Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for obtaining the debate, which is on an important subject. I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, and am delighted to see the vice-chair, the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), attending the debate.

The UK has a proud record of defending and promoting media freedom in this country and across the world. In 2019, the UK established the global Media Freedom Coalition, which now has 51 members. During my time of involvement in the media, which goes back quite a long way, I always paid careful attention to the annual publication of the world press freedom index. I am pleased that the UK’s ranking has risen substantially in recent years. We now stand at No. 23—still some way to go, but nevertheless an improvement. The reason we have improved is that a lot of other countries have gotten considerably worse, so we have risen as a result of their demotion.

The hon. Member for South Dorset is right that the phenomenon of SLAPPs has been a blot on our record for a considerable time. I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for 10 years. In 2009, we carried out an inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel. In particular, we saw the phenomenon of libel tourism, which, to some extent, continues to this day.

We heard about, for instance, the case of Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, a US academic who had written the book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It”. The book appeared in the United States; it had no British edition. Twenty-three copies were obtained in the United Kingdom by ordering over the internet. Despite that, a Saudi businessman named in the book took legal action against Dr Ehrenfeld in the UK courts. He was awarded considerable damages on the basis that Dr Ehrenfeld did not defend the action in a court that she saw as having no jurisdiction over the matter. That led to the introduction of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act 2008 by the New York state legislature, which basically said that residents of New York did not have to abide by foreign courts’ judgments in this particular area. Since that time, the situation has much improved and, of course, the Defamation Act 2013 sought to address the specific issue of libel tourism and raised the bar for claimants in libel cases. Nevertheless, there has still been a chilling effect.

We also heard from the author Tom Bower, who was subject to a legal action over a very small reference to Richard Desmond in his book about Conrad Black. Mr Desmond lost the action, but was prepared to pay a huge amount to bring it about. Certainly, it was Mr Bower’s view that he did so to demonstrate that he was willing to spend a large amount even on a small and relatively minor accusation. The result was that Mr Bower’s plans to write a book about Mr Desmond did not proceed because the publishers were too afraid of potential legal action.

As the hon. Member for South Dorset recognised, further measures since the Defamation Act 2013 have been introduced, primarily through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which focused specifically on the issue of SLAPPs around economic crime or allegations. When I returned to the position of Minister responsible for the media—in my second incarnation—we were nevertheless aware that it remained a problem. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport had established the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I hope is still in existence. The committee was originally set up to look at the physical threat to journalists and attempts to intimidate them through harassment—sometimes online but occasionally through physical aggression—and a lot of work was done on it. We then agreed that the issue of SLAPPs represented an attempt to prevent media freedom and to close down legitimate public interest journalism, so the committee extended its work to cover SLAPPs.

I remember that we heard from Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”, and Tom Burgis, who wrote “Kleptopia”, both of which revealed corruption, in one case on the part of an ally of President Putin in Russia and, in the other, on the part of some individuals in Kazakhstan. Both were subject to legal action against them personally as well as against their publishers.

Perhaps the most appalling example, which was debated in this House at length, was the discovery that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder and leader of the Wagner Group, had been allowed to circumvent the sanctions placed on him to bring a legal action against the director of Bellingcat, who had rightly identified him as the leader of the Wagner Group. That was a scandal, and I am glad to say that the decision was subsequently reversed. Again, it was interesting that somebody as notorious as that had chosen to bring an action in the UK.

The hon. Member for South Dorset suggested that it is a matter of shame that the UK is seen as the centre for such actions, and I share his concern to some extent. It is also a tribute to the strength and independence of the UK judicial system, which is admired around the world. The reason why so many people wish to pursue actions in the UK courts is normally that they have greater confidence in UK courts than those in many other places. It is right that we should take action where the motivation behind those actions is more to do with preventing legitimate inquiry.

