Once again, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Lucy Frazer MP has failed to properly explain the effects of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in a press release issued today.Section 40 is a provision which would protect regulated newspapers from paying opponents' costs in media cases brought against them, while also ensuring the public have access to justice against unregulated titles.Most national newspapers don't want to be regulated, so they have lobbied the Government to repeal the provision. The Government has capitulated to them, and has begun the process of repeal.The Government have repeatedly misrepresented the effects of this provision.Below are the Secretary of State's latest remarks, issued in a press release today, alongside the facts.

___________________________

"This Bill has media freedom at its core."

If the Bill had “media freedom” at its core, it would include the full commencement of section 40, which would protect regulated newspapers from paying opponents’ costs in media cases.

"Section 40, and the possibility of publishers having to pay the legal costs of the people who sue them, even if they win, has hung over our media like a Sword of Damocles."

Section 40 would protect newspapers from paying costs.It would only adversely affect those newspapers which refuse to be independently regulated, and then only if the Judge considers it appropriate in the circumstances. In such cases, section 40 would ensure that people affected by illegal behaviour in the press are able to afford legal action against them and are not deprived of justice.

"This Bill removes the sword for good."

It is not a “sword”. It is a provision to protect freedom of speech for the press, and access to justice for the public.

"Laws which could risk preventing UK newspapers from pursuing valuable public interest stories will be removed from the statute books via the Bill."

Correct.

"Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, a law which is not in force, could have required news publishers to pay both sides’ costs in any legal proceedings if not a member of an approved regulator."

Section 40 would protect regulated newspapers, and ensure that ordinary people have their costs covered by newspapers which refuse to join a regulator.

"Section 40 was brought in as a result of the Leveson Inquiry as an incentive to encourage the press to join a recognised self-regulator."

Yes - but also to protect freedom of speech for the press, and access to justice for the public.

"Since then, a stronger self-regulatory system for the press has been established"

False – national newspapers have a similar system to what they had before Leveson, but now it is called “IPSO” instead of the PCC. This has been no improvement, and it is not appropriate for the Government to “declare” it an improvement without any basis for doing so.

"new challenges are threatening the sustainability of many print outlets…"

Section 40 commencement would have financial benefits for newspapers.

"…particularly local newspapers who stood to be hardest hit from the legislation."

False – many local newspapers are in an independent regulator and would benefit from section 40 commencement.

"A public consultation found a huge majority (79%) backed repealing Section 40, with many arguing it could have stopped publishers from undertaking valuable investigative journalism, or publishing stories that are critical of individuals, for fear of being taken to court and having to pay for both sides."

Leveson himself criticised the way the Government counted responses to this consultation. Asked in any independent poll, members of the public consistently back independent regulation for the press.