Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I have some trepidation in speaking before a former Lord Chancellor does, but perhaps what I have to say will help. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for reminding the House that I was the Minister who took through the LASPO Bill and I have been watching the Labour Front Bench nodding in unison at every word that could possibly embarrass the Government. However, the origins of what we are doing now lie with the last Labour Government, who shared then the growing cross-party consensus that we were becoming a more litigious society, driven by a compensation culture and a determination to have our day in court—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to Jack Straw’s campaigning on whiplash—and the response to that was the setting up of the Jackson report under Sir Rupert Jackson.

It is interesting to note that one of the reasons for the setting up of the Jackson report under the Labour Government was that the costs in civil litigation were often disproportionate to the issues at stake. Lord Justice Jackson, who has just retired, spoke at the Cambridge law faculty on 5 March 2018 and, reflecting on his reforms, he said that the problem was that,

“Almost everyone perceives the public interest as residing in a state of affairs which coincides with their own commercial interests”—

he might have said professional interests as well.

My locus in this is not as a lawyer—I have told the House before that when I was a Minister I once said to a visiting distinguished American lawyer, “I must explain that I am not a lawyer”, and he said, “Then I shall speak very slowly”—and, given the array of legal advice and talent we have already heard, I tiptoe into this with trepidation. This is based partly on a family experience of a whiplash, which was clearly fraudulent but the insurers thought that the cost of defending was greater than simply settling. That left me with the experience of not only a fraudulent claim but a fraudulent claim which was sustained by the obvious collusion of both the solicitors and the doctor concerned. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to talk about a racket in which many respectable professions are involved. Those overseeing those professions have a duty of care to root out those who are complicit in these frauds.

As I have said, there was a growing cross-party consensus that something must be done. I confess that seven years ago I answered a Question from the Dispatch Box assuring the House of the urgency with which the Government were dealing with the issue of whiplash. I say to my Front Bench and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for whom the affection and respect I have is overwhelming, that I worry his amendment is just another one kicking the problem down the road when everybody else who speaks on it recognises that there is a problem. This has been said on a number of occasions: we are dealing with not the kind of catastrophic life-changing injuries that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, often refers to when we discuss medical negligence, but the very lowest level of claims where, as the noble Lord again said, many people would not even think of claiming if they were not spurred on by the claims management industry out of its own self-interest.

I fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Marks said about the need for others to take responsibility, not least the industry itself, for fighting fraud and making attempted fraud not worth while. I worry that the legislation says that we need a medical certificate. Somebody said, maybe in a private briefing, that there was one doctor who had a kind of Roneo of letters that he just signed. If you are going to have a medical check in this, you have to make sure that it is not part of the fraud because in the past it has been.

Nevertheless, it is rather sad that we have this collection of amendments. I look forward to the usual forensic dissection of them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. There are some good and some not so good ideas in there, but I do not want us to see something that becomes a wrecking amendment when we have waited for far too long for this. Perhaps because I am not a lawyer I do not share the fear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that we are setting some terrible precedent that will weaken the role of the judiciary. I do not see that at this very low end of the process. I hope that, in our usual way in this House, we can extract some of the good ideas that have been put forward but not lose the sense of urgency with which the Bill, at last, tries to address a real problem in a practical way.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I will speak primarily about the amendments that my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf has proposed. This part of the Bill is concerned only with claims for pain and suffering. It has nothing to do with any other form of loss. Other forms of loss are easily quantifiable, but loss arising from pain and suffering is a development of the law that has very little in the way of structure.

When I was a junior at the Scottish Bar long ago these matters were often the subject of jury claims. Pain and suffering was an element in a jury claim. The judges were warned against suggesting a figure to the jury. You can imagine how difficult it was to provide a summing up that dealt with that. I remember well that one of the senior judges that I knew had a formula in which he said, “This is a sum to mark your sense of the pain and suffering that the claimant has suffered”. That was done by juries; it was before the time that judges were involved in this, and therefore it was a jury question. It has all the character of a jury question in the sense that there are no rules that I know of—none has so far been quoted—to determine the amount to be given. How has that been done? As my noble friend has just quoted from the judicial guidance, it has been done by collecting what others have decided in other cases. There is nothing specifically judicial about that. I think almost any of us could manage to deal with that; you do not need to be a very experienced judge to do that kind of calculation.

Proposed Media Mergers

Lord McNally Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place. On the decisions announced today, the best thing that can be said is that they are not unexpected. Comcast cast a shadow, but not as long as that of 21st Century Fox or indeed the Murdoch Family Trust. The key issue raised today is the question of what undertakings would be accepted to ameliorate the CMA finding that a Sky-21st Century Fox merger is likely to operate against the public interest on media plurality concerns. I do not disagree that divestment of Sky News to a suitable third party such as Disney is the least worst of the available options, provided that appropriate remedies are put in place to assuage media plurality concerns.

The CMA report sets out some draft terms for such a divestment and Fox has indicated that these are acceptable. However, the Statement makes it clear that more work is required on this issue and we will want to scrutinise carefully what is finally proposed, to ensure that Sky News remains financially viable over the long term, is able to operate as a major UK news provider and is able to take its editorial decisions independently, free from any potential outside influence. Will the Minister confirm that Parliament will be kept informed of progress in these negotiations?

In the conclusion to his Statement, the Secretary of State says that the Government have followed,

“a scrupulously fair and impartial process, based only on relevant evidence and objectively justified by the facts”.

I was glad to hear that. As required by the Enterprise Act 2002, the Secretary of State has been operating in a quasi-judicial role and I accept that both he and his predecessor have been punctilious in following that approach. However, if we are reaching the end of this complex process, does the Minister accept that if,

“we want to see a broadcasting industry in Britain that is strong and effective and competitive”,

as the Statement has it, we need urgently to review whether we have the right regulatory structure and statutory powers in place for the modern world?

