A big question for Leveson

Will Lord Justice Leveson accept an invitation to give evidence to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee? And if he did, what burning questions would MPs ask him as the press regulation impasse lingers on? Whatever happens now, there is one big question that has just surfaced which he really should address says Raymond Snoddy.

To deal with the inevitable post-Wimbledon withdrawal symptoms in a few weeks we now have something good to look forward to – an appearance by Lord Justice Leveson before the Commons Culture Media and Sport committee.

That is of course if his Lordship actually turns up.

He has insisted throughout that he has no plans – ever – to discuss the contents of his report or answer questions about it.

The 2,000-page report must speak for itself.

The only exception was his strangely chosen venue – a speech in Australia soon after publication. Now Lord Justice Leveson can be asked many of the questions a curious journalist would ask.

They would include why the Leveson Report addressed so little time and thought to the internet – when that is a topic that could determine whether newspapers ultimately survive or not, never mind whether they are sufficiently virtuous.

And how about the notion that punitive damages imposed on publications, which decide not to join an independent self-regulatory system, might be in breach of human rights legislation.

What if sections of the local and regional press, innocent of phone hacking allegations, could be tipped out of business by vexatious claimants whose efforts would have to be paid for by those very newspapers themselves?

In retrospect did he give rather too much weight to the arguments of the well-orchestrated pressure group – Hacked Off?

Those, and many more, will inevitably be put to Lord Justice Leveson.

MPs might also be curious to know whether he has had any second thoughts or reservations given what he knows now.

Even if Leveson turns up, second thoughts may be an area that is off limits along with subsequent events. It is already being suggested that as a senior judge he can’t allow himself to get embroiled in the political rows and impasses that have flowed from his handiwork.

Leveson will stick to the report and nothing but the report.

There is, however, one big question that has just surfaced which is very relevant to his report and how he saw his work which he really should address.

The suggestion is that Lord Justice Leveson was given evidence, from a Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) report, that hackers spent only about 20 per cent of their time working for the press. The vast bulk of phone and computer hacking and interception of conversations was carried out for law firms, insurance companies and wealthy individuals.

Leveson was asked to investigate the culture and practices of the press and could, in a legalistic way, conclude that such activity had nothing to do with his terms of reference.

But don’t you think the mention of law firms allegedly getting involved in phone hacking might have triggered a few alarm bells? It might, at the very least, have helped to put his findings on the press into a certain context and you would think that somewhere in the 2,000 pages he might at least have mentioned the claim. It could have drawn public attention to an interesting and potentially important allegation.

Meanwhile, as we move towards a Leveson decision on whether or not to accept a formal Culture Committee invitation to appear and the Committee decides whether or not to compel him if he declines, it’s business as usual at the Press Complaints Commission.

This week we discovered that last year, as the Leveson saga unfolded, the PCC received 12,191 complaints. Rulings were issued, or resolutions brokered, in 1,937 cases and there were 535 cases of successful mediation.

In a further 101 cases where the PCC found the Editors’ Code had been breached and remedial action taken there was no agreement between the parties involved.

On 136 occasions the PCC helped members of the public with pre-publication concerns over harassment, intrusion or inaccuracy.

Not too bad a record for an organisation that has even been abandoned in advance by its chairman Lord Hunt.

While supporting the continuation of the PCC complaints and pre-publication services, Lord Hunt emphasises that he has always made clear there was a need for a genuine regulator with “a new remit, strong investigative powers and robust, meaningful sanctions.”

Could Lord Grade, the former chairman of the BBC, be the man to break the current impasse over press regulation?

On one side there are the parties to the late-night deal – or stitch-up depending on your point of view – on March 18th, between the three main political parties and Hacked Off.

On the other the massed ranks of the press, which more than three months later, are showing no signs of signing up to such a deal.

Lord Grade, whose name was put forward by the Financial Times editor Lionel Barber, would be a good choice as a mediator.

He is a former sports columnist on the Daily Mirror, was exposed to editorial issues at both Channel 4 and the BBC and is a lay member of the PCC.

He was also a critic of the antics of the press last time around when Kelvin Mackenzie’s Sun and the Daily Sport were pushing the boundaries and the press was drinking in David Mellor’s “last chance saloon.”

As chief executive of Channel 4 he was an important supporter of the channel’s innovative programme looking at the excesses of the press at the time – Hard News.

While Lord Grade would obviously be acceptable to the newspaper industry it is very unlikely he would be acceptable to Hacked Off who have been allowed by the politicians to dominate proceedings.

The pressure group has even gone further and said it sees no need for additional compromise or negotiations and that the deal agreed with the political parties was the minimum required to meet the desires of the victims.

Unless the politicians decide to cast aside Hacked Off as an unofficial arbiter then the impasse will continue indefinitely and could become permanent.

As things stand the newspaper industry should not consider signing up to the present deal and the Royal Charter route is deeply flawed.

Perhaps the MPs should ask Lord Justice Leveson what he thinks should happen now – not that there will be much chance of getting an answer.