Parliamentary authorities have been urged to investigate allegations that the UK’s press regulator undermined free speech by reprimanding The Telegraph for quoting comments made in the House of Commons about the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). The Telegraph has the story.
Three former Cabinet ministers raised concerns over the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), including Sir David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, who called for parliamentary authorities to speak to the regulator.
The Telegraph was reprimanded for quoting comments previously made by Michael Gove in the Commons, despite them being made under parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians against legal action over anything they say in Parliament and extends to the reporting of those proceedings.
Speaking in the Commons on a point of order, Sir David said that Ipso should be reminded the British press “has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this Chamber without any hindrance or conditionality”.
Ipso upheld a complaint by the MAB against The Telegraph over allegations made in the Commons in March 2024 by Mr Gove, the former communities secretary, that it was “affiliated” to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries.
Ipso ruled that despite parliamentary privilege, The Telegraph’s account of those comments in a subsequent story in January 2025 was misleading because it failed to include a response from the MAB, which denies any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ipso judged that it was not sufficient for The Telegraph to publish a statement online from last March in which the MAB rejected Mr Gove’s allegations of extremism, maintaining that it was “law-abiding” and “contributed to the common good”.
The ruling came despite there being no obligation for a publisher to seek a response provided that care is taken not to publish “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.
Sir David said: “Press freedom is a cornerstone of democracy, and for centuries the right to freely report on the proceedings of this House have been protected in British law.
“Those freedoms allowing the press to report without any hindrance or conditionality were secured as long ago as 1771 by John Wilkes,” he continued, referring to the journalist and MP who successfully fought for the right to report parliamentary proceedings in the 18th century.
“While Ipso may think it is being responsible, its reprimanding of The Telegraph undermines those fundamental rights.
“Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask the House authorities to speak with the Independent Press Standards Organisation to remind it that the British press has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this Chamber without any hindrance or conditionality?”
Caroline Nokes, the Deputy Speaker, said: “Without commenting specifically on the Ipso ruling, because I understand that the issue was not straightforwardly about the reporting of what was said in this House, I do of course support the principle that being able to report on what is said here is extremely important.”
It is understood Sir Davidplans to discuss the issue with parliamentary officials, urging them to write to Ipso and other similar bodies such as Ofcom, the broadcast and online regulator.
He was backed by Sir Michael Ellis, theformer attorney general, who said: “This ruling from Ipso is an appalling breach of parliamentary privilege. It is well established that the press can report proceedings in Parliament without hindrance.”
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, theformer business secretary, said that Ipso “must go”. He accused the organisation of acting like “power-crazed bureaucrats who set themselves above Parliament”. In a podcast, he said that he had opposed the creation of Ipso in 2013.
“I opposed the regulation of newspapers by the state on principle,” he said. “Freedom of speech is one of the essential pillars of the constitution. It allows the powerful to be held to account, unpopular arguments to be made, and errors of policy-making or of judgments in the courts to be challenged.”
Worth reading in full.