As I say, the DCMS National Committee for the Safety of Journalists established a SLAPPs taskforce in 2023—I think that was in my third incarnation in government with responsibility for the media. The taskforce brought together Departments, such as DCMS and the Ministry of Justice, representatives of campaigning organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders and Index on Censorship, and publishers and journalists, including the News Media Association and the National Union of Journalists. The taskforce was chaired by Janis Makarewich-Hall, the excellent DCMS official. Its initial meeting was attended by the then Secretary of State Lucy Frazer, and I attended as many meetings as I could. That led to a lot of work on trying to understand the prevalence of SLAPPs, producing guidance for journalists, examining the legal ethics and what more might be done—both by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board—to ensure that law firms did not take on cases for which there was no real justification other than an attempt to shut down journalism, and raising awareness. Four meetings of that taskforce took place—I do not know whether it still exists, but I very much hope that it does. I would be interested to hear what work has continued under this Government, as a lot was done under the last.

As the hon. Member for South Dorset rightly recognised, Wayne David introduced a Bill that was prepared in government to tackle the issue of SLAPPs, and it was amended during its passage to strengthen it. It reached the House of Lords but it did not reach the statute book because of the general election. A lot of work has been done, and I hope that we can build on and learn from it.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has sent a number of cases as examples of SLAPPs—the hon. Gentleman quoted one of them. I do not want to use privilege to cite individual cases, but there is concern that it is happening in a number of areas, and we need to address it through legislative change. At the same time, it is important to recognise that individuals have a right to defend themselves against untrue and unfounded accusations. That is as much a fundamental part of liberty as freedom of speech. Not all cases claimed to be SLAPPs are SLAPPs, in my view—particularly those in which the claimant has subsequently proved successful in the action that they have brought in the court. That almost disproves the claim that it was a SLAPP to begin with, so we do need to be careful.

I have also had correspondence from the Society of Media Lawyers, which suggested that there is a lack of empirical evidence and that campaigners ignore existing legal and regulatory tools. It also suggested that this is an area that the Law Commission should perhaps review, but I have a concern that such a review is a way of pushing the matter into very long grass and would unnecessarily delay measures on which a great deal of work has already been done. Rather than doing that, I urge the Government to consider the work done in DCMS and the Ministry of Justice, and in particular the debates that took place during the Committee stage of Wayne David’s private Member’s Bill, and to introduce legislation to deal with the chilling of media freedom in the UK, which I absolutely recognise is a legitimate concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next section of my speech. We saw, during the passage of the private Member’s Bill before it fell on Prorogation, that there are strong and differing views on SLAPPs. I understand that there were still unresolved issues before Prorogation. The former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, the promoter the Bill, was a very good friend to me when I was previously in this House. I know there are current Members who would like me to just pick up where he left off, but I do not think it is quite as simple as that. I have read Hansard carefully and deliberately to ensure that I am aware of views across the House on this topic. I will also be meeting colleagues from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Home Office shortly to ensure we have a robust and joined-up response across Government.

This is an important and complex issue, where fundamental principles of free speech and justice are at play, so it is imperative that we take the time to get this right. Our immediate focus, therefore, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provisions. Our future approach to SLAPPs reform will be informed by monitoring the operation of the new procedural rules when they come in. We continue to build our evidence base, taking into account the views of stakeholders that were raised during debates on the private Member’s Bill. I also invite parliamentarians to continue engagement with us as we consider longer-term options to tackle SLAPPs beyond economic crime.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

As well as the legislative measures that were to be taken forward through Wayne David’s Bill, non-legislative measures were being developed through the SLAPPs taskforce. Could the Minister say whether that is still continuing?

[Heidi Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman also pre-empts the next part of my speech. I am very happy to tell the House that I am keen to consider a range of non-legislative measures—procedural measures in the court—while not ruling out the possibility of legislation in future, but I want to take time to look at what options will work best.

As I said, we are also paying close attention to evolving approaches to SLAPPs in other jurisdictions, notably following the adoption of the Council of Europe’s recommendations on SLAPPs, which were concluded last year.

