Outstanding questions about Leveson’s Royal Charter

Today Parliament will vote on the Royal Charter for press regulation. While we have not yet seen the final details, serious concerns remain.The detail has been haggled over in two sets of meetings – one with the three party leaders, and one with Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Hacked Off.

MPs should not be afraid to table amendments where the proposals do not work and we have highlighted three critical issues that must be addressed.

1) Will provisions for third party groups to make complaints be based on the watered down version?

The Lib/Lab version amended the test for third party reduced the threshold for ‘representative’ groups to make complaints to the new regulatory body. Will this remain?

The amended version was: “b) where there is an alleged breach of the code and there is substantial public interest in the Board giving formal consideration to the complaint from a representative group affected by the alleged breach”

Why do we need ‘representative’ bodies making complaints to a press regulator? If so much harm is done to individuals and we have a regulator with a simple and accessible process, what is wrong with having a test of a substantial public interest? Will the EDL use this loophole to complain about its coverage? How about

2) Will the scope of the provisions be reduced to only cover major news outlets?

Under the draft provisions, the scope is cast far wider than just major national newspapers. with bloggers, community leaflets and arguably pretty much anyone with a photocopier.

It says:

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

i.) a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or

ii.) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

i.) a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or

ii.) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);

This is far too broad a scope and goes far beyond addressing the ills of a few journalists on major newspapers. As our report argued at the weekend, obtaining information through unregulated surveillance is not simply a matter for newspapers and must be tackled through the criminal law.

3) That pre-publication censorship must not be available without recourse to a court

The current wording states that publishers will face a test of strict liability where material is published following a notice from the regulator that an individual to respect their privacy. There only defence is public interest. The question addressed in, for example, exposing the hypocracy or lies of celebrity who seeks to profit from a reputation, seems entirely ignored and a test of strict liability risks a clear impingement on freedom of the press.

“8A. A self-regulatory body should provide advice to the public in relation to issues concerning the press and the standards code, along with a service to warn the press, and other relevant parties such as broadcasters and press photographers, when an individual has made it clear that they do not welcome press intrusion.

8B. A self-regulatory body should make it clear that subscribers will be held strictly accountable under the standards code for any material that they publish, including photographs, however sourced. This criterion does not include advertising content.

8C. A self-regulatory body should provide non-binding guidance on the interpretation of the public interest that justifies what would otherwise”

 

UPDATE

The draft Royal Charter has been published. (Link)

On our questions:

1) The substantial public interest test has gone. “where there is an alleged breach of the code and there is public interest in theBoard giving consideration to the complaint from a representative group affectedby the alleged breach,”

2) Bloggers are covered.

3) Strict liability remains.