The culture secretary, Matt Hancock, confirmed on Thursday that the government would drop plans for the second phase of the Leveson inquiry into press standards launched in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

Hancock told the Commons: “We do not believe that reopening this costly and time-consuming public inquiry is the right way forward.”



Leveson 2 explained: what was it meant to achieve? Read more

The Conservative manifesto for last year’s general election included plans to abandon Leveson 2, which was intended to examine relationships between journalists and the police.

Labour immediately attacked the decision as a breach of trust, and the inquiry chair, Lord Leveson, published a letter to Hancock and the home secretary, Amber Rudd, in which he accused the government of breaking promises made to phone-hacking victims.

“I have no doubt that there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full public examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to develop,” he wrote. “That is what they were promised.”

The first part of the Leveson inquiry, which examined press standards after the phone-hacking scandal and the closure of the News of the World, was opened by the former prime minister David Cameron in 2011 and closed in 2012.



It followed a series of high-profile cases in which journalists had obtained confidential information by gaining access to the mobile phone messages of celebrities and, in the case of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler, victims of crime.

At the time the inquiry was launched, ministers promised a second phase to examine relationships between the media and the police, including the ways in which journalists acquired confidential information.

Hancock said in his statement that there had been many changes since the first Leveson report in 2012, which recommended a sweeping overhaul of press regulation, including the creation of a new watchdog. There were cries of “shame” in the Commons as he made the announcement.

“It’s clear that we’ve seen significant progress, from publications, from the police and from the new regulator. The world has changed since the Leveson inquiry was established in 2011. Since then we have seen seismic changes to the media landscape,” he said, pointing to a 30% fall in newspaper circulation, the closure of many local newspapers.

Is May’s press inquiry just a way of putting Leveson 2 on the back burner? | Roy Greenslade Read more

Leveson’s work had had a huge impact on public life, but there was also a need for a press that could properly hold the powerful to account, he said.“Britain needs high-quality journalism to thrive in the new digital world. We seek a press, a media, that is robust and independently regulated, that reports without fear or favour.”

Hancock also announced that the government would not put into effect section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, obliging media organisations to pay the legal costs of libel cases whether they won or lost, and would repeal it at the earliest opportunity.

The shadow culture secretary, Tom Watson, who has long campaigned for victims of press intrusion, said the decision was “a disappointment, a breach of trust and a bitter blow … but it is not in any way a surprise”.

Here's what section 40 would do to the British press – and it's not good | David Pegg Read more

Watson, who is currently under pressure over funding to his office from the press reform campaigner Max Mosley – who was this week revealed to have published a 1961 leaflet linking non-white immigrants with disease – said those in the government who had backed Leveson 2 when it was announced “didn’t really mean it”.

“They were waiting for the wind to change, waiting for the fuss to die down,” he said.



Watson has faced calls to return more than £500,000 in donations from Mosley, who also has links to the media regulator Impress. Labour has said it will accept no more donations from him.



Watson began his reply to Hancock by addressing the Mosley donations. “If I thought for one moment he held those views contained in that leaflet of 57 years ago, I would not have given him the time of day,” he said.

“He is a man, though, who in the face of great family tragedy and overwhelming media intimidation, chose to use his limited resources to support the weak against the strong.”