That is why, in 2013, all parties made promises to implement the Leveson system of independent regulation for newspapers and news websites.

The lack of independent regulation of the press and its online operations is anomalous among other industries. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is right: there is insufficient confidence in current self-regulation. We regulate medicine because it matters to our health. We regulate law because it is critical to upholding justice. Thanks to the Online Safety Act, we regulate social media, because we as citizens have responsibilities in how we treat each other online. But the media matters too. It is an important industry. It is, sometimes with good reason, described as the lifeblood of democracy. While we recognise the importance of a healthy broadcast media and require the regulation of broadcasters, we do not do so for newspapers and their websites. This is an oversight that undervalues and underestimates the importance and power of the press.

Please do not be fooled into believing that these problems are all historic and everything has changed—a narrative so often repeated by the press that one just might be tempted to believe it. In the years since Leveson, barely a week goes by when we do not hear of another invasion of privacy, distortion of the truth or other discriminatory content. We should be clear what the repeal of Section 40 will mean unless there is an alternative mechanism to underpin independent press regulation. It would be an endorsement of the status quo: that national newspapers prefer membership of IPSO, which upholds fewer than 1% of the complaints it receives. It is run by the press and has never investigated or fined a newspaper. Those of us in the Chamber committed to press freedom might think that IPSO, even if it cannot protect the public, could at least safeguard press freedom. I do not think it can do that either, as it features active parliamentarians as its chair, on its rule-controlling body —the regulatory funding body—and on its appointments panel. These are noble Lords for whom I have respect.

Let us be clear that support for Leveson is support for free speech, for the highest ethical standards in journalism, and for regulation totally free from political oversight. By contrast, repeal of Section 40 is a tacit endorsement of IPSO’s model: a complaints handler controlled by the press and run by parliamentarians. I suggest that that compromises press freedom.

Independent press regulation is better for the public and for the press. That is why more than 200 local and independent newspapers are signed up to Impress. Many of them are investigative newspapers for whom press freedom is not just an empty slogan but an essential foundation of their journalistic work. I have spoken about this issue on a number of occasions. The Government often give the same response to amendments seeking action on press standards. They say, “Not in this Bill, and not at this time”. So why now?

The point has been well made already. I hope the Minister will reflect on the coherence and appropriateness of using this legislation to attempt to dismantle the Leveson system. In every other respect, it is a Bill that promotes the public interest. In respect of the press alone, it profoundly compromises the public interest. I believe it is important that journalists and the public have protection from the consequences of a powerful, unaccountable, unregulated newspaper industry, which, through online readerships, reaches more people today than ever before. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider the Government’s approach.

Media Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hollins]

83: Clause 50, page 115, line 32, at beginning insert “Section 40 of”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in my name which seeks to provide the same protection against court costs for a journalist working for a publisher which was a member of an approved regulator as would be enjoyed by the publisher.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will certainly read the correspondence. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for quoting from it. I think it bears reading in its entirety, which I will be glad to do.

To continue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watts, there now exists a strengthened independent self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers are members of IPSO. Despite Section 40 never having been commenced, both Impress and IPSO offer arbitration schemes for legal claims relating to defamation, privacy and harassment. These schemes are either free, through Impress, or low-cost, through IPSO, for claimants. We do not think it likely that the repeal of Section 40, to which we have long been committed, would have an impact on access to low-cost arbitration.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in support of these amendments. The distraction of live election news during my speech probably contributed to me being misquoted by some noble Lords, so I repeat that my amendment would cause no detriment to the interests of the press. I am sad that the Minister has offered no options for protecting ordinary people. I trust that my arguments, and Sir Brian Leveson’s letter, will be read carefully, because a number of things that have been said are just not true. I hope that this will be reviewed carefully before proceeding to wash-up. It would be wise to remove Clause 50 before allowing an otherwise good Bill to pass. I hope that the Opposition have the courage to insist on this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

Media Bill

Baroness Hollins Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I also speak to Amendment 12, which is consequential on Amendment 11. There would be no point in agreeing 11 unless we also agreed Amendment 12, because that is the commencement provision—and actually it was the commencement provision that caused a problem with Section 40 in the first place.

This amendment was debated in Committee only yesterday afternoon. I regret that I have not been able to carefully study any of your Lordships’ speeches, but the arguments in favour of these amendments remain the same. I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords in this matter.

This amendment would retain the carrot component of Section 40—that is, the protection it affords to regulated publishers—while dispensing with the stick element, which could disadvantage unregulated publishers. I have to be honest with the House and say that I understand the dangers that publishers might see with the stick component. Suppose that, at some point in the future, our police got out of control, as if we were in a third-world, failed state; and suppose they managed to corrupt the only approved regulator. The publishers would be stuck, because there would be no escape. They would not be able to go back to where we are now. However, if these amendments were to be accepted, there would be no detriment whatever to the interests of the national or local press, even if they refused to join any form of regulator. If there are any detriments, I am sure the House would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say what they are.

The Conservative 2019 manifesto says:

“To support free speech, we will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which seeks to coerce the press”.


These amendments would achieve that objective. A newspaper signed up to IPSO would no longer be adversely affected by Section 40; it would just have to hope and pray that the courts would protect it from rich and powerful litigators. However, if a newspaper signs up to an approved regulator, it will be protected, because any person trying to sue it would pay all the court costs, win or lose. So free speech would be protected and not harmed.

My noble friend the Minister says that it is government policy not to incentivise membership of one regulator over another, even if one is superior. So can my noble friend explain why, in data protection and other areas of legislation, the editors’ code used by IPSO is recognised in statute over and above other editorial codes? Is it not the case that the Government give special treatment, not on the basis of which regulator offers better protection to the public but on the basis of which regulator represents a national newspaper whose support they crave?

The truth of the matter is that the opponents of the Leveson reforms want the only approved regulator to wither on the vine by denying it the benefits of Section 40, as envisaged by the Leveson reforms. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving Amendment 11 and for his brave and wise speech. I hope that the Minister has thought again overnight and will accept Amendments 11 and 12, which have a lot of support within the House, without our needing to divide. What message does it send to voters when a clause that has been heavily debated and voted on, and to which amendments have attracted cross-party support, is persisted with by the Government under an expedited process?

I and other noble Lords do not think that this is an appropriate way of conducting the business of this House. Our democratic system, with all its checks and balances, is sacred, and I urge the Government to respect it and either withdraw this clause or agree to Amendments 11 and 12, which propose a finely balanced compromise between competing views.