Media Bill

George Eustice Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I agree with some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), in particular his comments about the bravery of journalists covering conflict around the world today.

It is very doubtful that there will be a Division on the Bill this evening. We have had something of a love-in, with contributions from all parties saying that they support the Bill. I do not want to shatter that consensus, but I am going to do so. Although it is clear that the Opposition are not going to divide the House on Second Reading, I must say to them that, had they chosen to do that, I would have supported them. I would have done so purely because of the strength of my feelings about clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I believe consistency in this place matters, even though it might sometimes be elusive. The truth is that section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was part of a Conservative-drafted compromise following the Leveson inquiry. It was a compromise in which I had a hand, and I am not about to vote against it, today or at any other point.

The reason I supported the thrust of the Leveson proposals at the time was not despite my being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative, and true Conservatives believe in accountability. It is true Conservatives who, throughout history, have faced down powerful vested interests and it is true Conservatives who will always look out for the underdog, whatever the consequences might be. The Leveson inquiry followed decades of failure on the part of the press to engage seriously with self-regulation, and the craven failure of this House over 70 years to act on the findings of no fewer than seven inquiries and Royal Commissions set up during that time.

It is often the case that we never quite know when something that is known to be a problem will become a big story—a running story, as we call it in the media. It was the hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl, that made this House decide to act. Therefore it was a Conservative Prime Minister at the time who condemned the Press Complaints Commission as wholly ineffective. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who set up the inquiry. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who chose Lord Justice Leveson to lead that inquiry—in part because Lord Justice Leveson was recognised as somebody who respected the press and believed passionately in the freedom of the press, and could therefore be relied upon to come up with a sensible set of proposals.

It was a Conservative Prime Minister who wrote the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry and a Conservative Prime Minister who said that that inquiry should make policy recommendations to the Government. When that report came back, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who stated on the Floor of this House that we could not just say, “Let’s have one last chance saloon for the press again.”, because we had done that. When that report landed—all 1,800 pages, in four volumes—my noble Friend Lord Cameron, then Prime Minister, asked Oliver Letwin to work out a way to implement the proposals of the Leveson inquiry.

There followed a series of compromises to accommodate some of the concerns of the press. First, while Lord Leveson had recommended that there should be a statutory body, preferably Ofcom, that would act as the recognition body, that was seen to be problematic by the press. So Oliver Letwin came up with the rather ingenious idea of establishing a Royal Charter for the self-regulation of the press. The press then raised concerns that a future Government might be able unilaterally to change the terms of that charter simply by bringing forward Orders in Council. We accepted that that was a very fair concern. Paradoxically, the press then asked whether Parliament could safeguard the integrity of the Royal Charter by ensuring that it could be amended or removed only if there were a super-majority of both Houses of Parliament and, in addition to that, a super-majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Finally, there was a lot of discussion about the editors’ code and who should hold the pen. The media felt that existing editors should always hold the pen on the editors’ code, which was contrary to what Lord Leveson had suggested. Again, however, to carry the press with us—as it had said that it would work with us if we made the concessions that it wanted—we made that final concession to ensure that the editors’ code would always be written by the newspaper industry, not by any other independent body.

At various stages during those multiple concessions, Oliver Letwin asked me whether I would help to broach conversations with the Opposition parties with a view to forming a cross-party consensus on the matter, and I did so in good faith. At this point, I pay particular tribute to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was at that time the shadow Secretary of State, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, for the way in which they approached the issue. The easiest thing for any Opposition to do is simply to oppose everything for the sake of it, but on that issue, they recognised the importance of trying to arrive at a consensus in Parliament for the good of civil society.

I hope that you will not mind if I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your former guise as Opposition Chief Whip. I remember attending one meeting where it was somewhat presumed that I would be able to turn up on the night with 70 Conservative rebels to defeat the Government. You probably saw the anguish on my face at the daunting prospect of having to do such a thing. You made everybody else in the room aware that Whips’ Offices can, when they put their minds to it, be pretty good at burning off opposition.

It is true that the victims of phone hacking were quite concerned about the level of compromise that politicians were making on their behalf. I remember Hugh Grant being particularly sceptical of that. We got him in and said, “Trust us; we are going to do this. This is a cross-party consensus: all parties are signed up to it. It will happen.” It is disappointing that, a decade on, Hugh Grant is being proved right because of the Government’s actions through the Bill.

