May takes on the Lords with vow to fight for Press freedom

Peers deal a blow to plans to protect freedom of the Press

THERESA May has vowed to overturn a House of Lords vote for tighter media controls, warning that it would ‘undermine high quality journalism’.

The Prime Minister spoke out after unelected peers voted for a series of amendments which would muzzle the ability of the Press to investigate corruption and other scandals.

‘The impact of this vote would undermine high quality journalism and a free Press,’ Mrs May said.

‘I think it would particularly have a negative impact on local newspapers, which are an important part of our democracy.

‘I believe passionately in a free Press. We want to have a free Press that is able to hold politicians and others to account and we will certainly be looking to overturn this vote in the House of Commons.’

On Wednesday peers voted for a draconian law which would force the majority of newspapers to pay all the legal costs in data protection cases – even those they won.

The new law is closely modelled on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act which Mrs May had already pledged to scrap in her election manifesto.

The Lords also voted for a new inquiry which would be fashioned after so-called Leveson 2, the second part of the Leveson inquiry, with the key difference that it would scrap the parts that put the police and politicians under the spotlight and focus exclusively on the Press.

But the Tory party could overturn the House of Lords vote using the so- called Salisbury Convention, which stops the Upper House from blocking legislation that delivers the governing party’s manifesto promises. The Tories gave manifesto pledges that they would scrap both Leveson 2 and Section 40.

There is some debate about whether the Salisbury Convention applies where the

From yesterday’s Mail Government has not won an outright majority. However, ministers and other Tory MPs are understood to believe that the Salisbury Convention applies in the case of the House of Lords amendments.

Yesterday, former culture secretary John Whittingdale said peers had launched a ‘deliberate attack on freedom of expression in Britain’. He added: ‘Their vote flies in the face of the manifesto. I am pleased that the Government has made quite clear its intention to reverse this in the House of Commons.’ Tory MP Andrew Percy said: ‘The idea of an unelected chamber seeking to enforce its will on a free Press, without any such support from the elected House of Commons, is an affront to our democracy and to centuries of a free Press.’

Senior Tory backbencher Jacob ReesMogg called on Mrs May to create more Conservative peers if the Lords refuse to back down.

‘The House of Lords is wrong to override any manifesto commitment as it sets the peers against the people,’ he said. ‘Its hostility to a free Press is particularly troubling as it ought to protect our ancient liberties. What can the peers have to hide?’

Only a slim majority of peers – 211 votes to 200 – voted to introduce the law that would effectively enact Section 40.

It would allow criminals, corrupt businessmen and rogue politicians to drag newspapers through the courts secure in the knowledge that it would not cost them a penny. It would also make it impossible for the many newspapers to publish stories that would risk a court fight.

In a move described as ‘ blackmail’ it would apply to every newspaper that did not sign up to Impress, a state-approved regulator whose integrity has been seriously compromised.

The body is funded by ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley who has campaigned for tighter Press controls ever since the News of the World exposed him for taking part in an S&M orgy with prostitutes.

Almost all national and local newspapers, including the Daily Mail, have instead signed up to Ipso, an independent regula- tor which is entirely free of state control. Meanwhile, 238 peers backed the amendment calling for a new inquiry, with 209 voting against it.

Leveson 2 was intended to re- examine phone hacking, looking into the relationship between the media, police and politicians. However, in a move described as cynical, the peers’ amendment means only the Press would come under the spotlight of the new inquiry – letting the police and politicians off the hook.

On Wednesday – after the long and heated House of Lords debate – Matt Hancock, the new Culture Secretary, described the new rules as a ‘hammer blow’.

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.’

‘What can the peers have to hide?’

OUR democracy rests on sacred pillars. One is that our laws are made by representatives chosen in fair and free elections. Another is a free and unfettered Press.

This week in the House of Lords, unelected and unaccountable peers swung a vindictive axe at both.

On Wednesday evening, they hijacked the Data Protection Bill to pass – by very narrow margins – two amendments which would severely undermine Press freedom.

The first would force ministers to launch another long and hugely expensive inquiry into Britain’s newspapers, for which there is no discernible public appetite.

The Press would face further scrutiny from an inquiry into phone hacking allegations which have already been dealt with – at a cost of £43.5million – by the courts.

But the real purpose of ‘Leveson 2’ – to investigate the links between newspaper groups and the police and politicians who failed to investigate phone hacking – is conveniently and cynically ignored.

The second, and even more vindictive, amendment would tip the scales of justice against newspapers defending themselves against legal claims, by forcing them to pay the legal costs of both sides even if their reporting is accurate.

For local papers which do not have the financial resources to go to law, it would sound the death knell for investigations into crooks, con artists and corrupt officials.

Rightly, it has been compared to telling a householder whose neighbour has thrown a brick through his window that he must pay for the cost of the brick.

What’s worse is that the Lords are acting in defiance of democracy and constitutional precedent. Before last year’s election, the Conservative Party made clear its opposition to both measures.

But peers claim the Salisbury Convention – which states the Lords should not overturn a manifesto commitment – does not apply.

The battle will now move to the Commons. If MPs do not secure a reversal, they will have dealt a hammer blow both to Press freedom and to the vital principle that they deliver on the promises made to the electorate.