Leveson report: Newspapers reject press regulation plans

Copy of the News of the World Press regulation faced intense scrutiny after the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World

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 newspapers opposed the idea of a regulator backed by a royal charter, and have revealed an alternative plan.

It is closely based on the draft charter agreed after the Leveson report into press standards - but without "state-sponsored regulation".

Campaigners said it showed the industry had "learned nothing" from Leveson.

The Guardian and the Independent are the only two titles out of 11 national newspapers that have not signed up.

The government's royal charter, published on 18 March, has "no support within the press" and has been condemned by media freedom organisations, said a statement released by the Newspaper Society, on behalf of a number of national and local newspapers.

The newspapers also argue that they had no say in the final discussions.

Prime Minister David Cameron said there was all-party agreement around the published charter but he was "always very happy to look at other proposals".

However, BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said government sources are saying their plans "will not be dropped" in favour of the newspaper industry package.

'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.

Industry sources told BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins the industry-backed press regulator would not apply for formal recognition under the government's royal charter plans and 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 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, he said.

The newspapers' proposals are different from the government-backed scheme for England and Wales in that they:

  • Remove Parliament's power to block or approve future changes to regulation. Instead the regulator, trade bodies and a newly-created "recognition panel" would have to agree to changes
  • Would see the chair and members of the panel selected by an appointments committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, and include one representative of the industry's interests, one member representing the public interest and one public appointments assessor nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for England and Wales
  • Remove a ban on former editors sitting on the panel
  • Give newspaper and magazine readers a say on the industry's proposals
  • Make it more difficult to bring group complaints
  • Change the power of the regulator to "direct" the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies, saying it should "require", not "direct"

The industry described it as "a workable, practical way to swiftly deliver the Leveson recommendations... without any form of state-sponsored regulation that would endanger freedom of speech".

Editors have lined up to back the proposals.

Tony Gallagher, of the Daily Telegraph, tweeted: "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 it was "a workable solution which should command public confidence".

Acting editor of the Times John Witherow described the proposals for self-regulation as robust but said they would not affect press freedom.

Peter Wright, editor emeritus of Associated Newspapers, told 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."

Neil Wallis, a former executive editor of the News of the World, said the press was honouring the spirit of the Leveson report but wanted to prevent politicians having a say in regulation.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Commons culture committee chairman, John Whittingdale, said the plans were a "constructive development".

The Conservative MP said he hoped neither side would stick "rigidly" to their plans and there was now the possibility of producing a "charter which everyone can support".

'Desperate move'

But campaign group Hacked Off said in a statement: "This desperate move by editors and proprietors… is only the latest proof that most of the industry has learned no lessons from the Leveson experience.

"They are not sorry for the abuses exposed at the inquiry... and they do not accept the need for real change."

The industry statement said the charter would deliver:

  • Tough sanctions - with the new regulator able to impose fines of up to £1m for systematic wrongdoing
  • Full and prominent correction of inaccuracies
  • Strong investigative powers enabling the new regulator to investigate wrong-doing and call editors to account
  • Genuine independence from the industry and from politicians, with all the bodies making up the new regulator having a majority of independent members appointed openly and transparently
  • Public involvement in the framing of the code of practice which binds national and local newspapers and magazines

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.

"The royal charter published on the 18 March, followed 21 weeks of discussion and has cross-party agreement."

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman said: "The important thing is that we get on with implementation."

But London Mayor Boris Johnson tweeted: "Press proposing alternative royal charter on regulation - keeps best of Leveson but free from political interference."


More on This Story

The Leveson report


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 170.

    Strange that so many on here suddenly trust politicins to do the right thing.

    I wouldnt trust a newspaper but I trust politicians even less, they are the last people I want deciding what I am allowed to read.

    @152 sam

    They did not delete the dowler voicemails the police have clarified that.

  • rate this

    Comment number 169.

    The press shouldn't self-regulate; they can't be trusted to decide what should and shouldn't be printed, as all they care about is circulation figures, and sensationalist (oft libelous) tripe sells papers.