Does the Minister agree that there are aspects of the public interest test on media mergers which now need to be reconsidered? Many of the powers are found in the Communications Act 2003, which first brought in the public interest test for media mergers. Fifteen years on, the media landscape has greatly changed and with it comes the need to review, strengthen and future-proof this important legislative measure. We need to widen the definition of “media enterprises” to which the public interest test refers. Currently, the definition does not include enterprises such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and others. Nowadays, many people take more of their audio-visual content off YouTube than from conventional broadcast channels, or they seek their news through Twitter or from apps on smartphones and thus not necessarily through broadcast platforms and channels. If the public interest can be engaged by the dominance or inappropriate control of a broadcast channel, why is it not engaged by the platform or channel through which large-scale news-related and other material is delivered to the whole population?

Ofcom needs the same powers when carrying out its Enterprise Act competition functions as are currently available to the Competition and Markets Authority, and specifically the power to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Without these powers, Ofcom is playing second fiddle. We need to think harder about the fit and proper test itself, which is currently couched as the,

“commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of the standards objectives”.

However, these standards relate only to television and radio services. We need to think about how a commitment to the attainment of standards can be evidenced through the control of media enterprises that are more widely construed. This test would eliminate the risk that behaviour outside the scope of television and radio, and beyond the specifics of the broadcasting standards code, would not be able to be drawn in aid in determining fitness. Presumably we are also thinking about the question of control over other channels, newspapers and organisations. I also think that we could learn from the experience of the “fit and proper test” in other sectors such as financial services.

Finally, we need to think harder about how to protect the editorial freedom of the news services of media enterprises and see that safeguards are in place. Media plurality—the plurality of ownership—does not necessarily mean that editorial freedom is protected and safeguarded.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. For someone who is not always clear on these great battles, where does this put the Comcast bid and the Fox-Disney bid? Are they now parallel bids and will Sky shareholders now decide which is the best deal? I read somewhere that Sky has advised its shareholders that it no longer stands by an earlier recommendation to accept the Fox bid. Once the procedure has been gone through, will it be a straight fight on price for Sky or are there other considerations?

I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just said: this keeps on happening. No other country in the world would allow important parts of its media industry to be fought over by foreign interests in such a way. We have here a battle between three massive American media conglomerates over a key part of our media industry. Moreover, as the noble Lord has just said, all this is being done in the long shadow of even bigger technology companies that may be coming in. We need a framework of defences for this key sector. As we said when we considered these issues 20 years ago, we are not talking about tins of beans. When these companies pass on to different control, we are talking about an essential part of a functioning democracy. There is a case for looking at the powers of Ofcom and the CMA and the Government’s responsibilities in this media area, which are badly in need of an overhaul.

The only other thing I have to say is that it is important that we get the decision right. I am always worried when the Secretary of State gives himself timetables of 15 days, or whatever. The important thing is making sure that we get it right. I also underline the importance of Parliament being kept fully informed and consulted on decisions that are taken.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, for their observations on the Statement. Clearly, the terms of any divestment, which will be a requirement of the Fox bid, must be sufficient to ensure the remedy’s effectiveness over the long term. That is why reference is made in the report to a period of 10 years.

The Secretary of State has already instructed officials to begin immediate discussions with Fox and its representatives on the detail of the proposals so that work can be done to take us towards an agreement—we hope—on the final form of any undertakings. Once that is in place and the undertakings are in a form that he is prepared to accept, the Secretary of State will be required to consult on them. He must allow a minimum of 15 calendar days for responses. Of course, Parliament will be kept informed of the consequences of that process.

Regarding the points raised about other platforms and their dominance—reference was made to Google, for example—we committed to reviewing the media public interest considerations during the passage of the then Digital Economy Bill. That can now be taken forward, as is our intention.

As far as Ofcom’s powers are concerned, it is important to maintain and understand the distinction between the role of Ofcom in the phase 1 stage of an inquiry and the role of the CMA in the more intensive phase 2 stage, where the CMA has greater powers than Ofcom. However, Ofcom has indicated that it is satisfied that it has the powers it needs to conduct the form of review required under the Act in respect of a phase 1 inquiry.

The competing bids of both Comcast and Fox can be taken forward. Where that process concludes will ultimately be a matter for the shareholders of the relevant companies. In a sense, this decision leaves them on a level playing field, commercially, as far as their respective bids are concerned.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

Leave out “62BC to 62BF in lieu of Amendment 62B” and insert “62BD to 62BF in lieu of Amendment 62B but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62BC and do propose Amendment 62BCA in lieu—

62BCA After Clause 176, insert the following new Clause—
“Effectiveness of the media’s dispute resolution procedures
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of each review period, appoint an Independent Reviewer to report to the Secretary of State, before the end of each review period, about—
(a) the use of relevant alternative dispute resolution procedures during that period in cases involving actual or alleged failure by a relevant media organisation to comply with the data protection legislation, and
(b) the effectiveness of those procedures in such cases.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Independent Reviewer must be—
(a) the Press Recognition Panel (incorporated by the Royal Charter dated 3 November 2014), if it agrees to act, or
(b) otherwise, a person who is or has been a judge of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
(3) A person reporting under subsection (1) must have regard to the Leveson Inquiry - Report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press laid before Parliament under section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and in particular any relevant conclusions and recommendations.
(4) As soon as practicable after receiving a report under subsection (1), the
Secretary of State must—
(a) lay a copy before Parliament; and
(b) send a copy to the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the
Executive Office in Northern Ireland.
(5) In this section—
“relevant alternative dispute resolution procedures” means alternative dispute resolution procedures provided by persons who produce or enforce codes of practice for relevant media organisations;
“relevant media organisation” means a body or other organisation whose activities consist of or include journalism, other than a broadcaster;
“review period” means—
(a) the period of 3 years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed, and
(b) each subsequent period of 3 years.”

