Media Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, technically, we are debating my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, and I fully support his intervention. I am grateful to the Minister for his succinct explanation of the Bill. My sole interest in the Bill is Clause 50, which seeks to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I agree that, if the section is not to be commenced, it should be repealed. It was a sword of Damocles hanging over the press, and not just in the way my noble friend Lord Astor referred to.

Noble Lords will recall that, during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018, the House agreed to my amendment—with the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—which would have commenced Section 40. My noble friend Lord Black and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were never able to explain how the state could interfere with the approved regulator, which is currently Impress, although there could be another one. At the time I was, and still am, very grateful for the support of noble Lords on the Labour and the Liberal Democrat Benches.

So far as Section 40 is concerned, my party appears to have a complete and utter lack of moral courage. As observed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the Conservative-led Government put the 2013 Act before Parliament, and Section 40 was agreed with a large majority. Then the Government got cold feet because of a little bit of pressure from the press.

I have to say that the News Media Association is far and away the most effective trade association I have encountered in my time in public affairs. For instance, during my 2018 campaign, it skilfully made sure that my name was never mentioned in any newspaper—with one exception, which was, of course, a positive reference. This minimised my exposure outside the House, which was quite brilliant tactics.

It is true that Clause 50 meets a 2019 manifesto commitment, but two Prime Ministers later. However, it uses these words:

“section 40 … which seeks to coerce the press”.

If we took out the stick component of Section 40, to which various of my noble friends have referred, but kept the carrot component, which Ministers conveniently and shamefully forget to mention, we would be completely compliant with the Salisbury/Addison convention. I cannot see what any objection to a carrot-only Section 40 might be. I will be tabling such an amendment, but I do not think it would be profitable to send it to the Commons because there is no possibility of honourable Members being able to agree to it an election year.

Let no one think that I am an enemy of the free press. I am not. I was motivated to get involved by the heavy advertising and lobbying—presumably by the NMA—which was extremely economical with the truth in respect of how Section 40 worked. In other words, it omitted to refer to the carrot component. My personal view is that, with one exception, it should not be possible to sue a properly and effectively regulated newspaper. The exception is where the damage from a libel is irreversible—for instance, if a contract is lost or a firm goes bust. Otherwise, the remedy should be that the newspaper has to retract with due prominence.

Let us take the Post Office Horizon scandal: my understanding is that Computer Weekly could have revealed more and earlier had it not been for legal constraints. We should remember that one of its targets was a very large IT company with almost limitless legal resources.

We know that there are serious economic difficulties in the newspaper industry, and in addition we have a proliferation of unreliable sources of news. That is causing us serious problems. Surely the market opportunity for newspapers is to be a reliable, properly regulated source of information. We need the comment “it must be true; I read it in a newspaper” to be a wise one and not a naive one.

Media Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Earl Attlee]

11: Clause 50, page 116, line 26, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(2) Section 40(3) is omitted.”

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, when a judge gives a dissenting judgment, he or she often says that they have the misfortune to disagree with the other judgments. I have the misfortune to disagree with the observations made by all previous speakers in this debate. I declare my interest: I occasionally contribute to the press, as do many other noble Lords, and have acted as counsel for various media organisations, and indeed people suing the press, including in proceedings concerned with Section 40.

I can see no conceivable justification for giving special legal protection in relation to those publications which are signed up to the authorised regulator. Section 40 has not been implemented since 2013; it has long been effectively dead and it is high time for it to receive a decent burial. In the last 10 years-plus, we have seen the unauthorised Independent Press Standards Organisation act with independence, impartiality and good judgment to rule on complaints about press conduct. It has done so since 2020, since when it has been chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks. Under his distinguished chairmanship, it has produced 800-plus rulings on thousands of complaints. Those 800-plus rulings are all contained on the website; they are entirely transparent.

