Leveson Debate - Harriet Harman is bizarrely afraid of me?

The debate is now online. My speech and Jacob Rees Mogg's intervention is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21834786
At 2 hours 46 and a half minutes in, for 6 minutes

The bizarre Question and Answer between myself and Harriet Harman, the Labour Spokeswoman is at 1 hour 36 minutes in. I did not realise Harriet Harfman was so scared of me. The transcript is a delight [and a worry], given that she was co-proposing the Bill.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 18 March 2013, c705)

• Email me when Guy Opperman speaks
• View voting record
• Most recent appearances
• Numerology
• Full profile ...

Guy Opperman (Hexham, Conservative)

rose—

 

Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask me a difficult, complicated question, I can tell him the answer. It is “The Secretary of State will respond on my behalf.” However, he is welcome to ask the question anyway.

 

Guy Opperman (Hexham, Conservative)

I am delighted to observe that the Labour party studied the legislation in such detail before presenting it.

I should probably declare that I am a qualified mediator and arbitrator. Under the current system, people involved in arbitration can appeal against the process if they are not happy with it, and the litigation can begin anew. Would that arrangement continue, and how would an individual litigant defamed by a newspaper or any other publication bring an action, given that—contrary to what the right hon. and learned Lady has just said—the costs of arbitration are very high?

 

Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham, Labour)

The royal charter requires the regulator to provide for an inexpensively run arbitration service which will impose no costs on complainants. As the hon. Gentleman will know, things can happen further along the chain after arbitration has been agreed to, but the essence of arbitration is that both sides embark on it agreeing that the arbitrator will settle the issue.

I think that this will be a great step forward, because it will deal with the problem of inaccessibility. Most people who are defamed, or whose privacy has been invaded in what is termed a media tort, would never dream of being able to go to court, although many lawyers are prepared to act on the basis of conditional fee arrangements. A free-to-use arbitration service is therefore an important component of the Leveson package contained in the royal charter. It is good news for claimants, but it also means that newspapers will be well and truly incentivised not to remain outside the regulatory body. If they are not in the regulatory body and arbitration

is therefore not available to those who may complain about them, it is possible that when the case goes to court, costs will be awarded against them even if they win.

The reality is that an awful lot depends upon the house of lords revision assessment of the Charter on Monday

Leveson reaches a conclusion

It's approaching 12 midnight and we are still debating Leveson and the Royal Charter.
For my speech and contributions see here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-03-18a.697.2&s=speaker%3A24962#g723.0
I spoke briefly this evening and support the compromise that has been reached, although I am never happy when we have regulation or law that is created at speed.
This Charter has been a long time coming but a short time in the physical draftying, which is never a good thing. I would have wanted more time but the government was bounced into a speedy resolution.
Much will depend on the House of Lords tweaking and improving on the draft Royal Charter on the press, when it considers the Charter in detail; but, on balance, I believe we have a reasonably good all party agreement; I spoke in the brief time I had in the House tonight on the issue of costs, exemplary damages, arbitration and the objectives of my constituents.
The Charter provides for many things but includes:
- proper apologies from the press to victims of bad practice
- fines of 1% of turnover for publishers, up to £1million maximum in truly extreme cases
- a self-regulatory body with independent appointments and funding
- a robust standards code
- a free arbitration service for victims
- an attempt at speeding up the complaints system
The charter defines publishers as newspapers, magazines or websites containing news-related material.
A paper that commits wrongdoing is now more accountable - that is clear.
A paper which believes in its story should have nothing to fear.

UPDATE: yesterday Wednesday Hacked Off, the campaign group, rang me for the first time to lobby me about my comments in my speech. I replied by explaining that I did not wish to speak to them, not least because I have been flat out on constituency business / speaking and debating in the House.
I would expect many papers not to sign up to this system but it remains to be seen by how much the proposed charter will be amended in the House of Lords on Monday.

Leveson report published next Thursday at 1.30

Media issues will feature strongly next week: Lord Justice Leveson publishes the first part of the Leveson Inquiry into press standards next Thursday. David Cameron set up the inquiry in July last year in response to revelations that the News of the World commissioned a private detective to hack murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone after she disappeared in 2002. The inquiry, which started in September last year, looked at the culture, practices and ethics of the press in general, and the report will be published on Thursday November 29, at 1.30pm, followed by an "on-camera statement" by the independent Judge. It is expected to include recommendations for the future regulation of the British press. I suspect we will all be doing a lot of reading of this report over the weekend of the 30th November / 1st December. Parliament will debate it soon after I am sure.

In seperate news the BBC have appointed a new DG in Tony Hall.