This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/world/europe/deadline-looms-for-new-british-press-rules-after-hacking-scandal.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Lawmaker Says Britons Agree to New Press Rules After Hacking Scandal Lawmaker Says Britons Agree to New Press Rules After Hacking Scandal
(about 2 hours later)
LONDON — Under a looming parliamentary deadline, a senior lawmaker said on Monday that Britain’s three main political parties had a struck a compromise deal on measures to regulate newspapers, potentially among the strongest peacetime curbs on the freewheeling press in three centuries. LONDON — After months of wrangling and dispute, and centuries of rambunctious freedom, lawmakers said on Monday that Britain’s three main political parties had struck a compromise deal on new measures to regulate the press, the most significant step toward stricter curbs since the phone hacking scandal convulsed Rupert Murdoch’s media outpost here and much of British public life.
Parliament had been set to vote Monday on rival proposals from Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party that have squeezed the junior coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, into a temporary alliance with Labour. But the disagreements and nuances that preceded the agreement almost immediately carried over into fresh arguments over how the various political groups wished to present it to the public, particularly on the contentious issue of whether new regulation should be underpinned by legislation.
But, after late-night talks lasting into the early hours of Monday, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader, told the BBC: “Yes, there is an agreement.” The Culture Minister, Maria Miller, said, however said that, while a deal is close, the feuding political needed further discussions. “Statutory underpinning” was a key recommendation of a voluminous report published last November after months of exhaustive testimony into the behavior and culture of the British press at an inquiry by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson. The inquiry was called after the hacking scandal reached a crescendo in July, 2011.
The notion of new regulations emerged from a monthslong inquiry headed by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson into press behavior following the phone hacking scandal that swept through Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper outpost and, last week, spread to the rival Trinity Mirror group. The inquiry produced a report of almost 2,000 pages urging statutory underpinning to any new system of press regulation. The term raised alarms among those cherishing three centuries of broad peacetime freedom for Britain’s newspapers. Mr. Cameron said a law establishing a press watchdog would cross a “rubicon” toward government controls.
Since then, Mr. Cameron has opposed the report’s recommendation for such safeguards in law to protect private lives from press intrusion. He has proposed instead the drafting of a royal charter setting out the responsibilities of a new, self-regulatory press watchdog — a device similar to those defining the role and mission of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Bank of England. Instead, Mr. Cameron proposed a royal charter — a device setting out the rules and responsibilities of major institutions such as the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Bank of England. But the opposition Labour party, supported by Mr. Cameron’s own junior coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, wanted “statutory underpinning” enshrined in law to shield victims of press intrusion against abuse.
But his foes said they wanted to anchor the new system in laws. As the first to announce the deal, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader, said agreement had been struck to introduce a royal charter, supported “by a bit of law that says this charter can’t be tampered with by ministers” and could only be changed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament.
Mr. Cameron is under pressure to avoid a parliamentary defeat inflicted by an alliance of Labour, Liberal Democrats and up to 20 rebels within the Conservatives. On Monday, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader, said an agreement had been struck that would introduce a royal charter, supported “by a bit of law that says this charter can’t be tampered with by ministers.”
The legislation would not be directly linked to press regulation but would add the weight of law to any royal charter that “can’t be dissolved or amended without a two-thirds majority” in both houses of Parliament.
“It specifically won’t mention this charter because the idea is that we want to have that effect without it actually mentioning press regulation in law,” she told the BBC.“It specifically won’t mention this charter because the idea is that we want to have that effect without it actually mentioning press regulation in law,” she told the BBC.
Mr. Cameron insisted that the formulation did not amount to direct legislation governing the press.
“It’s not statutory underpinning,” he said. “What it is is simply a clause that says politicians can’t fiddle with this so it takes it further away from politicians, which is actually, I think, a sensible step."
He added: “What we have avoided is a press law.”
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said: “A free press has nothing to fear from what has been agreed.”
Before the agreement was struck, Mr. Cameron was under pressure to avoid a parliamentary defeat likely to be inflicted by an alliance of Labour, Liberal Democrats and up to 20 rebels within the Conservatives if the issue had gone to a vote Monday night. Mr. Cameron called the parliamentary vote when he broke off earlier cross-party talks last week.
Mr. Cameron has said the new regulatory system should empower a watchdog to impose fines of up to £1 million, or $1.5 million, oblige newspapers to print prominent corrections for errors and take other measures to protect privacy.Mr. Cameron has said the new regulatory system should empower a watchdog to impose fines of up to £1 million, or $1.5 million, oblige newspapers to print prominent corrections for errors and take other measures to protect privacy.
