Peers deal a blow to plans to protect freedom of Press
UNELECTED peers eager to muzzle the media last night inflicted a painful blow on Government plans to protect Press freedoms.
Following a lengthy and bad-tempered debate, the House of Lords voted for a series of amendments which would curb the media’s ability to investigate corruption and other scandals.
Peers voted by 211 votes to 200, a majority of only 11, to introduce a draconian law amounting to ‘blackmail’ which would force the vast majority of newspapers, including the local Press, to pay all legal costs in data protection cases even if they win.
It would mean criminals, corrupt businessmen and rogue politicians who feared they were under investigation could drag media companies through the courts in the knowledge it would not cost them a penny – threatening the survival of many struggling titles.
The new law would echo the notorious Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which Theresa May pledged to scrap in her election manifesto. It would apply to any newspaper that refused to sign up to the state-approved regulator Impress. The body is funded almost entirely by the ex-Formula 1 boss Max Mosley, a supporter of greater Press controls since being exposed by the News of the World for taking part in an S&M orgy with prostitutes. Almost all national and local newspapers, including the Daily Mail, are members of the independent regulator Ipso, which is entirely free of state control.
The Lords also voted by 238 votes to 209 – a majority of 29 – for a new probe effectively mirroring the second part of the Leveson inquiry. So-called Leveson 2 was intended to re- examine phonehacking, looking into the relationship between the media, police and politicians. But in a move described as ‘cynical’, the peers’ amendment means only the Press would come under the spotlight of a new inquiry – letting the police and politicians off the hook.
Critics warned it would have a ‘chilling’ effect on free speech and investigative journalism.
Last night, new Culture Secretary Matt Hancock blasted the moves – and pledged to seek to overturn the controversial amendments in the Commons.
He wrote on Twitter: ‘House of Lords have just voted to restrict Press freedoms. This vote will undermine high quality journalism, fail to resolve challenges the media face and is a hammer blow to local Press. We support a free Press.’ A senior Government source added: ‘The Lords’ behaviour on this is outrageous. Voting against a manifesto commitment is unconstitutional.’
Peers tabled the amendments to the Data Protection Bill, claiming they were needed to curb Press violations of personal data. Crossbench peer Lord Pannick, a leading barrister, warned that the amendments would make it impossible for journalists to probe serious wrongdoing, such as the Daily Mail’s long-running campaign to convict the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.
He said: ‘ Do we really need another public inquiry on this subject? It would be so broad in nature it would impede the ability of editors and journalists to get on with the vital work of holding the Government and powerful private individuals and companies to account.’ He urged the House of Lords to ‘bear in mind the valuable, indeed, the essential, work done by the Press in exposing those who abuse public office or private power’.
Tory peer Lord Black, an executive director of the Telegraph Media Group, said: ‘The aim is to use the law... to blackmail publishers into a system of stateapproved regulation. To punish newspapers for telling the truth as a ruse to impose such controls is both inimical to Press freedom and alien to democracy.’
He said peers who backed omitting the police and politicians from a second inquiry were ‘happy to cynically sweep everything under the carpet’.
Lady Hollins, among those who tabled the Leveson 2 amendment, said: ‘If corporate misbehaviour on this scale had occurred in any other industry our newspapers would quite rightly have been calling for heads to roll.’
She said lives had been ‘changed irreversibly by hostile and misleading reports often following data breaches through the theft of medical records, bank account details, phone records and other private data’.
‘Alien to democracy’