Legislation is not the only weapon in our arsenal to deal with abuse of the system. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken action. Its updated warning notice on SLAPPs in May this year reminded solicitors and law firms of their duties and the serious consequences of breaches of those duties, with new fining powers of up to £25,000 when a regulated firm or individual does not meet its professional standards. The SRA also published guidance for members of the public who may have been targeted by a SLAPP, including details of how to report the activity so it can be investigated and dealt with promptly. Up until May this year, the SRA had received a total of 71 reports on SLAPPs, and two cases have been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. We remain engaged with legal service regulators on this important subject. I am clear that where UK law firms or practitioners are accused of breaching their duties, it is important that regulators can hold them to account and tackle poor conduct. I therefore welcome the work of the SRA in doing that.

The SLAPPs taskforce, referred to by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), was, as he will know, launched in September last year to support journalists who are working to investigate and publish stories in the public interest. The taskforce sits within the framework of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, and has worked on non-legislative measures to protect public interest journalism from SLAPPs, alongside the measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. The DCMS is engaged on this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), will be meeting members of the SLAPPs taskforce later this month to discuss progress, including how data collection and sharing has improved understanding of the prevalence of SLAPPs experienced by the media profession.

I am confident in the careful and considered approach that this Government are taking to the issue of SLAPPs. It is important that we listen closely to the differing views on this topic and that any action we take is proportionate. That involves considering a range of options for longer-term reform that accounts for the diversity of views expressed by stakeholders and those targeted by these abhorrent actions.

To echo the Prime Minister, behaviour that makes use of SLAPPs is intolerable and we will tackle it to protect investigative journalism and free speech, while also ensuring access to justice. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for championing this critical issue and all those who tirelessly campaign against abuse of our legal system and for freedom of speech. Nothing could be more important.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As I said, we are putting 20,000 extra officers into the system and £85 million into the CPS, and we are increasing expenditure on rape centres and ISVAs, although I am sure that in those areas, there is more we can do. There is also a review urgently under way to see what further steps we can take, but I believe that the actions that I have outlined, which are taking place as we speak, will move us back in a happier direction.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

10. What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of court proceedings covered by court reporters.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

We at the Ministry of Justice do not track or hold data on the number of reporters who report on court proceedings, but I am sad to say that anecdotal evidence suggests that in line with the general decline in local reporting, the reporting of local courts will have declined as well. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, he was instrumental in making sure, at the BBC’s charter renewal, that the local democracy reporting scheme provided £8 million a year to get local reporters into the courts. I congratulate him on that step and hope that there is more we can do along those lines in future.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), for the work that she has done in this area. Does he share my view of how important it is that court proceedings are properly reported by trained journalists so that justice can be seen to be done? Will he continue to work with the Society of Editors, the News Media Association and others to see what further measures can be taken to achieve that?

[Chris Philp]

I strongly concur and can certainly give my right hon. Friend the commitment he asks for. Certainly from the perspective of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, staff are given training to facilitate access by journalists, and the Ministry is currently giving very active and relatively imminent consideration to ways of making sure that court decisions and proceedings are brought more directly to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It was right that the coalition Government abolished IPPs, which were brought in by the previous Labour Government, and there is consensus that that was the right thing to do. The difficulty is that the Parole Board now assesses in each case whether someone with an IPP sentence would be a risk to society, and the board must obviously ensure that public protection is put first. It is also right that we seek to do everything we can to rehabilitate IPP prisoners so that they can be released into the community.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T7. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the separation of powers is an important element of our constitution, and that as a general rule the involvement of the courts in matters of political argument or debate may threaten that principle and create a dangerous precedent?

[Mr Gauke]

This country has a robust tradition of political free speech, and the electorate can and should hold politicians to account. We also have a robust tradition of the courts being capable of determining whether a case is meritorious or unmeritorious.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. This is a long-standing and very sensitive issue, one my predecessors have looked at closely. We continue to look at it; there are arguments on both sides, and we need to examine the cases carefully before we rush to any judgment on this.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T10. My right hon. Friend will be aware that last year a pilot project allowed television cameras into courts to film and broadcast sentencing procedure. Will he say what assessment he has made of that pilot and what plans he now has to extend it further?

