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/commentisfree/2013/feb/25/leveson-royal-charter-independent-regulator
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| For Leveson's sake: editors and MPs, back the royal charter | For Leveson's sake: editors and MPs, back the royal charter |
| (7 months later) | |
| "The ball now moves back into the politicians' court." So concluded Lord Justice Leveson in his statement last November with more than a hint of doubt. Subsequent negotiations have become something of a rabbit warren of detail and no one navigates a warren better than Oliver Letwin. His plans for a royal charter are the product of two months of hard work and deserve credit. They represent a basis on which we can all move forward, albeit with some important final changes. Time is an enemy in politics, so we must now make one final push for a settlement and swiftly convert what has been agreed to reality. We can complete the job by summer if we act decisively. | "The ball now moves back into the politicians' court." So concluded Lord Justice Leveson in his statement last November with more than a hint of doubt. Subsequent negotiations have become something of a rabbit warren of detail and no one navigates a warren better than Oliver Letwin. His plans for a royal charter are the product of two months of hard work and deserve credit. They represent a basis on which we can all move forward, albeit with some important final changes. Time is an enemy in politics, so we must now make one final push for a settlement and swiftly convert what has been agreed to reality. We can complete the job by summer if we act decisively. |
| Leveson recommended statute to achieve two core aims. First, to create incentives for publishers to sign up to a voluntary regulator by introducing protection against exemplary fines for subscribers, and legal cost liabilities for non-subscribers. The government now accepts the need for statute to achieve this and has published draft clauses that could be added to an existing government bill. | Leveson recommended statute to achieve two core aims. First, to create incentives for publishers to sign up to a voluntary regulator by introducing protection against exemplary fines for subscribers, and legal cost liabilities for non-subscribers. The government now accepts the need for statute to achieve this and has published draft clauses that could be added to an existing government bill. |
| Second, Leveson recommended statute to establish an independent public body that would perform an oversight role and grant recognition to an industry regulator meeting certain qualifying criteria. It might be an old fashioned device, but the royal charter outlined by the government does establish an independent public body that could also perform that function well. | Second, Leveson recommended statute to establish an independent public body that would perform an oversight role and grant recognition to an industry regulator meeting certain qualifying criteria. It might be an old fashioned device, but the royal charter outlined by the government does establish an independent public body that could also perform that function well. |
| There has been a lot of debate about the differences between the qualifying criteria proposed by Leveson and those set out in the royal charter. There are undoubtedly some material differences, and there is certainly further argument to be had, for instance to safeguard the charter from future political meddling and ensure that a regulator will direct the size and prominence of apologies. But in most respects they are remarkably similar. | There has been a lot of debate about the differences between the qualifying criteria proposed by Leveson and those set out in the royal charter. There are undoubtedly some material differences, and there is certainly further argument to be had, for instance to safeguard the charter from future political meddling and ensure that a regulator will direct the size and prominence of apologies. But in most respects they are remarkably similar. |
| Leveson could never have expected that those particular paragraphs from his 1,700-page report would literally be cut and pasted into an un-amendable royal charter for perpetuity. With hindsight, he probably wishes he had spent a little more time on that particular section of his report. One of his recommendations even contained a couple of typing errors. If the new system founders in a few years time, it is more likely to be because Leveson, himself, missed something than because the government didn't use the same precise wording in the charter. | Leveson could never have expected that those particular paragraphs from his 1,700-page report would literally be cut and pasted into an un-amendable royal charter for perpetuity. With hindsight, he probably wishes he had spent a little more time on that particular section of his report. One of his recommendations even contained a couple of typing errors. If the new system founders in a few years time, it is more likely to be because Leveson, himself, missed something than because the government didn't use the same precise wording in the charter. |
| One of the obstacles to an agreement is a lack of confidence in the industry's intentions. Those arguing for reform bemoan the fact that they don't feel they can sit down in good faith with editors and discuss a workable system. Many editors give the strong impression of wanting any new regulator to be a failure, and they have sent lawyers to crawl over wording in the apparent hope of neutering the Leveson proposals. There has also been a rekindling of paranoid commentary by the press. Last week saw the industry wheeling out human rights lawyers to suggest that Leveson might be contrary to European law, of all things. Next, they will be trying to tell us that Leveson violates essential health and safety legislation. | One of the obstacles to an agreement is a lack of confidence in the industry's intentions. Those arguing for reform bemoan the fact that they don't feel they can sit down in good faith with editors and discuss a workable system. Many editors give the strong impression of wanting any new regulator to be a failure, and they have sent lawyers to crawl over wording in the apparent hope of neutering the Leveson proposals. There has also been a rekindling of paranoid commentary by the press. Last week saw the industry wheeling out human rights lawyers to suggest that Leveson might be contrary to European law, of all things. Next, they will be trying to tell us that Leveson violates essential health and safety legislation. |
| The truth is that the fears voiced by the press are misplaced and their attempts at playing with words might not make much difference. Of course, the detail of the charter matters, but what matters more is the dynamic that such a new public body should create. The PCC failed dismally because it was controlled by the press. The essential ingredient of the Leveson plan was that there should be a self-organised regulator that was then itself held to account by a fully independent public body. The royal charter will perform a very important function, but only every three years. My prediction is that this new body will want to do its job thoroughly and in the spirit in which it is established, irrespective of the precise wording in its charter. | The truth is that the fears voiced by the press are misplaced and their attempts at playing with words might not make much difference. Of course, the detail of the charter matters, but what matters more is the dynamic that such a new public body should create. The PCC failed dismally because it was controlled by the press. The essential ingredient of the Leveson plan was that there should be a self-organised regulator that was then itself held to account by a fully independent public body. The royal charter will perform a very important function, but only every three years. My prediction is that this new body will want to do its job thoroughly and in the spirit in which it is established, irrespective of the precise wording in its charter. |
| Two key features that are new in the Leveson-proposed regulator are the power to conduct proactive investigations and the setting up of an arbitral arm for more serious disputes, particularly where an assessment of the public interest test is required. The royal charter must be able to judge not only whether such a process has been set up, but whether it is working effectively. | Two key features that are new in the Leveson-proposed regulator are the power to conduct proactive investigations and the setting up of an arbitral arm for more serious disputes, particularly where an assessment of the public interest test is required. The royal charter must be able to judge not only whether such a process has been set up, but whether it is working effectively. |
| So an agreement is in sight. It needs the press to be less defensive about relinquishing control to allow a genuinely independent regulator to develop; it requires the government to put its foot down and make clear to the press that it is not for them to draft the royal charter; and it needs those arguing for greater accountability to show some faith in what the royal charter might become. | So an agreement is in sight. It needs the press to be less defensive about relinquishing control to allow a genuinely independent regulator to develop; it requires the government to put its foot down and make clear to the press that it is not for them to draft the royal charter; and it needs those arguing for greater accountability to show some faith in what the royal charter might become. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |