Press Regulation (Communications Committee Report)

Lord Strasburger Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his excellent speech and for the report of his committee. I start by making it absolutely clear that I am an ardent supporter of our free press—our free and disruptive press, which relentlessly holds to account those in power, whoever and wherever they are. I should also declare that I have a small interest in a company that helps whistleblowers to be heard, without risk to their careers and their personal safety. Furthermore, I have spoken in this House on several occasions about the behaviour of many police forces in evading the protection provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for the vital anonymity of journalists’ sources. So what follows in the rest of my contribution comes from a friend of a free press, albeit a critical friend so far as press regulation is concerned.

Let me begin by correcting an error that I made in a speech in this House on 2 November, the last time that I spoke on the subject of press regulation. I quoted an acquaintance who alleged that Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, had concocted the Government’s current consultation on the implementation of Leveson. Of course it is impossible to know what Paul Dacre discusses with the Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers during their private meetings, because although Leveson recommended that Cabinet-level politicians should publish a note of what was discussed in meetings with newspaper editors, and the detail of anything relating to press regulation policy, the Government have failed to implement those recommendations. They are numbered 82 to 84 in the executive summary of the report of the Leveson inquiry. Perhaps the Minister will explain why those recommendations have not been implemented. The former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale divulged, albeit under Select Committee questioning, that he met Paul Dacre two weeks before his decision not to commence Section 40. He said that the issue of Section 40 “may have come up”, but he would not give any further detail on what threats—I am sorry, what representations—Mr Dacre made. In any event, Mr Dacre has assured me that this curious consultation was not his idea. Of course I am happy to accept Mr Dacre’s word and put on the record his denial that he had any involvement in steering government policy, at least on this occasion.

The House will note that I have given my correction equal, if not greater, prominence to my original publication. That is a remedy I am happy to provide, but which Mr Dacre denies his readers, his victims and the public generally on a daily basis. It is a matter of record that when his paper, and other members of the sham regulator IPSO, publishes a correction of a grossly inaccurate article that was splashed on the front page, it is never given anything like the same prominence as the original attack. It is tucked away inside the paper where only those equipped with a magnifying glass will be able to read it.

About a year ago I tackled the chair of IPSO, Sir Alan Moses, on this subject. He replied that editors do not like front page corrections or giving them the same prominence as the offending article, but is that not exactly the point? If editors were forced by an independent self-regulator to do something they do not like every time they carelessly or maliciously malign an innocent victim, would they not take more care to avoid the defamation in the first place?

The same squeamishness about corrections applies to online publications. In the early hours of Monday this week, MailOnline published an apology to an entire family one of its columnists had grotesquely libelled a year ago. The columnist herself grudgingly tweeted a link to the apology at 2 am on Monday when few people would have seen it, but fortunately more than 12,000 Twitter users helped her overcome her shyness by retweeting her tweet to the world.

The Government consultation is clearly designed to undermine the Leveson settlement. It is designed to get one response, and one response only. Not once does the consultation document ask about the impact of failing to implement Section 40, or Leveson 2, on the victims of press abuse or on the public interest—not once. The very people whom the Leveson inquiry was established to get justice for have been totally sidelined in this consultation. It is a sham exercise to give the Government cover for a future decision not to implement Section 40 fully and to cancel Leveson 2.

An excellent report was produced by the Communications Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Given that it was written two years ago and much water has since gone under the bridge, perhaps its title should be changed from Press Regulation: Where Are We Now? to “Where were we then?”, although in truth not much progress has been made in the intervening period. It was written against the backdrop of an impasse in press regulation, with the press unwilling to grasp its last chance to adopt an independent self-regulator, and with Section 40 then expected to come into force shortly. So one would have hoped that the Government would have taken the report and the situation it describes, which is deeply unsatisfactory and essentially no different from pre-Leveson, as a reason to begin work on how to break the impasse and move Leveson forward. In fact, it has done the opposite, by failing to implement the reasonable measure that Leveson relied on to bring newspapers into the Leveson system. The Government have read the Communications Committee’s report and, instead of moving forward, have moved backward, undoing the will of Parliament and breaking the cross-party agreement in doing so.

Section 40, the Leveson incentive, is endorsed by the victims of press abuse, by the public in polls, by the National Union of Journalists, and by leading free speech organisations such as the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and Article 19. It is opposed by press executives and—it seems—the Government, who appear desperate to preserve the networks of power and unaccountability of the status quo.

That status quo is IPSO, a body established as a ploy to reject Leveson, which increasingly reveals itself as a lobbying exercise rather than a genuine regulator. Peter Wright, who has the grand title of editor emeritus at the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers, sits on IPSO’s complaints committee. Extraordinarily, he has taken it upon himself to write to all staff at the Mail calling on them to respond individually to the Government’s consultation and to oppose Section 40.