[Lucy Frazer]

I know my right hon. Friend cares deeply about this important matter and he has raised it with me several times. Transparency is very important, and we are looking at the pilot. I am happy to update him, and I am looking forward to our meeting tomorrow with the Society of Editors.

Parole Board and Victim Support

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I do not think that this particular issue is, in truth, about resources. In terms of the requests for information made by some of the victims and the forms in which that was to be provided, which were established in 2009, some of the victims also requested to be informed at a later date. I stress, however, that I want a system that works adequately for victims.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the courage of those women who gave evidence against John Worboys, one of whom is well known to us on the Conservative Benches? Does he agree that it is essential that his victims have full confidence that their safety is a priority in the decisions of the Parole Board, which does not appear to have been the case this time?

[Mr Gauke]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the victims who came forward, very bravely, and in some cases waived anonymity to encourage others to come forward. It is important that their safety be paramount. It is important that the system has the confidence not just of the general public but of victims, and this case demonstrates that there is a need for changes to ensure that that can happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I am always bewildered by the approach of the Opposition to the charter. When Labour was in power, it claimed, rather fraudulently, that it was seeking an opt-out, but now that it is out of office and we are leaving the EU, it wants to opt back in. We have the strongest protections for human rights in this country, and they have been reinforced. We are going to see no diminution in those protections, but the charter adds uncertainty and is frankly surplus to requirements.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pilot scheme that allowed the filming of judges’ sentencing remarks in criminal courts has been a success? Will he now consider going further in allowing the broadcasting of court proceedings, so that justice is not just done but seen to be done?

[Dominic Raab]

We have made considerable progress in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and my right hon. Friend is right to say that one of the areas under review is the broadcasting of judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown court. Last year, we conducted not-for-broadcast tests in eight Crown court centres, and we are looking at the experience from those trials with the judiciary in order to see how best to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am not going to make my declaration about that now, Mr Speaker. This is a complex issue. There is a role for the local authorities to play, and there is some legal aid available, but I am in correspondence with Amnesty and am looking into the matter in detail.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the extent to which local media report on court proceedings.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

We are committed to upholding and strengthening the principle of open justice, in which local reporters play an important role.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that more than half of local newspaper editors have said that they think the courts are no longer being reported properly? Does he agree that justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done and that the decline of local media represents a real threat to that principle? What more can be done to address this issue?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Yes, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. This is an important area. We are committed to upholding open justice, and local reporting of court proceedings is a key part of that. Under our reforms, we will publish lists of forthcoming criminal cases and their outcomes. We will also allow access to virtual hearings via video screens in local courts, so that reporters can see those proceedings anywhere in the country. We hope that that will make a contribution to the important principle that my right hon. Friend highlights

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I entirely acknowledge the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman puts so well. A response to the Committee’s report is due shortly—clearly, once we have that, I will be in a position to say more—but I acknowledge his concerns and the need for proper evidence to underpin our response.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I share some of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and I urge those who have heard reports about what the Select Committee said to look at the report itself. The report did not say that there should be widespread liberalisation; it said that in specific areas local authorities that had concerns about the number of betting shops could consider whether they might be met by some flexibility in the numbers. I specifically agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the desperate need for more empirical evidence and research in this area. That must be addressed as a priority before we start taking decisions.

[Hugh Robertson]

I agree entirely.

Leveson Inquiry

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Over the past five years, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which I chair, has examined the issue of the standards and ethics of the press three times. Each time, what we have uncovered has caused us serious concern about the way in which the press operates in this country; we have revealed information that we all found truly shocking.

It is important that we remember the people who have suffered at the hands of the press, including the McCann family, the Dowler family and Christopher Jefferies. However, it is also important to note that all in those cases suffered as a result of breaches of the law. Breaches of the Data Protection Act, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the contempt of court laws and the libel laws were all involved in the suffering of those people.