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, like Pavlov’s dog, MailOnline this morning had the headline:

“House of Lords to make extraordinary THIRD bid to curb press freedom”.


Fulfilling the ambition of a lifetime, it has a photograph of me and suitable condemnation of this amendment.

In defence of the amendment, I refer to the interesting summation that the Minister made in his speech. I will come later to his blood-curdling threats about what would happen if we were to lose the Bill. On the question of historical offences, hands are not tied, nor time-limited. What was illegal then remains illegal now. There is no amnesty. It was worth tabling this amendment to get that on the record as a reminder of where we are on past criminality in this area. What it is not, as claimed by MailOnline, is an attempt to reopen the debate.

The amendment proposes to amend the Government’s Motion, which gives the Secretary of State the task of assessing the dispute resolution procedure and arbitration schemes, adopted by non-broadcast media regulators every three years. Instead, I propose that this task should be undertaken not by a politician but an independent body—the Press Recognition Panel, which is entirely independent of political, state or industry control. It would have the added advantage of being able to assess the effectiveness of dispute resolution procedures guided by the criteria set out in the Leveson report.

In moving the amendment, let me deal with a number of accusations levelled at those who sought to amend the Bill to make it Leveson-compliant during its passage in this House. First, we were told that we were hijacking the Bill to deal with matters that had nothing to do with data protection, only for the Government to bring forward their own print media-specific amendments, not least the one on the Marshalled List today. The truth is that the line between print and online is fast disappearing. Where does the Daily Mail end and the MailOnline begin? It is no accident that many of the hundred organisations that have joined Impress are online publishers. I have often thought that if Facebook and others wanted to get ahead of the game and be really smart, they would sign up for Impress and leave IPSO as a kind of dinosaurs’ graveyard of the old print media.

Then, we had the Minister’s threat that we were putting the whole Bill and the future of data protection in jeopardy by the various amendments because, as he said, the Bill must be passed into law by 25 May. If chaos is not to reign in the data protection world, we have to give a speedy passage regardless of shortcomings. I was a business manager in this House during the coalition, and I worked for the Callaghan Government in the 1970s when they came under various pressures from this House. The truth is—and we all know it—the Government will get their business, perhaps a little bruised and with a few ministerial reputations dented, but the Bill will be delivered on time, and Ministers should stop spreading scare stories and instead treat amendments on their merits.

Then, of course, there is the Salisbury convention. We have to face the fact that the squalid deal between the press barons and the Tory party to drop Leveson 2 was squeezed into the Conservative manifesto and thus became protected by the Salisbury convention. The convention was given fresh life by the Cunningham committee, of which I was a member. So let us be clear: the Salisbury convention promises that this House will give a Second Reading to a manifesto Bill; it does not protect that Bill from scrutiny or amendment—nor is there anything wrong in asking the Commons more than once to consider this. I think I hold the record: I knocked back the Bill on Murdoch’s predatory pricing of the Times six times, and would have done so a seventh if Len Murray, my chief Labour conspirator, had not told me that enough was enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I made it quite clear that I was putting the amendment in context. The noble Countess intervenes on many noble Lords on many speeches in a way that actually delays the House rather than helps it.

As suggested in my opening remarks, this is not an attack on freedom of speech of the press. I had the great pleasure of working with Hugh Cudlipp, who was editor of the Daily Mirror and responsible for that great popular newspaper, which I read avidly when growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. I was also very fond of John Junor and his hard-hitting column in the Sunday Express. I admired William Rees-Mogg for his editorial attacking the prosecution of Mick Jagger for drug offences under the headline, “Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?” And, of course, I remember the great crusade on behalf of the Thalidomide victims by Harry Evans of the Sunday Times. I am so pleased that Harry has been at our side in this battle to see Leveson implemented.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I am 30 seconds off.

[Lord Elton]

I wanted to back up my noble friend Lady Mar, whose interventions are usually absolutely on the ball—and she is quite right this time, too.

[Lord McNally]

I am very interested in that—perhaps we can debate procedure in this House another time. I do not think I am out of order, and I am within 30 seconds of finishing a very long debate, in which a number of people have asserted some rather hurtful things about those of us who have spoken about the freedom of the press.

I went into that little bit of history, because I do not think that in 30 years’ time Paul Dacre or Kelvin MacKenzie will be spoken of in the same breath as Cudlipp or Evans, or even Junor or Rees-Mogg. The Daily Mail is said to be the Prime Minister’s favourite newspaper, yet it is the embodiment of the nasty party that she once so rightly condemned. I think Matt Hancock will regret becoming Paul Dacre’s poodle, and I think the old print media will regret not protecting themselves within the strong walls of the royal charter, as the long shadow of court judgments and the growing power of the ICO come into play. On behalf of the victims of press criminality and malpractice, I express my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for ensuring that their voice has not gone unheard.

The Government will have their business, but I urge Ministers to accept this amendment as being in keeping with the arguments, which they themselves have used during the passage of the Bill, that major regulation should not be in the hands of politicians and regulators should be independent of both government and proprietors if real press freedom is to be safeguarded. In order, I beg to move.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Non-Afl)]

I have voted against a three-line whip on earlier amendments of this kind, and will do so again today on this amendment, or any others like it. I entirely agree with the Minister in all respects. The Bill is now fit for purpose and represents a fair compromise. Without making a meal of it, I regard the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and similar ones, as unnecessary regulation, unprincipled, contrary to freedom of speech and unique in the democratic world. I know of no country that is a true democracy that has anything like this. I am surprised that it should be put forward by anyone who is a Liberal Democrat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to me making blood-curdling threats. I made no threats—blood curdling or otherwise—and what I did say was essentially true.