Some months after we had put in place the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press, I met Sir Alan Moses, who was the first inaugural chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the industry’s own regulator. I remember saying to Sir Alan, “IPSO is making good progress. It is an improvement on the PCC. It wouldn’t have to do a great deal more in order for it to be a recognised regulator. Why doesn’t IPSO simply seek recognition?” He said, “George, I completely agree with you. However, my contract of employment forbids me from saying so publicly.” How is that for the freedom of speech that we hear so much about? Sir Alan Moses, the inaugural chairman of IPSO, was subject to a gagging order, no less, that prevented him from saying what he believed to be true.

Let me turn to the specifics of section 40, which put in place one of the key provisions of Leveson’s recommendations: the creation of incentives for an industry regulator to seek recognition. That is often misunderstood, for the provisions of section 40 are symmetrical: not only does it protect innocent people who want redress and access to a process of arbitration, but it protects publishers from people with deep pockets who go to lawyers such as Carter-Ruck or Schillings and threaten litigation—through so-called SLAPPs—to intimidate and bully publishers and prevent them from publishing things. Had we put that in place and commenced section 40, if a Russian oligarch, for instance, had said, “If you print that, I will see you in court,” and all sorts of injunctions came forth from various lawyers, a publisher would have been able to say, “No, you won’t. We will see you in arbitration.” That would have protected genuine investigative journalism in a way that has never been done before.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. He must be aware that the laws relating to libel and so on are completely misshapen, in that it is totally a rich person’s game. Anyone without resources gets threatened with libel and is silenced immediately. They have no recourse to legal aid and no other way of dealing with the situation other than either to accept something they believe to be wrong or to make themselves bankrupt trying to defend themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The truth is that the system of arbitration, backed up by the cost provisions under section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, protected small, plucky journalists working for small publishers as much as it protected the weak and vulnerable who could not afford legal action. It is important to note that the arbitration system envisaged would only have engaged at all where there was what is called a cause of action, which is to say where people have a case in law. The arbitration system would never have become overwhelmed, since there would have been a sifting process to take out simple complaints about inaccuracy and so forth. In essence, the system would have focused predominantly on the areas of defamation and privacy.

We even considered what I used to term the Private Eye test, which is to say that if we have a publication that for all sorts of ideological reasons has never joined up to anything at all—bear in mind that Private Eye never even joined the Press Complaints Commission—there was an option for them to be able to demonstrate adherence to the principles set out in the royal charter while not joining a body. There was also a large area of discretion for the courts on an individual case. While there was a strong margin of appreciation in favour of those who signed up, it was not black and white. The clause stated that where it was “reasonable in the circumstances” for a court to find a different position, it had the right to do so.

I am therefore generally critical, as the House can understand, of the repeal of section 40, but I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on the self-regulation of the press and that they have no intention of bringing forward any Order in Council to disband the Press Recognition Panel. It is important to recognise that Leveson did not recommend that we needed to take a legal provision through an Act of Parliament to give effect to these cost provisions. His recommendation was that we or the courts could use the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to set civil procedure rules to create a margin of appreciation and an incentive in favour of those who joined an independent regulator.

While the Government legislated in this place, albeit that they then failed to commence the order, it was entirely understandable that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Master of the Rolls might have felt it inappropriate for them to act in this space. Now that the Government have signalled their intention to vacate this space, it is entirely open to the Master of the Rolls and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make their own civil procedure rules in this space to give effect to the Leveson inquiry. Let us not forget that that inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and is explicitly referenced in the royal charter. It would be fair and reasonable for the courts to give consideration and weight to that fact.

An important duty now falls to the Press Recognition Panel. That body, independent of Government, does not need to wait for advice or permission from Government; it is entirely open to the Press Recognition Panel to put together a detailed report setting out its recommendations for what the alternative incentives might be to encourage publishers to sign up to a recognised regulator. It may come up with some useful advice for all parties in this House as they consider their manifestos going forward.