That is one of the reasons why I agree strongly with the earlier remarks of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are still big questions to be answered about how serial breaches of the law could take place in newsrooms and how the police appeared to do absolutely nothing about it, despite having the necessary evidence for a number of years. I very much hope that we will see the establishment of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry—whether it takes place under Lord Leveson or not is not the most important point—because we need answers to those questions once the criminal prosecutions have been exhausted.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

So far as the breaches of the criminal law are concerned, will my hon. Friend confirm that, if a statutorily based supervisory body were to discover that the criminal law had been broken—through phone hacking, for example—that would become a matter for the police anyway as soon as it was discovered and that, terrible though the suffering of the Dowlers was, their case is, in a sense, really rather irrelevant to the supervisory body that we ought to have?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am not sure that I would say their case is irrelevant, because it plainly provided evidence of the way in which the press seemed to feel that they were above the law, and that is a matter for a body overseeing ethics and standards. My hon. Friend is right, however, to say that that matter should have been dealt with by the police, and we still need answers as to why it was not.

[Chris Bryant]

The point, surely, is that the Press Complaints Commission was part of the problem. It was self-regulating, and for far too long it admitted the “one rogue reporter” line that was being touted by News International because it saw itself as a spokesperson for the industry and for the newspapers, and not as an independent body.

[Mr Whittingdale]

It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I agree with him. There is no question but that all of us in this Chamber are of one mind that the system of self-regulation administered by the Press Complaints Commission has failed. The commission produced a report saying that there was no evidence that anyone other than the one rogue reporter was involved, at the same time as my Select Committee produced a report saying that there was ample evidence and that we found it inconceivable that the rogue reporter defence was true. We are all agreed that we cannot continue with a system of self-regulation. The idea of the press marking its own homework, as Lord Leveson rightly put it, does not work and cannot continue—but that is not what is in prospect today.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Victims have been mentioned many times today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that it is sad that, because they fear that the Government will let them down, the victims have started a campaign themselves. Is that not a sad reflection on what is happening?

[Mr Whittingdale]

It is our job in this House to persuade the victims that what is now in prospect is a different regime that would have the necessary teeth to prevent the kind of abuses they suffered. I believe that that is the case, and that we have a duty to get that message across to them.

Let me take us back to the report our Select Committee produced in 2010. We clearly said that we needed a new body, which needed to have

“the ability to impose a financial penalty”

when the press had failed, and to have a responsibility

“for upholding press standards generally”—

things that the Press Complaints Commission was never equipped to do. We went on to say in that unanimous report of the Select Committee two years ago:

“We do not accept the argument that this would require statutory backing, if the industry is sincere about effective self-regulation it can establish the necessary regime independently.”

Earlier this year, I chaired another Committee, a Joint Committee of both Houses on privacy and injunctions. Again, we looked at these matters in some detail. That body, too, reached a conclusion that

“the current system of self-regulation is broken and needs fixing.”

Again, that Committee recommended a new independent body with stronger powers. The report went on to say —this was supported by Labour members of the Committee —that

“should the industry fail to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the Government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight”,

but it went on:

“At this stage we do not recommend statutory backing for the new regulator.”

[George Eustice]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend was a member of the Committee who I know did not agree with that particular conclusion, but I will give way.

[George Eustice]

On precisely that point, a number of us here who sat on the Committee did indeed disagree with that and feel that there needed to be some statutory underpinning. Will my hon. Friend inform us how narrow the margin was when it came to endorsing this report at all?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I think I have the figures. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Committee divided at the end—10 in favour, and 7 against. I would point out, however, that among the seven were Lord Black of Brentwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who I think my hon. Friend will find are not necessarily totally in agreement with his particular viewpoint.

The Hunt-Black proposals are no longer on the table. I agree with Lord Leveson that they were not sufficiently independent. It is clear that the new body has to be completely independent of the press, and it has to have a board that does not have serving editors on it. There are elements where a new body could have some kind of statutory support. Some hon. Members may have seen the comments of Shami Chakrabarti, who talked about how a body could have statutory recognition. I would draw the House’s attention to the submission made to the Leveson inquiry by Lord Hunt, in which he pointed out that the Irish Defamation Act 2009 contains a provision that recognises the activity of the Irish Press Council and allows the courts to take account of

“the extent to which the person adhered to the code of standards of the Press Council and abided by the determinations of the Press Ombudsman and determinations of the Press Council.”