This Bill is about data protection. The primary concern of your Lordships’ House, which we have debated over recent months, is whether individuals have the ability to defend themselves against excessive press intrusion, and the Bill now provides a number of mechanisms to address this concern. These are all designed to maintain the freedom of the press and the independence of self-regulation, albeit in compliance with the law. For example, it was announced three weeks ago that IPSO will introduce a low-cost mandatory arbitration scheme. We are determined that there will be no backsliding on that kind of commitment, and Commons Amendment 62BC is designed to ensure that the use of such schemes is reported on—a point to which I will return in a moment—to reduce any temptation there might be to turn away from them once the heat of the Bill is off.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, sought, with vim and vigour, to address two points. I was slightly taken aback because, a few minutes before we began this debate, I had endeavoured to explain to him the operation of Clause 174(3)(b) and its interrelationship with Clause 144, and thought I had done so quite well. However, clearly I failed to some extent in that regard. I had also sought to give him further assurances about the role of the Secretary of State.

On the first point—the operation of the Information Commissioner’s powers—as I had sought to explain to the noble and learned Lord, under his amendment the Information Commissioner would have had access to prepublication material gathered for journalistic purposes. It was acknowledged across the House, and by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, during earlier debates that that could not be tolerated given the intrusion it would involve upon press freedom and journalistic preparation. The interrelationship between Clauses 174 and 144 is complex, but I again make it clear that the effect is that the commissioner will not be able to access prepublication journalistic material but will be able to access material that has been processed for the purposes of journalism.

On the second point, about the power of the Secretary of State, one has to be clear that this is not actually a power but simply a duty to report. It is for the Secretary of State to report, and he could do so even without an express statutory power, but this is to underline it. We are making it a clear duty, to import transparency into the process. He will essentially be reporting on the metrics available with regard to the take-up of alternative dispute resolution. The effectiveness of dispute resolution will be determined by reference to its take-up and its resolution. It will then be for us—Parliament and the people—to determine in light of those facts whether we consider that further steps have to be taken.

Let us be absolutely clear: the Bill imports no power on the part of the Secretary of State to compel the media to act in any way on the report that he is putting in place. This is simply a mechanism by which he can ensure that the relevant facts and figures—if I can put it that way—are laid before Parliament at the appropriate time. I hope that I have been able to put both those reassurances with greater clarity than I did a few minutes earlier, and to reassure the noble and learned Lord on those points.

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the observations he has made, and I hope again that he is reassured by the position the Government have now adopted regarding the intent and consequences of the amendments from the House of Commons. As regards the observations from other noble Lords around the House, I recognise that there has been widespread concern about the way in which we have been able to address the past and the need to address the future, having regard to the fundamental requirement for freedom of the press—one of the foundations that underpins our democratic process. Before closing, I acknowledge the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to this entire debate. I quite understand why she has maintained the need to bring these matters before the House on a number of occasions, and I do not seek to imply any criticism of her in that regard.

We have reached a point where the Bill should pass, however. It has to, really. It is in those circumstances that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment to Motion A.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, when I studied the British constitution 50 years ago I read the books by Sir Ivor Jennings, who said that one of the only weapons that an Opposition have against a Government is time, and that an Opposition—and, indeed, critics on a Government’s own Benches—are perfectly entitled to use time to put pressure on Governments. My goodness, we have had a cascade of useful changes because we have used time to press the Government further on the issue.

As I said before, the line between the Daily Mail and the MailOnline is increasingly blurred. This legislation will be tested against that blurred background. At some stage, the old print media may regret not being in the comfortable protection of a royal charter, as my learned friends listening to this debate must think that there is a lot of work ahead for them as this Bill is tested.

We never wanted to stop the Bill coming into law, and I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) withdrawn.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As I have reminded the House before, we once sat on the same committee, which was modestly called young Atlantic political leaders—where are they now?

It is very difficult to know where to insert oneself in a debate such as this with so many expert contributors, so let me begin at the beginning. During my childhood, I had two quite serious but non-permanent injuries that could probably be pinned on the school and the building I was in when they happened. Looking back, I know that it would never have occurred to my parents to sue somebody because of these misfortunes. Yet, in preparing for this debate, I decided to Google “injuries at school” to see what would happen. Up came a whole smorgasbord of offers: “Has your child been injured in the nursery?” and “Has your child been injured in the playground?” It seems to me that the tenor of the debate so far almost accepts as a given a change for the worse in our society. I do not know whether the spokesman for the Opposition is about to sue Transport for London for his injury—he is shaking his head, which is good; he is going in the right direction—but people see compensation as being worth the risk.

When I came to this House in the late 1990s, one of my first interventions was made in shock after I had been off and spent the afternoon watching daytime television. I saw advert after advert—not unlike the adverts inviting you to play the National Lottery—saying that if you had had the good fortune to have an injury, there might be some money in it for you. I have heard the statistics that my noble friend Lord Sharkey cited; nevertheless, what has happened has cheapened our concept of justice. Access to justice is right; certainly, when we hear the example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, of the lady who was severely injured in a motor accident, we understand that of course there must be protection. But we have to have the courage to say that access to justice is not limitless and should not lead to clogging up the courts or to cases that increase costs throughout the system.

One thing that has come up when we have debated this before is personal experience. I suppose I should therefore give one other example. A couple of years ago, my wife had a little bump at a T-junction. When she got home, she told me that she had exchanged numbers with the other driver. I said, “Oh well, if you bumped into him, you bumped into him—I’ll ring him up”. The guy was a taxi driver. I spoke to him; we had a civilised conversation. I said, “Look, get the car checked over. Send me the bill and I will settle it”. We did not hear anything for some weeks, and then we were told that the driver had sustained a whiplash injury. I live in St Albans and it was now being handled by a solicitor in an east Lancashire town and they had provided evidence from a doctor in south Manchester. I immediately said, “This is a scam”.

