My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, this has been a long debate, as our debate yesterday was, but I am not sure that it has shed much light for us to be blinded by. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, inadvertently put it rather well when he said that this was not a debate that was likely to change anyone’s mind. This reflects an old debate, one which began well over a decade ago and on which few minds have shifted in the intervening years. We are focused on a narrow aspect of it: to repeal a provision that has never been enacted, languishes obsolescent on the statute
book and, even in that dormant state, causes great concern to our free press, one of the things on which we pride ourselves in this nation. That is why it is essential that this provision is removed and why this is not a controversial debate, although some noble Lords opposite continue to disagree with it.
5.30 pm
This matter was covered explicitly in the last two manifestos on which the Government were elected. In 2017 and 2019, we said that
“we will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act”.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, was deputy leader of his party in both elections, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, was a candidate in them. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has been an assiduous reader of our manifesto, but I disagree with him in his attempt to suggest that there is anything other than clarity in our commitment to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.
I will say a little about the amendments tabled today, because they deserve the courtesy of a reply. My noble friend Lord Attlee asked what the detriments are of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act and what those of the amendment before your Lordships’ House would be. In practice it would incentivise membership of Impress, as the sole UK regulator that has sought approval by the Press Recognition Panel. That would be likely to lead to a chilling effect on publishers that choose not to join Impress, which, as noble Lords know, is a great number of publishers indeed: not a single one of our national newspapers, which disagree with each other on many things and have a variety of political views between them, has chosen to join it. His Majesty’s Government are committed to protecting media freedom and the invaluable role of a free press in our society and our democracy. As part of this, we are committed to independent self-regulation of the press, and that extends to endorsing regulators of which they should become members. Incentivising a publisher to join a specific regulator is not compatible with protecting independent self-regulation of the press in the UK.
That is not just about government policy and nor, dare I say it—as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, tried to suggest—about partisan advantage. The News Media Association, Reporters Without Borders, the Society of Editors, English PEN and many other important voices on media freedom have described this as crucial legislation and said:
“Repealing Section 40 will go a long way towards strengthening the UK’s reputation as a global champion for freedom of speech”.
More broadly, as I set out at the outset of this Report stage, leading chief executives from the broadcasting industry have impressed on us
“not to let the opportunity to modernise the rules that govern our sector pass”
and highlighted the broad support across the industry for the Bill, as indeed there has been on every other aspect in your Lordships’ House and another place. While I am grateful for the opportunity to revisit old debates today, I cannot accept the amendments that noble Lords have brought.