That seems to me entirely sensible. It is a way of giving the press incentives to join such a body. However, Lord Hunt went on to say:

“I do not believe this in any way crosses a ‘red line’ for those of us who have serious qualms about a statutory regulator: the Press Council in the Republic of Ireland may be recognised in a statute, but it is not created by it.”

That, essentially, is the difference in this matter. It is a question of whether we trust the press to establish a truly independent body with real powers that will be able to punish breaches of the code, and that the press will abide by it, or whether we believe that the press will not go along with that, and that therefore there must be statutory support. It is not a question of powers; there is no difference between what is on the table in terms of the powers available to the body and what Leveson recommends. It is merely a question of whether we trust the body, and the press, to go along with it. If we do not, we support the idea of statutory regulation. However, we must be clear about the fact that starting to legislate over the press would be a huge step for us to take.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that protecting journalists’ sources is a fundamental principle of investigative journalism? Leveson seems to want to throw that out of the window if the information has been “stolen”. Does he realise that under such a system none of the expenses scandal involving the House of Commons would have emerged, and is that not very worrying indeed?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I agree. I think that there are serious practical problems with some of Lord Leveson’s recommendations, and the hon. Lady has highlighted one of them. The whole area of data protection raises some very big questions. There is also the question of whether Ofcom should have any involvement in press regulation. I think that Ofcom itself would have severe misgivings about that, because it is not what it was set up to do. It was set up to do an entirely different job. It is a Government-appointed regulatory body, and even if it acts as a backstop regulator, that will be giving a Government-appointed body, the chairman of which is appointed by the Secretary of State, a role in the regulation of the press.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Is it not more important for us to establish total public confidence, which has been shattered over many years? My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned the Hillsborough families, one of whom wrote to remind me of the 23 years that it took to deal with the injustices, which were caused in large part by newspaper reporting, not least by The Sun. Is it not important for us to do that, on behalf of the victims and the public at large?

[Mr Whittingdale]

Of course it is important for us to establish public confidence. What we need to do is persuade the public that things will never be the same again: that the new regime on offer is completely different, that it is independent, and that it has real powers. However, as I think Shami Chakrabarti said at the weekend, the question of whether it requires statutory underpinning is about processes, not outcomes. We need to focus on the outcomes of this.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the proposed legal and financial incentives to be offered to the press would require legislation by the House to give the press privileges that are not available to other citizens?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I think I have already dealt with that, but the right hon. Gentleman is right. Lord Hunt himself suggested that there should be some statutory recognition of the body in the context of, for instance, defamation cases, so that it can be taken into account when damages are awarded. However, that is not the same as setting up a body by statute, or statutory underpinning. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to laugh, but there is a massive difference between the law recognising the existence of a body and the law somehow having power over that body.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) may have slightly misquoted Lord Justice Leveson—wholly unwittingly, I am sure? Lord Leveson identified the Daily Telegraph investigation of parliamentary expenses as an example of investigative journalism coming to the point, but surely the central fact is that there are aspects of privacy law that protect and enhance freedom of expression—for example, the right of journalists to protect their sources.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I have very little time left. I could probably spend another hour discussing the whole issue of privacy law, but I shall merely tell my hon. and learned Friend that I hear what he says.

I am absolutely at one with those in the Chamber who believe that we need to establish—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Mr Whittingdale]

— an independent regulatory body—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not test the patience of the Chair. A great many other Members wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I hope the hon. Lady makes better points than that if she is called to make a speech in this debate.

Turning to the objections that have been expressed about a light-touch regulatory system, I endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). First, there is the objection the Prime Minister uttered, which is that

“for the first time, we would have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 449.]

