Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Harman Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Robertson
I thank the hon. Lady for that one: enter the controversy on day one! One thing that we learned from the Olympics last summer is that one of the very best ways of getting more young people to play sport is to put role models in the shop window. The honest answer to her question is that it is a combination of the two things. If the England team can win a World cup by 2022, which I hope very much it can—it would be nice if it won one in 2014, actually—that will be of enormous benefit. The Government contributed to the new National Football Centre, precisely to achieve the objectives that she shares.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Despite the good work that is obviously going on all around the country, participation in sport is falling, especially in school sport. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is not, but the Chance to Shine survey shows that half of all pupils are not even doing two hours’ sport a week, the Smith Institute survey shows that 68% of school sports staff report a decrease in participation, and his own Department’s figures show a 10% fall in the number of primary school children taking part in sport. That is very worrying indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) mentioned the Secretary of State for Education, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that as in so many ways the Secretary of State is making matters worse here. So often, sport is teamwork. For the sake of sport, may we have some teamwork across Government? A year on from the Olympics, the price that is being paid for this Government’s dismantling of the programmes that the last Government put in place is now becoming clear.
Hugh Robertson
Nothing could be further from the truth. The last active people survey showed that since we won the bid in 2005, against an exacting target, 1.4 million extra people were playing sport who were not doing so in 2005. As for dismantling the target, I seem to remember that it was the Government in which the right hon. and learned Lady served who cut the amount of funding that sport gets through the national lottery from 20% when they came into power in 1997 to 13.7% when we took power in 2010—something we have now reversed.
Broadband
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Harman Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the ability of business people—or anybody else—to do work when on trains, and I have spoken to my colleagues in the Department for Transport about it. Importantly, however, as I have said, two thirds of premises in this country now have access to superfast broadband. The hon. Gentleman will also want to know that the internet contributes more than 8% to the UK economy, which is the highest proportion in any G8 country. We are impatient for more change, but we have already made a great deal of progress.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
First, may I join in what the Minister, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said about Sir Colin Davis? He was an enormous figure in music, who was admired and respected, and who inspired people not only in this country, but around the world. He is a sad loss to the London Symphony Orchestra, this country and music generally.
Everyone knows that access to decent-speed broadband is vital to businesses and people’s work and home life and is needed in all areas. When we were in government, we committed to everyone in the UK getting decent-speed broadband—at least 2 megabits per second—by the end of last year. This Government abandoned that target, and Ofcom says that 2.6 million households still have not got decent-speed broadband. Instead the Government promised superfast broadband by the end of 2015, but there is growing concern that they will not meet that target. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that those concerns are wrong and that she is on track to meet the Government’s target of 90% of premises getting superfast broadband by 2015?
Maria Miller
The difference between the right hon. and learned Lady and me is that she may speak warm words, but this Government are actually making practical interventions. Not only with our commitment to 2 megabits universally, but through our urban project and our rural broadband project, we are actually delivering for the people of this country. More than two thirds of premises now have access to superfast broadband, so perhaps it is little wonder that the people of this country bought so many goods and services online in 2011—we bought more than any other major economy. Broadband has a fantastic role to play, and we are making sure it reaches more and more households. Indeed, it will reach 10 million more households by the end of this Parliament.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]
Harriet Harman Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that such instances already arise and that they are covered by the normal laws of libel. That would continue to be the case because those organisations would not be deemed to be relevant publishers. The normal laws would therefore be in play. Hopefully, that provides him with some clarification.
In conclusion, getting the balance of incentives right is clearly important, as it was really important in the Leveson report. We are, I believe, striking a balance through these amendments that will present a tough new system of press regulation, but equally one that does not compromise the freedom of the press or investigative journalism. We are all clear that investigative journalism and freedom of the press should be given paramount importance in the process. Throughout cross-party talks, we agreed a set of proposals that will create a tough new system of self-regulation.
I believe the package put in front of us all today provides real incentives with real effect. It embodies a crucial part of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals and part of the tough new regime for press regulation. These amendments have been put forward with cross-party support, so I commend them to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I rise to support the Government new clauses in the group and the manuscript new clauses standing in the name of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The manuscript new clauses arise out of the cross-party talks, into which I thank the Secretary of State for inviting us. That explains why hon. Members have not, I am afraid, had much time to look at them. We all want to be sure that hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise provisions in advance, but because we worked late into the night in attempting to agree them, they have been brought before the House with inadequate notice. I offer my apologies for that.
