We are writing regarding the consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its implementation. The Government has today published the results and our response, announcing that we intend to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (cost provisions) without commencing it and not reopen the Leveson Inquiry by commencing Part 2. You can find the full response here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-leveson…
A free and independent press is one of the essential pillars of a democracy that rightly holds us all to account. And while these freedoms are vitally important, we must also ensure they are not abused as they were in the past. As such, the Government is determined that a balance is struck between press freedom and the freedom of the individual.
The decisions announced today follow full, open public consultation and careful consideration of the issues. They are in line with commitments made in the 2017 Conservative manifesto which stated “Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. We will repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which, if enacted, would force media organisations to become members of a flawed regulatory system or risk having to pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy cases, even if they win.”
We carefully considered all the direct responses, petitions, views of stakeholders and other relevant evidence as part of the consultation process before coming to a final view on these issues. Of the 174,730 direct responses received, 79 per cent favoured full repeal of Section 40 and 66 per cent thought Part 2 should be terminated. We also received two petitions from 38 Degrees and Avaaz with 200,428 signatures in total that both supported the continuation of the Inquiry. The petitions have been assessed and considered but not included in the quantitative analysis of direct respondents as the petitions did not engage individually with the consultation questions in the same way as direct responses.
The key reasons for our decision not to commence and to seek to repeal s40 are as follows:
Commencing Section 40 would undermine press freedom and threaten the fragile financial viability of the local press.
● The self-regulatory system has been strengthened and made more independent. The majority of publishers (including 95 per cent of national newspapers) are members of IPSO. IPSO have been assessed to have largely complied with Leveson’s recommendations such as regarding effectiveness and independence. IPSO has made further improvements including the introduction of low-cost arbitration, and has committed to further review issues around its funding, independence, and appeals system for complaints.
● With the rise of digital, changing patterns of news consumption have led to the closures of hundreds of local newspapers – commencing Section 40 would increase this trend. Over 200 local papers have closed since 2005, and it is estimated that national newspaper advertising revenue will fall from £1.5 billion in 2011 to £533 million by 2019.
● Commencing Section 40 could have a chilling effect on the investigative journalism. Publications which are not members of a recognised regulator would be vulnerable to spurious legal cases where they would be forced to pay-out regardless of the merit of the claim. This would stop publishers from undertaking valuable investigative journalism, or publishing stories that are critical of individuals.
The key reasons for our decision to end the Leveson Inquiry without commencing Part 2 are:
The world has changed. The press have gone through significant reforms, improving self-regulation, and the media landscape is radically different with social media.
● The media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson Inquiry reported in 2012. Newspaper circulation continues to decline, the online media is far more powerful and advertising revenues are going to online platforms. Society faces new and very significant challenges around the creation and dissemination of the high-quality and reliable news that is vital to our democracy, and we must focus on addressing these challenges in the most effective manner - which we believe is not through returning to a public inquiry that was set up many years ago. The government is tackling these issues through our Internet Safety Strategy and developing the Digital Charter, which will include a review of press sustainability. These are the challenges the media face now. Reopening the Leveson Inquiry would be backward looking, looking at the media landscape as it was, and irrespective of the many changes brought about by Part 1 of the Inquiry.
● There have been extensive investigations to hold wrongdoers to account. Following three detailed police investigations (Operations Weeting, Golding and Tuleta) more than 40 people have been convicted. This sent a clear message that illegal misconduct by the press, police and public officials will be dealt with robustly. This, coupled with extensive reforms to the practices of both the police and press (for example the College for Policing introducing new guidelines for how to manage the relationship with the media, and reforms in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to strengthen protections for whistleblowers), and implementation of the majority of recommendations from Part 1, means that the risk of the deplorable behaviour that led to the Inquiry being established happening again has been significantly mitigated.
● The terms of reference for Part 2 have already largely been addressed, through a combination of the the comprehensive nature of Part 1 of the Inquiry, detailed criminal investigations and civil claims.
● Part 2 is no longer in the public interest. The cost of Part 2 would be disproportionate to the potential benefits, with £43.7 million of public money already having been spent on police investigations relating to phone-hacking and £5.4 million spent on Part 1 of the Inquiry. It is likely that Part 2 would cost at least a further £5m and risk delaying any action that might be considered appropriate in connection to social media and through the work of the press sustainability review.
For these reasons we also hope the House of Commons will vote to overturn the amendments made in the House of Lords to the Data Protection Bill. These amendments would establish an Inquiry with terms of reference similar to those proposed for Part 2 and introduce a similar provision to Section 40. Should they not be overturned, they would serve to undermine high quality journalism, threaten the viability of our local press, and fail to resolve challenges faced by citizens and the press.
Yours sincerely,
Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP
DCMS Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Home Secretary