Nick Clegg has just told Parliament that the victims of phone hacking and tabloid abuse deserve swift progress on Lord Leveson’s “proportionate and workable” reforms. After the Prime Minister had told the House that he was unconvinced for the need for any changes in the law, Nick said that it was important that Leveson’s incentive scheme was recognised in law so that the courts could take account of it. He also cited the example of the Irish system as having statutory underpinning. He said he wasn’t aware of complaints from the many UK newspapers with Irish editions.
However, he said that there were issues raised by Leveson that deserved greater scrutiny – on data protection and the use of OFCOM particularly.
Here is his statement in full.
With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Leveson Inquiry.Mr Speaker, I’m grateful for the opportunity to address the House. I know it’s unusual – but this is an unusual debate. The terms of reference for Lord Justice Leveson’s Inquiry were agreed on a cross-party basis. As the House has heard, we intend to proceed on a cross-party basis. And so I think it is right that Parliament is clear on the initial views of the Government across the Coalition.First, let me say that I agree with a huge amount that has already been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which bodes well for the cross-party talks taking place later this afternoon.I would like to thank Lord Justice Leveson for his extremely thorough report. In my view there are two big, liberal principles at play in this debate: on the one hand, the belief that a raucous and vigorous press is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy; on the other, the belief that the vulnerable, the innocent and the weak should be protected from powerful vested interests.A free press does not mean a press that is free to bully innocent people or free to abuse grieving families. What I want now is for us to strike a better balance between these two liberal principles so that our media can scrutinise the powers that be, but cannot destroy innocent lives. So that the journalists up in the press gallery can hold us – the politicians – to account, but we can look up to the individuals and families in the public gallery knowing they have the right protections in place.I have always said that I would support Lord Justice Leveson’s reforms, providing they are proportionate and workable. I will come onto why – at first glance – I believe that to be the case for the report’s core proposal: for a tougher system of self-regulation, supported by new, independent checks, recognised in law.But I don’t want to disguise the fact that I do have some specific concerns about some specific recommendations. For example on data protection rules, and any changes to the way in which journalists can use personal information when reporting in the public interest. And on the suggestion that it should be Ofcom who independently verifies the new press watchdog. Ofcom has a key role in regulating the content of broadcast media and I’m yet to be convinced that it is best placed to take on this new, light touch function with the print media too. Lord Justice Leveson has said this function could be fulfilled by a new body.However, on the basic model of a new self-regulatory body, established with a change to the law in principle, I believe this can be done in a proportionate and workable way.I understand the entirely legitimate reasons why some members of this House are wary of using legislation. I have thought long and hard about this. I’m a liberal, I don’t make laws for the sake of it – and certainly not when it comes to the press. Indeed, when I gave my own evidence to the Inquiry, I made the point that, if we could create a rigorous, independent system of regulation which covers all of the major players, without any changes to the law, of course we should.But no one has yet come up with a way of doing that. Lord Justice Leveson has considered these issues at length. He has found that changing the law is the only way to guarantee a system of self-regulation which seeks to cover all of the press. And he explains why the system of sticks and carrots he proposes has to be recognised in statute in order to be properly implemented by the courts.What is more, changing the law is the only way to give us all the assurance that the new regulator isn’t just independent for a few months or years, but is independent for good. Someone will need to check, periodically, that the independence of the regulator hasn’t been weakened over time. The report explains why that needs to be set out in law.And, as Lord Justice Leveson himself says: ‘this is not and cannot be characterised as statutory regulation of the press’. This is a voluntary system, based on incentives, with a guarantee of proper standards. It is not illiberal state regulation.It’s worth dwelling on that point for a moment. Because while there has – rightly – been a lot of discussion about the risks of legislating, there have so far been some key arguments missing from this debate.First, the press does not operate in some kind of lawless vacuum. It has to abide by the law. In many instances it is already protected by the law and I agree with the report that we should actually go further in enshrining the freedom of the press in statute.Second, it’s been suggested that using law will blur the line between politicians and the media. But we mustn’t ignore the extent to which that line has already been blurred under the current system of self-regulation. It’s the status quo which has allowed such cosy relationships between political and media elites to arise in the first place. And let’s not forget, of the five PCC Chairs, three were serving parliamentarians who took a party whip. Far from allowing greater overlap, the laws that have been proposed give us a chance to create a hard wall between politics and the press.Third, as the report notes, there is already an example of statutory underpinning in the Irish Press Council, which has been accepted by a number of UK newspapers. The Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, The Sun, the Sunday Times, the Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror are all members – they all publish Irish editions. I haven’t yet heard these papers complain of a deeply illiberal press environment across the Irish Sea.Of course, neither I nor anyone can be certain of exactly how these proposals will look until we have worked up the detail. The two tests I have set – that any reforms must be workable and proportionate – will need to be met in practice as much as principle. And, if they are not, I will be the first to sound the alarm. In that event, we would need to consider alternatives. The absolute worst outcome in all of this would be for nothing to happen at all.But we mustn’t now prevaricate. I – like many people – am impatient for reform. And, bluntly, nothing I have seen so far in this debate suggests to me we will find a better solution than the one which has been proposed. Nor do I draw any hope from the repeated failure of pure self-regulation that we’ve seen over the last 60 years.We need to get on with this without delay. We owe it to the victims of these scandals, who have already waited too long for us to do the right thing. Too long for an independent press watchdog in which they can put their trust. I am determined we do not make them wait any more.I commend this statement to the House.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1312
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Elon Musk becomes even more unpopular with Brits
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
David Garlick
10 Comments
for the first time I find myself impressed and in agreement with Nick Clegg.
