Parliamentary activity

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

The Government has made clear that it does not intend to proceed with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. This decision was reached following a public consultation and having taken into account all of the views and evidence submitted. Reopening the inquiry is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest. This position was reiterated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

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

There have been extensive reforms to policing practices as well as significant changes to press self-regulation.

Since Lord Justice Leveson published his report on part 1 of the inquiry in 2012, the Government has considered all eight recommendations and introduced a number of reforms to policing. This includes the publication of the policing Code of Ethics by the College of Policing in 2014; guidance on relationships with the media; guidance on whistle-blowing; new powers for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate without referral from the police and voluntary notification by chief constables of post-service employment for 12 months.

There now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A number of smaller publishers have joined Impress.

These regulators enforce 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 or critical adjudications.

IPSO, unlike its predecessor the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has the contractual power to legally enforce all the obligations into which the press has entered. This includes determining the wording, where a ruling is placed in a newspaper, in what font size and on what page. As well as dealing with complaints, IPSO can launch a standards investigation in cases where there may have been serious and systemic breaches of the Editors’ Code. IPSO also now has a compulsory low cost arbitration scheme, introduced in August 2018, that all member national newspapers have signed up to. This can be used to make claims for defamation, privacy and harassment, and some data protection breaches.

In 2016 IPSO commissioned its own independent review which found it had made some important achievements in demonstrating it was an independent and effective regulator, and that it was largely compliant with the recommendations of the Leveson Report.

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

The Government has made clear that it does not intend to proceed with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. This decision was reached following a public consultation and having taken into account all of the views and evidence submitted. Reopening the inquiry is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest. This position was reiterated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

The media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson Inquiry. Today, our press is facing new and critical challenges that threaten its livelihood and sustainability.

The Inquiry and subsequent police investigations were comprehensive. More than 300 people gave evidence to the Inquiry, and over 40 people were convicted during the three major investigations. There have been extensive reforms to policing practices as well as significant changes to press self-regulation.

There now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A number of smaller publishers have joined IMPRESS.

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

The media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson Inquiry, and with it, the system of press self-regulation. We now have a stronger system through The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

The government is committed to independent self regulation of the press, and does not intervene in or oversee the work of IPSO.

In 2016 IPSO commissioned its own external review which found it had made some important achievements in demonstrating it was an independent and effective regulator, and that it was largely compliant with the recommendations of the Leveson Report.

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

The media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson Inquiry, and with it, the system of press self-regulation. We now have a stronger system through The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

The government is committed to independent self regulation of the press, and does not intervene in or oversee the work of IPSO.

In 2016 IPSO commissioned its own external review which found it had made some important achievements in demonstrating it was an independent and effective regulator, and that it was largely compliant with the recommendations of the Leveson Report.

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

The government is committed to the independent self-regulation of the press and does not intervene in the operation of independent regulators. There have been significant changes to press self-regulation since the Leveson Inquiry and there now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system. Sir Joseph Pilling’s 2016 review of IPSO found that it had made some important achievements in demonstrating that it is an independent and effective regulator, and it has made further progress since then.

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

The media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson Inquiry, with crucial changes to press self-regulation. The government is committed to self-regulation and we now have a stronger system through The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

IPSO is independent of government. In 2016 it commissioned its own external review which found it had made some important achievements in demonstrating it was an independent and effective regulator.

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

Since the report of the Leveson Inquiry was published in 2012, we have seen a fundamental reform of the self-regulatory landscape for the press, including the establishment of two new regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and IMPRESS.

IPSO has established strong regulatory standards and codes for its members, and offers individuals a means of redress where these standards are not met.

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

The government announced in 2018 that it would not be taking forward Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. The Inquiry and subsequent police investigations were comprehensive. More than 300 people gave evidence to the Inquiry, and over 40 people were convicted during the three major investigations. The media landscape has changed significantly since Part 1 of the Inquiry. Reopening the Inquiry would cost millions, and we believe it is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest to do so. There have been extensive reforms to policing practices, as well as significant changes to press self-regulation.

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: Ministry of Justice

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 Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

The Government's correspondence with Sir Brian on the future of the Leveson Inquiry has been published here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-leveson-inquiry-and-its-implementation. There is no correspondence relating to section 40 as it would not be appropriate for Sir Brian, as a serving judge, to express a view on the legislative proposals of government. DCMS and Home Office ministers have met with Sir Brian numerous times since the Inquiry was established to discuss a range of issues, and his views have been set out in the Government response to the consultation.

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

This is set out in the Government's response to the consultation which is published here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leveson-consultation-response

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

As I said in my statement to the House, petition signatures were not counted as direct responses and this is in line with the approach taken by other government consultations - including those on same-sex marriage and the BBC Charter Review. The number of people who signed each petition is clearly set out in our response to the consultation, and their views have been considered fully as part of the Government's deliberations on these issues.

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

The Review of Press Sustainability in the UK is forward-looking as opposed to examining past practices, and will be looking at the challenges the press industry faces in monetising its online content and the implications for the sector’s sustainability. The government has consulted on whether Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry is still appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest. No final decision has been made. We hope to publish the government’s response to the consultation in the near future.

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

The costs of consulting on section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry have all been met from existing departmental budgets.

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

The total number of civil servants working on taking forward actions relating to the Leveson Inquiry varies from time to time, with policy and legal teams working flexibly to deliver government priorities.

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

The costs of consulting on s40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry have all been met from within existing departmental budgets.

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

The costs of consulting on s40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry have all been met from existing departmental budgets.

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

The Government has publicly consulted on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts 2013 and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary are currently consulting with Sir Brian Leveson. Sir Brian wishes to consider the information properly before giving a formal view on the issues raised. Once we have considered his views, we will be publishing the Government's response to the consultation.