It is truly shocking to find oneself agreeing with Michael Gove

Raymond Snoddy says the really interesting question from Leveson this week is whether Michael Gove was preening himself and making it up as he went along, or whether he was reflecting – in a rather shrill way – the private views of David Cameron and the Coalition Cabinet…

There is a first time for everything and it is always best to keep an open mind on as many people and ideas as possible.

But it is truly shocking to find oneself in agreement with the vainglorious and controversial education secretary Michael Gove.

Here was a serving cabinet minister – albeit a former journalist – asserting the primacy of the “precious liberty” of free speech over regulation on agreed abuses. It was something that needed to be said and not many appearing before the Leveson inquiry have put is so directly.

It was a performance that produced a rather petulant response from Lord Leveson, who noted in a severe sentencing tone of voice: “Mr Gove I don’t need to be told about the importance of free speech. I really don’t.”

But Lord Justice Leveson does need to be reminded of the impact his future proposals might have on that very freedom of speech and the equally precious right to cause offence at least some of the time.

The really interesting question is whether, in his evidence, Gove was preening himself and making it up as he went along, or whether he was reflecting – in a rather shrill way – the private views of David Cameron and the Coalition cabinet.

Here was Gove questioning the need for further legislation and warning that when the cry goes up that “something must be done” people often do things that are not wise.

Lord Leveson’s irritation with Gove and his much more emollient exchanges with former Prime Minister Tony Blair demonstrated how keenly aware the Law Lord is that whatever he comes up with could be scuppered by political inertia.

You could see this when he almost beseeched Blair to comment on his ideas and objectives unexpectedly set out at the end of Monday’s session. If at all possible – there is absolutely no compulsion – could the former PM have a think and come up with some thoughts of his own?

Surely Lord Leveson was reaching out to try to build a political consensus so that his greatest fear is not realised – that all his effort should be for naught and that his work would end up as a footnote to a media professor’s account of the history of the early 21st century.

But what of the initial thoughts of Lord Leveson revealed this week? Many are perfectly reasonable issues to raise.

The successor body to the voluntarily liquidated Press Complaints Commission should be independent of both the publishing industry and the state.

The thought was expanded to note that future regulation would have to be “independent of the government, independent of the state, independent of Parliament and independent of the press”. So far so good.

The new regulator would have to have, or be able to call on, journalistic expertise and “must command the respect of the press but equally the respect of the public”. You can’t argue against that.

Group complaints as opposed to individual complaints? There could be a case for the new regulators accepting some group complaints if those complaints can be honed down into something precise that is capable of adjudication. The danger is the new regulators could be tied up in knots by what is little more than lobbying by interest groups.

When we move on to what Leveson called “sanctions that work” and “prior notification” of publication – a subject that Max Mosely has made his own – things begin to get more problematical.

What does Lord Leveson mean by “sanctions that work”? If he is talking about imposing heavy fines he will have a fight on his hands and statutory underpinning would be necessary.

It is far from clear that politicians would sanction such a thing. And how could fining newspapers for particular stories be reconciled with the fact that anyone could at the same time post such material on the internet without jeopardy?

As for Mosely the dangers are obvious. Such a person wants prior notification in order to go to law and prevent publication.

Here Lord Leveson has a more subtle approach. What if newspapers could consult an independent Ombudsman on whether prior notification was necessary? The newspapers would still be free to ignore the advice and publish but would then expose themselves to exemplary damages if the issues subsequently went to the courts.

It would be a sensible, approved system for resolving disputes said Leveson. “All I would say is sensible to whom? Approved by whom?” Gove replied.

In effect what Lord Leveson was advocating was that the law should punish those who choose not to enter a voluntary method of regulation.

There was one big thing missing from the Leveson musings – the suggestion by the chairman of the former PCC Lord Hunt that newspapers and magazines should be tied into a self-regulatory system by commercial contracts.

Lord Hunt believes that all of the major proprietors would agree to such a thing for fear of anything worse, possibly even including fines for the most egregious breaches of the code.

Does silence mean that Lord Leveson has rejected the idea? If so that would be extremely foolish of him because the one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that Lord Hunt, the former Welsh and employment secretary under Margaret Thatcher, has excellent contacts with the present government. You can be sure he will be using them in October when Lord Leveson publishes his report.