I hope to add to the points made by the Secretary of State, with which I greatly agree. Also, because hon. Members have not had much chance to look at the manuscript amendments and consider what they mean, I shall try to explain my understanding of how they sit with the new framework set out in the royal charter.
As the Secretary of State has said, the choice Leveson made was not to impose direct regulation on newspapers as a complaints system, but to invite them instead to set up their own regulation system and to encourage subscribers to it, not only because it is a good idea as the framework is fair and reasonable, but because incentives and disincentives have been provided. That, of course, leaves the choice to them—the point of incentives and disincentives is that they incentivise and disincentivise—but encourages them to go into the new regime.
It is also crucial—this is a major change—that a new arbitration system is being set up. Over the years, people have wrung their hands about how inaccessible the courts are to people who have been defamed, while newspapers have wrung their hands about being tied up for ages with the enormous costs that can arise if some oligarch takes a newspaper to court. Importantly, therefore, arising from the Leveson report is not just a new complaints system but a new arbitration system. Media torts, defamation and privacy claims that would otherwise have gone to court will instead go into the arbitration system. The manuscript new clauses on cost will incentivise not only newspapers but individual complainants to go into an arbitration system and not straight to court. There is an incentive for a complainant who wants to bring an action against a newspaper that is a member of a regulatory body to agree to arbitration, which will be available to members of the body and which will be run inexpensively. A complainant who does not want to go to arbitration, who says “I will take my chances in court” and who then wins the case will not win the costs, and costs may be awarded against that complainant. Arbitration will involve no cost to complainants, and they will benefit from a top-rate, legally kosher procedure without having to go to court.
Guy Opperman
I am delighted to observe that the Labour party studied the legislation in such detail before presenting it.
I should probably declare that I am a qualified mediator and arbitrator. Under the current system, people involved in arbitration can appeal against the process if they are not happy with it, and the litigation can begin anew. Would that arrangement continue, and how would an individual litigant defamed by a newspaper or any other publication bring an action, given that—contrary to what the right hon. and learned Lady has just said—the costs of arbitration are very high?
Ms Harman
The royal charter requires the regulator to provide for an inexpensively run arbitration service which will impose no costs on complainants. As the hon. Gentleman will know, things can happen further along the chain after arbitration has been agreed to, but the essence of arbitration is that both sides embark on it agreeing that the arbitrator will settle the issue.
I think that this will be a great step forward, because it will deal with the problem of inaccessibility. Most people who are defamed, or whose privacy has been invaded in what is termed a media tort, would never dream of being able to go to court, although many lawyers are prepared to act on the basis of conditional fee arrangements. A free-to-use arbitration service is therefore an important component of the Leveson package contained in the royal charter. It is good news for claimants, but it also means that newspapers will be well and truly incentivised not to remain outside the regulatory body. If they are not in the regulatory body and arbitration is therefore not available to those who may complain about them, it is possible that when the case goes to court, costs will be awarded against them even if they win.
Ms Harman
That is how we understand that the system will work. May I invite the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) to answer his question at the same time as asking it? I suspect that he thinks he knows the answer better than I do. He does not, but he probably thinks he does.
Sir Edward Garnier
What a charming way of allowing an intervention! I should have thought that a fellow member of the former Solicitor-Generals’ club would be a little more polite to me. I shall have to take our dispute to arbitration as soon as possible.
There is no doubt that the proposal presented by the Government, and agreed to by the Opposition, to encourage people to become members of the regulatory body and to make use of an arbitration scheme has its attractions, but I think that the right hon. and learned Lady and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be careful not to be seduced into thinking that arbitration equals no expense, no time, and simplicity. The sorts of cases that go to arbitration can be just as complicated as those which go to court and the expense involved in a fully tuned-up arbitration is no less than that of a piece of litigation. So this is a jolly good idea and let us all say how wonderful it is, but let us not seduce ourselves into thinking that arbitration is some magic answer, because there will be plenty of cases where the interlocutory procedures will be far too complicated for speedy mediation or arbitration under the regulatory scheme.
Ms Harman
I am well aware that many arbitration cases are incredibly complex—for example, those in the construction industry. However, one thing that the recogniser established under the royal charter is charged to do is to see that the regulator, which is coming forward to seek recognition, has an inexpensive arbitration system. Obviously, it is not automatic that an arbitration system will be inexpensive—it could be very expensive—but the regulator, seeking recognition, has an opportunity to put forward a brand new system that starts off by trying to be as inexpensive as possible; it is free of cost for the complainant but there are the costs of running it. I apologise for my slightly waspish response to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention; I must have been trying to get my defence in first.