In conclusion, I feel that the failure to commence the full architecture of the Leveson proposals was a terrible missed opportunity for the press, and I say that as one of the few Members on these Benches who first came into Parliament with a brown Press Gallery pass. I knew every single one of the journalists in the Press Gallery and the news organisations they worked for, and I developed a strong appreciation and respect for the individual character of each and every one of those newspaper organisations—even the ones that were often critical of the party on the Government Benches—as I understood their tradition.

Those of us who really believed in the freedom of the press and wanted to see the press thrive had in our minds that if it sought recognition, it would become distinguished from social media and other news content. A decade ago, we were already seeing the start of so-called “fake news” and the idea put forward by Leveson was that a recognised regulator could be used as a Kitemark showing a news organisation’s commitment to ethical journalism. That would be a positive and would restore trust in our press, which had been lost over the years. The idea was that the Broadcasting Act 1996, covered today in much of this Bill, would affect the regulated broadcasters, but that there would be a much more flexible, self-regulatory model for the press or other online content. We could also see, even 10 years ago, that there was going to be a convergence between broadcast media, who would increasingly have online news content in written form, and the print media, who would increasingly be online and would have podcasts and video content. Therefore, a blurring would take place in the traditional distinction between broadcast and print journalism. The great beauty of the architecture we put in place with the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press is that it enabled there to be multiple regulators, some of which might specialise just in online news and others that might specialise just in the printed press, with everything else in between. Had we implemented that, we would have had a great opportunity to restore trust in the truthfulness and integrity of journalism in this country.

There is a final reason why I believe it was short-sighted of the press not to do this. When the courts see that over a period of time there has been intransigence on the part of the press to take standards and genuine accountability seriously, and a craven weakness in this House to act in this space at all, they will make public policy decisions. It is no good complaining about SLAPPs, privacy injunctions and so forth when this House has failed to do even the most basic things to put in place some sensible protections for our civil society. So I would have opposed this Bill on those grounds alone, but I recognise that it contains much else that has cross-party support. I hope that the Government will consider removing clause 50 at a later stage of our consideration of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler]

I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. He raises important points, which is why we will need to have a long and detailed debate on the future of the licence fee at another time. I chose my words relatively carefully in saying that I hoped the licence fee was living on borrowed time, rather than saying that the end must come immediately. My hon. Friend raises points that will have to be addressed before we move to another system, but I personally feel that the current model is not sustainable in the medium to long term.

It is not just me who has raised concerns about the BBC. According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, trust in BBC News has plummeted from 75% in 2018 to 55% in 2022. That trend clearly cannot continue.

I have focused my remarks principally on broadcasters, as that is where the majority of my experience lies, but I will turn for a moment to the print media. I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and I am afraid to disappoint him but I agree rather more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on section 40. I am glad to see the Bill removing that sword of Damocles from newspapers. It struck me that, although it was never commenced, it loomed over papers and magazines as a potential form of state control that would have been unconscionable interference in the freedom of the press. While I have many quibbles with both national and local newspapers about how they cover some stories, I felt that the draconian measures in section 40 were an entirely disproportionate way to tackle complaints.

[George Eustice]

rose—

[Rob Butler]

I will make one or two more points, just in case they answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but I will certainly give way in a moment.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, it was a surprise to me that it was ever considered appropriate to oblige the publisher to pay the costs of both sides in a legal claim, even if the publication won the case. I know that that stance was taken by the organisation Reporters Without Borders. Thankfully, the Bill will put that right, and I am reassured that the industry’s own actions in recent years in setting up its own regulator, IPSO, and beefing up internal complaints handling procedures have proved effective, without the need for further statutory intervention.

[George Eustice]

Obviously, the easy way for any publisher to avoid the cost provisions would be to seek recognition. What is it about the Leveson recommendations that my hon. Friend disagrees with so much? What in the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press does he find objectionable and impossible for a news organisation to subscribe to?

[Rob Butler]

As I just outlined, my principal concern is about the suggestion that a publisher would have to pay the loser’s costs, irrespective of what those costs could be.

The Government have considered the many factors in play in reaching this decision. It is important to say that this is not a licence for newspapers to print whatever they wish—I hope that is understood in my local area by the Bucks Herald and the Bucks Free Press. There are undoubtedly times when the line between fact, comment and insinuation seems to be ever thinner. Self-regulation brings with it a responsibility to get articles right first time, as well as to give sufficient opportunity for a right to reply and appropriate space for both sides of the story. I hope that newspaper owners and editors will take the opportunity of the repeal of section 40 to redouble their efforts to justify the trust we are putting in them to work to the highest standards.

