Labour to oppose scrapping of controversial post-Leveson press rule

Labour is on a collision course with Fleet Street after Britain’s main opposition party signalled it would oppose government plans to scrap a controversial legal mechanism that was one of the key measures to emerge from the 2012 Leveson report into press misconduct.

Ministers intend to use the forthcoming media bill to repeal a provision that was drawn up in the wake of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry and would force publishers to accept state-backed regulation or face paying the legal costs of both sides even in court cases they win.

Publishers have strongly opposed Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, arguing it is an attack on 300 years of press freedom. It has never been brought into force by successive Conservative governments.

The government will announce its plans to drop the law from statute books when it presents the media bill as part of its wider legislative agenda in the King’s Speech later this year, arguing it is a “threat to the freedom and sustainability of the press”.

Labour, which is leading the Conservatives in the polls ahead of next year’s general election, is unlikely to vote against the entire bill but will oppose the Section 40 element.

One senior Labour figure said: “We know this will trigger a fight with the press, but it has been Labour policy for years to have Section 40. It would look very odd not to stand up for it now the Tories are trying to repeal it.”

A Labour spokesperson said the party backed the media bill to “support the creative industries and public service broadcasters” but that the government was wrong to “muddy the waters” by provoking a debate about repealing Section 40. She argued it would not make a substantive difference given it had never been used. 

“The press play an important and valued role in our democracy and face many threats due to disinformation and misinformation,” she added. “We need trusted journalism more than ever. It’s right that the press is held to the highest standards and are accountable for their reporting.”

Media executives expressed surprise at Labour’s position on Section 40, citing private conversations suggesting its leadership was supportive of getting rid of it.

One newspaper executive said Labour resistance to scrapping the law would amount to the party “shooting itself in the foot” ahead of the next general election.

Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, said: “Removing Section 40 will safeguard the future of public interest journalism in the UK . . . To keep it in place risks a serious chilling effect on freedom of speech.”

The Leveson inquiry was set up by the then prime minister David Cameron after the phone-hacking scandal, in which several newspapers unlawfully accessed the voicemails of celebrities, politicians and crime victims.

The government subsequently introduced Section 40, which meant that it would be mandatory for the court to order any publishers outside Impress, the only officially recognised regulator, to pay legal costs of both sides regardless of the outcome of any court case, unless the judge were satisfied it would be just and equitable to make a different order.

But most leading publishers refused to sign up to Impress and instead joined a rival regulator — the Independent Press Standards Organisation — which those backing tougher regulation argue lacks teeth.

The Financial Times, along with the Guardian, has refused to join either and has instead set up its own independent system of editorial regulation. It has called for Section 40 to be repealed on the basis that it marked a “dangerous weakening of the UK news industry” and was a “legislative sword of Damocles”.

Owen Meredith, chief executive of the News Media Association trade body, said it was “absolutely right” that the government was planning to scrap the law. “Section 40 is a pernicious piece of legislation that hangs over the press. It’s never been enacted, and for good reason,” he added. 

This article has been revised to clarify the effect of Section 40 regarding news publishers that are not members of an officially approved regulator

Letter in response to this report:

Post-Leveson rule a lifeline for victims of press abuse / From Christopher Jefferies, Bristol, UK