Leveson’s “statutory underpinning” is no way to protect press freedom, says Kirsty Hughes
(more…)
Worrying news from Buckingham Palace Road this morning: the Telegraph is reporting that Culture Secretary Maria Miller’s special adviser Joanna Hindley warned its reporters of Miller’s connection to the Leveson report before the newspaper published details of her expenses, notably that Miller’s parents lived in her taxpayer-funded second home.
The paper took the rare step of choosing to disclose details of the conversation in light of concerns over “the potential dangers of politicians being given a role in overseeing the regulation of the press.”
The key passage from their story:
When a reporter approached Mrs Miller’s office last Thursday, her special adviser, Joanna Hindley, pointed out that the Editor of The Telegraph was involved in meetings with the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary over implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson.
“Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors’ meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to kind of flag up that connection for you to think about,” said Miss Hindley.
Miss Hindley also said the reporter should discuss the issue with “people a little higher up your organisation”.
In an email statement, a DCMS spokesperson said:
Mrs Miller’s special adviser raised concerns with a journalist about the nature of an approach to Mrs Miller’s elderly father. Her advisor noted that Mrs Miller was in regular contact with the paper’s editor and would raise her concerns directly with him, which Mrs Miller did subsequently.
However, this is a separate issue to on-going discussions about press regulation. Mrs Miller has made the Government’s position on this clear.
This “flagging up” is worrying, but it’s not the first instance of those in power feeling that they already have right to tell reporters what to print. Remember the Spectator’s Fraser Nelson’s revelation last month, pre-Leveson?
In the last few weeks, I have had an MP and a government minister call asking me to (respectively) discipline a Spectator writer who had annoyed him on Twitter and take down a blog that was ‘over-the-top’.
Meanwhile, Evan Harris of the Hacked Off campaign, which pushes for tougher regulation of the press, has apparently suggested Miller should “recuse herself” from Leveson issues.
Those of us concerned about a post-Leveson environment in which emboldened MPs are able to intimidate the press have been told we’re overreacting. But today’s report proves our point: it is precisely the sort of thing that could prevent journalists from doing their jobs and endangers press freedom and the role of the fourth estate in holding politicians to account. And it does little favours to the argument that the state should have a role in regulating our papers.
Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index. Follow her on Twitter: @martaruco
The British government’s Communications Data Bill is to be redrafted after the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he would block the current bill.
The bill, which would give government agencies unprecedented access to email, web and phone traffic, has been described as a “snooper’s charter” by free speech and privacy groups.
Earlier today, a joint committee of MPs and Lords published a damning report describing the draft bill as “too sweeping”, and criticising the vague definitions of the powers given to the Home Secretary by the proposed law.
Writing for the Independent, MP Julian Huppert, a member of the Joint Committee on the Communications Data Bill, said: “After this report, there is absolutely no way that this Bill – with its incredibly wide powers and few safeguards – can possibly proceed.The Home Office has completely failed to show that it is needed, proportionate, possible or affordable. They must start from scratch.”
Index on Censorship has been heavily critical of the Communications Data Bill. In evidence submitted to the committee in August of this year, Index described the powers granted to the Home Secretary by the bill as “unacceptable”, and warned, “The decisions the UK Parliament takes on this bill willimpact on human rights both in the UK and beyond, not least in authoritarian states.”
The coalition’s plan to store information on every citizen’s use of email, the web, and phones have been dealt a serious blow by a parliamentary committee report. Padraig Reidy reports