The Media Bill is essential to securing the long-term future of our public service broadcasters. More than that, it gives confidence to our nation’s wider creative economy. We need to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book as smoothly and quickly as possible. I have not proposed amendments or called for specific changes because I recognise the urgency. The industry has worked closely with the Department for many months, if not years. As a result, I believe that we have before us a Bill that is well thought-out, fit for the future and fair to all. I am delighted to give it my enthusiastic support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter]

There may be an age divide that determines whether someone looks at an electronic programme guide or the Radio Times, or whether they just look for a tile. The notion that viewers want to continue to use linear TV is important. That is why it is so critical that we legislate in the right way to make sure that British viewers can find it.

The changes in the Bill will impact Channel 4 more than any other PSB, given its unique publisher-broadcaster licence. Channel 4’s status, introduced by the Conservative Government back in the 1980s, has significantly aided the development of the independent production sector in the UK over the last 40 years, which is now worth nearly £4 billion. The removal of the publisher-broadcaster restrictions will allow for Channel 4 to produce its own content, as opposed to simply commissioning or acquiring all of its content from third parties. Why does that matter? For the first time, it will allow Channel 4, when it produces content, to own the rights for that content, which it can then sell around the world, creating another stream of revenue which will allow products and programmes to be funded on Channel 4.

The Government have announced plans to increase Channel 4’s independent production quota as part of the changes. However, there will be many small production companies in areas such as the north-west of England, which have seen a rapid growth in independent production businesses, who are still unsure about the full impact the changes will have for them. Will the Minister, in his response, expand a little more on what the changes will mean for those businesses and give some assurances that they will still be able to thrive once Channel 4 receives its new licence and the Bill receives Royal Assent?

Channel 4 has indicated that it will maintain its existing commitment to spend 50% of its budget for main channel commissions outside London. That is really important to regional production. Ofcom has announced that it will be consulting on whether changes will need to be made to Channel 4’s regional programming making quotas. Is the Minister able to provide a timeline for that consultation, so we know when any changes will come into effect?

I want to touch on local TV and echo some of the comments from other hon. and right hon. Members. I have received representations from the local TV networks who are concerned that the current Bill does not guarantee local TV service prominence in the new TV ecology, and neither does it grant powers on a par with those of local radio services. At some point, the sector will start to provide streamed linear programme services. Will the Government be giving consideration to including local TV as part of the licensed public service channel designation in the Bill to help ensure sustainability for the sector? It really is important that there is an understanding for this sector going forward, because it is making decisions today on the future of its business plans.

Finally on TV, if we are looking to the next 20 years, because this is the only Bill we are likely to see in the media landscape, we should be conscious that the previous broadcasting Bill ran for 20 years. On the Government’s management of a digital terrestrial television switchover, I have been reassured in my conversations with the Minister that he wants terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future. I very much agree with him on that. When he is summing up, could he give an indication of the criteria he might want to set before broadcast TV services on Freeview are considered for switch off? That was in place for DAB digital radio. There was a clear criteria in terms of when that might happen. Things have moved many, many times over the years, but it would be helpful for the digital terrestrial sector to understand what the Government might be thinking.

Before I turn to the provisions on radio, may I put on record my congratulations to all those who have worked in commercial radio over the past 50 years? Independent local radio, as we once knew it, celebrated its 50th anniversary just a few weeks ago. It was 50 years ago in October since LBC and Capital Radio arrived on our airwaves in the capital, 50 years since Radio Clyde in Glasgow launched and 50 years since BRMB in Birmingham launched. They were the four stations in 1973 that appeared on our AM radios. Over the 50 years, we have seen a plethora of local, regional and national stations arrive on AM, FM, DAB and now online via Radioplayer and smart speakers. Today, commercial radio is delivering record audiences. Back in the early 1980s, we were all convinced that video was going to kill the radio star. Actually, radio is in rude health. We have regional brands, national stations and hyperlocal services focused on their own towns and cities that are doing remarkably well. We should all recognise in this House how strong commercial radio is today and how much we value the services that people who work in that sector provide for us.

