Section 40 still poses a threat to a free press

The Government’s decision not to proceed with stage two of the Leveson Inquiry into the newspaper industry is welcome. As Matt Hancock, the Culture Secretary, told the Commons, it would have been a pointless and costly exercise serving no one’s interests, least of all those of the taxpayer. But this does not remove the threat to press freedom posed by Parliament and implicit in Jeremy Corbyn’s dark threat recently, following articles about his avowedly innocent contacts with Cold War spies, that “things will change”.

In 2013, Parliament passed the Crime and Courts Act, which included at Section 40 a requirement on publishers to sign up to an officially recognised regulator or risk bearing the costs of any legal claim brought against them, irrespective of the merits of the case. This pernicious provision has never been brought into force but remains on the statute book. Mr Hancock said the Government will not implement it and will seek its repeal – as promised in the Conservative election manifesto. But without a Commons majority this is not assured.

Moreover, Lords amendments to the Data Protection Bill, which begins its progress through the Commons next week, would set up another Leveson-style inquiry and trigger Section 40 by the back door unless they are overturned. We trust all MPS who believe in a free press will do just that and will also support the repeal of Section 40 when the Government puts the measure before them.

The circumstances in which this draconian legislation was passed five years ago, in the febrile atmosphere created by the phone-hacking scandal, have changed markedly. Ipso, the independent regulator to which most newspapers – including this one – subscribe, is fulfilling the function sought by the Leveson inquiry by dealing promptly with press failings and curbing unwarranted intrusion. Meanwhile, online media, full of half truths and “fake news”, carries on completely unregulated.

Were it implemented, Section 40 would constrain the ability of the press to hold those in power to account. It was hardly surprising that criticism of Mr Hancock was led by Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, whose office has been bankrolled by Max Mosley, the man who through a private trust funds the state-approved press regulator, Impress. A newspaper investigation has raised serious questions about Mr Mosley’s past. No wonder he and Mr Watson want to shut it up.