Parliamentary activity

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

I am repeating the following Written Ministerial Statement made today in the other place by my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy MP:

This is a joint statement made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

As Ministers with joint responsibility for the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, today under section 20(7) of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have decided to vary the restriction orders issued by Sir Brian Leveson on 2 December 2011 and 29 November 2012. This variation, at the request of Associated Newspapers Limited, will enable Associated Newspapers Limited to fulfil its preservation and disclosure obligations in relation to documents provided to the Leveson Inquiry in its possession, obligations that come from claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Sadie Frost Law.

The documents were prepared by the Information Commissioner's Office and consist of spreadsheets of the materials seized from the private detective Steven Whittamore/JJ Services during the course of Operation Motorman, a 2003 investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office into allegations of offences under the Data Protection Act 1998 by the British press.

We have decided to vary the restriction orders so as to allow Associated Newspapers Limited to retain the documents (previously retained in breach of the restriction orders) and disclose them solely for the purposes of the claims. In this case, in our judgement, the paramount public interest lies in enabling Associated Newspapers Limited to meet its disclosure obligations so that justice can be done.

A variation notice has been shared with the parties to the legal proceedings, and published on gov.uk.

This decision makes no comment on the merits of the claims, which is wholly a matter for the courts to determine.

Answering body: Home Office

The College of Policing publishes guidance in the form of Authorised Professional Practice designed to assist those working in police forces who engage with the media. It takes account of the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry in 2012 and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services 2011 report on police relationships with the media and other parties.

The Leveson Inquiry made eight recommendations (68 and 75-81) concerning the press and the police, focused on providing greater transparency and openness. These were accepted by the Government, the College of Policing and the then Association of Chief Police Officers (superseded by the National Police Chiefs’ Council). All the recommendations have been addressed.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

I am repeating the following Written Ministerial Statement made today in the other place by my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lucy Frazer KC MP:

This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

As Ministers with joint responsibility for the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, today under section 20(7) of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have decided to vary the Final Restriction Order (FRO) issued by Sir Brian Leveson on 29 November 2012. This variation, at the requests of the claimants, will allow documentation provided to the Leveson Inquiry to be disclosed for the purposes of the legal proceedings following the claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Sadie Frost Law.

The following documents will therefore be disclosed for the purposes of the legal proceedings:

Daily Mail ledger cards recording payments to private investigators.

The Mail on Sunday ledger cards recording payments to private investigators.

We do not consider that it is necessary in the public interest to withhold these documents from any disclosure or publication and have decided to vary the FRO so as to allow the disclosure of these documents solely for the purposes of the proceedings. In this case, in our judgement, the public interest in promoting the just, speedy and economic resolution of the proceedings outweighs the countervailing public interests.

A variation notice has been shared with the parties to the legal proceedings, and published on gov.uk.

This decision makes no comment on the merits of the Proceedings, which is wholly a matter for the courts to determine.

Answering body: Ministry of Justice

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (David Gauke) has made the following Written Statement.

"The Government is committed to controlling the costs of civil litigation while allowing appropriate cases to proceed. Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reformed the operation of no win no fee conditional fee agreements in order to address the high costs of civil litigation. In particular, section 44 of the LASPO Act provided that the lawyer’s success fee would no longer be recoverable from the losing party. This provision came into effect for the majority of cases in April 2013 but was delayed in respect of defamation and privacy claims pending the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry. The then Coalition Government accepted the Leveson recommendation that there should be a costs protection regime in place for defamation and privacy claims, before commencing the LASPO Act conditional fee agreement reforms. It consulted on a draft bespoke costs protection regime in 2013. In the event, there was opposition to the detail of that regime, and the then Coalition Government did not implement the proposal.

Having considered the responses to the consultation, the Government has now decided on a different approach that will further control the costs of these cases and will also give effect to our legal obligations under the MGN v UK judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. In the MGN case, the court concluded that the obligation for the defendant to pay a 100% ‘success fee’ to the claimant was disproportionate, and that the conditional cee agreements regime was therefore in breach of the defendant’s rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Government will therefore now commence section 44 of the LASPO Act in relation to defamation and privacy cases. However, the Government will keep in place, at least for the time being, the existing costs protection regime. This means that after the event insurance premiums will remain recoverable for these cases. After the event insurance covers the risks of having to pay the other side’s costs in unsuccessful cases.

This approach - of abolishing recoverability of the conditional fee agreement success fee, but retaining it for the after the event insurance premium - will protect access to justice, since parties with good cases can still benefit from recoverable after the event insurance in respect of adverse costs; after the event insurance discourages weaker cases as these are unlikely to be insured. This provision will come into force for new cases on 6 April 2019.

The Government has also published today its response to the 2013 consultation, ‘Costs protection in defamation and privacy claims: the Government’s proposals’."

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

The Government received 174,730 direct responses to the consultation and two petitions, offering a vari­­­ety of views. Of the direct responses, 79 percent were in favour of full repeal, compared to 7 percent who favoured full commencement. A full breakdown of responses can be found in the government response.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley) has made the following Statement:

The consultation ‘The Leveson Inquiry and its implementation’ closed on 10 January after running for ten weeks. We know there is a significant level of interest in the consultation and we are grateful for all the responses submitted. The total number of individual responses to the consultation received is estimated to be over 140,000 and a petition estimated to have over 130,000 signatures has also been received.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

There are a number of on-going cases captured by the Leveson criteria, which were laid down to avoid the risk of prejudice to the right to fair trials in the criminal courts. The trial of Mazher Mahmood is one of these.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Criminal proceedings connected to the subject matter of the Leveson Inquiry, including the appeals process, have not yet been completed. We‎ have always been clear that these cases must conclude before we consider Part 2 of the Inquiry.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Criminal proceedings connected to the subject matter of the Leveson Inquiry, including the appeals process, have not yet been completed. We‎ have always been clear that these cases must conclude before we consider Part 2 of the Inquiry.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The Government is committed to a strong, independent and effective self-regulatory system for the press that commands the confidence of both the public and the industry.Following the Leveson Inquiry, and with cross-party agreement, Government has now delivered the framework for a new system of independent press self-regulation: the Royal Charter has been sealed and the Press Recognition Panel has been appointed, opening for business in September of this year. We must now give this new approach time to become established.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

My Right Honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

The cost of support provided to Government Witnesses to the Leveson Inquiry though the Government Legal Department (formerly Treasury Solicitors) is £287,491.10.