The amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill enabling the courts to impose exemplary damages was passed in the Commons tonight by 530 votes to 13.
The Tory MPs who opposed the exemplary damages measure were:
- Richard Bacon (S Norfolk)
- Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
- Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford)
- Philip Davies (Shipley)
- Nick de Bois (Enfield N)
- Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole)
- Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood)
- John Redwood (Wokingham)
- Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)
- Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes)
- Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
- Sarah Wollaston (Totnes)
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) voted both ways, the traditional way of registering an abstention.
Speaking to Tom Bradby on The Agenda former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has said that, "I'm absolutely delighted to hear all the political leaders get up and say, 'let's have this Royal Charter' - it has got a statutory framework, but only a little bit."
Political Editor Tom Bradby says it is too early to tell which political party has emerged the strongest from the cross-party press regulation deal:
The success of the new system of press regulation will depend on how many newspapers sign up to it. Some of Britain's largest newspaper publishing groups say they are considering the deal, but may yet opt out.
UK Editor Lucy Manning reports:
The Daily Telegraph has said the cross-party deal on press regulation "deserves careful consideration."
The near unanimity in Parliament yesterday in support of the new approach was a powerful indication of how far the press needs to move in order to restore faith in its regulatory structure.
The three party leaders urged the newspaper industry to endorse the new dispensation as quickly as possible. However, after 318 years of a free press, its detail deserves careful consideration.
It also says that the Prime Minister should admit the plans do involve legislation:
So for all Mr Cameron’s protestations, the distinction between his proposed regime and statutory regulation is a semantic one.
As Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, observed, the solution involves a mixture of Royal Charter and statute.
Richard Desmond, the owner of Express Newspapers, is said to have joined the Daily Mail Group, Telegraph Media Group and News International in expressing concerns about the Royal Charter plan.
Lisa O'Carroll, a Guardian journalist specialising in media and tech, tweeted:
Richard Desmond just signed up to statement issued by Associated/News Int/Telegraph. Say there r "some deeply contentious issues" in deal.From @lisaocarroll on Twitter:
Political parties might be in for nasty surprise from newspapers. They say they have issues with the charter statue, with forced apologiesFrom @lisaocarroll on Twitter:
Newspapers (Ass/Tel/News Int/N&S) also have major issue with outsiders involvement on code committeeFrom @lisaocarroll on Twitter:
In the early hours of this morning the three main parties struck a fresh deal on press regulation in England and Wales.Press reform campaigners gave it a cautious welcome. David Cameron called on the press to make it work.
The sense from News International that the idea of a press-led regulator not a Royal Charter one hasn't gone away. They are not threatening boycott but options look open.
In a joint statement, representatives of some of Britain's largest newspaper publishing groups said they would need time to study the cross-party proposals before responding, noting that early drafts contained "several deeply contentious issues which have not yet been resolved with the industry".
The statement was issued by the Daily Mail Group, Telegraph Media Group and News International - the publishers of The Sun and Times newspapers - as well as the Newspaper Society and Professional Publishers Association.
The statement reads:
No representative of the newspaper and magazine industry had any involvement in, or indeed any knowledge of, the cross-party talks on press regulation that took place on Sunday night.
We have only late this afternoon seen the Royal Charter that the political parties have agreed between themselves and, more pertinently, the Recognition Criteria, early drafts of which contained several deeply contentious issues which have not yet been resolved with the industry.
In the light of this we are not able to give any response on behalf of the industry to this afternoon’s proposals until we have had time to study them.