This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22294722

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Leveson report: Newspapers reject press regulation plans Leveson report: Newspapers reject press regulation plans
(35 minutes later)
A number of newspapers are to publish a proposal for self-regulation backed by royal charter, after rejecting plans from the main political parties. The newspaper industry has rejected a plan for press regulation agreed by the three main political parties in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry.
The government and Labour Party agreed to a royal charter last month in response to Lord Justice Leveson's report on press standards and ethics. The newspapers opposed the idea of a regulator backed by a royal charter, and have revealed an alternative plan.
They said an independent watchdog would be set up by royal charter with powers to issue fines and demand apologies. It is closely based on the draft royal charter agreed after Lord Justice Leveson's report into press standards sparked by the phone-hacking scandal.
But newspapers argue that they had no say in the final discussions. But the papers said it would be without any "state-sponsored regulation".
The Guardian and the Independent are the only two titles out of 11 national newspapers that have not signed up.
According to a statement released by the Newspaper Society on behalf of a number of national and local newspapers, they said the royal charter published by the government on 18 March had been condemned by a "range of international media freedom organisations" and enjoys "no support within the press" in the UK.According to a statement released by the Newspaper Society on behalf of a number of national and local newspapers, they said the royal charter published by the government on 18 March had been condemned by a "range of international media freedom organisations" and enjoys "no support within the press" in the UK.
"A number of its recommendations are unworkable and it gives politicians an unacceptable degree of interference in the regulation of the press," warned the statement."A number of its recommendations are unworkable and it gives politicians an unacceptable degree of interference in the regulation of the press," warned the statement.
'Widespread backing''Widespread backing'
The industry's proposal is closely based on the draft royal charter published on 12 February following negotiations with national and local newspapers and magazines.The industry's proposal is closely based on the draft royal charter published on 12 February following negotiations with national and local newspapers and magazines.
Industry sources told BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins that the new press regulator would not apply for formal recognition under the government's royal charter plans - in effect, it will not apply to be the official regulator.
This throws open the post-Leveson debate as politicians cannot force the papers to engage with their plan, our correspondent said.
The risk for politicians is that the newspapers' plan could see the press regulating itself once more, under a rulebook it designed - and this is unlikely to appease the public or victims.
The newspapers' proposals are different from the government-backed scheme in that they:The newspapers' proposals are different from the government-backed scheme in that they:
The statement described it as "a workable, practical way to swiftly deliver the Leveson recommendations, which the industry accepts, without any form of state-sponsored regulation that would endanger freedom of speech".The statement described it as "a workable, practical way to swiftly deliver the Leveson recommendations, which the industry accepts, without any form of state-sponsored regulation that would endanger freedom of speech".
It said the new proposal had "widespread backing across the industry".It said the new proposal had "widespread backing across the industry".
"This royal charter proposal will deliver on Leveson and bind the UK's national and local newspapers and magazines to a tough and enduring system of regulation - tougher than anywhere else in the Western world - which will be of real benefit to the public, at the same time as protecting freedom of speech," it said."This royal charter proposal will deliver on Leveson and bind the UK's national and local newspapers and magazines to a tough and enduring system of regulation - tougher than anywhere else in the Western world - which will be of real benefit to the public, at the same time as protecting freedom of speech," it said.
Those who arranged the statement said all national papers apart from the Guardian and Independent had signed up.
Industry sources told BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins that the new press regulator would not apply for formal recognition under the government's royal charter plans - in effect, it will not apply to be the official regulator.
This throws open the post-Leveson debate as politicians cannot force the papers to engage with their plan, our correspondent says.
The risk for politicians is that the newspapers' plan could see the press regulating itself once more, under a rulebook it designed - and this is unlikely to appease the public or victims.
'Stitch-up''Stitch-up'
Peter Wright, editor emeritus of Associated Newspapers, told the BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "We recognise that the most important thing we have to do is to get an effective new regulator up and running, and we need to have the support of political parties in this.Peter Wright, editor emeritus of Associated Newspapers, told the BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "We recognise that the most important thing we have to do is to get an effective new regulator up and running, and we need to have the support of political parties in this.
"The clear preference is for a royal charter... that is in line with Leveson regulations.""The clear preference is for a royal charter... that is in line with Leveson regulations."
He said the press were "deliberately excluded" from the final negotiations on the government's charter and it contained a number of measures which were "unworkable". He said the press was "deliberately excluded" from the final negotiations on the government's charter, and it contained a number of measures which were "unworkable".
The press - in particular members of the regional press - did not feel they could sign up to it, he said.
Pressed on whether the FT, the Independent and the Guardian had signed up, he added: "I've spoken to the editors of the Financial Times, the Independent and the Guardian. They all think that this is a good way of setting the ball rolling, reopening the debate.
"No-one has signed up on the specifics, we are beginning a process."
Tony Gallagher, editor of the Daily Telegraph, tweeted his response: "Can anyone possibly be surprised we have rejected Lab-Lib-Hacked Off stitch up[?]"Tony Gallagher, editor of the Daily Telegraph, tweeted his response: "Can anyone possibly be surprised we have rejected Lab-Lib-Hacked Off stitch up[?]"
In a statement on News International's website, Sun editor Dominic Mohan said the paper's readers expected its journalists to behave responsibly, but "don't want them censored by a state-sponsored Ministry of Truth".In a statement on News International's website, Sun editor Dominic Mohan said the paper's readers expected its journalists to behave responsibly, but "don't want them censored by a state-sponsored Ministry of Truth".
He added: "This constructive proposal would create a tough but independent regulator supported by the vast majority of the industry - a workable solution which should command public confidence." He added it was "a workable solution which should command public confidence".
Acting editor of the Times John Witherow, in a video message on the same site, described the proposals for self-regulation as robust but said they would not affect press freedom.Acting editor of the Times John Witherow, in a video message on the same site, described the proposals for self-regulation as robust but said they would not affect press freedom.
"What is being put up is the toughest form of self-regulation anywhere in the western world," he said. 'Almost hypocritical'
But Mark Lewis, a lawyer who has represented victims of phone hacking - the illegal practice that sparked the closure of the News of the World, and prompted the Leveson Inquiry - said his initial reaction was that the newspapers' plans would face the same criticisms as government proposals.
"If it is linked to a royal charter then it requires a dab of statute," he said.
"It almost makes me think it would be hypocritical."
The industry statement said the charter would deliver:The industry statement said the charter would deliver:
Lawyers representing the papers said they had formally petitioned the Privy Council, which meets next month, to consider the issue.Lawyers representing the papers said they had formally petitioned the Privy Council, which meets next month, to consider the issue.
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: "We want to see a tough independent self-regulator implemented swiftly.A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: "We want to see a tough independent self-regulator implemented swiftly.
"The royal charter published on the 18 March, followed 21 weeks of discussion and has cross-party agreement.""The royal charter published on the 18 March, followed 21 weeks of discussion and has cross-party agreement."