The drive for a new law has been headed by a privacy group called Hacked Off, supported by the actor Hugh Grant and the parents of children whose disappearance and loss became the object of tabloid frenzy. In particular, the case of Milly Dowler, a schoolgirl whose cellphone was hacked after she disappeared and was later found murdered, prompted Mr. Murdoch to close The News of the World, his flagship Sunday tabloid, when the public outcry against his newspapers reached a crescendo in July, 2011. The drive for a new law has been headed by a privacy group called Hacked Off, supported by the actor Hugh Grant and the parents of children whose disappearance and loss became the object of tabloid frenzy. In particular, the case of Milly Dowler, a schoolgirl whose cellphone was hacked after she disappeared and was later found murdered, prompted Rupert Murdoch to close The News of the World, his flagship Sunday tabloid, in July, 2011.
Since then, the scandal has led to civil suits, criminal investigations, a parliamentary inquiry and the Leveson hearings — scrutiny that coursed through British public life, exposing previously hidden relationships between the press, the police and politicians. The affair has cost Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers hundreds of millions of dollars.Since then, the scandal has led to civil suits, criminal investigations, a parliamentary inquiry and the Leveson hearings — scrutiny that coursed through British public life, exposing previously hidden relationships between the press, the police and politicians. The affair has cost Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers hundreds of millions of dollars.
More than 100 reporters, editors, investigators, executives and public officials have been implicated in wrongdoing by police units investigating accusations of criminal activity, including phone intercepts and bribery. Hugh Tomlinson, a lawyer for victims of phone hacking, told Britain’s High Court on Monday that British investigators had uncovered a new conspiracy potentially affecting hundreds more victims. He did not go into detail. More than 100 reporters, editors, investigators, executives and public officials have been implicated in wrongdoing by police units investigating accusations of criminal activity, including phone intercepts and bribery.
The debate has been divisive, with many newspapers railing against the notion of tighter controls than the current system of self-regulation by the largely discredited Press Complaints Commission.The debate has been divisive, with many newspapers railing against the notion of tighter controls than the current system of self-regulation by the largely discredited Press Complaints Commission.
Mr. Murdoch’s The Sun tabloid published a photograph of Winston Churchill on its front page on Monday, quoting him as defending a free press as “the most dangerous foe of tyranny.”Mr. Murdoch’s The Sun tabloid published a photograph of Winston Churchill on its front page on Monday, quoting him as defending a free press as “the most dangerous foe of tyranny.”
In the right-leaning Daily Telegraph, Boris Johnson, London’s Conservative mayor, himself a columnist and former magazine editor, wrote Monday that: “Like any strong detergent, the work of the British media may cause a certain smarting of the eyes. But if you want to keep clean the gutters of public life, you need a gutter press.”In the right-leaning Daily Telegraph, Boris Johnson, London’s Conservative mayor, himself a columnist and former magazine editor, wrote Monday that: “Like any strong detergent, the work of the British media may cause a certain smarting of the eyes. But if you want to keep clean the gutters of public life, you need a gutter press.”
The media, he wrote, have for centuries “been lifting up the big, flat rocks to let the daylight in on the creepy-crawlies; and in all that time we have never come close to the state licensing of newspapers.”The media, he wrote, have for centuries “been lifting up the big, flat rocks to let the daylight in on the creepy-crawlies; and in all that time we have never come close to the state licensing of newspapers.”
“If Parliament agrees to anything remotely approaching legislation,” Mr. Johnson wrote, “it will be handing politicians the tools they need to begin the job of cowing and even silencing the press; and what began by seeming in the public interest will end up eroding the freedoms of everyone in this country.”“If Parliament agrees to anything remotely approaching legislation,” Mr. Johnson wrote, “it will be handing politicians the tools they need to begin the job of cowing and even silencing the press; and what began by seeming in the public interest will end up eroding the freedoms of everyone in this country.”
But the liberal Guardian said in an editorial: “All sides in the debate have moved during the course of the past few months, including the political parties, the press and the campaigners on behalf of the victims of press abuse. There is now much less at stake than anyone might guess from some of the hyperventilated discourse.”But the liberal Guardian said in an editorial: “All sides in the debate have moved during the course of the past few months, including the political parties, the press and the campaigners on behalf of the victims of press abuse. There is now much less at stake than anyone might guess from some of the hyperventilated discourse.”