Leverson’s report does need implementing and written into legislation.
I think there is a case that thing’s might have gone further.
Overall I think it is good though that the DPM and the Liberal Democrats should be able to “openly” disagree with the Prime Minister and the Tories, especially when it comes to policies that were “not” in the coalition agreement.
Hopefully we will see more of this in the future, especially if people want to make the argument that coalition politics can work. (I am not convinced of that yet though)
If (call me) Dave holds his line on this and refuses to allow the law to hold the press to account, I think the LibDems should push for an open vote in the House. I think they would have a majority and at last oust these people who are still obviously under the thumb of the ginger one, LOL .
Here is Liberty’s response, for comparison:
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/press/2012/liberty-responds-to-leveson-report.php
There is support for the establishment of a new regulator, with statutory ‘carrots’, but opposition to any element of compulsory state regulation.
Nick Clegg’s statement seems ambiguous on last, rather crucial, point. He speaks of the importance of the system being voluntary, and expresses scepticism about the proposed role for Ofcom of verifying that the new body is doing its job. But it’s not clear whether he thinks this should be left to the courts, as Liberty does. As for the proposal that newspapers who don’t wish to participate in the new body should be regulated by Ofcom, I can’t see a comment on that in Clegg’s statement (though obviously it would go against his stress on the voluntary nature of the system).
Liberty also supports the increased penalties and compensation for misuse of personal data. Presumably this is the recommendation that Nick Clegg expresses concern about in his statement?
@matt Disagree?
“As the House has heard, we intend to proceed on a cross-party basis. And so I think it is right that Parliament is clear on the initial views of the Government across the Coalition.”
To me, Nick is putting into practice a tried and tested Quaker practice, that allows all views to be aired, before work starts on building a consensual solution to which all can subscribe.
Lord Justice Leveson has said that he makes his recommendations on the `essential’ part of the 2204 page report that there has has to be a press regulator to verify the work of the new media body that has to be independent with powers to respond to prevent and respond fairly to all further harmful complaints on press intrusion.This is only possible by statute law.
Nick Clegg has demonstrated great leadership skills in defending the principles of privacy for ordinary individuals and families, like the Mc Canns and Dowlers.He fully understands that liberal freedom and liberty can only be best be served for individuals and families , by implementing Leveson`s sine qua son (without which there is nothing) recommendation.
Parliament has to find a way to frame a new law that assures people that there will be a permanent guard of the ` guardians’ in protecting both the free press and the individual rights of redress to bullying and privacy of grieving families.
So what happened to Stephen Tall’s blog supporting Cameron’s position?
Formervoter,
Have a look here… http://stephentall.org/
Cameron is right and Clegg is wrong. Never thought I would write that sentence.
It’s rare for me to find myself in agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister, but on this occasion I do. Now where did I put that “I agree with Nick” badge?
I also liked your President’s contribution to yesterday’s debate: Perhaps someone can remind me of his exact words; If I recall correctly , it was something to the effect that by legislating as Leveson has recommended, Parliament would not be crossing a Rubicon , so much as crossing a very small ditch.
As debate rages over press regulation following the Lord Leveson report one issue that should be on the agenda is protection against racism and prejudice.
Under the existing Press Complaints Commission editors have been given a green light to be as racist as they dare provided it is directed against a whole community as opposed to an individual.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. The PCC has frequently been called a paper tiger, a toothless club of editors protecting each others’ backs under the pretext of self-regulation.
And one of the clearest examples of this is their failure to protect communities against headlines springing from made up stories designed to whip up the hatred of their readers rather than inform the public in the public’s interest.
In the PCC’s eyes it just doesn’t matter how personally offended you are about an article. It is of no consequence whether a newspaper attacks the sacred tenets of your faith, stereotypes your community or incites anger that could provoke violence in the streets. If you are not personally named in the piece your only redress is the police and courts.
As a result the likes of the Daily Express and Daily Mail regularly splash with front-pages of bile-stirring outrage over immigration and exaggerated or even invented stories about Muslims.
The Leveson report cited several examples:
The Sun: Ran a fabricated story about a Muslim plot to kill prominent British Jews.
Daily Mail: Ran an inaccurate story headed “Café wins fight to fry bacon after Muslim complaints.”
