‘We must protect the free press’
As two top Labour MPs try to ‘hijack’ Data Protection Bill...
THERESA May has urged MPs to block moves curbing press freedoms in a vote today.
The Prime Minister yesterday told senior ministers “it was important for the Government to resist amendments which could undermine our free press”.
Two amendments will go before the Commons as part of the Data Protection Bill.
The first, tabled by former Labour leader Ed Miliband, could see a new statutory probe into the media after the Government scrapped the second part of the Leveson Inquiry.
The other, by Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson, calls for publishers to pay their own and their opponent’s legal costs, even if they are successful in court.
Editors have warned the moves would place unbearable shackles on media rights and could spell bankruptcy for many newspapers.
WHEN MPs vote today they have a choice. They can uphold 350 years of press freedom or stop newspapers from holding the rich, the powerful and the corrupt to account.
In Britain we believe in decency and fairness. We want those who rig the system, whether it is MPs fiddling their expenses or slum landlords ripping off tenants, to be held responsible.
And the main champion of the underdog in our open and democratic society is the press.
Yet the freedoms the press enjoy – and with it the ability to expose wrongdoing – are under threat.
In the latest World Press Freedom Index, the UK was ranked 40th in the world behind countries such as Jamaica and Chile.
And if two Labour MPs have their way today, those freedoms could be further eroded.
Tom Watson and Ed Miliband have hijacked the Data Protection Bill by tabling amendments which could have serious consequences for investigative journalism, the viability of local papers and the openness of our democracy.
What will the Tom Watson amendment do?
The Shadow Culture Secretary is trying to resurrect a modified form of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.
This proposes that unless papers sign up to the staterecognised regulator IMPRESS, they will have to pay the legal costs of both sides in data protection cases, even if they win.
The amendment exempts not-for-profit publishers such as the Guardian and the Observer and titles in specific regions with a turnover below £100million.
But it would still cover 85% of local papers as most are owned by media companies, such as the Mirror’s publisher Reach, with turnovers above that amount.
Watson is a friend of former Formula One boss Sir Max Mosley, who has harboured a deep loathing for newspapers since the News of the World revealed he took part in an S&M party with prostitutes.
He bankrolls IMPRESS through an arms-length charity and also gave Watson a £500,000 donation to fund office costs and staff – money Watson has declined to give back despite the revelation Mosley published a campaign leaflet in the 1960s which linked non-white immigrants to diseases such as VD and leprosy.
Why should it be resisted?
Local newspaper editors and freedom of speech campaigners say the amendment will cause irreparable damage to journalism.
Editors will not be able to risk running stories exposing corruption or wrongdoing if they know it will result in expensive legal action.
Jodie Ginsberg of Index on Censorship said it could be used by people to avoid exposure, even in cases such as the Windrush scandal where exposure is in the public interest.
The main beneficiaries of Watson’s amendment would be those who want to wipe their grubby reputations clean by removing stories from the internet.
This could include paedophiles with historical convictions or shady businessmen who want to start up their next dodgy venture.
These are the sort of people who would threaten us with a data protection claim, knowing we would have to pay all the costs of the case unless we removed the articles about them from our websites, preventing you from seeing the truth.
Mosley recently threatened the Mirror with a Data Protection Act claim concerning revelations about him that were heard in open court and are still available online. We are defending it vigorously.
However, if the Watson amendment goes through, Mosley would get all the costs of his claim even if he lost, unless we were to join IMPRESS, the regulator HE
helped found and finances through a trust. Media lawyer Antony White says the Watson amendment could also be illegal.
Who regulates the press?
In the wake of the phone hacking scandal, the British press has changed the way it operates.
Following the recommendation of Sir Brian Leveson’s inquiry, the majority of the country’s papers set up an independent regulator called IPSO.
More than 2,600 print and online titles are now covered by IPSO which has the power to impose fines of up to £1million and demand front page apologies for serious breaches.
An independent review of IPSO by Sir Joseph Pilling found it to be independent, effective and compliant with most of Leveson’s recommendations.
What is wrong with IMPRESS?
No title of any significance has signed up to IMPRESS – and there are not just concerns about the motives of Mosley.
It is governed by a Royal Charter, which in turn is overseen by politicians on the Privy Council.
Any organisation that accepts it as its regulator also agrees, by extension, to state control.
While the present regime may not interfere through the Privy Council, a future regime could use it to exert control over the press.
What will the Ed Miliband amendment do?
The former Labour leader has tabled an amendment calling for the introduction of the second part of the Leveson Inquiry.
Leveson Two was due to look at the relationship between journalists and the police but was delayed because of ongoing criminal action.
Last year the Government abandoned it completely, saying the industry had changed and it was not convinced the cost – the bill for Leveson One was £48million – was justified.
Why should it be resisted?
The Government consulted on a second inquiry and, on the back of submissions, decided against it.
Newspapers, including the Daily Mirror, have paid the price for phone hacking and given millions of pounds in compensation. The News of the World was closed and ten journalists convicted.
In the meantime, the media has been transformed by the expansion of Facebook, Twitter and Google.
But this is already being investigated by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee while Dame Frances Cairncross is reviewing press sustainability.