That deals with the point about arbitration and costs, and I now wish to deal with the issue of exemplary damages. Obviously, the bar for those is set very high and they are rarely awarded. As hon. Members will know, they occur where the court wants not only to quantify the compensation for the claimant’s suffering and loss—mental, physical and financial—but to teach the defendant a lesson. Sometimes called punitive damages, exemplary damages are awarded to make an example; they are like a public policy intervention that gives a good bonus to the claimant, because the court wants to teach the defendant a lesson and so imposes extra damages.
New clause 21A sets the bar for exemplary damages very high, as it provides that the “defendant’s conduct” must have
“shown a deliberate or reckless disregard of an outrageous nature for the claimant’s rights”.
In addition, the conduct must have been
“such that the court should punish the defendant for it”.
We know what we are dealing with here—very extreme conduct.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
We are being asked to legislate for exemplary damages here in this House, so does that mean that this really is a statutory system and that the right hon. and learned Lady won?
Ms Harman
No, because there is no statute that says, “We are setting up a system and we are passing a law to make all the newspapers be in it.” The newspapers have a choice as to whether or not they enter the system. However, the point is that we are incentivising them to enter it and disincentivising them from staying outside. They could make a judgment that they want to stay outside. They could decide that they do not want to go to arbitration and that they will take their chances with the court. They might decide that they will be so careful that they will never commit a media tort, and even if they did, that they would never get anywhere near the “outrageous” behaviour that would justify exemplary damages and so would not need to worry about that. I hope that they will not take the view. I hope they will think that, even if they are not behaving outrageously, they would want to shelter themselves from the prospect of exemplary damages. I hope that they will go into the system willingly. Exemplary damages will still be available to the courts to award against people who are in the regulator, but it is more or less a presumption that those people will not be in it. That is a major disincentive.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
There is clearly a very strong disincentive to go into the scheme for those who might qualify, but there is a grey area about which publications should fall within the scope of the scheme. Would it be possible under these arrangements for those publications that might not be sure to establish whether they should or could qualify for the scheme?
Ms Harman
Any publication could apply to be a member of a regulator. It would find out whether it came within the purview of that regulator, as the regulator might reply saying, “Sorry, we don’t regulate you.”
Exemplary damages simply give newspapers another incentive to join the regulator. The court is left with the opportunity to award exemplary damages, only in much narrower circumstances. I hope that all the newspapers—including those that did not agree with the setting up of the Leveson inquiry, with how Lord Leveson took evidence or with his report—will propose regulators and join them now that the report has been published and all parties have agreed that we should have the royal charter and the accompanying bits of statute. I am sure that the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister will want to do everything they can to say to the press, as the Prime Minister said in today’s debate, that it is impossible for the newspapers to hold the powerful to account if they are abusing their own power. A good complaints system, which is respected and has public confidence, is a good thing in principle, so it is important that the newspapers step forward and join the regulator.
After Leveson reported, he said that the ball was now in the politicians’ court. He asked us all to work together to agree and we did. Now, the ball is in the press’s court and I hope that they will rise to that challenge.
Mr Bacon
I am listening to the right hon. and learned Lady with interest, although she reminds me of George Orwell’s comment about the sort of people who play with fire without knowing that fire is hot. That comment is directed at those on both Front Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is a very old friend. They have no idea what they are playing with—no idea. Does the right hon. and learned Lady not understand that one person’s outrageous behaviour is another person’s sensible and moderate behaviour? Does she not understand that after Lord Hutton issued his whitewash report, some of those who criticised it were accused of acting outrageously?
Ms Harman
We are not talking about any old person’s view of deliberate or reckless disregard or conduct of an outrageous nature. We are not talking about my view of what might constitute deliberate or reckless disregard or conduct of an outrageous nature, or even the view of the Secretary of State. We are talking about the judge’s view—not any old person but a judicial personage—
Ms Harman
The hon. Gentleman needs to calm down and relax. We are giving the courts an opportunity to exercise their judgment so that when something is so outrageous that they do not think that the normal quantum of damages assessed on what has been suffered is enough, they can add to it. It is right that that should apply to media torts.
