The Data Protection Bill is an unjust assault on press freedom

If the amendment succeeds, it has the potential to impact negatively on journalists across the spectrum – tabloid, broadsheet, web, local, regional or national

The Data Protection Bill may have unforeseen consequences (Shutterstock)

The Data Protection Bill being considered by MPs tomorrow ought to have been a relatively low-key piece of legislation, used to bring an EU-wide regulation into UK law. The primary intention of the new rules was to give individuals more control over their own data, and its use by third parties – including big corporations.

However, the bill has become contentious because of amendments proposed by opposition MPs that could have a potentially deleterious impact on the freedom of the press.

The first seeks to force the government into holding an inquiry along the lines previously envisaged as “Leveson part 2”, with the focus on unlawful or improper behaviour by national news publishers in the context of personal data. Also under the microscope would be the dissemination of fake news, the role of the police and others in preventing past misbehaviour to be investigated, and the question of naming suspects of crime before they are charged.

At a time when the news media landscape is changing rapidly and when data protection laws are being updated anyway, it does not feel especially timely to be holding what appears to be a largely backward-looking inquiry, even though victims of press intrusion will welcome such a move. What’s more, when it comes to fake news, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is already in the midst of examining the subject.

The second proposed amendment is of more existential concern. Its effect would be to compel a news publisher that is not part of an approved regulator (including The Independent) to pay both sides’ costs in any data protection claim brought against it – no matter the outcome of the case when it reaches court.

Supporters of this proposal argue that it is the only way to force newspapers and news websites to join a regulator that has the backing of the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), established by royal charter in the aftermath of the first Leveson Inquiry, which concluded in 2012. As things stand, the only approved regulator is Impress, which is financially supported at arm’s length by the staunch press critic Max Mosley.

As a matter of principle – because of the link between the PRP and parliament, to which the former must report – no mainstream publisher has signed up to Impress. Its links to Mr Mosley make it a less attractive proposition still, although that is largely by the by. Yet if the opposition amendment is passed, as it may well be, those publishers are likely to face myriad lawsuits from individuals who have plenty to hide and nothing to lose.

As Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship, wrote for The Independent yesterday, it would be wrong to imagine that the battle here is between righteous Labour MPs and the ghastly tabloid press. If the cost-shifting amendment succeeds, it has the potential to impact negatively on journalists across the spectrum – tabloid, broadsheet, web, local, regional or national. For a sector already facing unprecedented economic challenges, it could prove disastrous.

It is true of course that elements of the press are unruly and that appalling behaviour has taken place at some titles in the past. But those should not be sufficient reasons for MPs to vote into law this pernicious assault on press freedom.