Media Plurality: Communications Committee Report

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on some of his points, because I want to take a slightly different perspective. We have dealt with plurality, yes, but I remain deeply concerned about the power of the national press, especially during elections. I quote the Leveson report on the issue of media ownership:

“The media ownership regime takes as its starting point the position that a variety of owners will represent a variety of different viewpoints. This cannot be taken as axiomatic as owners could have a very similar set of views and values”.

That is, for me, precisely the issue. The current market dominance and the partisan nature of our press inhibit the democratic process.

Let me deal with the European aspect. It is worth noting—and I say this as a previous chief election observer in Rwanda—that the internationally agreed principles for free and fair elections involve a balanced and non-partisan media in the run-up to and during the election. This process involves measuring the amount of coverage dedicated to each party, as well as the reportage. The EU handbook is clear. It highlights that the European Union approach is based on international human rights standards, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also underlines that election observation missions must adhere to the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, a landmark document, commemorated at the United Nations in 2005. It states:

“The concept of due impartiality does not mean that broadcasters cannot provide critical coverage of the candidates and parties”.

It goes on to state:

“The media therefore have a great deal of responsibility placed on them during election periods, and it is essential that the mass media of radio, television and newspapers provide a sufficient level of coverage of the elections that is fair, balanced and impartial, so that the public are informed”.

On that basis—of a highly partisan national press—it is clear on this point alone that the UK would not pass such an election observation mission.