There is unanimous agreement across the BBC, and across commercial and community radio, that the Bill, on the whole, works for radio. It contains crucial measures that will help to safeguard the future in the face of changing technology and shifts in listening habits. The radio sector continues to deliver significant public value, providing trusted news, entertainment and—particularly important—companionship for about 50 million listeners every week. UK radio broadcasters make a substantial contribution to the creative industries, and BBC and commercial radio combined generate more than £1.5 billion in gross value added for the UK economy.

I especially welcome the provisions to support the future of the UK radio industry on voice-activated smart speaker platforms, and the removal of outdated regulatory burdens such as music formats on analogue licences for commercial radio stations. When there was a limited number of stations in each market, it was right for the Government to regulate the number of stations that could provide each particular type of service, but today, when there are a great many services, it should be for the market to decide. If country music is not working, it is possible to switch to jazz without spending too much time bothering the regulator.

There are, however, a few parts of the Bill that I should like the Minister to clarify for the industry. Part 5 deals with the safeguarding of local news and information on DAB services, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how those powers will work in practice. For instance, how would a multiplex decide which services must carry local news? Would the multiplex owner be responsible for the enforcement against a digital sound service provider, or would that be the responsibility of Ofcom? What would happen if a service carrying local news stopped broadcasting? Would the obligation be transferred to another service holder, or to the multiplex owner? As for Ofcom’s new role in producing guidelines for the regular broadcast of local news, can the Minister tell us when and how Ofcom will be consulting on that process?

Part 6 contains clauses relating to futureproofing. Will there be scope for expansion of the provisions to cover on-demand and online-only radio content provided by UK broadcasters, as opposed to linear content? Finally, may I ask whether the Government will consider an amendment to protect access to radio in cars, which still accounts for about a quarter of all radio listening, by bringing non-voice activated infotainment systems within the scope of the Bill?

I want to touch briefly on the proposals

“for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013”,

a decade-old provision that has never been brought into force. While I appreciated the opportunity to observe the perspective of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), whose knowledgeable account of the forming of that legislation was extremely insightful, I am afraid I disagree with the points that he made. It does not seem right to me that publishers who are taken to court could be forced to pay the legal costs of a judgment if they are not a member of an approved regulator, regardless of whether they win or lose the case. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the press. I have spent time working as a journalist, and there have been times when journalists have written about my activities. There are, occasionally, times when I do not like what the press have written, and there are, occasionally, times when I believe that the press have got it wrong. Healthy democracies, however, need objective journalism which is free from state involvement.

The reason I do not agree with my right hon. Friend is this. The Leveson report recommended a system of

“voluntary independent self-regulation”,

envisaging

“a body, established and organised by the industry”

which

“must be funded by its members”.

Lord Justice Leveson said that that body should include all the major players in the industry—national newspapers, and as many regional and local newspaper and magazine publishers as possible—

“although I am very anxious that it remain voluntary”.

[George Eustice]

What Lord Justice Leveson actually said was that the members of the body would only be recognised as a regulator if they had sought recognition from an organisation called the Press Recognition Panel. Leveson very clearly rejected the model put forward by Lord Black in the other place, for the very good reason that there was no independent accountability and no body to recognise that independent regulator.

[Andy Carter]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments and I recognise his knowledge in this area. He was involved at such a deep level that he has experience and expertise in this field.

For me, the media regulatory landscape has changed significantly since section 40 was introduced, with the Independent Press Standards Organisation now regulating nearly 2,000 print and online titles, including the vast majority of UK national, regional and local newspapers. I feel that that has left us with an obsolete law on the statute book which was never enacted. Removing the section was a Conservative party manifesto commitment in 2017 and in 2019, so I welcome its proposed repeal by the Bill.

In concluding my remarks, I want to offer my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), to the Secretary of State and to officials in DCMS for all their positive engagement with me, with the industry and with those in the House who have long been pressing for this Bill to be brought forward. I know that the Minister is just as keen as I am to see the Media Bill on the statute book, and I am grateful to him for taking note of the issues that I have raised today. I look forward to his addressing those issues in his reply, as well as to our continued engagement over the coming months so that we can pass this Bill as soon as possible.