I wrote to the chairman of our insurance company saying it was a scam and that my wife was willing to give evidence if they wished to challenge this obvious attempt to defraud the company. A few weeks later, we got a letter saying that the company had settled the claim because it was under £5,000 and it was not worth fighting. I wonder how many claims of £5,000 and under are settled in that way. Is it a victimless crime—or one that is passed on to the consumer?

I do not accept that this is so small a problem that it should not be dealt with, and I welcome the Government’s attempt to do so. In 2010 when I came into this place, I went to the Ministry of Justice. Between 2010 and 2013 we tried to bring forward some reforms in this area. In the previous Labour Government, Jack Straw campaigned on this issue and has continued to do so. This is an issue that needs addressing. As my colleague and noble friend Lord Sharkey said, we will tease out some of the things that are being put forward to Committee, because that is what we are here for.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, set the scene for the second part of the Bill. It was one of the most difficult pieces of work that one faced as a Minister. I was greatly helped at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who succeeded me at the MoJ, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is horrible to hear a case like the one we were given and then have to bring it down to some mathematical solution to give that person justice, but that has to be done. We have to ask in the Bill whether some of those powers should be given to the Lord Chancellor alone, or if there are other ways. We hear what the Delegated Powers Committee has said about certain of those responsibilities, and it has said that a whiplash injury should be defined. We will probably bring that forward in Committee. The tariff for injury should also be in the Bill.

There will be questions about whether the definition of a minor injury being up to two years is excessive. Is the small claims limit set too high at £5,000? As has been said, how will the Government ensure that the consumer and not the insurance companies benefit from these reforms? Nevertheless, this is timely legislation.

In the past, we have managed to get a degree of cross-party agreement that reform in this area is needed, and I hope that in the great tradition of the Lords, the expertise here will be used to help the Minister carry forward a Bill that is really worth while. What he certainly has, and which I had, is the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, in his regular place behind him. Throughout any difficult and torrid debates in Committee on the Bill, he will come to the help of Ministers who flounder at the Dispatch Box. It is a very reassuring thing to see and, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to this debate.

Media: Press Sustainability

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We have to identify a model by which the local and national press can continue to deliver what is required of an independent and informed news source. That has been the subject of change, clearly; we have passed from the days when a piece of journalism could be accompanied by an advertisement and, therefore, self-sustaining. We have to look at how we can sustain our media in future.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister not consider that his one-word reply to my noble friend Lord Razzall holds only till the next newspaper scandal hits us? Will he not accept that we still have a media self-regulating in its own self-interest, and that the abandonment of Leveson 2 is a massive missed opportunity, given that data is now today’s headline?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No.

Leveson Part 2: Sunday Times

Lord McNally Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Government have to take decisions about what is proportionate, appropriate and in the public interest. Our analysis is that the terms of reference for part 2 have already largely been met and that the cost and time of part 2 would be disproportionate and not in the public interest.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things we did not have last Thursday when the noble and learned Lord made his Statement was Sir Brian Leveson’s letter. In both Houses, an impression was given that Sir Brian basically accepted what was going along. Through Hansard I urge every Member of this House to go to the House of Lords Library and look at the letter, which is a devastating six-page indictment of what this Government have done. He makes it very clear that he wanted to go on with it. He does not accept that IPSO is up and running so wonderfully. He points out examples, such as the Manchester terrorist outrage reported by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, where there was intrusive press behaviour, and in the letter he quotes recent worrying police and media collusion. He also challenges the Government about cost. It is a devastating indictment. Does the Minister think that the way the Government have handled this is in any way in the spirit of the Inquiries Act 2005, which requires consultation with the chairman as a safeguard so that no Government will cut and run from an inquiry? That is exactly what this Government have done. Will he again consider a more constructive response to what was said by the Official Opposition? We were getting this right when we were working together. It has gone badly wrong since the Government have started cutting their own deals with the press barons.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, of course since the 2005 Act we have to consult the chairman of an inquiry, and that is exactly what we did. Thereafter we had to make a judgment about the way forward. Newspapers today are in a very different position from when the phone-hacking scandal occurred back in 2011. The events just reported relate to a period between 1995 and 2010. We have seen significant reforms to press regulation, and we have discussed that before in this House. It is our considered opinion and judgment that it is not appropriate or proportionate to proceed with part 2 of the inquiry.

Leveson Inquiry Update

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for—is it D2CMS? I forget how you pronounce it these days, with “digital” being added to the department name.

We need to consider three main issues addressed in the Statement. First, this announcement of the Government’s formal decision, albeit it was prefigured in their manifesto, terminates the Leveson inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005. It also gives notice that the Government will repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. But we gather from the Statement that Sir Brian Leveson, who has rightly been consulted about this, agrees that his inquiry should not proceed but believes that it should continue in an amended form.

But is that what is happening? Could it be, as was patently clear from the huge response to the consultation carried out by the Government, that Sir Brian believes that there are still many unanswered questions? Do they include which editors and other senior newspaper executives were commissioned or otherwise responsible for data theft, phone hacking and other illegal conduct by journalists and investigators? Does it cover the full extent of hacking and data protection breaches at certain national newspapers, the extent of alleged corruption between some politicians, media representatives and the Metropolitan Police, and the nature of the relationships between the police and the press, in particular the long-term cover-up of police responsibility for the Hillsborough disaster?

The Statement gives the impression that this has all been sorted. It says that,

“the terms of reference for a part 2 of the inquiry have largely been met”.

