Minister warns of libel law threat to our ‘free and vibrant’ Press
CULTURE Secretary Karen Bradley yesterday signalled that the Government had serious doubts about legislation that would force the Press to sign up to a new State-backed regulator.
She defended the importance of a ‘free and vibrant’ Press, and said she wanted to consider other options for achieving similar regulation that did not threaten newspapers.
She warned against legislation that could force newspapers to pay the other side’s costs in a libel or privacy action even if a newspaper wins a case. The Cabinet minister said she had been told by several editors that such a move could put local newspapers ‘out of business’ and affect their ability to carry out ‘investigative journalism’.
Appearing before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Mrs Bradley insisted she would not be rushed into activating the regulations until she had examined all the options.
The Government-backed Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was established in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards.
It was set up by Royal Charter to make sure Press regulators were independent and properly funded.
It is due to rule today on whether to recognise Impress, a new regulator funded by Max Mosley, the Hacked Off campaigner.
It has spent two years and £2million of taxpayers’ cash preparing to give recognition to Impress.
If it does, Mrs Bradley will have to consider whether to activate Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This would mean any newspaper that refused to sign up to Impress could have to pay the other side’s costs in a libel or privacy action even if they win the case.
The move has angered many newspapers, which have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of any State regulation, warning it would be a threat to Press freedom. Mrs Bradley acknowledged that most newspapers were not prepared to consider applying for recognition through the PRP.
While she said she had not ruled out activating Section 40 at some point, she wanted to consider the options for achieving ‘appropriate levels of robust regulation... outside the PRP’. She told MPs: ‘We want to see good, robust regulation that works for all, that enables good investigative journalists to continue to thrive, but gives protection for members of the public and others. We need to get that right.’
Mrs Bradley said that in 2013, when the Government debated and passed the Crime and Courts Act, it
‘It could see them put out of business’
was a ‘different situation’. She added: ‘We expected and hoped that the Press would join regulators that applied for recognition under the PRP. That simply has not happened. I could do an ideological position on this but the implications may be that we see a vibrant, free, local Press being affected.
‘It has been put to me very clearly by a number of editors of local newspapers that the exemplary damages section of Section 40 could see them being put out of business and would impact on their ability to do investigative journalism.
‘I want to consider those representations very carefully, and then make a determination.
‘I am reserving judgment at this stage until I have had a chance to consider all the options.’
Championing local newspapers, she said: ‘I want to make sure they can succeed and continue to do the investigative journalism they do without fear that an exemplary damages claim against them could put them out of business.
‘I expect to see robust regulation of the Press.’
Asked whether the Government was exploring a ‘middle way’, she said: ‘It would not be fair to victims of Press intrusion to take a decision based on facts and situations from three years ago without reflecting on the position today.’
Mrs Bradley said she wanted to see the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) demonstrate good regulation.