View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Media Law
November 15, 2016

Second Lords bid to impose phone-hacking case cost penalties on the press is rejected by House of Commons

By PA Mediapoint

The Government has refused to budge over its proposed new surveillance powers by rejecting for a second time amendments from peers linked to phone-hacking.

Solicitor General Robert Buckland insisted it would be “simply not appropriate” to include within the Investigatory Powers Bill changes designed to ensure costs are awarded against newspaper and media organisations in phone-hacking cases.

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. The costs penalties would not apply to publishers who are part of a Royal Charter-backed press regulator.

But MPs voted to reject the latest Lords amendments by 295 votes to 245, a majority of 50.

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

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

Ministers are currently conducting a ten-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.

Content from our partners
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it
Impress: Regulation, arbitration and complaints resolution
Papermule: Workflow automation for publishers

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

Buckland reiterated that this consultation “speaks directly to the concerns” of those who support the Lords amendments.

He recognised that independent crossbencher Baroness Hollins had revised her amendments, but later told MPs: “They have no place in a Bill that relates to the regulation of investigative powers.

“This is all about national security, this is 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.

“That’s why these amendments are not only out of place but also they pre-empt the outcome of the consultation launched by (Culture Secretary Karen Bradley).”

Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset), intervening, said: “Wouldn’t you go further and to 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?”

Buckland noted an “important point” had been made.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott backed the changes proposed by peers, telling the Commons: “I believe any member of the public who just heard the speech from the Government benches will be puzzled as to the Government’s continuing resistance to implementing an aspect of Leveson that it, in principle, agreed to some time ago.

“Labour fully supports this set of amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill and on this side of the House we have consistently and genuinely called for the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full.”

SNP justice spokeswoman Joanna Cherry also supported the amendments and said: “Those who have not hacked, do not hack phones and do not intend to hack telephones or indeed emails have nothing to fear from these provisions.”

But Rees-Mogg said: “This is an absolutely dreadful amendment. It should be thrown out, rejected, sent back to the House of Lords.

“It is fundamentally wrong. It seeks to punish those who may be innocent, to fine them for telling the truth, for saying things that people in power do not like.

“It goes to the heart of our free press and it should be thrown in the bin.”

Topics in this article : , ,

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network