Press regulation: In the end we are talking principles

Let’s not get bogged down in the apparently small issues that separate the two royal charters, says Raymond Snoddy. In the end we are talking principles – important principles about the separation of powers between government and a free press in a democracy.

The Times Parliamentary Sketch writer Ann Treneman got the debate on press regulation absolutely right.

It was, she said, a case of déjà vu, or perhaps déjà views.

Definitely déjà views.

We have indeed heard it all before from entrenched positions and there is a predictability and inevitability about what will happen next.

The newspaper industry was excluded from the late night March 18 ‘pizza meeting’ between representatives of the three main political parties and Hacked Off. The Labour Party was excluded from the sub-committee of the Privy Council that rejected the newspaper industry royal charter and endorsed the politician’s royal charter.

If there is no agreement in three days of compromise talks – and the chances of agreement seems slight – then the position reverts to the March royal charter.

We then get into the unprecedented position by the end of this month where a royal charter designed to regulate the press is submitted to the Queen for formal approval despite being opposed by most, if not all, of the newspaper industry.

So unless the Queen rejects the recommendation of her Privy Council – also unlikely – the UK will get a recognition system for “independent regulation” set up by politicians. It is then possible that no body will seek recognition from the official recognition body and that the industry will simply go its own way.

As the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg noted in the Commons, there was no precedent for the power of the Crown being used to impose a royal charter on an industry without its agreement.

It would be relatively easy to get bogged down in the apparently small issues that separate the two royal charters: the cost of the arbitration system, the precise mechanisms by which the members of the recognition body are chosen, how corrections are handled and how the Royal Charter could be amended or overthrown in future.

In the end we are talking principles here, important principles about the separation of powers between government and a free press in a democracy.

Not all politicians get this. In particular they seem unwilling to concede that this freedom must be the freedom to be robust and sometimes even nasty about them.

Almost on cue a peer, albeit one at the amateur dramatics end of the political spectrum, Lord Sugar, illustrates the point perfectly. Speaking in the House of Lords the Labour peer denounced the editor of the Daily Mail Paul Dacre as “a vindictive tyrant.”

Lord Sugar went on to demonstrate his intellectual grip in matters of press regulation by demanding that Parliament “flex its muscles” to get Dacre fired. As a grateful barrister might say: “I rest my case.”

Complaints against the Daily Mail can easily be handled by a new, completely independent press regulator. They can just as easily be dealt with by the existing Press Complaints Commission.

The outcome would be fairly clear in either case. The article, though not particularly fair or balanced, would be judged to be within the realm of acceptable comment – particularly as a right of reply was given in the next issue of the paper.

The headline – The Man Who Hated Britain – would be judged as inaccurate and one that did not properly reflect the content of the article.

Some key points need to be remembered in this current morass. Lord Justice Leveson argued that the best solution would be independent self-regulation – a body established and organised by the industry.

Leveson did not recommend a royal charter and rejected the creation of a recognition body established by Parliament or the Government, arguing that independence from government was fundamental.

“Any Parliamentary process would be likely to be perceived by the industry, and possibly the public, as government interference in the independence of the press,” Lord Justice Leveson concluded.

The logic is clear. The newspaper industry should have nothing to do with the royal charter cobbled together in March and should not be satisfied by last minute tweaking of details.

A judicial review is an option as a delaying tactic but the newspaper industry should have the courage of its convictions and set up a new improved regulatory body, which has already been too long in the making.

As the inevitable drama was unfolding in Parliament, over at a body already regulated by royal charter the director-general of the BBC Lord Hall was setting out his vision for the future.

The only complaint is that it has taken the BBC so long to reach blindingly obvious conclusions that as a public service broadcaster it should devote greater resources and give more prominence to the arts and finally set up a +one hour channel for BBC One.

In fact they should have gone one step further and set up a next day channel for the best of BBC One and BBC Two for those who forgot to set their PVRs, didn’t know about the programme in advance and are not interested in watching television programmes on small computer screens.

There are clearly those who will welcome the idea of a more personalised version of the iPlayer.

There are, however, two major problems facing the BBC and they have nothing to do with a next generation iPlayer.

One is the restoration of trust in the BBC and its programming and making sure that never again can more than £100 million of our money be wasted on a badly managed technological project. The other is more fundamental – that devoting around £200 million to the shiny and new, however desirable, will undermine the very programme making that is supposed to now expand.

It is very difficult to see how delivering quality first, or even second, can be accomplished by an endless procession of job losses.

It is equally difficult to imagine that the BBC will get an increased licence fee next time around. In fact it will be fortunate to hold on to what it has got even in current money terms.
Tony Hall will have to be something of a magician to turn his vision into a reality.