Investigatory Powers Bill — Major News Publishers Which Are Not Members of an Approved Regulator — Claims of Unlawful Interception — Court Costs — 1 Nov 2016 at 15:45

Kevan Jones MP, North Durham voted to require certain major news publishers, which are not members of an approved regulator, to pay the costs of any court cases in relation to claims of unlawful interception.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring certain major news publishers, which are not members of an approved regulator, to pay the costs of any court cases in relation to claims of unlawful interception.

The rejected proposal would have given courts the freedom to make alternative, or no, awards of costs if it was judged just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so.

The rejected proposal would also have generally protected publishers which are members of an approved regulator from costs in such cases.

The rejected proposals would have provided an incentive for publishers to become members of an approved regulator.

MPs were considering the Investigatory Powers Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.

Lords amendment 15 sought to add a new clause titled Interception without lawful authority: award of costs stating:

  • (1) This section applies where—
  • (a) a claim is made under section 8 (civil liability for certain unlawful interceptions) against a person (“the defendant”),
  • (b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and
  • (c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.
  • (2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
  • (a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
  • (b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.
  • (3) If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
  • (a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
  • (b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
  • (4) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.
  • (5) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.
  • (6) Subsections (2) and (3) shall apply to any claim issued after this section comes into force.
  • (7) For the purposes of this section “approved regulator” shall have the same meaning as in section 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and “relevant publisher” shall have the same meaning as in section 41 of that Act.”

An approved regulator is defined as a regulator recognised under the provisions set out by the "Royal Charter on Self Regulation of the Press". Relevant publishers are news publishers those with over ten staff and turning over more than £2m per year, with exceptions including broadcasters, scientific publishers, charities and public bodies.

Related vote:

==

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con290 (+2 tell) 1089.1%
DUP6 0075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 2066.7%
Lab0 194 (+2 tell)084.5%
LDem0 5062.5%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 53098.1%
UUP2 00100.0%
Total:298 261087.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Crispin BluntReigateCon (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email team@publicwhip.org.uk

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive