Peerless arrogance

Throughout their destructive deliberations on the EU Withdrawal Bill, the Lords have maintained that they are within their rights to inflict defeats on the Government. It is their job as a revising chamber to send the legislation back to the Commons for the verdict of MPS. The expectation is that they will be bound by the final decision of the elected chamber. Indeed, they are constitutionally required to uphold the decisions of the Lower House or face their imposition through the use of the Parliament Act. Usually, the Lords back down when MPS have made their views clear.

Last week, MPS voted to reject an amendment to the Data Protection Bill originally passed in the Lords which would force the Government to establish another inquiry into newspapers, a Leveson Mark 2. Yesterday, when the Bill returned to the Upper House, peers put the provision back in. Lady Hollins, the crossbench peer who has been spearheading this campaign, argued that promises had been made to investigate press “abuses”. This position continues to be adopted by supporters like the pressure group Hacked Off despite the comprehensive nature of the first Leveson inquiry and dozens of prosecutions, as well as the closure of the News of the World. The only reason campaigners want another inquiry is to tighten controls on newspapers.

The real abuse is the constitutional impropriety taking place in the Lords. The Commons made its position on Leveson 2 clear last week and that should have been the end of the matter. It now falls to MPS to reverse the Lords vote. When this comes back to the Commons, it is to be hoped there will be a more emphatic victory for free speech than the nine vote win last week.