Peers will fail the people if the they demand Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry
A free Press must not be bullied or harried by those who do not like what it reports
MY late father, who was a member of the House of Lords, had an 18th-century joke book which I now have.
The standard of humour is on a par with a schoolboy’s but one witticism runs as follows: “Why is the House of Lords like Fulham Bridge? Because it is supported by wooden peers.”
The second chamber that acts within constitutional conventions is beneficial and helps prevent the “elected dictatorship” that our system of government can create.
Asking the Government and the House of Commons to think again is both reasonable and valuable — it also has a distinguished history.
As long ago as 1539, when Henry VIII was at his most powerful, the Lords amended his Act of Proclamation, which would have allowed monarchical despotism.
This is the first example I know of the Upper House acting successfully as a revising chamber and preserving the nation’s liberties. The legislation was so ineffective that it was repealed eight years later.
It is that act which spawned the expression “Henry VIII powers”, now used to describe the ability of ministerial action to amend the law.
In the EU Withdrawal Bill, it is wholly unexceptional for the Lords to seek to reduce the number and extent of the Henry VIII powers available to the Government.
These are technical issues when it is a matter of judgement as to where the balance between efficiency and process lies. It is not an attack on the democratic process or a power grab by an unelected chamber.
This is not true of some of the other amendments passed against the withdrawal bill. There is a rule that the Lords does not oppose manifesto commitments.
It was introduced in the 1940s to stop an inbuilt Tory majority blocking the then Labour government’s programme.
It has relevance of a particular kind today when a Labour and LibDem majority could vote down any government proposal it dislikes.
As was found in the 1940s, the Lords needs to observe this self-denying ordinance if it is to maintain credibility, otherwise it quickly becomes a matter of Peers against the People.
In trying to insist on the UK remaining in a customs union, the Lords has overturned a specific manifesto promise by the Conservatives. Removing the date of departure — March 29, 2019 — similarly overturns an implicit guarantee in the same document.
These are two of the most egregious breaches of the convention and raise the question: What is the Lords for?
Tomorrow, it may be about to get worse. There is an amendment to the Data Protection Bill to require the Government to carry out Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry.
This is in the name of Baroness Hollins, who has every right to feel her family was badly treated by the Press. And although I disagree with her, she deserves considerable sympathy because of what happened.
Nonetheless, she is on dangerous constitutional ground.
Page 80 of the Tory party manifesto says: “Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry and the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the Press.”
This could not be clearer, yet the Lords are contemplating legislating to force this second stage upon the nation. It is a clear and outright tearing up of conventions.
Unfortunately, it is even more serious than an arrogant desire to overrule a manifesto commitment — it is a proposal for the Lords to do the opposite of what it is there to do.
The Lords ought to protect the liberties of the country against attempts by the government to erode them.
It used to do this when it opposed extensions to detention without trial or efforts to reduce freedom of speech.
Now it is suggested it will do the reverse to make our media less free and to ignore fundamental rights of justice.
In just four years, the UK has already fallen ten places — from 30th to 40th — in the global rankings for free speech.
Dozens of journalists have been put on trial and mainly acquitted for the reporting of stories involving the police and other public officials.
The Leveson Inquiry was used to put journalists in the public pillory and now it is proposed that this should happen all over again.
People who have been acquitted of a crime have nothing further to answer for and to demand they go on oath to rehash issues settled by a jury is the type of bullying of the Press normally seen in totalitarian states.
If Lady Hollins’s amendment were passed, it would be giving in to the vested interests of the rich and powerful to punish newspapers which had exposed their peccadilloes.
MOST READ IN OPINION
It would deter the Press from such fearless reporting in future and would be an attack on one of our most ancient and precious freedoms, a pillar of our constitution.
A free Press must not be bullied or harried by those who do not like what it reports or else self-censorship will be the rule of the day.
Fundamental questions will arise about the Lords if it ignores the constitutional conventions, sets Peers against the People and, instead of being the bulwark against an over-mighty Government becomes the cheerleader for censorship.
- GOT a story? Ring The Sun on 0207 782 4104 or WHATSAPP on 07423720250 or email [email protected].