Well, I do not think that Sir Brian agrees with that—or that the victims will agree with it. I certainly do not. It would be very helpful for your Lordships’ House if the noble and learned Lord could explain what precisely the words used by Sir Brian meant in that enigmatic phrase that he believes that the inquiry should continue in “an amended form”. Will he put copies of the correspondence in the Library so that we can all see it?

Secondly, on Report on the Data Protection Bill your Lordships’ House voted by 238 to 209 to add Amendment 127A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. This new clause effectively requires the Government to proceed with a second part of the Leveson inquiry. The House also agreed amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which replicate Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act for data protection claims only.

It is possible that the Government will find the arguments—I have every confidence that we will listen to them with great interest—that will persuade the other place to remove these two amendments, but the parliamentary arithmetic being what it is, I am not sure that that is certain. In any case, if the amendments are reversed, they will come back here on ping-pong under considerable time pressure. After all, the Bill has to have Royal Assent by 25 May. Could the noble and learned Lord speculate about what might happen on the assumption that the Bill remains unamended? Perhaps we should explore the common ground here, because there is potential for working together on this. I look forward to discussions that were started prior to discussions on the Data Protection Act.

Will the noble and learned Lord also explain what the timetable is for the repeal of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act? The Statement says that it will not be commenced—again, that was in the Conservative manifesto—but the Statement adds that the Government will seek repeal “at the earliest opportunity”. When is that? “Soon” and “before Christmas”, which are the usual words in the lexicon used by the noble and learned Lord, will not be sufficient on this occasion. I look forward to more detail.

Thirdly, the saddest thing about this Statement is that it makes it clear that the all-party consensus that informed the Leveson report and oversaw the parliamentary process immediately after its publication has been destroyed. The Conservatives have reneged on the promises made by successive Prime Ministers not to let down the victims of press intrusion, and they are clearly setting their face against ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past. It is a disgrace that the Government are betraying the trust placed in them by the victims. Who now will stand up for them and make sure that their pain and suffering will not be repeated?

I believe that there is a willingness in Parliament to encourage an independent system of press regulation, as recommended by Sir Brian Leveson. I will go further: I am sympathetic, and I think others are, to the idea that if IPSO would clearly meet the standard for recognition establish by the PRP, it might be sensible for Parliament to revisit the complex set of interrelated measures of inducements and penalties set up under the rather baroque arrangements of the Privy Council.

Alongside this, we need to take into account the parallel developments mentioned in the Statement. Mainly because of loss of sales and the collapse in advertising revenues, the traditional press is in serious decline. The new, unregulated electronic sources of news and information are growing rapidly and the internet is constantly innovating and expanding news, fake news and other services. I agree with the Secretary of State that one result of these trends is that we may be witnessing the end of a fine tradition of serious journalism and the elimination of space for independent opinion which has always underpinned our democracy and polity in the UK. I agree with him that this is really important.

I welcome the proposal for a review of the sustainability of high-quality journalism and suggest to the noble and learned Lord that there may be considerable advantage in making the review cross-party and ensuring that its evidence and proceedings are open to the public. Perhaps he could comment on that—and if he cannot do so now, will he be ready to respond to an Oral Question on this later in the month, of which I have given him some notice?

If this marks the end of Leveson—and I echo the thanks expressed by the Secretary of State to Sir Brian for his considerable efforts—I am left with the following thoughts. The key question raised by Leveson is how in a democratic society we enshrine the press’s freedom to publish in the public interest while ensuring a proportionate balance so that individuals retain their rights to privacy and the security of their personal data. We have not got this right yet, but I do not think that we are far away from coming to a proper solution.

We must learn the lessons from the culture of abuse, illegality and criminality that has flourished for too long in our newspapers. There is no point in trying to cover over that and not look at it. We need to examine all these things and come up with reports—and we have to make sure that the victims of press intrusion can get effective redress when such abuse happens.

As I have said, there is more that unites us on this than divides us. Now would be a good time to reach out to all parties and attempt to re-establish the cross-party agreement that led to the original Leveson report and ensure that its good work is carried on.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is never a pretty sight to watch a Government capitulating to vested interests. At such a time, it is always useful to look around and see who is smiling. Certainly, Mr Rupert Murdoch will be smiling, as will Lord Rothermere, Mr Paul Dacre and the Barclay Brothers—owners or editors of the Times, the Sun, the Mail and the Telegraph respectively.

It was nearly 30 years ago, in 1990, that the Calcutt commission recommended the setting up of a Press Complaints Commission. The Government of the day welcomed that report and set up the Press Complaints Commission, but warned that it was a “final chance” for self-regulation, or, as the then Secretary of State, David Mellor, put it, the press were,

“drinking in the last-chance saloon”.

The trouble is, what has happened since? There was no learning of lessons or improvement of behaviour, with the addition of corruption and criminality to the cocktail of press failings under the stones that Lord Justice Leveson turned over.

This Statement is littered with high-minded declarations, such as,

“free to … investigate without fear or favour … underpin our democracy … integral to the freedom of our nation”,

and,

“safeguard the lifeblood of our democratic discourse”,

but the truth is that none of those high-minded aspirations would be put at risk either by implementing Section 40 or by continuing with part 2 of Leveson. They are put at risk by behaviour that undermines public trust and diminishes confidence in our democracy.

Will the Minister clarify a number of points? First, will he put in the Library of the House the precise terms on which Sir Brian Leveson believes his inquiry should have continued? Secondly, when will the terms of reference and chair for the new review into the sustainability of the press be announced? Will it be that review or Ofcom that looks at the increasing overlap between print journalism, online journalism and broadcast news, which now sits with the various oversight bodies that regulate them?

