Leveson report: New body to curb press 'havoc'

 

Lord Justice Leveson: "It must protect both the public interest and the rights and liberties of individuals"

A tougher form of self-regulation backed by legislation should be introduced to uphold press standards, the Leveson report has recommended.

Lord Justice Leveson said the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades.

But the report's recommendations have divided the coalition government.

David Cameron said he had "serious concerns" over statutory regulation but Nick Clegg said he supported some form of legal underpinning.

And Labour leader Ed Miliband urged the government to accept the report in its entirety.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Cameron said he broadly welcomed Lord Justice Leveson's principles to change the current system.

But he said: "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press.

"The danger is that this would create a vehicle for politicians whether today or some time in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press."

Proposed new press law

Would:

  • Create a process to "validate" the independence and effectiveness of the new self-regulation body
  • Validate a new process of independent arbitration for complainants - which would benefit both the public and publishers by providing speedy resolutions
  • Place a duty on government to protect the freedom of press

Would not:

  • Establish a body to regulate the press directly
  • Give any Parliament or government rights to interfere with what newspapers publish

Deputy Leader Nick Clegg said changing the law was the only way to ensure "the new regulator isn't just independent for a few months or years, but is independent for good".

Mr Miliband described the report as "measured, reasonable and proportionate" and said Labour "unequivocally" endorsed its conclusions.

After the first of cross-party talks, a senior Labour source said Mr Cameron had agreed to ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to draft a bill to implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations.

The source added Labour would push for a Commons vote on implementing the recommendation in principle by the end of January.

The Hacked Off campaign, which represents victims of phone hacking said Mr Cameron's "failure" to accept the full recommendations of the report was "unfortunate and regrettable".

Founder Brian Cathcart said: "Despite their years of abuses and outrageous conduct, it seems that the prime minister still trusts the editors and proprietors to behave themselves. It seems that the prime minister wants self-regulation all over again."

Madeleine McCann's mother Kate said she hoped the report would "mark the start of a new era" for the press, in which it treated those in the news "with care and consideration".

The prime minister knows he has given his opponents yet another stick to beat him with. He also knows, however, that the press are firmly on his side.

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors said he hoped any British politician would hesitate before doing anything that "might in the slightest way threaten the freedom of the media".

"What happens 20 years down the line if you have a different government, which was upset by the press again, once you've given away the principle and put a law in place, it's very easy to amend."

Mr Cameron set up the Leveson Inquiry in July 2011 after it emerged journalists working for the Sunday tabloid the News of the World had hacked the mobile phone of murdered Surrey schoolgirl Milly Dowler. The paper was subsequently shut down by its owners News International.

'Accountable press'

Among Lord Justice Leveson's findings:

  • All of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time"
  • The press must create a new and tough regulator backed by legislation to ensure it was effective
  • This cannot be characterised as statutory regulation
  • Legally-binding arbitration process needed to force newspapers to deal effectively with complaints
  • Some "troubling evidence" in relation to the actions of some police officers - but no proof of widespread corruption
  • Over last 30 years all political parties have had too close a relationship with the press which has not been in the public interest
  • Former Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was not biased in his handling of News Corp's BSkyB bid but failed to supervise his special adviser properly
  • The tabloid press often failed to show "consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women", and there is a "tendency to sexualise and demean" women.

In his 2,000-page report, Appeal Court judge Lord Justice Leveson said his proposals will protect the rights of victims and people bringing complaints.

He said the press had failed to properly regulate itself in the past, but he believed the law could be used to "validate" a new body.

Analysis

The statute proposed by Lord Justice Leveson is intended to do three things: Enshrine freedom of the press for the first time; recognise the new regulator; and ensure it can be can be audited to confirm it is performing to proper standards.

It also provides incentives to publishers to sign up. Incentives are needed because no serving newspaper editor can serve on the new body. The proposals amount to the press being allowed to set up its own regulator, but not sit on it.

Principally the incentives involve setting up an arbitration service to settle disputes with members of the public over privacy and libel. If a publisher isn't part of that service and has to go to court, it could be deprived of very considerable legal costs, even if it won. And if it lost, it could be made to pay additional, exemplary damages.

These proposals on arbitration represent a very large carrot and stick and that, says Lord Justice Leveson, needs legislation. But in addition, there's a shotgun in the cupboard. The broadcast regulator Ofcom could act as a backstop regulator for those publishers not persuaded by the Leveson carrot and stick.

He said: "There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist.

"This has caused real hardship, and on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained.

"This is not just the famous but ordinary members of the public, caught up in events (many of them truly tragic) far larger than they could cope with but made much, much worse by press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous."

Lord Justice Leveson said putting "a policeman in every newsroom is no sort of answer," because legal powers were limited to allow the press to act in the public interest.

