A conspiracy in a smoke filled room
The newspaper industry had already swallowed many tough proposals, but the balance has now been tipped so unacceptably against them that the future course is clear: the Government insists this is a self-regulatory body – if that is so then membership is by definition voluntary and all the leading newspaper groups have to do is…nothing. By Raymond Snoddy.
The Spectator magazine will this week make clear its disgust at the all-party – plus Hacked Off – late night deal on press regulation.
The Conservative-leaning weekly will publish with just one word on its cover – “NO!”, large and bold against a white background.
The magazine’s editor Fraser Nelson has always been opposed to Leveson-style statutory underpinning but now the Spectator’s publisher Andrew Neil, who tended more towards agnosticism on the issue, believes the new legislation is totally unacceptable. The Spectator will not be joining the new regulatory body,
The decision-making at a small but influential magazine may not appear to carry much weight but the Spectator has already been joined by satirical weekly Private Eye and others will undoubtedly follow. Most of the newspaper and magazine industry could, after a pause for breath and legal advice, ignore a new regulator not just underpinned but set up under a Royal Charter backed by legislation. They would be right to do so.
Apart from the illegality of phone hacking and corruption on a number of popular papers, which is rightly being dealt with by the legal system, there is a real need for wider scale reform in the industry.
Greater accuracy, fairness, less unthinking cruelty and changes in the journalistic culture in many newsrooms are long overdue. Many of such improvements were on offer under a strengthened self-regulatory system.
The hearings, if not all the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson, had a cathartic effect. Change was on the way and the newspaper industry swallowed many tough proposals including fines of up to £1 million for miscreant publications.
Sadly, all of that is now under threat because political leaders and members of Hacked Off – who have been given the status of official opposition to the newspaper industry – conspired in what used to be called ‘smoke filled rooms’.
What was Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin thinking of effectively negotiating late at night in Labour Leader Ed Miliband’s office with four members of Hacked Off? Was Hacked Off chairman Hugh Tomlinson QC actually involved in helping to draft some of the amendments that were rushed off to the House of Lords? Why were they invited to be there in the first place when no-one from the newspaper industry was even informed of what was going on?
Leaders of the UK’s main political parties have been celebrating what they have done – although they don’t seem terribly sure about exactly what it is. The celebration is greatly premature and Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg may soon come to regret what they have so thoughtlessly done.
As for poor old David Cameron, you can almost feel sorry for him because of the political pressures he faced.
In what amounts to a political coup, Hacked Off – with the help of naïve cronies in the House of Lords – managed to hijack important parts of the Government’s legislative programme by inserting pro-Leveson amendments. The Defamation Bill and anti-red tape legislation would have been lost and presumably other bills would have gone the same way until the Prime Minister cracked.
Cameron, facing defeat on the floor of the House this week, did indeed crack, and as the Times argued, after talking of a Rubicon that should not be crossed the Prime Minister then “swam the river.”
It is not often you can say this but one of the few places to look for any sign of common sense in Parliament this week was on the Conservative back benches. Former Cabinet Minister Peter Lilley said that the power of the new regulator to order apologies and corrections meant it might become a “Ministry of Truth.”
Richard Drax, the South Dorset MP, argued that the knee-jerk deal would have unintended consequences. He added that it was “wrong and highly undemocratic” for something so fundamental to British freedoms to be swept through by a small number of highly placed individuals.
The very effective Hacked Off campaigners deserve praise in one respect. They have so over-reached themselves that the choice is now clear. They have even managed to stir up such mild-mannered and totally guiltless people as members of the Newspaper Society and the Professional Publishers Association.
Some of the largest newspaper groups – Daily Mail and General Trust, News International, the Telegraph Group and Express Group have said that there are “several deeply contentious issues which have not yet been resolved with the industry.”
Apart from the principle of statutory underpinning they include the fact that the new regulator would be able to hear complaints from “representative groups,” the newspaper industry would have to pay complainant costs and those who stay outside the system would face exemplary damages if found guilty of libel or breeches of privacy.
It is also difficult to summon up enough scorn to ridicule the daft attempt to bring the web within the net of terrestrial legislation. The Royal Charter mechanism itself remains contentious. It could only be changed by a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.
As we have seen in recent days that may not be impossible but it certainly could make it difficult to get rid of any aspects of “the deal” that were not working or were unexpectedly punitive.
Fans of Royal Charters should also never forget that the Royal Charter which governs the BBC did not prevent two director generals in living memory, Alasdair Milne and Greg Dyke, being tipped out of their jobs for political reasons by political appointees packing the Board of Governors.
With their latest late night activity the politicians and their new best friends have now tipped the balance so unacceptably against the press and the future course is clear. The Government insists this is a self-regulatory body. If that is so then membership is by definition voluntary and all the leading newspaper groups have to do is – nothing.
They may open themselves up to exemplary damages as a result but judges who imposed draconian fines in such circumstances would soon find themselves on the long journey to the European Court of Human Rights.
It is a risk worth taking compared with the alternative – the danger of putting at risk historic freedoms.
David Cameron has, in the end, cut and run under fire. It is time for the newspaper and magazine industries to stand together a show a modicum of courage. The Guardian and the Independent are completely free to join the Politicians’ Press Commission.
Meanwhile, for the majority, there is something that can be done without the say-so of politicians. The heart of the newspaper industry can breathe life into the Press Complaints Commission under the excellent Lord Hunt and demonstrate how necessary reforms can be conducted by a free press for the good of society and without benefit of legislation.