How should the press be regulated?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/08/pros-cons-statutory-regulation-press

Version 0 of 1.

After eight months, 650 witnesses and 6,000 pages of evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry, we can be clear about two things. Firstly, that a free press is essential for a free society. Secondly, that there are fundamental weaknesses in the current model of self-regulation which cannot be ignored (Prejudging the judge, 2 November). No one wants our media controlled by the government but, to be credible, any new regulator must be independent of the press as well as from politicians. We are concerned that the current proposal put forward by the newspaper industry would lack independence and risks being an unstable model destined to fail, like previous initiatives over the past 60 years. These concerns are shared by the NUJ.

We agree with the prime minister that obsessive argument about the principle of statutory regulation can cloud the debate. Instead we must do what is necessary to create a genuinely independent system. The defamation bill is currently going through parliament with the support of all parties and the newspaper industry. This proves that, when people try, it is possible to make sensible changes to the law.

We should also keep some perspective: the introduction of the Legal Services Board in statute has not compromised the independence of the legal profession. The Jimmy Savile scandal was exposed by ITV and the Winterbourne View care home scandal was exposed by the BBC, both of which are regulated by the Broadcasting Act. While no one is suggesting similar laws for newspapers, it is not credible to suggest that broadcasters such as Sky News, ITV or the BBC have their agenda dictated by the government of the day.

The worst excesses of the press have stemmed from the fact that the public interest defence has been too elastic and, all too often, has meant whatever editors wanted it to mean. To protect both robust journalism and the public, it is now essential to establish a single standard for assessing the public interest test which can be applied independently and consistently.

The prime minister was right to set up the Leveson inquiry. While it has been uncomfortable for both politicians and the press, it also represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put things right. Parliament must not duck the challenge. Lord Fowler, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Caroline Spelman, George Eustice, Penny Mordaunt, Nadhim Zahawi, Zac Goldsmith, Robert Buckland, Andrew Bingham, Adam Afriyie, Neil Parish, Rehman Chishti, Brian Binley, Jackie Doyle-Price, Stephen Metcalfe, Oliver Colvile, Mike Weatherly, Sheryll Murray, Claire Perry, Gary Streeter, Gareth Johnson, James Morris, George Freeman, Andrea Leadsom, Marcus Jones, Bob Stewart, Nicholas Soames, Guto Bebb, Geoffrey Cox, Crispin Blunt, Angela Watkinson, Gerald Howarth, David Morris, Mark Garnier, Mark Field, Henry Bellingham, Gavin Barwell, Jesse Norman, Chris Skidmore, Nicola Blackwood, Paul Uppal, Simon Hart, Lord Ryder (Richard)

• I found myself bemused by the Guardian's editorial suggesting that Lord Justice Leveson ought to favour the regulatory solution proposed by the newspaper industry itself, the so-called Hunt-Black plan.

My phone was hacked by the News of the World in 2006 and, while the offences against me are minor compared to the suffering of other (ordinary, non-celebrity) victims, it troubles me that the Guardian, of all papers, should assume that another round of self-regulation similar to the failed Press Complaints Commission should be sufficient to remedy the many ills exposed in the Leveson inquiry.

The key test for public acceptability of a new regulator is that it really is independent of the newspaper bosses who encouraged the phone-hacking culture in the first place, and then tried to bury the scandal while you were busy exposing it. A regulator whose independence and powers were fixed in law could help to prevent others becoming victims of unwarranted press intrusion. I urge you to reconsider your position. Benedict Grant Noakes London

• The gap between your editorial and Brian Cathcart (The press can live with this, 7 November) can surely be bridged. Self-regulation of the press can hardly be called a success so far, and something more substantial is needed. But press freedom demands some kind of firewall between government and the press.

This can be achieved by setting up a press regulation board by statute. The statute would set the constitution of the PRB and its membership, how it is chosen and length of service. The statute would also determine the PRB's powers – fines or temporary or permanent suspension of publication and publishing of corrections. It would be for the PRB to administer these powers, without interference from government but with provision for judicial review of its decisions.

Membership might not be compulsory, but could be a condition for exemption from VAT. Funding could come from a proportion of VAT saved.

Any attempts by government at direct intervention would then require new legislation, as Brian Cathcart points out. That is the firewall. Tim Gossling Cambridge

• The 20 academics who wrote to the Guardian (Letters, 5 November) and the National Union of Journalists have gone for the authoritarian option of "statutory underpinning and right of reply". Their reforming zeal should have talked instead of a privacy and libel act, calibrating burden of proof on claimants, channelling all litigation into an arbitral legal process capped at £10,000 damages and non-punitive costs, with published adjudication.

We need a social contract and due process for journalism reform – not a crime-control manifesto. Tim Crook Senior lecturer, media law and ethics, Goldsmiths, University of London