Why are we talking about press regulation again?

In 2011 the then prime minister, David Cameron, announced a public inquiry into press standards after the phone-hacking scandal which brought down the News of the World. 

Seven years later, MPs are preparing to vote on a cross-party proposal to establish another inquiry into the media’s actions.

The proposal, in the form of an amendment to the data protection bill, has been tabled by the former Labour leader Ed Miliband, former Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke, and MPs from the Liberal Democrats, Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party. It would establish a new inquiry into “allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers”.

A separate amendment to the same legislation, tabled by the Labour MPs Tom Watson and Liam Byrne, would impose punitive legal costs on media organisations which refuse to be recognised by Impress, the officially sanctioned press regulator.

Didn’t the Leveson inquiry deal with this?

Not in the eyes of campaigners for tougher press regulation.

The public inquiry established by Cameron, named after its chairman, Lord Justice Leveson, was split into two sections. The first part considered ethics and standards in the British media and heard evidence from figures across the industry. Its conclusion, published in November 2012, recommended a new form of press regulation.

However, all the major newspapers chose instead to adopt their own forms of regulation, with some joining together to found the unrecognised press regulator Ipso, and the Guardian and the Financial Times choosing to self-regulate.

Newspapers benefited from the government’s decision not to implement a rule that would require publishers to meet all the legal costs of a claimant in a libel case, even if the claimant was unsuccessful, if the publisher was not a member of an officially recognised regulator.

The second part of the Leveson inquiry, looking into the relationship between journalists and the police, was supposed to take place at the conclusion of court cases involving alleged phone hacking and inappropriate payments to public officials.

However, two months ago the Conservative culture secretary, Matt Hancock, announced there was no need for the second part to go ahead, citing a “transformational shift in the media landscape and how people consume news” and reforms that had already taken place, further angering campaigners, such as Miliband.

If passed, the two proposed amendments would undermine the government’s recent decisions by legislating for a fresh inquiry similar to Leveson part two, and introducing punitive measures for newspapers that refuse to join Impress.

Are MPs likely to vote for the proposals?

Theresa May has told cabinet ministers it is “very important” that the government opposes the amendments, and a substantial whipping operation is under way.

Despite this, both Downing Street and opposition sources expect the votes to be close, with the balance of power held by the SNP and the handful of Tory rebels who have been won over by Clarke’s case for a new inquiry.

What is the Guardian’s position on press regulation?

The Guardian opposes any attempts to force it to join Impress and believes the proposed amendment on section 40, introducing punitive legal costs for those who don’t sign up to the officially sanctioned regulator, would erode press freedom and have a chilling effect on its own public interest investigative journalism.