Meanwhile, IPSO has said it will respond to the Government’s consultation as well, and the chairman, Sir Alan Moses, has written to national newspapers in opposition to the Leveson system. With all the lobbying IPSO has done, it is perhaps no wonder that in two years it has not had time to issue a single fine or to begin a single standards investigation. It is a million miles away from the laughable description the press lobby give IPSO, which is billed as “the toughest regulator in the western world”. It has done no regulation at all—none.

As this report rightly notes, this appalling state of affairs is an injustice to the victims of press abuse who gave evidence to Leveson and to whom promises were made by the Government. It is an injustice to the public, who deserve a free and accountable press. It is also an injustice to this House, as the Government made commitment after commitment to us that Section 40 would happen and Leveson would be implemented. They averted a defeat in both Houses by signing a deal on which—through non-commencement—they are reneging. This is a serious matter for all noble Lords, regardless of where they stand on this issue. I commend the report and call on the Government to urgently commence Section 40 without further delay and to begin Leveson 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am certainly prepared to arrange to write a short letter explaining the Government’s view that it does comply and why we consider that it complies without going into a detailed legal analysis, if the noble Lord would regard that as sufficient at this time. As I said earlier, I would welcome his contribution to the consultation process and he might wish to reciprocate by responding not to me directly but in the consultation with his own expanded views as to why he does not consider that Section 40 complies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, observed, Sir Brian Leveson himself, a most distinguished judge, appeared to be of the view at a very general level that such a provision would comply with the convention.

I turn to one or two of the additional observations made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Best, in a clear statement outlining the background to his committee’s report, himself observed that matters were far from resolved—a view with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, concurred. He used the term “stalemate” with regard to the present position, which is why we have sought to bring about this consultation period. It is the one way to resolve such a stalemate.

My noble friend Lord Inglewood came up with a novel suggestion of tying in the complaints procedure to the operation of VAT. I have to confess that that does not strike me immediately as a use of Occam’s razor. The idea that we should merge our regulatory system of value added tax with press regulation appears at first to be a recipe for further potential confusion and difficulty—but I note his point about the various ways in which a cat can be skinned and of course we will give that further consideration.

I cannot accept the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, suggested that the Government had spat in Parliament’s face with regard to Section 40. I simply do not accept that characterisation. He asked whether there was a better way or a compromise. There may be a better way; that is the purpose of the consultation. It is something that we must seek to bottom out. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, observed that there had so far been a failure to produce resolution—which is why, again, we consider it important that there should be this consultation period.

The noble Baroness suggested that the Government had intervened to suspend commencement of Section 40. That is not factually correct. There was never a commencement provision in respect of Section 40, unlike in respect of the provisions of the Act with regard to exemplary damages. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford also referred to compromise. Again, that is why we are proceeding down the route of consultation at this stage.

I have already referred to the observations of my noble friend Lord Lexden, but they are worthy of repetition. He said that we have a “diverse, irreverent, bold” press that is woven into our freedoms and our liberty. That must never be forgotten.

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, raised the question of the recommendations in Leveson at paragraphs 83 and 84. I just remind him that paragraph 29 of the consultation document states:

“The Report”—

meaning Leveson—

“made recommendations on the relationship between the press and politicians. The Ministerial Code was amended and, as a result, all Ministers (as well as Special Advisers and Permanent Secretaries) must now disclose details of all meetings with media proprietors, editors and senior executives wherever they take place. This information is published on a quarterly basis”.

I add only that I take issue with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that IPSO is to be regarded as some form of ploy. With the greatest respect, that does not acknowledge the work of Sir Joseph Pilling in reviewing independently the setting up and operation of IPSO. Albeit it has not gone as far as we may have wished, or as many would have wished, and it may not go as far as the regulatory regime would at present require, nevertheless it has moved and at least in the correct direction.

Finally, I simply note that as we go forward I acknowledge the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza: you cannot take democracy for granted. You cannot take the freedom of the press for granted, either. When we speak of “truth”, we must again pose the question of whose truth we refer to. This Government are determined that a balance be struck between press freedom and the freedom of the individual. Those treated improperly must of course have redress. Likewise, politicians must not seek to stifle the press or prevent it doing legitimate work such as holding us to account when required. The conclusion of the Communications Committee report makes clear the importance of finding an adequate balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression. I thank the committee for its ongoing work in this important area.

[Lord Strasburger]

I need to correct an error that the Minister made in his speech. He described my speech as being critical of the Pilling review and calling it a sham. Hansard will show I made no reference to the Pilling review so it is rather unlikely that I called it a sham.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord, he said that IPSO was a ploy and that the Government’s consultation was designed for only one response and was a sham, and he referred to the sham regulator IPSO—as Hansard will show.

[Lord Strasburger]

My Lords, I did not make any reference to the Pilling review.