As I pointed out to the House last Thursday, and as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out again today, the Prime Minister’s claim is simply incorrect. The Press Complaints Commission came to me when I was Home Secretary to ask for protection to be written into the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly in respect of the apparent ease with which it felt complainants could otherwise get interlocutory injunctions to stop publication of material, for example, where it was likely to intrude into the privacy of individuals. I listened to the PCC and there were negotiations, the result of which is to be found in section 12 of the 1998 Act, subsection (4) of which says that when the courts are deciding whether or not to grant an ex parte injunction, they take into account, among other things, “any relevant privacy code”—the PCC code. In other words, it was the press themselves who wanted statutory force—legal force—to be behind their code, because they wanted protection. That was the crossing of the Rubicon, not anything in Leveson.

The second issue concerns the Irish Defamation Act 2009, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham made such important reference. The Prime Minister said that we should look at that Act, because it

“runs to many, many pages, setting out many, many powers of the Irish Press Council.”

He added:

“It is worth Members of the House studying the Irish situation”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 456.]

I have taken the Prime Minister’s advice, but it is a great pity that he failed to study that Act rather more closely. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, although it runs to 35 pages, the provisions relating to the Press Council consist of one section—section 44—one schedule, which is two and a half pages long, and linking provisions such as those linking back to section 27, which provides a public interest defence for media firms that have signed up to the Press Council and have adhered to its code. I hope that the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister responds to the debate, will answer the question that has been put time and again from the Labour Benches and, to a degree, from her own: if the Irish Defamation Act is good enough for the Irish press, and has worked for them and for the British media with titles in Ireland, why would such a short set of provisions not be good enough for this House and the British press?

[Mr Whittingdale]

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Lord Hunt asked for a similar provision to that in the Irish Defamation Act, and that that is not a problem? None of us objects to that; it is the statutory underpinning, which is a completely different prospect, that people find objectionable.

[Mr Straw]

The hon. Gentleman and I must be reading two different Acts, because section 44 of that Act contains statutory underpinning. It gives the Dail, the Irish Parliament, more direct power over the Press Council of Ireland than ever is proposed by Lord Justice Leveson for the press board in the United Kingdom.

Defamation Bill

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

If anybody is defamed by a publication in this country or wants to act against a defendant who is domiciled in this country, they will be able to bring an action. I do not regard that as libel tourism. The problem arises when two people in the same country start suing each other because half a dozen copies of some foreign language publication have in theory been available on some bookstall in London and this jurisdiction is chosen to try to get a remedy. I hope that what we have done will ensure that people with powerful interests around the world will not so easily be able to use our courts.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Saudi business man almost certainly exists? The Rachel Ehrenfeld case was heard in this country when there was no connection other than the 23 copies of her book that were sold, yet it resulted in the passage of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act in New York. It is a mark of shame against this country that New York state thought it necessary to pass an Act specifically aimed against this country.

[Mr Clarke]

I made my remark about the case being hypothetical to avoid being drawn into arguments about that case, which is rather familiar to people who know this subject. There are arguments about how far the plaintiff had connections with this country and a reputation here, but as it happens I was producing the example of a Saudi and an American purely hypothetically and I do not think I should get drawn into the merits of a past case. My hon. Friend, who is an expert in this field, rapidly understood why those particular nationalities had leapt to my mind when I gave the example.

Alongside these adjustments in the law to help support freedom of expression, I want to ensure that effective remedies are available for those defamed. Often what most concerns claimants is not financial compensation, but meaningful public clarification that a story was wrong. We have therefore included provisions in clause 12 extending existing powers to enable the court to order publication of a summary of its judgment. Parties will be encouraged to reach agreement, where possible, on the contents of the summary and issues such as where, when and how it is to be published. However, in the absence of agreement, the court will be empowered to settle the wording of the summary and give directions on those other matters.

In addition to protecting freedom of expression and reputation, the Bill seeks to modernise the law. Our biggest difficulty has been in relation to the web, the internet and so on. Currently, website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their site, even though the content is often determined by their users, but most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted by their users is defamatory or not, and very often, faced with a complaint, they will immediately remove material. The Government want a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively, but which ensures that information online cannot be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.