What I find astonishing in this debate is that none of the speakers—who are so wedded to there being a protected, authorised organisation—has made any criticism whatever of any of the rulings made by the unauthorised IPSO. Your Lordships may know that the Times, the Telegraph and the Spectator have all complained that IPSO has been too tough on the press. If there are criticisms of IPSO, I would have expected to hear them today, but I have not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke of the need for high standards of ethical media regulation, but that is what we have from IPSO.

I am very delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, back in his place and that he is restored to good health; I wish him well. He spoke of the influence of big money. There is an independent regulator, which is under the noble Lord, Lord Faulks; his predecessor was a very distinguished, independent Court of Appeal judge, Sir Alan Moses, whom no one could accuse of being in anyone’s pocket. It is preposterous to suggest that there is no independent press regulation other than the authorised body.

The authorised body is Impress. I am sure that it has greatly impressed its new member, the organisation Responsible Reptile Keeping. Many, including the vast majority of the press, are not impressed by it to the extent that they wish to be regulated by it—and that is entirely their choice. It is wrong in principle that we should maintain any legislation that provides any advantage to anyone in relation to that body. The noble Earl wishes to intervene.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; I love debating this subject with him. I made a speech in the House of Lords in which I said that I would not name a bank, because it had been extremely helpful to me. That was reported in a newspaper, which said exactly the opposite: it named the bank and quoted all the horrible things that I had said about it. Those comments were actually from a position paper that I wrote some time before I made the speech. Can the noble Lord explain why, when I complained to IPSO, my complaint online disappeared into the ether? When I asked newspapers to publish a very nice letter from me, saying that there had been some misunderstanding and asking for the opportunity to correct the record, none of them agreed to publish it and my email just disappeared. That was because they knew that IPSO would have no effect.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Earl knows very well indeed that I cannot possibly have any knowledge of the circumstances of his complaint. I am sure that if the noble Earl takes up the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, he will—as Ministers say—write to the noble Earl with an explanation. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will be very happy to place a copy in the Library of the House, but I cannot answer that.

Let us be realistic: we all have complaints about the press. Sometimes, they say nasty things about me; I am not as important as the noble Earl, so it is much rarer, but we are all aggrieved by the press. The fact that the press sometimes—maybe often—say foolish, unjustified things is the price of press freedom. There needs to be a regulator. However, there does not need to be an authorised regulator that has special protection, unless he and other noble Lords say that the unauthorised regulator does not do its job—but that is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

That is a very sensitive subject.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

No—please let me answer the noble Baroness. The treatment of disabled people is a very contentious issue on which strong views are held, and I am not going to get into that debate. The noble Baroness also complains about my tone. I am sorry she complains about it. What I am seeking to do—I hope very properly, because we are all grown-ups here—is to deal with the substance of the arguments that have been put in favour of these amendments.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord may recall, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will certainly recall, that Impress, the authorised regulator, was funded for a long time by the late Mr Max Mosley, who had very strong views about press regulation.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

The noble Lord lost his case on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of all noble Lords. My noble friend the Minister called in the support of many organisations that agree with government policy, but many of them do not understand how the Section 40 arrangements work due to the absolutely brilliant campaign by the News Media Association, which I think is the best trade association ever.

On the issue of wash-up, I do not think that this is satisfactory. This is a highly controversial matter. We should have dropped Clause 50 and left it for the next Parliament. There is no difficulty in that at all; there are loads of suitable Bills that could have been used. I agree that we needed to remove the sword of Damocles —the ability of the Government of the day to commence Section 40 at any time. We did need to do something about it; I just do not think we got the right solution.

I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I enjoy debating with him; I expected him to be vigorous. I would agree to debate with him only if I knew I was right.

As I understand it, the Sitting of your Lordships’ House was suspended for very senior politicians at the other end of the Corridor to try to work out what the answer is. It is clear to me that people outside the Chamber—not us lot, but others—have been working really hard to try to work out what the right answer is. I think the best thing we can do is to allow Clause 50 to go ahead unamended. If a noble Lord did want to seek the opinion of the House, I would not advise it; on the other hand, I would not call foul either.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.