The sentence in the Statement with which I agree entirely states that challenges that were only in their infancy in 2011 have now to be faced. Issues such as misinformation, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse all threaten both the quality of journalism and the fundamental rights of our citizens.

But this Statement is not a response equal to that challenge. For all the crocodile tears, it will do nothing to preserve local newspapers. It leaves the victims of press abuse with their hurt still raw and unassuaged by any sense of justice done. It was very interesting that a few hours after the Manchester bombing, journalists were knocking on the doors of victims, intruding into the private grief of people who had lost their children that night. So much for conscience and regret.

It leaves a self-serving regulator, IPSO, which is as ineffectual and compromised as its predecessor, the PCC. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it is open to IPSO to come within the Leveson recommendations, and if there were any sense of trying to meet the all-party approach that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, advocated, that is what IPSO would do. It leaves our media landscape not, as it should be, a balance of quality, diversity and choice, but again simply an accident waiting to happen, as those guilty of past abuse remain in power, with no sense of contrition or shame, and there is still no effective means of holding the perpetrators of that abuse to account.

It is not even an outcome of the consultation. It is the fulfilment of a squalid political deal between the press barons and the Conservative Party which the Secretary of State will live to regret. What is certain is that the name of Leveson will rank higher in the list of defenders of freedom of the press than any member of this Government.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, for their responses.

Sky-Fox Update

Lord McNally Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Matt Hancock on his appointment and pay tribute to the fact that, on this issue, he says he intends to continue his predecessor’s practice of being as open as possible while respecting the quasi-judicial nature of the decision. In this regard, I respectfully request that the Minister suggests to the new Secretary of State that he might wish to continue the informal all-party meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House, which were very helpful in previous rounds of this and related issues. We would welcome that.

As we have heard, the provisional findings of the CMA are that if the Fox-Sky merger went ahead as proposed, it could be against the public interest. It would result in the Murdoch family having too much control over news providers in the UK and too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda. I do not think that there can be much dispute about that. We now move on to a public consultation of possible remedies, which I am sure will attract a great deal of attention, as did the original investigation, with some 16,000 responses.

The Statement that we have just heard did not, for obvious reasons explained by the noble and learned Lord, go into the detail of the possible remedies, but I think it is worth commenting that, even at this stage, it is fairly clear that the CMA largely discounts what are called “behavioural remedies”, which are largely firewalls aimed at keeping entities and their information separate within a merged group. We agree that that would not be a preferred solution. Secondly, the CMA is unenthusiastic about structural remedies; namely to either spin off Sky News into a new company, or recommend the divestiture of Sky News, as this may threaten the viability of Sky News. This is something that has already been threatened: indeed, it is interesting to note that the CMA warns parties that the closure of Sky News while the investigation is ongoing would not be permitted. We are left, therefore, with the third recommendation which is out for consultation, which is the prohibition of the transaction. We think that that is the right solution.

Clearly, a lot of this is dependent on whether and when the sale of Fox to Disney goes ahead. It is subject to considerable regulatory issues in the United States and we do not know enough about what the final structures will be; we therefore have to wait. It is a complicated issue on its own without these other factors intervening, and it is good that the CMA seems to be on top of this, keeping a watchful eye on it and making sensible proposals in the eventuality of this coming through within the timescale of its review. The most surprising issue in the Statement is that the CMA says it is not concerned about the proposed merger on broadcasting standards grounds. I make two points here.

We have argued consistently that the fit and proper person test of individuals who seek to acquire and operate a broadcasting licence is central to having a fair and plural press in this country. However, the test itself is flawed and outdated and needs to be revised. I refer the noble and learned Lord to amendments to the Digital Economy Act which we debated in the last Parliament and which we withdrew on the basis that the Government were considering amending the current provisions and would be looking at this in the near future. I do not think it would be difficult to find a way of bringing into the 21st century a system which, after all, is similar in many respects to the one routinely operated in the financial sector. Will the Government consider this? If so, will they tell us when they will bring forward some recommendations?

Secondly, we have consistently said that if we are to reach a proper assessment of the broadcasting standards question as it affects the Murdoch Family Trust and others, we need to get to the bottom of the corporate governance issues that gave rise to the original Leveson report and should be looked at again as part of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. I am trying to be helpful here to the noble and learned Lord—I hope he will not need to be reminded that, as a result of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which were agreed by this House to the Data Protection Bill, the Government are likely to be required to carry out a review of this type one way or the other. Once Sir Brian has reviewed the recent consultation responses on this issue, I urge the Government to simply get on with it.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the second stage of Leveson and also the remedies that have already been put forward on media regulation. I welcome this Statement and the ongoing commitment of the Secretary of State to keep both Houses informed. I also appreciate the continuing interest of the Minister in this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, in the matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I would welcome a continuation of that informal dialogue. We welcome the interim findings concerning the public interest not being served in terms either of diversity or the influence of the Murdoch Family Trust.

On the commitment to broadcasting standards, I share the concern and puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I find it odd that in terms of commitment to broadcasting standards, the proposed merger does not operate against the public interest, echoing an earlier and very disappointing finding by Ofcom. In three continents over 60 years—in Australia, the UK and the USA—Mr Murdoch has been a major factor in lowering standards in both print and broadcast media. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is taking his time to think and consider. Frankly, he has been a little too eager to shoot from the hip in his first few days in office, so this more considered response is welcome.

I still believe that a healthy media ecology rests on a mantra of quality, diversity and choice. All three are threatened by an extension of Murdoch power. It is important to defend the integrity of Sky News, where the lack of 100% control has mitigated against the Murdoch effect. But the Secretary of State needs to go further and consider carefully how we protect our public service broadcast news on the BBC, ITV and Sky News. We need to review the protection of news sources in the light of the impact of new technologies. Here again, Ofcom needs to be proactive in reviewing and bringing advice on these matters.

