Theresa May has said the government will seek to overturn votes in the House of Lords calling for tighter regulation of the media.



Following a lengthy debate on Wednesday, peers voted in favour of proceeding with part two of the Leveson inquiry into press standards and a a requirement for newspapers not signed up to an approved regulator to pay their own and their opponents’ legal costs in relation to alleged data protection breaches.

However, the prime minister said the move “would undermine high-quality journalism and a free press”.

Answering questions after a speech in London, May said: “I think it would particularly have a negative impact on local newspapers, which are an important underpinning of our democracy.

“I believe passionately in a free press. We want to have a free press that is able to hold politicians and others to account and we will certainly be looking to overturn this vote in the House of Commons.”

Matt Hancock, the new culture secretary, said earlier that the Lords votes would restrict press freedom and were a “hammer blow to the local press”.

The votes were to approve amendments to the Data Protection Act, which is passing through the House of Lords.

Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, criticised May’s and Hancock’s comments, saying the prime minister had “abandoned all the promises made to victims after the hacking scandal was exposed”.

He said Labour would fight to keep the Lords amendments in the bill when it is contested in the House of Commons.

“Last night’s vote was a milestone for the victims of hacking and press intrusion and a step towards fulfilling the promises for change made by all parties in 2012,” Watson said.

“Following that vote, Theresa May had a choice: whether to side with the victims of phone hacking or to side with her friends in the press and those that want to block change. Her words this morning make clear that she has abandoned all the promises made to victims after the hacking scandal was exposed.”

The government is considering submissions to a consultation on whether to go ahead with Leveson 2 and section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which would force a newspaper to cover the legal costs of the claimant in a libel case unless it has joined an approved regulator and offers low-cost arbitration.

The second part of the Leveson inquiry would look into the relationship between the media and the police. Sir Brian Leveson, who led the initial investigation into press standards following the phone-hacking scandal, is advising the government on the matter.

The Labour peer Charlie Falconer said: “Many Lords believed [the] government had already made up its mind. Hancock’s tweet confirms they were right.”

The News Media Association, the trade body for newspapers, said: “Legislation intended to make our data protection laws fit for the digital age is being used as a backdoor route by peers to enforce state-backed press regulation and obstruct investigative journalism, diminishing the public right to know.

“Hundreds of national and local news media editors and publishers across the UK are united in their fierce opposition to these cynical attempts to establish a costly and unnecessary taxpayer-funded statutory public inquiry into the wider media industry and to introduce another punitive version of crippling section 40 costs sanctions, enforcing state licensing of newspapers and inflicting huge damage on a free press.”