Oxfordshire MPs back freedom of the press as potential new regulations cause 'grave concern'

They backed the head of the Oxford Mail's parent company who expressed 'grave concern' at the moves.

A new press recognition panel – set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry into the practices and ethics of the press – has approved a new official press watchdog, Impress – funded by former F1 tycoon Max Mosley – even though it only has a handful a members.

The move could see new rules introduced whereby any publisher not signed-up to an approved regulator would have to pay both sides’ costs in a libel or privacy action – whether they win or lose. The crippling costs could force some newspapers out of business.

The so-called double costs rule would be introduced if the Government triggered Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

The Oxford Mail and its sister papers is already regulated by another regulatory body – the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

The move provoked Newsquest Chief Executive Henry Faure Walker to write a letter to Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Karen Bradley, expressing his concern that a paper like the Oxford Mail would "lose its ability to hold to account those who wield power".

He said: "It is no secret that the purpose of Section 40 is to force the press into a state-ordained system of compulsory regulation.

"It is designed to do this by taking away from publishers who do not sign up to that system their right in law to recover costs in libel, privacy and other media cases in the courts.

"We will have to pay not only our own costs but the other side's costs as well, whether we win or lose. The ancient principle of equality under the law is thrown out.

"The fundamental injustice is clear. We are to be punished by the imposition of crippling legal costs for doing our job, for being successful in reporting matters of proper public interest and vindicating in a court our lawful and responsible journalism."

Oxford West and Abingdon MP Nicola Blackwood said: "While the reforms are designed to protect victims of press abuse and ensure a self-regulated press, this must not come at the cost of a vibrant free press who are able to conduct investigative journalism – particularly for smaller publishers who could go out of business with large cost sanctions.

"Rightly, the Culture Secretary has said that she is considering representations from local newspapers very seriously before making a decision about whether to support section 40."

Oxford East MP Andrew Smith said the press was 'vital for democracy' and would be best served by seeing whether IPSO can 'fulfil its responsibilities properly, so that Section 40 is not triggered.

He added: "We need to find a way forward in all of this which properly protects both press freedom and the rights of the individual. It is a crucial and delicate balance, and it is worth giving it time to get it right."

Wantage MP Ed Vaizey added: "I do not support statutory regulation of the press.

"A free press is integral to our success as a democracy, and I will oppose any move to impose unfair costs on both regional and national newspapers."

Industry leaders are confident the controversial clause will never be activated after Ms Bradley suggested she would take a fresh look at the issue.

Speaking to the Commons on Monday, she said: "I could do an ideological position on this but the implications may be that we see a vibrant, free, local press being affected.

"It has been put to me very clearly by a number of editors of local newspapers that the exemplary damages section of Section 40 could see them being put out of business and would impact on their ability to do investigative journalism.

"I want to consider those representations very carefully, and then make a determination. I am reserving judgment at this stage until I have had a chance to consider all the options."