By Thomas Kinsella

On Monday November 3rd, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly referred to as the “Hillsborough law”, received its second reading in Parliament. In a break from convention, the Prime Minister, rather than the sponsoring minister, opened the debate to a packed chamber. The PM has made the passage of this bill one of his key missions in this parliament, and he once again restated his commitment that “this bill will not be watered down”.

Hacked Off welcomes the passage of this bill, and as a member of the Hillsborough Law Now coalition, we have promoted its adoption. The families affected by the Hillsborough disaster, as well as other failures of this state, have campaigned courageously and tenaciously for years to get to this stage, and it is a huge credit to them that the bill has reached this stage.

However, while the bill will ensure public officials are held to account, there is nothing to address lies in the media. Yet, the families of those affected have made it clear again and again that justice will not be done until the press has to answer for their behaviour, and face proper regulation to ensure higher journalistic standards. In the Liverpool Echo on Monday, Margaret Aspinall, who has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of the Hillsborough families and welcomed Keir Starmer onto stage at the Labour Party Conference this year, once again called for the PM to “deliver Leveson 2”.

During his opening speech, the Prime Minister talked about the “lies and smears” against loved ones that the families had to endure, but failed to mention the obvious role that the British press played in this horrific treatment. Only when challenged by Andy Slaughter MP, Chair of the Justice Committee, was the PM willing to acknowledge the “role that the media and others played in this”, admitting it was a “cover-up on so many levels”. However, this was as much as the PM was willing to say in relation to the media’s role in these families’ immense suffering. He would not be drawn on any discussion of Leveson 2, and this did not go unnoticed in the debate, as MPs piled in to demand action on press accountability.

What did MPs say?

The debate continued, and although there were speeches from across the political spectrum arguing in favour of press reform.

Andy Slaughter spoke again, focusing on the specific drafting of the bill and some areas of perceived weakness. In particular, he asked for further clarity on the exemption in clause 11, which provides an exemption “for the purposes of journalism”, which he argued “is unclear” in scope. He emphasised that clarity on this matter was crucial as “we know all too well from Hillsborough that the actions of the media can lead to injustice for victims”. He went on to argue that “the role of the media has been overlooked by this bill” and gave examples of historical links between the police and newspapers. He concluded by referencing Margaret Aspinall’s calls for Leveson 2 and the “need for this bill and for the press to be held to account”.

Jess Brown-Fuller, Liberal Democrat MP, highlighted how sections of the media “pinned blame on the Liverpool fans – the victims” and “fed stories to journalists” which “undermined inquiries into the events”. She ended her speech by highlighting how “Labour has promised Leveson 2 in the past” and how she believes the “lack of redress for the media” is a concern “shared across the house”. Calls for Leveson 2 were echoed by Tom Morrison, Liberal Democrat MP.

Seamus Longman, SNP, reiterated Brown-Fuller’s statement and asked, “Will the bill provide some solutions relevant to the media? If not, how do the Government intend to address this issue?”

Paula Barker, Labour, was one of several MPs who made direct reference to the appalling behaviour of The Sun in the aftermath of Hillsborough and asked the PM (who had at this point left the chamber) if he would consider “establishing a public inquiry into the relationship between the police and The Sun?”. She went on to ask the PM to “keep his promises by meeting with victims of press abuses and working with them to introduce further legislation to tackle press standards and corruption”.

Gill Furniss, Labour MP, also spoke about The Sun, arguing that it must be “subject to an open inquiry so that we can see who collaborated in ensuring that it looked as though people were drunk, people were out of their heads on stuff, and people had caused the tragedy”.

Dame Nia Griffith, Labour MP, highlighted how press regulation in the UK still “falls well short of Leveson Part 1’s requirements for independent and robust press regulation” and how there is still no regulation in place to “prevent a cover-up perpetrated by the press from happening again”.

Abtisam Mohamed, Labour MP, spoke of “wave after wave of betrayal by the media, leading to cover-ups, delays and dishonesty”.

Clive Efford, Labour MP, acknowledged that “candour in public officials is welcome” but that the bill “fails to impose a similar duty on our media” and stated his desire to “address this omission”. These calls were endorsed by John McDonnell MP.

McDonell went on to say that “If anything good comes out of today’s debate, maybe it will be the Government reconsidering introducing Leveson Part 2 and legislation that prevents newspapers acting as The Sun did.”

Josh Newbury, Labour MP, highlighted IPSO’s horrific record of finding “in favour of complainants in only 0.3% of cases” and reiterated Margaret Aspinall’s statement that “justice for the 97 will not be fully done until we have proper press regulation and accountability for the lies that were told by The Sun.”

How did the Government respond?

After all of these speeches and interventions, one might have hoped that the Labour Government would realise that its position on this issue was unsustainable. However, when Alex Davies-Jones MP, Labour Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Victims, stood up to close the debate, her response was entirely disappointing.

She acknowledged that “A number of Members raised the issue of the media” but dismissed these earnest calls for change by arguing that media reform “is out of scope of this bill”. However, this bill’s objective is to promote candour by public officials. It is plainly within that objective that public officials ought to have transparent and honest interactions with the media.

Davies-Jones also stated that “Since the calls for Leveson and Leveson 2 were introduced, the media landscape has drastically and dramatically moved on”. This was the line used over and over again by the previous government to protect wealthy and powerful newspaper owners, and it is disappointing to see the this government taking the same line. Newspaper readership is currently at its highest historical level in the UK. Their online reach is substantial, and they still represent incredibly powerful forces in the UK media landscape. To downplay the power of the UK newspapers is manifestly wrong and allows them to continue getting away with blatant wrongdoing.

Hacked Off welcomes this bill and it is great to see it progress.  But it is important that the Government do not disregard the role of the media and, in particular, The Sun in these events. To do so is not only wrong and misleading, but also an offence against all those affected by that newspaper’s appalling behaviour and participation in the cover-up.

The Government must bring forward further legislation to introduce accountability for the media, or support efforts to amend this bill - and it must not water down the other provisions in the bill in any way whatsoever.

‍