Tell the Government: stop “consulting” and get on with Leveson

Four years ago, Lord Justice Leveson published his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press which found the press guilty of peddling “a pattern of cosmetic reform”. Three years ago, Parliament agreed a measure which would guarantee victims of illegal libel and intrusion access to justice through quick low-cost arbitration or if they were denied it, they would be able to take a newspaper to court without the fear of crippling costs. This measure, known as “section 40” has been blocked by the Government and now they are going back on their promise to start Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry designed to look at police and press corruption. Our calls for Leveson 2 to proceed and section 40 to be implemented are shared by the National Union of Journalists and the free speech organisation Article 19.

Faced with the prospect of a Parliamentary defeat over the Prime Minister’s failure to implement section 40 as promised a few weeks ago, the Government has now been panicked into announcing a consultation on Leveson matters. Specifically, it is consulting on the Leveson access to justice measure, known as “section 40”, and the second part of the Leveson Inquiry.

A draft response is below - all you need to do is provide your email address and name and click "Continue".

Please note that the Government may publish your response and any details you include are subject to Freedom of Information requests.

Name *

Your email *

Subject

To Rt Hon Karen Bradley MP and Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and Prime Minister,
My answers to your consultation questions are as follows:
Question 1:  Which of the following statements do you agree with:
Answer:   Option (b) Government should fully commence section 40 now;
It is what Leveson recommended, what Parliament agreed, and what press victims and the public deserve and have been promised. Without it, I have no doubt that we will see a repeat of the unethical conduct – as seen in the decades prior to the Leveson report - and of scandals and cover-ups. The reputation of the UK press will continue to suffer, and the promises the Government has made to the individuals “thrown to the wolves”, as the former Prime Minister said, would have been broken and abandoned.
Partial or non-commencement would both equally fail victims of press abuse and the public who were promised the access to justice that Leveson recommended.
Question 2:  Do you have evidence in support of your view, particularly in terms of the impacts on the press industry and claimants?
Answer:
<ul>
<li>Option (b) was a vital part of the cross-party agreement, was what Parliament intended and implements a key recommendation of the Leveson Inquiry.</li>
<li>The Government should keep the promise it made to the victims of press abuse, to the public and to Parliament.</li>
<li>The Government should not cravenly seek to curry favour with the press industry lobby by betraying the victims of press abuse and reneging on its commitments.</li>
<li>Nothing has changed since section 40 was enacted to change the need for it. Press standards remain low, the press remains largely unregulated, public confidence in newspapers and their pretend regulator IPSO is rock bottom.</li>
<li>Section 40 commencement will guarantee access to affordable justice for claimants and should make the press industry join a recognise regulator to achieve the consequential costs benefits. The effective regulation that follows will serve the public interest by raising newspapers’ standards, improving trust in newspaper journalism, and providing remedy for complainants.</li>
</ul>
Question 3: To what extent will full commencement incentivise publishers to join a recognised self-regulator? Please supply evidence.
Answer: Section 40 was designed as an incentive – the extent to which it will work cannot possibly be known beforehand.
Question 4: Do you believe that the terms of reference of Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry have already been covered by Part 1 and the criminal investigations? If not which terms do you think still require further investigation?
Answer: No; all Leveson Part 2 Terms of Reference require further investigation.
Question 5: Do you have evidence in support of your view? If so, please provide your evidence
Answer: There is abundant evidence, <a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Leveson-Part-2-Unfinshed-business-1.pdf" target="_blank">which is set out here.</a>
Question 6: Which of the two options set out below best represents your views?
Answer: Continue the Inquiry with the original terms of reference
The need for Part 2 has not been diminished by anything that has occurred since it was established. If anything, it has grown.
I think it is extraordinary that a Government would even consult on the question of cancelling a public inquiry that was:
<ul>
<li>Promised to victims of police and press corruption</li>
<li>Agreed by the Prime Minister</li>
<li>Set up to include, within its terms of reference, to inquire into “the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International"</li>
</ul>
With this consultation, the Government is seeking to give themselves a veto into an inquiry into potential corruption among politicians.  The Government is conflicted on all counts, and a decision to cancel an agreed Inquiry into its own alleged corruption would be anti-democratic and deeply regrettable.
I urge you to break the pattern of governments being manipulated by newspaper editors and act for the public and the victims, and not for them.
I ask that my answers to the questions and my further remarks to be recognised as full responses to this consultation.
___________________________  
Postscript:
This consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation is wholly inappropriate because all parties – including victims, the press industry and politicians – agreed during and since the Leveson Inquiry that there should be no interference in press regulation by the Government. This was to avoid a repeat of deals being done between politicians and the press; concessions on press regulation in exchange for favourable coverage.
Those unhealthy relationships, as Leveson described them, were corrupting, damaging to democracy, and they fundamentally undermined the freedom of the press. That is why a cross-party agreement was signed to deliver a system of regulation that guaranteed independence and which was not amendable by the Government.
The decision of the Government not to commence section 40, to consider amending or repealing it, and to consider cancelling or reducing the scope of Leveson Part 2 is exactly the political interference in press regulation policy that everyone agreed was inappropriate. This consultation prolongs and formalises that interference – explicitly giving the Government discretion over matters of press regulation which politicians are, by definition, conflicted over.

To show you're an actual person, what is 2 + 4 ? *

Please note that the Government may publish your response and any details you include are subject to Freedom of Information requests.

I agree to Hacked Off contacting me in the future using the information I have submitted. We do not share the information you provide with any third parties and we protect it in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

By submitting this form, I agree to allow you to forward the above message after reviewing the content for abuse. I understand my data may be retained for monitoring purposes. Data will be processed by Organic Campaigns: Privacy policy. Acknowledgements

Take Action

Tell the Government: stop “consulting” and get on with Leveson