Culture Department’s stance on call for inquiry risks appearing weak, corrupt, or both – victims, and the public, deserve clarity

Over 7000 members of the public have written to the Government over the last few months, calling for the anti-corruption inquiry into press, police and politicians – known as “Leveson Part Two” – to be completed.

For the last 12 years the Labour Party have repeatedly set out its support for completing the Inquiry.

So many were surprised to subsequently receive a reply, (below, with analysis) from the Culture Department which stated, “… we are not proceeding with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry”.

Why? Is this Government too weak to hold powerful newspaper owners to account?  Or is this apparent change of policy an offering to newspaper owners, in the hope of receiving some positive coverage in return?

It would be extraordinary if the Culture Department chose to announce – not to Parliament, not in consultation with its own Parliamentarians or Party members– but in a letter, that it had abandoned it's promises to victims of press abuse and commitment to tackling corruption across the press, police and politicians.

Regardless of whether an explicit deal has taken place, offering policy favours in the hope of getting an easier ride in the press is corrupt.  As a communications strategy, it is manifestly stupid – just look at the coverage the Party has endured over the last two months.

But the letter also states that,

“This Government also laid out its priorities in the manifesto and in the King’s speech, and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry was not among them.”

This is a different position; the manifesto contained precious few policies and the King’s speech sets out the legislative agenda for the immediate future only.  The public will understand that tackling corruption may not be that kind of priority – even if they do not entirely agree.

But making an issue less of a priority is very different to flagrantly breaching promises made to victims of press abuse and the wider public by changing policy altogether.

The letter is also unclear on the separate issue of press standards.

It declares support for robust, independent regulation; free from political interference.  And later implies an equivalence between Impress, the independent regulator, and IPSO, the press-dominated complaints body controlled by newspaper executives and politicians.

We deserve to know where they really stand.

Is this Government robust enough to stand up to newspaper owners?

Is it capable of acting in the interests of the public; to compel newspapers to join an independent regulator and complete the anti-corruption inquiry?  That what the public have asked for, in poll after poll.

Or is this administration too weak, corrupt, or both; does it intend to take an extreme, “whatever Murdoch wants” approach to media policy, which leaves newspapers totally unaccountable?

The public, and the victims of press abuse, deserve clarity.

‍

A closer analysis of the Government’s letter follows.

‍

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the Leveson Inquiry. The Government recognises that for victims and their families, these incidents caused significant distress.

The Government is committed to a free and independent media. Having a free and fair press that is completely separate from the Government, in an age of misinformation and disinformation, is more important than ever. We are also clear, however, that with this freedom comes responsibility, which media organisations must take seriously. In this context, an independent self-regulatory regime is important to ensure the press adheres to clear and high standards, and offers individuals a means of redress where these are not met. It is of course not appropriate for the government to arbitrate on what should or should not be published or broadcast.

An “independent self-regulatory regime” was recommended by the Leveson Report, enshrined in the cross-party Royal Charter, and has long commanded the support of the public, the NUJ, and victims of press abuse.

Since the publication of Part 1 of the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 we have seen fundamental reform of the self-regulatory landscape for the press which, as noted above, is so important. Such reform included the establishment of two new regulators - IPSO and Impress. These regulators issue codes of conduct which provide guidelines on a range of areas, including discrimination, accuracy, privacy, and harassment. If they find that a newspaper has broken the code of conduct, they can order corrections. IPSO can also order critical adjudications and Impress can levy fines.

This is incorrect.

The UK has one new independent regulator: Impress.

IPSO is not a “reformed self-regulator”. It is the latest incarnation of the Press Complaints Commission; the industry-controlled complaints-handler which existed before the Leveson Inquiry. It does not meet the criteria for independence or effectiveness set out in the Leveson Report and has failed to hold the press to account. It has never carried out any regulation of the press, commencing no investigations and levying no fines.  

IPSO does not issue a “code of conduct”; it must use a code provided by a committee of newspaper editors (the “Editors’ Code Committee”). It also does not control its own rules, which are controlled by the Regulatory Funding Company, a group of newspaper executives and politicians.

It is wrong to equate Impress and IPSO. IPSO is not independent, it is not“regulatory”, and it is co-run by politicians.

In 2017, the previous Government ran a consultation on whether to continue withPart 2 of the Leveson Inquiry and, having taken into account all of the views and evidence, it decided that it was not in the public interest. Part 1 of the Inquiry and subsequent police investigations were comprehensive. More than 300 people gave evidence, and over 40 people were convicted during three major investigations. This Government also laid out its priorities in the manifesto and in the King’s speech, and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry was not among them.This Government has no plans for further legislation in this area.

It is wrong to say that the previous Government “[took] into account all of the views and evidence”. By its own admission, it did not properly include public responses in the form of petitions, (a majority of respondents were in favour of completing the Inquiry) and misrepresented the views of the Chair Sir Brian Leveson, who was in favour of completion of the second Part of the Inquiry.

The suppression of Leveson Part Two was heavily criticised by the Labour Party at the time.

Although we are not proceeding with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry, this Government is committed to strengthening our national, regional and local press so that they can continue to play an invaluable role in the fabric of our society, uniquely placed to undertake the investigative journalism and scrutiny of public institutions that is vital to helping ensure a healthy democracy both nationally and at a local level.  

It is very difficult to see how trust in journalism can be restored while un-examined evidence hangs over the largest newspaper publishers and many executives and editors who remain in post, in respect of allegations of corruption and illegality.

‍