    Equally, no government (whichever party) should be involved in press regulation. That's a very dangerous path.

    An independent body, outside government influence, is the only solution.

  • rate this

    Comment number 168.

    None of our so-called rights exist in isolation i.e. the exercise of one 'right' almost invariably impinges on another. So it is with the right to freedom of speech: to suggest that it be absolute is to say that no-one has a right to privacy, to protection from defamation, from bullying (by the likes of Murdoch and the Barclay brothers, for example)

  • rate this

    Comment number 167.

    Saying "Well the press have nothing to fear if they keep in the legislation" is missing the point. What about good investigative journalism that may need to overstep the mark at times..
    The temptation for a politician to protect himself is far to great.
    Comparing the Miller Dowler hacking to good journalism is blurring a much larger issue.. The lack of effort to apply laws that already exist

  • rate this

    Comment number 166.

    Opening his enquiry, Lord Justice Leveson said, "The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”

    So far, neither the press nor politicians seem too keen to answer that simple question.

  • rate this

    Comment number 165.

    Remind why exactly do we care what the papers say? They should tell the truth and abide by the rules.

  • rate this

    Comment number 164.

    Sorry but its stupid, the people that caused this enquiry are being prosecuted by already existing laws. The biggest problem is that the police didn't investigate properly. The papers, journalists and corporations that caused this need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, local journalists have to live amongst those they report on and don't need guidlines as to how they should behave.

  • rate this

    Comment number 163.

    Does this mean that smokers get to decide where and when they can smoke, drinkers get to decide on licensing hours, drivers get to choose road tax, petrol prices and speed limits, house holders set council tax levels?

    What chaos there would be if each section of society were allowed to set its own regulations.

  • rate this

    Comment number 162.

    they should be rejected as should the Beeb for its anti UK sentiments

  • rate this

    Comment number 161.

    Close them all, I'm happy using the BBC relatively unbiased news web pages.

  • rate this

    Comment number 160.

    @67 - You had me right up until you mentioned Jesus.

  • rate this

    Comment number 159.

    "But newspapers argue that they had no say in the final discussions." - I think they lost the privilege of having any say in the discussions quite a while ago. Regulate them, but in the meantime people: vote with your wallets.

  • rate this

    Comment number 158.

    Phone hacking was always illegal, ther real scandal was why the initial allegations weren't properly investigated.We got a hint of why with the investigation into why Surrey Police didn't investigate the Dowler hacking becuase of "Collective amnesia." The real scandal is the Police, as seen in numerous other abuses such as Hillsborough, Lawrence etc, that's the institution that needs reformed!

  • rate this

    Comment number 157.

    Freedom of the press.....hmmmmmm...... Is that the same as the freedom to say what you like regardless of the truth, who it hurts (whose life will most probably be permanently ruined as a result) and with no ultimate sanction for your actions? Yeah right......

    Some people need to get their priorities right here.

  • rate this

    Comment number 156.

    As seen on a mythbuster T-Shirt

    "I reject your reality and substitute my own"

    Possibly a new motto for Fleet St\Grub St 's finest..

  • rate this

    Comment number 155.

    Isn't 'self regulation' just a long way of saying anarchy?

  • rate this

    Comment number 154.

    does this mean we can all refuse the bedroom tax as a cross section of people who own bedrooms ?

  • rate this

    Comment number 153.

    so what was the point of the Leverson enquiry then if the charter is to be ignored? what a waste of money!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 152.

    Boycott them.....

    As for Simpletics 137.: "I have no sympathy with wealthy politicians and clowns who were too stupid to change the default password on their voice mail." No sympathy for Milly Dowler's parents then? These are criminal acts and they deserve to punished severely ...maybe you are a journo??? ;)

  • rate this

    Comment number 151.

    Those who want to regulate inevitably have the most to hide........


Page 34 of 42


More UK stories



Try our new site and tell us what you think. Learn more
Take me there

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.