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/mar/15/unless-royal-charter-leveson-cannot-back

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

Version 0 Version 1
Unless the royal charter delivers on Leveson, I cannot back it Unless the royal charter delivers on Leveson, I cannot back it
(7 months later)
The past few days in Westminster have been highly charged for those immersed in the Leveson negotiations. There have been sincere efforts to bring about an agreement, by representatives of all parties. I pay tribute to those who tried painstakingly, over hours, days and weeks, to bring all sides together and deliver the cross-party solution that Lord Justice Leveson recommended.The past few days in Westminster have been highly charged for those immersed in the Leveson negotiations. There have been sincere efforts to bring about an agreement, by representatives of all parties. I pay tribute to those who tried painstakingly, over hours, days and weeks, to bring all sides together and deliver the cross-party solution that Lord Justice Leveson recommended.
Despite those best efforts, no result has been achieved. It is perhaps little surprise that a deal was not brokered, nor that tempers frayed from time to time in such a complex and emotive area of debate.Despite those best efforts, no result has been achieved. It is perhaps little surprise that a deal was not brokered, nor that tempers frayed from time to time in such a complex and emotive area of debate.
Press freedom is a vital tenet of our liberties. So, too, is the right to decent treatment for those who might be bullied or have their privacy breached, with no good reason – be they celebrities or parents of murdered children – by the media.Press freedom is a vital tenet of our liberties. So, too, is the right to decent treatment for those who might be bullied or have their privacy breached, with no good reason – be they celebrities or parents of murdered children – by the media.
Amid the frantic political discussions and plenty of hype from certain sections of the press, I would like to try to inject a little perspective into the debate. In my own profession – the law – we experienced a major regulatory restructuring process six years ago. At that time there were grave worries about independence. But despite these anxieties, the introduction of a new, more efficient, regulatory system for lawyers has not resulted in the feared compromises of independence.Amid the frantic political discussions and plenty of hype from certain sections of the press, I would like to try to inject a little perspective into the debate. In my own profession – the law – we experienced a major regulatory restructuring process six years ago. At that time there were grave worries about independence. But despite these anxieties, the introduction of a new, more efficient, regulatory system for lawyers has not resulted in the feared compromises of independence.
Barristers and solicitors aren't looking over their shoulders worrying about what the regulator might do when they go about their everyday work. I believe that the same will be true for print and online journalists, who have long had a system of rules. Until now, they have not had a regulator with the independence and the teeth to enforce those rules.Barristers and solicitors aren't looking over their shoulders worrying about what the regulator might do when they go about their everyday work. I believe that the same will be true for print and online journalists, who have long had a system of rules. Until now, they have not had a regulator with the independence and the teeth to enforce those rules.
That independence should be clear and unequivocal. That means that the press should not have a veto on appointments to the board of the regulator. There are plenty of other precedents – besides the legal one I mention above – for such a system. I also want to make sure that we have a self-regulatory body that offers proper and effective arbitration. It must be low  cost, preferably free for more difficult disputes.That independence should be clear and unequivocal. That means that the press should not have a veto on appointments to the board of the regulator. There are plenty of other precedents – besides the legal one I mention above – for such a system. I also want to make sure that we have a self-regulatory body that offers proper and effective arbitration. It must be low  cost, preferably free for more difficult disputes.
Some of the differences between the two sides appear arcane and niggling to anyone outside the circle. For example, how much difference is there between a newspaper being "required" to make an apology or being "directed" to do so?Some of the differences between the two sides appear arcane and niggling to anyone outside the circle. For example, how much difference is there between a newspaper being "required" to make an apology or being "directed" to do so?
In legal terms, I think there is a distinction: it could be the difference between an apology for a defamatory article appearing prominently, or being buried at the bottom of page 45. I think I am more of a "direction" person, on balance, but I can see why the detail is wearisome to many people. It is nonetheless important that we get this right.In legal terms, I think there is a distinction: it could be the difference between an apology for a defamatory article appearing prominently, or being buried at the bottom of page 45. I think I am more of a "direction" person, on balance, but I can see why the detail is wearisome to many people. It is nonetheless important that we get this right.
Nobody sensible would dream of interfering with the day-to-day work of a journalist. What I am talking about is setting up a recognition body to periodically certify a regulator. This was the intelligent balance struck by Lord Justice Leveson – a system of independent self-regulation, balancing the rights of newspapers themselves to self-regulate with a degree of accountability and protection for the public.Nobody sensible would dream of interfering with the day-to-day work of a journalist. What I am talking about is setting up a recognition body to periodically certify a regulator. This was the intelligent balance struck by Lord Justice Leveson – a system of independent self-regulation, balancing the rights of newspapers themselves to self-regulate with a degree of accountability and protection for the public.
In the final analysis, I and other MPs will have to make our own choice. Personally – and in spite of high stakes and high emotions – I can only give my wholehearted support to a plan that fully delivers on the moderate proposals of Lord Justice Leveson. If the government's royal charter does that, I will back it. If it falls short, lacking the independence or the bite, I cannot. In the final analysis, I and other MPs will have to make our own choice. Personally – and in spite of high stakes and high emotions – I can only give my wholehearted support to a plan that fully delivers on the moderate proposals of Lord Justice Leveson. If the government's royal charter does that, I will back it. If it falls short, lacking the independence or the bite, I cannot.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.