Madeleine McCann’s family want ‘Leveson 2’ – why has the government ruled it out?

Gerry McCann, the father of Madeleine McCann, has written to the prime minister urging him to resume the Leveson Inquiry into the conduct and regulation of the media. In a rare interview, he has described the “monstering” his family received in the press after his daughter’s disappearance. He adds that they were “lucky to survive” such treatment.

A number of other interested parties co-signed the letter, including families affected by the Hillsborough tragedy, survivors and relatives of those killed in the 7/7 bombings, and the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack. They’ve asked for a meeting with Keir Starmer to discuss the activities of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers and for “Leveson 2” to be convened.

McCann has received a statement of support from Prince Harry, who on Wednesday said he “stands firmly with all those harmed by unethical and unlawful press intrusion”.

Negative, as it has been for some time. Last year, after ITV screened a documentary on Madeleine’s case, McCann asked Starmer to take action, but the newly elected PM responded: “We set out in our manifesto our programme for action for this government, we've laid that out in the King’s Speech, that clearly sets out our priorities – and the second half of Leveson is not among them.”

Now, secretary of state Lisa Nandy has confirmed that the Leveson Inquiry and its recommendations won’t be revisited: “We've ruled out doing phase two of Leveson, and I’ve been really upfront with the families, the victims and survivors of malpractice when it comes to the press, about that.”

It is phase two of the Leveson Inquiry – the lengthy judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of Britain’s press following the News International phone-hacking scandal. It was commissioned in 2011 by the Cameron government, and was chaired by a senior judge, Brian Leveson. Its first phase considered whether there had been any regulatory failures, and produced its first report in 2012, recommending the creation of an independent press regulator backed by powerful incentives for newspapers and other media organisations to sign up.

The second phase was supposed to examine “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct” within press organisations, and establish potential links between the press and the police facilitating such misconduct. It was also designed to make further recommendations for the future. However, by 2018 it was fully shelved, on the grounds that the media landscape had changed and some criminal proceedings had been pursued. A suspicion remains that Leveson’s work was ended by politicians fearful of powerful editors and proprietors.

Not much. Nandy pleads that things have changed over the past 15 years or so, and it is odd that, even in 2011, the entire digital space was excluded from Leveson’s terms of reference. Nandy argues: “Most people at the time would read a daily newspaper, but now most people are consuming their news online through a variety of different sources.” She says she is focusing on children: “So we’ve just been debating, for example, what happens online to young people. Young people, like all of us, are looking at lots of different sources to gather their news and information, and we think that there are different solutions that are needed.”

As envisaged by Leveson, it was never properly established. One problem was that the financial imperative to join a recognised regulatory body such as Impress, which was supposed to be put into legislation, was eventually removed. (A clause was inserted into the 2013 Crime and Courts Act forcing newspapers to cover the legal costs of a claimant in a libel case – even if they won – unless they were signed up to a state-backed regulator; this was deeply resented by most of the press, and it was repealed in 2024.)

Self-regulation remains the norm, with most newspapers signed up to Ipso, the independent standards body funded by the big media groups. Others, such as the Financial Times and The Independent, operate their own processes. Broadcasters are more tightly policed, by Ofcom, but the arrival of right-wing propaganda channels such as GB News has clouded the picture.

In any case, despite the existence of the Online Safety Act, the Public Order Act, the Equalities Act, parts of the Human Rights Act, and the laws of libel, the entire world of social media is a toxic free-for-all that exceeds the worst of what happened in the “legacy media”. Most of it, practically speaking, is beyond the reach of any regulator. Perhaps that is what Leveson 2 – or maybe Leveson 3 – should investigate next.