However, the press is "still the industry marking its own homework", and needs an independent self-regulatory body to promote high standards, he added.

The Metropolitan Police said it accepted the criticisms made against it in the report.

Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe said he had already taken "decisive action" on the issues raised and his priority was now ensuring phone-hacking victims got justice.

The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Hunt, said the press had to seize the baton and make sure it "doesn't let Lord Justice Leveson down".

 

More on This Story

The Leveson report

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 119.

    IMHO, there isn't a single daily paper worth buying anyway.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 118.

    Please can we have a limit on the number of times Hugh Grant's photo appears on features about the Leveson inquiry. I know he is a wonderful human being and one of the world's greatest actors who has suffered at the hands of the press - but enough is enough.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 117.

    The Tories are master's of spin and need the press to peddle their lies. How a traditinoally working class newspaper (The Sun), managed to persuade it's readership to vote for the Tories really is quite an achievement.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 116.

    Surely the proposed new anti-stalking law will stop the press harassing people. Any type of surveillance by reporters or paparazzi whose only purpose is to get a story or photos in order to sell more papers is stalking as far as I'm concerned.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 115.

    It would appear that Leveson is absolving Dave of any conspiracy vis-a-vis the Murdochs. Given that his first act on becoming PM was to implement all that News Int had asked for and that many Murdoch key players are now facing prosecution for corruption, it would appear that Leveson 'lost his bottle' on this one. Perhaps there are invisible further wheels within wheels here. Who will ever know.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 114.

    the sun??? self regulated?? yeh right.................

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 113.

    @94, I agree completely that they have no right to do so, but if there was no demand for it, why would they?

    "I think you're missing the point. Just because there are many people wanting to read the trash, it doesn't give the right to journalists to hack. Besides, most of the targetted individuals were victims of serious crimes, not those celebs who normally appear in the trashy publications"

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 112.

    Free press is a must for democracy - intrusion into private lives, whether the subject be in the public eye ( ie Duchess of Cambridge photos) or not ( Milly Dowler ) should be outlawed and severe justice be meted out, not only for the intruder, but for the paper that prints it.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 111.

    The press had a self-regulatory body and it failed. Its time for an independant regulatory body.

    Also the press should do more research before publishing rumors. They can start with the definition of independant regulatory body. It means having memebers who aren't connected to papers, especially not when they are on their payrolls.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 110.

    Yes we need an underlying criminal charge for wilful bad practice

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 109.

    MPs have statutes underpinning both their freedoms and regulations.

    Perhaps it is time for the press...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 108.

    We only need a body with a jury of ordinary people, who take appeals for errors of fact. If found to have expressed as fact something wrong about someone, a retraction in the same place and size etc. can be ordered. Not one penny of money. A like for like retraction. Speculation and conjecture is free speech though.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 107.

    49.Jono
    Can I just congratulate the commenters who can apparently read 1,800 pages in a matter of minutes,
    ---------
    Maybe cos they are experienced in what they get from the establishment and know they won't get any different whether the message comes out in one key sentence or a 1800 page document.

    The final effect on the public is always the same - a kick in the teeth despite the sweet talk.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 106.

    It's not freedom of press vs the victims - it's big politics vs big business, wrestling for power.
    We should support freedom of press, because it affects us. We don't want gov to police our discussions/thoughts. But freedom of press is not a shield for big corps printing for profit/control of the country's mind.
    No laws needed, gov should back off and help us fight off the big corps ourselves.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 105.

    I am for a free press but over the last 40yrs the press have taken the role of moral high ground,whilst simultaneously digging about in the dirt,in the name of 'the public interest' in many cases simply to line their pockets.This has nothing to do with free expression. And all to do with greed&arrogance.and the public have lapped it up.You reap what you sow.Criminal charges r still needed.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 104.

    Be intrigued to see if Ed Milliband will now withdrawis comments made about the Tory MP Hunt, as it vindicates what he said, and that he did act independantly.
    However, I will not hold my breath....a Labour leader apologising for making unsubstantiated statements like they were fact......not going to happen!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 103.

    Have we learned nothing from all the recent press, political , bank and sex scandals - self regulation does not work and is an open invitation for abuse, misuse of power and corruption. If you allow this you deserve the government, press, banks, stars and othe institutions you get. See you back here in ten years time.

  • Comment number 102.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 101.

    21.eljp
    The press only supplies demand, We need to stop buying trash, and they will stop printing it.

    That is wrong. The press controls the supply and the choice is limited. Is it the same for Heroin? Do drug pushers simply supply demand or to they promote it?
    The press pushes sensationalist junk and so prevents real discussion and analysis , because the profits are easier that way.

  • rate this
    -48

    Comment number 100.

    Those of you who think the proposals are good have obviously never lived in places where the press is regulated/censored.

    You might want to try it, it is a real eye opener!

 

Page 61 of 66

 

More UK stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.