Do you want the Government to control what is in your newspaper?

MPs will today vote on a law that will pose a real threat to the freedom of our Press.

The bill being debated is important, because it will give people more control over how their personal data is stored and used.

However, new amendments put forward by certain MPs are an attempt to hijack the bill and to use it to force newspapers to sign up to a state-sponsored system of Press regulation, as well as to hold another long and costly inquiry into events of up to a decade ago.

I chaired the Parliamentary Select Committee that helped to uncover the phone hacking scandal.

The behaviour of those involved was shocking and it rightly led to criminal prosecutions of those responsible.

It also resulted in the setting up of Lord Leveson’s inquiry, which sat for 15 months and cost more than £5million.

Since that time, a lot has changed.

A new body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), has been set up to replace the old Press Complaints Commission.

It is fully independent and has powers to investigate complaints and to impose penalties on publications that break the rules, including front page corrections and fines.

Most recently, it is introducing a new system of compulsory arbitration which the UK’s 15 best-selling newspapers have agreed to join.

This will give people low-cost access to justice without having to employ lawyers or go to court.

This new system of Press regulation fulfils almost all of the requirements set down by Lord Leveson in his inquiry.

In all important respects it meets the tests for recognition under the Government’s Royal Charter.

However, for reasons of principle, not a single national publication, nor the vast majority of the local press, has been willing to join a government-approved regulator.

It is hard to see why some now wish to persist with an inquiry into the past when so much has changed.

Today, it is not the printed press that exerts influence and makes money but social media and the internet giants.

Nor is it clear why they should want to impose massive penalties on newspapers that do not sign up to an alternative regulator that has been approved by the state.

Under their proposals, newspapers that choose to remain outside the Government’s system of Press regulation will be liable to pay all the claimants’ costs of legal actions brought against them on data protection grounds as well as their own, whether they win or lose.

At a time when many newspapers are struggling, a lot would not survive.

Some of those pressing the amendments have their own grudges against the Press.

They have been unhappy about stories written about them in the past.

I too bear the scars of having had tabloid press stories written about my private life.

Some of these were inaccurate or purely salacious.

That is the price of being in the public eye, although I also know the distress that such coverage can cause to others, particularly the families of those involved.

However, the alternative of state controls on the Press is far more damaging and dangerous.

The media play a vital role in a free society in exposing wrongdoing and holding governments to account.

It is no accident that it is the world’s most authoritarian states which impose strict controls on their media.

Britain is seen across the world as a bastion of liberty and human rights.

It is essential that we reject these amendments and not put that reputation at risk.

• John Whittingdale is a Tory MP and the former Minister for Culture, Media and Sport.