Press regulation: what next after Leveson?

The Government and the newspaper industry have both drafted royal charters to regulate the press. Peter Cheney considers the main issues in the debate and also the case against extra regulation.

The debate over press regulation is effectively a dispute between two strong ideas: the recognition that the abuses uncovered by the Leveson inquiry must be prevented in future and the risk that an over-reaction will restrict the freedom of the press to hold those in power to account.

Phone-hacking was carried out by a small number of national tabloid newspapers but the consequences of the scandal are likely to affect all 7,943 newspapers and magazines in the UK.

In addition, the authors of McNae (the UK’s main media law textbook) have pointed out that “the extent of phone-hacking by some journalists, or private investigators working for them, was revealed to the public by other journalists.” The Guardian, rather than the Metropolitan Police, uncovered the scandal.

The press in the UK has operated under a system of self-regulation since 1953 when a voluntary Press Council was set up by the industry. The Press Council issued advice to journalists but, without a code of practice, it proved ineffective as tabloid journalism became more sensational and intrusive. A public outcry over falling standards led to the setting up of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in 1993.

The PCC is also voluntary but the majority of its members come from outside the industry. It can investigate a breach of its code and negotiate a remedy with the publisher e.g. a correction or letter of apology. Publications are not obliged to follow PCC rulings but the commission can ‘name and shame’ those which do not comply.

Broadcasters are more strictly regulated than the press as they have the potential to influence much larger audiences.

By comparison, internet-based ‘citizen journalism’ is unregulated except where the publisher breaks the law. The post-Leveson system will increase the regulation of the press (and large professional blogs) but contains no proposals to regulate the many small blogs.

Victims of phone-hacking claimed that the Press Complaints Commission was ineffective when they sought help from it. The commission claimed that it was misled by the News of the World with chair Baroness Buscombe saying: “There’s only so much we can do when people are lying to us.”

The Leveson inquiry report, published last November, recommended:

• a new independent regulator with the power to order apologies and fine publications;

• a review of the PCC code of practice (to include a public consultation); and

• a review of the level of damages in media-related cases.

Importantly, Leveson said that the new system should be underpinned by legislation. For the first time in 318 years, Parliament would have a say in how the print media operates.

Royal charters

David Cameron was initially opposed to a ‘press law’ but backed down after opposition from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and some Tory backbenchers. The three main party leaders announced their response in March.

The parties accepted most of Leveson’s recommendations and opted for a royal charter (rather than an Act of Parliament) to regulate the new system. Once in place, the royal charter could only be amended by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.

The talks leading up to the announcement involved the Hacked Off campaign but excluded newspaper representatives. The papers therefore refused to accept the outcome. The Newspaper Society (representing the regional press) and five national newspaper publishers put forward an alternative royal charter in April. This would:

• introduce a ‘triple lock’ for amendments (requiring support from the industry, regulator and Parliament);

• allow the industry to veto appointments to the regulator (as it says that independent members may lack experience); and

• remove the regulator’s power to order apologies (as this could undermine freedom of expression).

The royal charter will be UK-wide as it is supported in principle by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the two main parties in the Northern Ireland Executive.

DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds rejected the notion that press freedom was under threat but also said that the regulator “should have the power to direct apologies and corrections, including where they should be printed.” Sinn Féin also wants to see an independent regulator “with statutory powers of obligation.”

SDLP MP Mark Durkan said that the Leveson report warranted “considered and balanced reflection and consideration” by legislators. Durkan has warned against state regulation as the “profound public misgivings which gave rise to this inquiry did not extend to the press alone but included the content and character of the political class as well.”

The UUP would welcome “a new, independent regulatory system” that prevents abuses. The current system only offers redress “when individuals have already been publicly humiliated and traumatised for no good reason.” Alliance MP Naomi Long believes that the status quo is not working but does not want to go as far as state regulation.

The Government is now considering both proposed charters and the final decision will be taken by the Privy Council. The decision has been delayed, due to the complexity of the issue, but a charter is likely to be place by the next general election.

Many working journalists, though, take a libertarian view and see no need for statutory regulation. The National Union of Journalists favours a system based on the Republic’s Press Council. The council is supported by a Press Ombudsman who independently considers complaints. This system was set up in 2008 by publishers and the NUJ’s Irish branch – and has no input from government.

Addressing the Leveson inquiry, Private Eye editor Ian Hislop said that most of the “heinous crimes” involved in phone-hacking “have already been illegal.” Hislop added that the press “should be kept to account by the law and by the people who buy the papers.” The press would be “no longer free” if the state had the power to dictate what journalists can do.

The editors’ views

Two Belfast editors gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry: the Irish News’ Noel Doran and the Belfast Telegraph’s Mike Gilson.

Noel Doran referred to Northern Ireland’s “unusual political structure … which is effectively a permanent coalition” with almost all MLAs in a governing party. There had been an “enormous growth” in the number of press officers in recent years which now exceeded the number of reporters in Belfast.

Mike Gilson explained said that a newspaper should avoid “hypocrisy, cant [or insincerity] and the strain to over-sensationalise.” He added: “Ethics for us mean always putting the well-being and the interests of readers first before the interests of either the newspaper or powerful vested interests.” Both newspapers had strict policies against paying sources for information.