Daily Mail: Wrongly reported that a judge allowed an immigrant to stay in the UK because his “right to family life” protected his relationship with his cat.
Daily Mail: Wrongly reported that a failed asylum seeker was allowed to stay in Britain “because he goes to the gym.”
Daily Mail: Ran an untrue story that a Tamil hunger striker had been caught on a surveillance camera eating McDonald’s burgers.
Daily Express: Published a front-page headline “Muslim plot to kill the Pope” which had no basis in fact.
Daily Express: Ran a story headlined “Migrants more likely to claim jobless benefits” although the study concerned showed migrants were less likely to claim benefits.
Daily Star: Ran a story about a non-existent ban on selling Remembrance poppies in Muslim areas with a fictional claim that a council was to provide “Muslim-only public loos.”
Daily Star: Ran an entirely speculative story “Asylum seekers eat our donkeys” about nine donkeys disappeared from Greenwich Royal Park.
The PCC has specific guidance on reporting asylum and immigration stories warning editors to avoid the “danger that inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts.”
However it is clear that this guidance is no deterrent to newspapers and something much stronger and enforceable, is needed.
The examples Leveson highlighted is just the tip of the iceberg. The TabloidWatch blog chronicles many other such examples. The Daily Express is the worst offender with front-page headlines such as:
BRITAIN MUST BAN ALL MIGRANTS
ONE IN 5 BRITONS WILL BE ETHNICS
KEEP OUT, BRITAIN IS FULL UP
MUSLIM SCHOOLS BAN OUR CULTURE
WHITE MEN TO FACE JOBS BAN
STRANGERS IN OUR OWN COUNTRY
Leveson, to his credit, devoted some time to this area, and wrote:
The identification of Muslims, migrants, asylum seekers and gypsies/travellers as the targets of press hostility and/or xenophobia in the press, was supported by the evidence seen by the Inquiry.
The following headlines, which appeared to have little factual basis but which may have contributed to a negative perception of Muslims in the UK: ‘Muslim Schools Ban Our Culture’; ‘BBC Puts Muslims Before You!’; ‘Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims’; ‘Brit Kids Forced to Eat Halal School Dinners!’; ‘Muslims Tell Us How To Run Our Schools’.
The evidence demonstrates that sections of the press betray a tendency, which is far from being universal or even preponderant, to portray Muslims in a negative light.
The tendency identified in the preceding paragraph is not limited to the representation of Muslims and applies in a similar way to some other minority ethnic groups.
The evidence suggested that, in relation to reporting on Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers, there was a tendency for some titles to adopt a sensationalist mode of reporting intended to support a world-view rather than to report a story.
It is one thing for a newspaper to take the view that immigration should be reduced, or that the asylum and/or human rights system should be reformed, and to report on true stories which support those political views. It is another thing to misreport stories either wilfully or reckless as to their truth or accuracy, in order to ensure that they support those political views. And it does appear that certain parts of the press do, on occasion, prioritise the political stance of the title over the accuracy of the story.
Nonetheless, when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning.
The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment.
Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration.
While great care is needed over press regulation there is a pressing need for protection against the constant stream of hateful stories targeted at groups of people which incite hatred and prejudice. I believe this demands legislation, in particular meshing together a new press law with existing equalities laws.
It should no longer be acceptable to print unfounded or highly exaggerated headlines attacking Muslims, asylum seekers or any particular community without the editors and journalists being held accountable.
As a journalist of many years I value press freedom highly but with freedom must come responsibility. And it is clear that sections of the popular press are determined to spread disharmony, resentment, suspicion and loathing of particular communities on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis all in the name of commercial sales.
The only time I can recall the PCC ever slapping down a publication for unfairly criticising a whole community was on the issue of accuracy. When Rod Liddle of the Spectator wrote that African-Caribbean’s were responsible for committing most crimes the PCC forced the magazine to apologise because Ministry of Justice figures proved otherwise.
Yet there was not a word in the judgement about racism. Indeed there was no mention of several other comments Liddle had made in the same article, such as the claim that Caribbean’s had not contributed anything to Britain’s culture other than “rap and goat curry”, a comment that is not just inaccurate but dripping in prejudice.
But when columnist Taki, writing in the same magazine, claimed that Caribbean’s were “multiplying like flies” that somehow passed the PCC’s accuracy test.
In both cases racism didn’t feature at all because the PCC’s code of conduct only deals with prejudice if it has been specifically directed against a named individual.
If someone can demonstrate how we can create an effective self-regulatory regime that deals with this area I will be interested to hear those arguments. But until that day, I maintain that statutory regulation is needed to deal with the issue of deliberate prejudice.
To quote Leveson again, certain newspapers are guilty of running stories “calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment.”
The arguments for a statutory regime which stops this are strong. Self-regulation has manifestly failed – even with specific PCC guidance – and is highly unlikely to provide a solution in the future. In the absence of a convincing case that newspapers can deal with such excesses themselves we should legislate to stop this torrent of prejudice and hatred.