As I have said, Lord Justice Leveson urged us all to work together and we have. The Secretary of State invited us to cross-party talks and I thank Lord Wallace, who was the Liberal Democrat there. It just goes to show that one should not believe what one reads in the newspapers. I had read a lot about the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin),in the newspapers and thought he was an absent-minded professor type who was absolutely ditsy. I had read it in the newspapers, so I thought it must be true—[Interruption.] He is now in the Chamber. I discovered that it was not at all like that, and that he was very intelligent and purposeful. He played a key part in reaching this agreement, which is very important indeed.
We were ably assisted by a number of the Culture Secretary’s Conservative colleagues. I do not want to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) did and blight their reputations, but we found it incredibly helpful to be joined at our very long meetings—we had one meeting that lasted seven hours—by the hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
We tried to work on a cross-party basis because what the press have always done in the past is divide and rule. They have always sought to play one party off against another. We have to win elections, so having the press shining a light on us and saying how great we are is very tempting. It is hard to win the support of the voters. If we have the backing of the press, it seems much easier, especially if they are slagging off our opponents. That is what the press have always relied on—that we have never worked together to put a proper complaints system in place, but have allowed the press to divide us and rule.
Sir Bob Russell
Would the right hon. and learned Lady like to clarify that? Will she make it clear that when she refers to the press, she is referring to elements of the national press, not the local or the provincial press? They have got caught up in this, and they are not responsible.
Ms Harman
The Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister all acknowledged that successive Governments have not taken action to put in place a proper, sensible, reasonable complaints system, not because of the regional or local press, but because of the power of the national press, particularly the monopolistic power of the national press. We will have to move on to the question of monopolistic ownership, but not now because we are exhausted. However, the regional and local press have nothing to fear from having good standards and having a complaints system. One of the reasons why we worked to narrow the arbitration system was the great fears of the regional and local press. We know that they are facing very tough times so we do not want to do anything to make matters more difficult for them.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who is no longer in his place. He said there was something uncomfortable about dealing with matters behind closed doors. The royal charter is an agreement that is not subject to scrutiny. It does not go before a Committee or to the House of Lords. It drifts by in a flash, then it is up to the Privy Council. However, we cannot have it both ways. We can have Parliament crawling over legislation that applies to the press, which makes the press feel very uncomfortable and makes the Prime Minister apparently feel neuralgic. I do not have the same sensitivities, but apparently the Government do. We can avoid that through the royal charter process, in which case there is no parliamentary scrutiny. We cannot have both, and the choice has been to have a royal charter and a self-regulatory system, without parliamentary scrutiny of it, beyond the discussion that we have had.
In that respect, I shall mention one issue which is not the subject of the amendments but which comes into the question of the charter. I refer to conscience clauses for journalists. Many journalists gave evidence to Leveson and said, “We knew that we were being asked to do things that were in breach of the code and we wanted not to do them, but we feared that we would be sacked if we said, ‘We won’t do this.’” Journalists talked of being asked to do outrageous things but because it is so difficult, and fearing that if they lost their job they would never get another, they never dared speak up.Lord Justice Leveson proposed that the industry and the regulatory body should consider encouraging conscience clauses in journalists’ contracts. The relevant new clause has not been selected, so I will not mention it because that would be out of order. However, in schedule 2, on page 13 of the charter, which hon. Members have had scant opportunity to look at, there is what the Foreign Office calls a brush past. Basically, this is mentioned in paragraph 4.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Harman Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Robertson
Absolutely, in accordance with the answer that I gave earlier. It is recognised that there is an issue in this area, but there is a lack of authoritative evidence to back that up, and that is precisely what we are looking for.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I completely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). Concern is shared across the House, so we want to see the Government doing something about it. We all know—there is bags of evidence—that gambling is blighting people’s lives, and blighting our high streets too, given the prevalence of betting shops. We need only look down our own high streets; we do not need a research project to see what is going on. The Government say that they want localism and that they are in favour of local people having a say, so will they change the planning laws so that local people have the power to prevent any more betting shops from opening up on their high streets if they do not want them?
Hugh Robertson
The answer to the right hon. and learned Lady is yes, if the evidence supports that, but no Government of any colour have ever produced a policy without the backing of real evidence to support it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was of course a Minister in the previous Government, so if she wishes to laugh that probably tells us rather a lot. She might wish she had kept her mouth shut. As I said, once we have the evidence we will proceed.