We must also keep an eye on the implications of the Disney takeover of Fox. Does the Minister have a timetable or guesstimate about how soon the US authorities will come to their conclusions? For we must make sure that any remedies to protect the public interest are real and effective, not simply fig leaves to cover up a surrender to big media power. This is a welcome Statement but it is not the end of the matter. We need a robust Secretary of State to defend the public interest but, on that, I am afraid the jury is still out.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lords for their observations. I note that the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, would both like to see a continuation of the informal all-party meetings that have taken place. I will of course pass that to the new Secretary of State for his consideration.

I cannot comment upon the terms of the provisional report and I know that Members of this House would not expect me to do so. The final decision will be a quasi-judicial decision for the Secretary of State, one which he will make in the light of the final report and in respect of which he will give reasons. With regard to the Fox-Disney transaction, both Disney and 21st Century Fox have stated clearly that the intention is for 21st Century Fox to continue with its bid of December 2016 before the Disney acquisition is completed. But I am not in a position, any more than any other of your Lordships, to determine when that final process will be completed. It will be subject to procedural issues in the United States of America, quite apart from anything else.

Probation Service

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we are not satisfied with the telephone form of probation but, as I said, contact with offenders has to be proportionate to the risk they present.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I assure the Minister that when these proposals were put through by the coalition Government they were ideologically driven, and some of the flaws that have emerged reveal the kind of compromises that were created in the probation service. Before these reforms, the probation service had an excellent report; we now have this disastrous report. If the Minister is approaching this ideologically, I put it to him that there is now a strong case for handing probation over wholly to the National Probation Service.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not approaching this matter as an ideologue. I am approaching it as a Minister with responsibility for the implementation of the existing system of probation, in which we continue to have faith.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky]

The noble Lord, Lord Black, paints an incredibly rosy picture of the state of press regulation in the last 20 years. What he ignores is the background to the Leveson inquiry itself and the statutory system—the royal charter and so on—which followed it. There were years in which many newspapers grossly abused their freedom of speech. That is why this interlocking set of propositions, as he calls them, got going and produced a system which all the parties in Parliament accepted in 2013. He says that no other country in the world has a system like ours. No other country has had such an abusive press in parts, though not all the press by any means. These amendments seek to create a balance between freedom of speech and the right of privacy by setting up an auditor to determine how that balance is kept. It is an independent auditor, not part of the Government or the state. The noble Lord, Lord Black, seems to confuse the role of the state with that of an independent auditor, so the argument falls to the ground.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, so that my noble friend Lord Lester can come in in due order, I will speak to Amendment 88. I also draw the Minister’s attention to Amendment 91, which relates to the City. It is clear from the ICO guidance that journalistic exemption was intended to apply to non-media companies, but this is not made explicit in the Bill. In addition, the Bill does not address whether material can be considered published if it is behind a paywall, or mainly addressed to corporate subscribers. That is the thinking behind Amendment 91. We were discussing earlier the concerns of some in financial services and companies such as Thomson Reuters about how the Bill affected them, and that is my probing for them.

I would like to speak to Amendment 88. I was one of the four privy counsellors who signed off the royal charter. I was in government when this went on. It was not an attempt by government to regulate the press. In fact, the coalition Government twisted and turned to try to find ways of taking this forward, as far away from state regulation as we possibly could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I was not discussing personalities, but what happened in the case in Strasbourg. I was about to say that, ironically, the Strasbourg court of human rights had regard to the editors’ code in the course of giving its judgment, so it certainly regarded the old editors’ code as relevant for that purpose.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state:

“Article 85 of the GDPR requires Member States to provide exemptions or derogations from certain rights and obligations in the context of processing personal data for journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic, artistic or literary expression”.


The notes go on to explain how that works. Article 10 is engaged, as there is an inherent tension between data protection and the right to freedom of expression. The Government were right to recognise those inherent tensions, which are not new. Personal data is about private information. I am reliably told that those public figures who wish to keep their private information away from inquiry now, as a matter of course, use data laws to protect publication in newspapers. If the correct balance is not struck, the ability of the press to act as a watchdog will be impaired to the detriment of democracy. Investigations, such as those into sex grooming, will become more difficult to publish.

The exemptions in Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the Bill are not new. They carry forward similar provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998. There is no good reason to amend them to the detriment of IPSO titles. It would be punitive to do so. Article 88 treats the majority of the print media, regulated by IPSO, less favourably than the BBC, broadcasters regulated by Ofcom and, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is accepted, members of Impress. That would mean that members of IPSO would be unable to rely on their compliance with the editors’ code—to which they are bound by contract—in their defence. It is difficult to understand the justification for this form of discrimination against editors and journalists working for our national and regional newspapers.

[Lord McNally]

I do not know how many more pages my noble friend has of this. Somewhere in it must be the recognition that IPSO has not applied for recognition, which would have given it all the protections he is calling for. He does not do himself a service. One of the reasons why people get irritated by the lawyers in this House is that they think that if they make a long enough speech it must be so and only the wicked would disagree. The reason why IPSO would be under threat is that it has not sought recognition. He gave a long list of IPSO’s supposed strengths. It is a sweetheart organisation. It is run by the newspaper owners. That is what we are trying to move away from.

I have now found something on the independent overseas press regulation. David Wolfe QC has said that it is disappointing that there continue to be attempts to prevent the recognition system working and that it is frustrating that Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act has not been commenced. I would be a lot more impressed with my noble friend if he got behind that, or at least gave his friends in IPSO some really good advice and asked them to try to find a way forward with press regulation, instead of giving them an absolute veto on seeking a solution to this matter. I have finished—for the time being.