MPs reject move to force newspapers to pay libel costs

THE House of Commons has rejected an attempt to force newspapers to pay the costs of those suing them even if they win the court case.

Peers had attempted to include the measures in the Investigatory Powers Bill for cases that were linked to phone hacking. However Robert Buckland, the Solicitor General, insisted it would be “simply not appropriate”.

Peers have repeatedly sought to amend the Bill so it implements a key part of the Leveson Inquiry report by offering “protection” over costs for victims of press intrusion. But MPs voted to reject the latest Lords amendments by 295 votes to 245.

A parliamentary process known as ping-pong is taking place, which sees the Bill move between the Commons and the Lords until a final decision is taken over the text.

It will return to the Lords for further scrutiny. The Bill gives a range of new powers to access data and internet communications to police and security services.

Ministers are currently conducting a 10-week consultation which includes examining whether to implement legislation, which would force newspapers to pay all of the costs of libel or privacy actions brought against them – even if they win their case.

This would not apply to publications which sign up to a new state-backed press regulator.

Mr Buckland told MPs the measures “have no place in a Bill that relates to the regulation of investigative powers. This is all about national security”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP, intervening, said: “Wouldn’t you go further and say that putting restrictions on the press in a Bill on national security is actually precisely the wrong place to have restrictions on the press? It makes it look as if we’re really trying to hit them hard.” Mr Buckland noted that an “important point” had been made.

It is easy to take hard-won liberties for granted. A free press is one example. The freedom to live in safety is another. If the two are linked it is because the former bolsters the latter. But that, it seems, is not how everyone sees it. Indeed, some peers have suggested an amendment to the Investigatory Powers Bill which appeared to link security to fetters on the press. The amendment, which was considered in the Commons yesterday, sought to ensure that newspapers and media organisations paid costs for both sides in phone hacking cases. Yet, as the Solicitor General Robert Buckland rightly pointed out, the Bill is “about national security ... about dealing with crime whether it’s child abuse, whether it’s trafficking, whether it’s drug dealing, whether it’s the sort of criminality that we want to deal with in our society”.

The notion that the press should now be bracketed with terrorists or organised criminals is a measure of how absurd the current regulatory witch hunt has become. It is therefore no surprise that Labour backed it. Sensibly, however, the Conservatives rejected it and it has now been returned to the Lords for further scrutiny. The cross-bencher Baroness Hollins, who tabled the amendment, should take the hint and drop it.

Even if she does, however, that will still leave unaddressed ongoing moves to force newspapers to pay costs in libel cases even if they win – unless they sign up to a state-backed regulator. Both this and the Hollins amendment are clear threats to the freedom of the press. The Government has, for now, rightly seen off one attack on that freedom. Ministers should now complete the job and rule out the other.