Leveson Inquiry
Harriet Harman Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for affording the House the opportunity to have this debate. Last week, following the Prime Minister’s statement, the House agreed that victims had suffered terribly, that the Press Complaints Commission had failed, and that we must have change. Today, we must focus on how we make that change.
Let me turn right away to the most controversial issue in the Leveson report—the question of statute. At the heart of today’s debate is whether we have independent self-regulation backed by law. It is important that we are clear about why statute is required and what it would do. We need statute because the current system of self-regulation has failed—year after year, for 70 years, and despite seven major reports. It has failed not because there are not people of good will in the press and not because last chances and dire warnings were not given—there are people of good will in the press and last chances and dire warnings were given. Each time there has been a new incarnation of self-regulation by the press, everybody has started with the best of intentions, but every time, because there is no oversight, standards have slipped and wrongdoing has returned.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Does the right hon. and learned Lady recognise that the inquiry was set up because of two scandals—phone hacking and the bribing of police—both of which are against the law and neither of which will be tackled by the form of state intervention she is talking about?
Ms Harman
The inquiry was set up—I congratulate the Prime Minister on setting it up, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on demanding it—not only because the criminal and civil law were broken, but because the press demonstrably had not abided by their own standards that they set out in their code of conduct. To stop that happening again, we must decide who overseas the regulator, because currently no one does.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I am sure the right hon. and learned Lady remembers that the inquiry was established because of a number of smears from Opposition Members against the former Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. In view of the fact that the Leveson inquiry cleared my right hon. Friend of any such allegation, should she not apologise?
Ms Harman
Lord Leveson actually said he was not going to look into whether there had been a breach of the ministerial code. He said that was not a matter for him, and he was right; it is a matter for the independent adviser on ministerial interests, who did not get the chance to investigate because the Prime Minister did not refer the matter to him.
Sir Bob Russell
Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that her comments so far relate only to national media and the Westminster bubble? The allegations she has made are not fair to the thousands of local journalists on local newspapers.
Chris Bryant
Will my right hon. and learned Friend please rebut the myth that the report looked only at criminal activity? The families of the 96 who died at Hillsborough could not sue for libel—there was no defamation. Certainly, untruths were told and defamatory things were said, but the families could never have sued for libel—they had no recourse in law, and it took 23 years to get to the truth. That is why self-regulation failed.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The right hon. and learned Lady has a strong and honourable history on this matter. Earlier this year, she spoke to the Oxford convention and announced she was firmly in favour of press freedom. She said:
“Because the press are now in the dock, it looks like special pleading from a vested interest when they make the case for press freedom. That’s why it is all the more important that politicians must insist on the freedom of the press.”
What has changed?
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Lady please be careful about not overstating the need for statutory intervention? It is quite narrow—it is simply to verify the independent regulator, who comes forth from the press itself, and to provide the tools, so that there can be exemplary damages for those who choose not to be regulated by that new independent regulator. If she overstates the case for statute, she makes arguments against herself that are unnecessary.
Ms Harman
We should make the case for statute, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it should be as narrow as possible in scope.
Let me return to my comments and set out why self-regulation has failed. The problem with a purely self-regulatory body and nothing else is that there is a conflict of interest when those doing the judging—the press—are those being judged. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s answer to that decades-long problem is ingenious. It has drawn on, listened to and completely understood the concerns of the press. He does not throw out self- regulation, as some expected. Instead, he nominates a body to oversee the self-regulator to ensure it is independent and stays independent.
Ms Harman
I will press on with my comments, because many hon. Members want to speak.
That is the core reason why Leveson concludes that statute is, to use his word, “essential”. However, to follow up on the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), all that any statute would have to do is set out criteria about what independence means and check once every three years that it is still independent—that is all. The oversight body—the one prescribed by statute—would have no role in hearing complaints, no role in deciding whether they are justified, no role in laying down penalties, and absolutely no role in deciding anything that does or does not go into a newspaper. That would be down to the independent self-regulator set up by the industry.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving way. Does she agree that under Lord Leveson’s proposals, the recognition body would be an independent body that assessed whether the self-regulator was adequate, but that under the current Government proposals it would be the Secretary of State, as a single, lone politician, who is set to stand in the shoes of that recognition body and make that decision individually?
Ms Harman
That is a very good point, and I wish I had thought of it myself. [Laughter.] I think, in fact, it was my idea.
Let us be clear: having a statute to guarantee that is not some incidental add-on or optional extra to Lord Justice Leveson’s report. It is a complete contradiction in terms for people to say, “I want to implement Leveson, but without statute.” Leveson says that statute is “essential”.
