This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/12/press-regulation-leveson-royal-charter

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Press regulation: from Beaverbrook to Blackadder Press regulation: from Beaverbrook to Blackadder
(7 months later)
Never mind the recently disinterred Richard III. It was under Henry III – some 250 years earlier – that someone invented the concept of a royal charter and bestowed it on the University of Cambridge. There have been 997 subsequent charters awarded, most recently to the British Occupational Hygiene Society. It requires some suspension of disbelief to take seriously the notion that Conservative ministers are now proposing that this device be used to regulate the British press. From Beaverbrook to Blackadder in one bound.Never mind the recently disinterred Richard III. It was under Henry III – some 250 years earlier – that someone invented the concept of a royal charter and bestowed it on the University of Cambridge. There have been 997 subsequent charters awarded, most recently to the British Occupational Hygiene Society. It requires some suspension of disbelief to take seriously the notion that Conservative ministers are now proposing that this device be used to regulate the British press. From Beaverbrook to Blackadder in one bound.
An official website bluntly states that any body granted a charter "surrenders significant aspects of the control of its internal affairs to the Privy Council". Anyone opposed to statutory underpinning of press regulation ought in theory to break out in sweat at the thought of ministers of the day – not even parliament — meddling in how the press is run. So we need first to consider how we got here, and what the charter is supposed to achieve.An official website bluntly states that any body granted a charter "surrenders significant aspects of the control of its internal affairs to the Privy Council". Anyone opposed to statutory underpinning of press regulation ought in theory to break out in sweat at the thought of ministers of the day – not even parliament — meddling in how the press is run. So we need first to consider how we got here, and what the charter is supposed to achieve.
Since the Leveson report was published with a great fanfare some 10 weeks ago there has been virtual radio silence from government and the press. The prime minister accepted most of the judge's recommendations – but rejected any form of statutory backup to give force to new forms of regulation. Enter the cabinet minister Oliver Letwin with his parchment and vellum alternative. The blinds came down and discussions began.Since the Leveson report was published with a great fanfare some 10 weeks ago there has been virtual radio silence from government and the press. The prime minister accepted most of the judge's recommendations – but rejected any form of statutory backup to give force to new forms of regulation. Enter the cabinet minister Oliver Letwin with his parchment and vellum alternative. The blinds came down and discussions began.
There are some good things at the heart of what is now being proposed. There will be a new regulator, with real teeth and investigatory powers. It should be more independent than the discredited old Press Complaints Commission. It should have an arm that can be used to bypass the courts to settle libel and privacy cases swiftly and cheaply. The criteria for what it does and how it does it are very similar to the criteria recommended by Leveson itself. All this has been arrived at by detailed work and robust debate, albeit behind the scenes. There is anxiety among some of the press about the cost of it all and a feeling that it is all a little too independent. From the politicians and victims of press misbehaviour there is suspicion about backroom deals – and a strong feeling that it is not independent enough.There are some good things at the heart of what is now being proposed. There will be a new regulator, with real teeth and investigatory powers. It should be more independent than the discredited old Press Complaints Commission. It should have an arm that can be used to bypass the courts to settle libel and privacy cases swiftly and cheaply. The criteria for what it does and how it does it are very similar to the criteria recommended by Leveson itself. All this has been arrived at by detailed work and robust debate, albeit behind the scenes. There is anxiety among some of the press about the cost of it all and a feeling that it is all a little too independent. From the politicians and victims of press misbehaviour there is suspicion about backroom deals – and a strong feeling that it is not independent enough.
The independence question is crucial. Who gets to appoint the members of the new regulator? How can you guarantee it doesn't become captured by the industry, as effectively happened with the PCC? Who will verify that it is Leveson-compliant from the start and on an ongoing basis? On appointments, the PCC chair Lord Hunt has appointed one retired judge, Lord Phillips, to help with a system for appointing the regulators and another, Lord Brown, to help with finding people to verify it. But it should be noted that there remains a strong feeling within significant sectors of the press (not including the Guardian) that the newspapers should be able to draw up an "approved list" of candidates to serve on the regulator and that they must be able to veto appointments of which they don't approve. Furthermore, there are still unresolved questions about the role of the so-called Independent Funding Body. All this needs to be debated in daylight by all parties and be subjected to real scrutiny.The independence question is crucial. Who gets to appoint the members of the new regulator? How can you guarantee it doesn't become captured by the industry, as effectively happened with the PCC? Who will verify that it is Leveson-compliant from the start and on an ongoing basis? On appointments, the PCC chair Lord Hunt has appointed one retired judge, Lord Phillips, to help with a system for appointing the regulators and another, Lord Brown, to help with finding people to verify it. But it should be noted that there remains a strong feeling within significant sectors of the press (not including the Guardian) that the newspapers should be able to draw up an "approved list" of candidates to serve on the regulator and that they must be able to veto appointments of which they don't approve. Furthermore, there are still unresolved questions about the role of the so-called Independent Funding Body. All this needs to be debated in daylight by all parties and be subjected to real scrutiny.
In the context of all this a charter may not be as important as it first seems – though it may be thought an ornate way of achieving something Leveson believed could be done through statute. Neither law nor charter directly bears on the press, nor even the regulator, but solely on the recognition panel to certify that the regulator bears a close relationship to what Lord Justice Leveson prescribed. Neither route is quite the Mugabe-like end of press freedom that some would have us believe. Discussion must now be in the open, as the judge himself urged. Though the negotiations have achieved progress on detail, private deals carry their own consequences – see the Puttnam amendment to the much-needed defamation bill carried overwhelmingly last week. We need better regulation and better libel laws. Then we can have the press we deserve.In the context of all this a charter may not be as important as it first seems – though it may be thought an ornate way of achieving something Leveson believed could be done through statute. Neither law nor charter directly bears on the press, nor even the regulator, but solely on the recognition panel to certify that the regulator bears a close relationship to what Lord Justice Leveson prescribed. Neither route is quite the Mugabe-like end of press freedom that some would have us believe. Discussion must now be in the open, as the judge himself urged. Though the negotiations have achieved progress on detail, private deals carry their own consequences – see the Puttnam amendment to the much-needed defamation bill carried overwhelmingly last week. We need better regulation and better libel laws. Then we can have the press we deserve.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.