David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all claim victory in Leveson deal
A deal has been struck between the three main political parties on a watchdog to regulate the press after the phone-hacking scandal.
An independent regulator will be set up by royal charter with powers to impose million pound fines on, and demand upfront apologies from, publishers.
The Prime Minister has outlined to MPs the scope of the formal document, which will set out the regulator's powers.
Press reform campaign group Hacked Off has welcomed the deal.
The news follows Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into phone hacking, which found that journalists had hacked thousands of phones. He called for a new, independent regulator backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly.
David Cameron said the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour had agreed on a new system of "tough independent self-regulation that will deliver for victims and meet the principles set out in (Leveson's) report".
Christopher Jeffries: "It is very unlikely that the press would have vilified me in the way they did".
He said a new system would ensure:
- upfront apologies from the press to victims
- million pound fines
- a self-regulatory body with independent appointments and funding
- a robust standards code
- a free arbitration service for victims
- a speedy complaints system
The charter defines publishers as newspapers, magazines or websites containing news-related material.
Mr Cameron said all of this would be put in place without the need for new law - although Labour leader Ed Miliband said legislation did underpin the new press regulator.
Analysis
To anyone outside Westminster this must all sound like not so much a dance, but more like an enthusiastic disco on the head of a pin.
It boils down to how to set up a new system for regulating the newspapers that is respected, but not seen to be a law that undermines the freedom of the press.
After months of talks and hours before a crunch Commons vote, a few buckets of midnight oil were burnt to bring the political parties very close to a deal.
It sounds as though David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg barely managed eight hours sleep between them.
All three party leaders say the deal is a triumph: for victims of the press, freedom of the press and... for them.
There is a political battle under way over the ownership of the deal and a political battle under way over the language to describe it.
The prime minister is categoric. The royal charter that will oversee the new regulator will not be underpinned in law.
Labour leader Ed Miliband is categoric too. He says it will.
"It is simply a clause that says politicians can't fiddle with this," says David Cameron.
"This is not a little bit of statute, this is not a dab of statute, this is statute pure and simple," a source close to Mr Miliband told me.
So when is statutory underpinning not statutory underpinning? That disco has begun.
Announcing the draft royal charter, which will need to be approved by the Queen's Privy Council, Mr Cameron told MPs: "What happened to the Dowlers, to the McCanns, to Christopher Jeffries and to many other innocent people who've never sought the limelight was utterly despicable.
"It is right that we put in place a new system of press regulation to ensure such appalling acts can never happen again. We should do this without any further delay."
The Liberal Democrats and Labour had wanted a royal charter - a formal document used to set up bodies such as universities and the BBC - backed by legislation, while Mr Cameron supported a royal charter without a law.
Early on Monday a deal was struck, under which a clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill would be tabled in the Lords.
This would state that a royal charter could not be changed unless it met requirements stated within that charter for amendments.
It would not mention any specific charter, Leveson or the press - but the royal charter on press regulation would itself state that it cannot be amended without a two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Both sides have differed in their interpretation of whether this deal involves a new law.
Mr Cameron said there was no statutory underpinning.
"What we wanted to avoid, and we have avoided, is a press law," he said.
"Nowhere will it say what this body is, what it does, what it can't do, what the press can and can't do. That, quite rightly, is being kept out of Parliament. So, no statutory underpinning but a safeguard that says politicians can't in future fiddle with this arrangement."
'Stops meddling'However, Mr Miliband said the royal charter "would be underpinned by statute" to "stop ministers or the press meddling with it, or watering it down in the future".
Brian Cathcart, Hacked Off: "An artfully crafted piece of legislation"
Under the deal, a separate bill, the Crime and Courts Bill, would have amendments ensuring that newspapers who refused to join the new regulatory regime would be potentially liable for exemplary damages if a claim was upheld against them.
One newspaper industry source earlier told the BBC they were "instinctively uncomfortable" with news of the deal.
The Sun and others have said they will accept everything recommended by Lord Justice Leveson - except statutory legislation.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the press had been informed over the days and months of wrangling, with key players being Telegraph's Lord Black, Associated Newspapers' Peter Wright, the editor of the Times John Witherow and the editor of the FT Lionel Barber.
'Sad day'Evan Harris of campaign group Hacked Off was at the overnight talks, with three other pressure group members. The group later said it believed the deal "can effectively deliver" Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations.
But the idea of a charter was criticised by free speech campaign group Index on Censorship. Chief executive Kirsty Hughes said the decision was a "sad day for press freedom in the UK".
She said: "Index is against the introduction of a royal charter that determines the details of establishing a press regulator in the UK - the involvement of politicians undermines the fundamental principle that the press holds politicians to account."
No comments:
Post a Comment