Let us imagine the Leveson proposals on self-regulation without statute. Although I am sure that even if any new body started off being independent, without statutory oversight there would be no guarantee it would stay that way. It is inevitable that once again it would become controlled by the press, with editors marking their own homework—that has happened again and again. Why should we believe that we can carry on in the same way and that things will somehow be different? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. None of the other suggestions gets anywhere near answering that fundamental point of how to guarantee continuing independence.
Let me turn to Lord Hunt and Lord Black’s proffered solution. They claim that what they put forward is a truly independent system with tough sanctions. However, on closer inspection, it is a different story. They say that there would be an independent chair and board, but they could all be fired—the chair and the whole board—by the press barons just giving notice in writing. Lord Hunt and Lord Black say there would be tough sanctions, with penalties of up to £1 million, but then they say that those sanctions would be determined by the press barons. How is that independent?
Some have suggested that we do not need new statute because we could get a judge to appoint a new body, but a judge would not be able to do that without a statute. Many opponents of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations have said that we must not have statute—that it crosses the Rubicon and would pose a fundamental threat to our democracy. I want to address each argument against statute in turn. The first is that any statute affecting the press automatically ends a free press. We have heard that a lot in recent days, but there is surely an irony and a contradiction in that, for was it not the press themselves who asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for their inclusion in section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998? Is that not amendable legislation? Was it not the press themselves who asked for a new defamation Act? Is that not amendable legislation? The first argument—that any law mentioning the press undermines freedom—therefore does not and cannot hold.
Secondly, it is argued that the statute that Leveson proposes amounts to regulation of the press by a ministerially appointed quango, but this is not direct regulation of the press. The statute would only guarantee the system of self-regulation. It would remain voluntary to join, on the basis of incentives. In that, it is similar to the system in Ireland, which has been in place since 2009. As the Deputy Prime Minister helpfully reminded the House last Thursday, it covers all the newspapers operating in Ireland, which volunteer to be part of the Irish Press Council, which—heavens above!—includes the Irish editions of the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror. If that really posed a threat, where were the protests in Ireland? Why have those newspapers signed up? The UK editors say that any press law would end freedom of speech, so why have they not chained themselves to the house of the Taoiseach? The Foreign Secretary says that any press law in Britain would undermine freedom—and, indeed, democracy—around the world, so why has he not summoned the Irish ambassador for a dressing down? The Culture Secretary—
Maria Miller
I was just going to ask the right hon. and learned Lady how many cases had been brought under the Irish law. I think she will find that the answer is absolutely none.
Ms Harman
I am not quite sure what point the right hon. Lady is trying to make—I will have to think about that one.
Thirdly, there is the argument about a press law being the thin end of the wedge. A central feature of our democracy is that it is the responsibility of elected representatives to make and change laws, and we can do that at any time. Frankly, if that is a slippery slope, so is the very existence of Parliament. The only way to address that concern is to abolish Parliament, and I do not hear that being suggested.
Fourthly, let me deal with the argument that what is proposed would inevitably mean cumbersome legislation. Following our cross-party talks on Thursday, the Government agreed to prepare a draft Bill, but the Culture Secretary then said the Government were drafting the Bill only to show why it should not be done. That is why we are preparing a Bill that will show that it can be done in a tightly defined and forensic way, as envisaged by Leveson.
Let us look at the Irish law, which contains the clauses recognising the Irish Press Council. How many clauses do hon. Members think were needed to make that happen? Listening to the Government, we might assume that it took hundreds, but the answer is not hundreds, or even tens; it is just two. It took two clauses, one paragraph in a schedule and one schedule. The legislation is not a leviathan; it did not involve a huge, cumbersome Bill. The Bill that we are drawing up will show that this is possible, and we will, I hope, be working on a cross-party basis to take it forward.
Finally, there is the civil liberties argument. I do not believe that Lord Leveson’s proposals, which we support, would undermine freedom of speech. This is not about politicians alone determining what journalists do or do not write; far from it. The freedom of the press is essential. So, too, though, is that other freedom: the freedom of a private citizen to go about their business without harassment, intrusion or the gross invasion of their grief and trauma. I do not believe that those two freedoms are incompatible. A free press must be a responsible press. It must expose the abuse of power without abusing its own. That is what this debate is about, and that is why we should take forward Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals.