Press regulation: where are we now?

With the launch of the Press Recognition Panel this month, Raymond Snoddy notes that there seems to be a much greater appetite for regulating the press in the UK than protecting its freedoms.

Everyone in the media should take note of the fact that from this week the UK has a Press Recognition Panel.

In a very British way it has been set up according to the highest standards of public life and is peopled with members of impeccable integrity, talent and achievement.

The Press Recognition Panel, chaired by Dr David Wolfe QC, a barrister specialising in challenging the legality of decisions taken by public bodies, was established by the Royal Charter on “self-regulation” of the press.

The Appointments Committee was appointed by Sir David Normington, the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Dame Anne Pringle, former British Ambassador to Moscow, chaired the committee whose members included Dr Chitra Bharucha, former vice chair of the BBC Trust, and Andrew Flanagan, former chief executive of the Scottish Media Group.

Naturally for such an important task it was a competitive process. No back scratching or sinecures here. Every member is the model representative of a modern quango member.

The Appointments Committee appointed Dr Wolfe in the summer and together they came up with: Harry Clayton, chief executive of the Professional Standards Authority, Emma Gilpin-Jacobs, former director of communications for the deputy Prime Minister, Carolyn Regan, chief executive at what was then the Legal Services Commission, Harry Rich, chief executive of the Royal Institute of British Architects and Tim Suter, a founding partner of Ofcom and media consultant.

Absolutely impeccable. A polished piece of work. No embarrassing conflicts of interest there.

It is difficult to imagine a better-equipped body of men and women to provide the “independent verification (or recognition) of the regulatory arrangements the press put in place” and Lord Justice Leveson and the government desires.

If Gilbert and Sullivan were still alive they could set it to music.

Because there is one tiny flaw in the elaborate creation of The Press Recognition Panel – there may be nothing, or very little, to recognise and therefore virtually nothing to do except meet as often as seems necessary.

As is already well known, the vast majority of the UK newspaper and magazine industry has set up its own body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which has declined to be supervised under Royal Charter.

It can be expected to avoid giving even the time of day to The Press Recognition Panel, let alone submit its efforts to receive such an unsought imprimatur.

Will the Panel now go ahead with a unilateral inquiry into whether IPSO should be compliant with the key findings of Leveson? They would be wasting both time and money if they were to try.

Sir Alan Moses, the IPSO chairman, has already answered that question. The answer is no – and no ifs and no buts.

Will the Panel, after a lengthy investigation, issue a report stating the bleeding obvious that IPSO does not meet the Leveson criteria?

There is not much hope either from the IPSO non-joiners. Neither the Guardian nor The Independent are fans of press regulation under Royal Charter, so it would be illogical if they were to have anything to do with The Press Recognition Panel.

It’s possible that they could decide to “recognise” the independent system set up by the Financial Times, although it’s very unlikely that the FT will feel in need of such external authentication.

Then there is IMPRESS – the independent monitor for the Press – which has just appointed Walter Merricks, the first chief ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service and a member of the Gambling Commission, as its first chairman.

Merricks seems like an ideal choice, and of course he was thoroughly and properly appointed by the IMPRESS Appointments Panel, “chaired by the distinguished journalist and press freedom campaigner Aiden White.”

Maybe here at last The Press Recognition Panel will find something to recognise although it not clear whether or not the body will want to be recognised under a Royal Charter.

IMPRESS does, however, show itself eager to be compliant with Leveson in matters that the rest of the press find anathema – being potentially subject to exemplary damages in libel actions and paying all the costs even when a newspaper wins its case.

Membership of IMPRESS is “voluntary and contractual” and, the organisation says, will bring benefits such as the use of a kitemark and recognition by the courts under the Crime and Courts Act to avoid its exemplary damages, etc.

Apart from voluntary subscriptions IMPRESS says its investigations arm will largely be funded on a “polluter pays” principle using the income from fines for serious or systemic non-compliance.

Like The Press Recognition Panel, IMPRESS seems to be living in a parallel universe. With the possible exception of the Guardian, The Independent and Private Eye – and that seems far from certain – no national, regional or local newspaper nor magazine will have anything to do with IMPRESS.

And the very first publication subjected to “exemplary” damages because it has not been recognised by The Press Recognition Panel will be straight off to years of litigation in Europe with a very high chance of success.

A number of specialist barristers have already declared the provision to be very probably in breech of the right to free expression regulations of the Human Rights Act. So where are we now?

The most likely outcome is that The Press Recognition Panel will steam full ahead with very little to do other than recognise IMPRESS as being fully Leveson compliant under Royal Charter, even though few – if any – publications will submit to its authority or pay any attention to its adjudications.

Let a recognised IMPRESS try to fine a newspaper which does not recognise its existence and you won’t have to wait too long to see what happens.

It really ought to be set to music as a very British operetta.

Meanwhile, in a week when The Press Recognition Panel and IMPRESS took on a firm reality, in the real world it was reported that over the past decade 370 journalists had been murdered and 90 per cent of their killers have not been brought to justice.

Parliament was also told that the police were systematically misusing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to snoop on journalists and their sources doing “irreparable damage” to the industry. Unfortunately there seems to be a much greater appetite for regulating the press in this country than protecting its freedoms.