Commentary

Government Saves UK Media From State Control, Again

Journalists across the UK will be breathing a huge sigh of relief this morning as it emerges that two key Labour amendments to the Data Protection Bill have been defeated. One was voted down, and the other didn't make it that far.

The issues were two perennial arguments that keep cropping up and are generally supported, in my opinion, by people who don't know the implications of what they believe to be a good idea. They think the so-called "press barons" will be brought to heel, but upon closer inspection, they simply haven't thought it through.

The amendment that made it to a House of Commons vote was effectively a reinstatement of Leveson 2. The first part of this enquiry said press regulation should be amended and that a second enquiry was needed to examine the relationship between the press and public authorities. 

Operation Elveden followed. The police effectively did the investigation for the enquiry judge and found enough evidence for 38 convictions -- chiefly among journalists, prison guards and police officers. They were mainly for offences of passing on information for cash. This is exactly what Leveson 2 would have investigated, and it is why the Government felt Leveson 2 was not needed. All it could ever conclude would be a judgement that something that was illegal then, is still illegal now and 38 people have found that out to their cost. 

The other amendment, from the Deputy Leader of the Labour party, was a resurrection of the so-called Section 40 provision, which was so unworkable that it was dropped. The idea was that the press needed a new form of regulation and this had to be overseen by a system underpinned by a Royal Charter. You can argue all you like about whether this puts parliament of the Queen in charge of the regulator, but the outcome was clear. No newspaper would accept being regulated by the people it holds to account. 

So, Section 40 was a device to encourage them to change their mind. If they did not accept a regulator backed by Royal Charter, a paper would be punished by having to pay both sides' legal fees in any libel action. Even if the paper won, they would still have to pay both sides. One can only imagine what that would do to litigation levels. If there is no downside to taking a paper to court, why wouldn't you?

The system was clearly an unfair punishment of the publishing industry and it was dropped by the Government, only for the Labour party to have another go at reinstating it. 

The reason for this is beyond me. I know people who believe the Labour amends are a good idea, until I point out what Section 40 really means and that this isn't about bringing Murdoch and the press barons to heel. The Guardian is proud to be self-regulating, and so is The Financial Times. The vast majority of the national newspapers have chosen to join an industry group, The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). They are not ducking regulation -- they simply don't want it to come via parliament or the crown.

The only Royal Charter-backed regulator, Impress, mostly has magazines and local papers as its members because -- in my opinion -- these guys were too small to stand up to the bullying tactics of Section 40 and so signed up to avoid it, although it was later dropped. The principle of who they are regulated by is, arguably, not as important to pets and caravan magazine owners as it national newspapers.

What happened last night was we got a return to common sense. We don't need another enquiry -- the police have secured 38 convictions for the offences that would have been looked into. It always was, and still is, illegal to bribe a public official to hand over information. You don't need an enquiry to tell you that, nor a judge to say a poorly paid prison officer can be tempted to talk to a paper anonymously about a famous prisoner, as long as their pocket is stuffed with cash. We know it goes on, and we've been reminded it is against the law.

You also don't need to be a lawyer to see that a system where papers pay both sides' fees in libel cases is unfair and completely unworkable.

We have had a return to common sense and the entire British publishing industry can breathe a collective sigh of relief. 

Next story loading loading..