This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/17/leveson-vote-cause-hyperventilating-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Leveson vote: no cause for hyperventilating Leveson vote: no cause for hyperventilating
(6 months later)
To read some accounts of Monday night's Leveson vote a casual reader could be forgiven for thinking that Britain's press stands at a historic crossroads. One arrow points to freedom, the other to the end of all that Milton, Wilkes and Mill lived and died for.To read some accounts of Monday night's Leveson vote a casual reader could be forgiven for thinking that Britain's press stands at a historic crossroads. One arrow points to freedom, the other to the end of all that Milton, Wilkes and Mill lived and died for.
The truth is rather more mundane. MPs are being asked to choose between two versions of a royal charter – a medieval piece of constitutional nonsense that fudges the issue of statutory regulation. There are good and bad things in both charters, not a straight choice between virtue and evil – and nothing in either to signal the death of press freedom.The truth is rather more mundane. MPs are being asked to choose between two versions of a royal charter – a medieval piece of constitutional nonsense that fudges the issue of statutory regulation. There are good and bad things in both charters, not a straight choice between virtue and evil – and nothing in either to signal the death of press freedom.
From the outset of the Leveson debate we have argued that independence is more important than statute. To be credible, a reformed press regulator must be truly freestanding from both press and parliament. It must have the ability both to mediate and to investigate. It should have sanctions and a code of practice by which journalists will live. It must be voluntary – but regulation would be meaningless if significant publishers refused to join. Carrots and sticks are therefore needed to encourage participation. The only workable proposal anyone has come up with is one that creates significant legal cost advantages for those inside the system – though the devil is in the detail. Much of this is common ground between everyone – including press, the victims of press abuse and on all sides of parliament. None of this would cause the sky to fall in.From the outset of the Leveson debate we have argued that independence is more important than statute. To be credible, a reformed press regulator must be truly freestanding from both press and parliament. It must have the ability both to mediate and to investigate. It should have sanctions and a code of practice by which journalists will live. It must be voluntary – but regulation would be meaningless if significant publishers refused to join. Carrots and sticks are therefore needed to encourage participation. The only workable proposal anyone has come up with is one that creates significant legal cost advantages for those inside the system – though the devil is in the detail. Much of this is common ground between everyone – including press, the victims of press abuse and on all sides of parliament. None of this would cause the sky to fall in.
There are two main issues around which there has been less consensus – whether the charter needs any reinforcement to prevent it being unpicked by ministers without parliamentary debate and whether the press should be able to veto appointments to the regulator.  The argument for parliamentary underpinning lies in the curious and unsatisfactory nature of the royal prerogative – a profoundly undemocratic device which allows ministers of the day to interfere with, or even abolish, a charter without any kind of open debate. So we prefer the Liberal Democrat/Labour proposal (the so-called "royal charter plus") which would require a two-thirds majority of MPs before anything decided on Monday night could be amended. Some fear that this will cement arrangements which are yet tried and tested. But the royal charter plus gives the regulator and recognition body reasonable discretion to judge whether the scheme is sustainable.There are two main issues around which there has been less consensus – whether the charter needs any reinforcement to prevent it being unpicked by ministers without parliamentary debate and whether the press should be able to veto appointments to the regulator.  The argument for parliamentary underpinning lies in the curious and unsatisfactory nature of the royal prerogative – a profoundly undemocratic device which allows ministers of the day to interfere with, or even abolish, a charter without any kind of open debate. So we prefer the Liberal Democrat/Labour proposal (the so-called "royal charter plus") which would require a two-thirds majority of MPs before anything decided on Monday night could be amended. Some fear that this will cement arrangements which are yet tried and tested. But the royal charter plus gives the regulator and recognition body reasonable discretion to judge whether the scheme is sustainable.
The idea that the press should be able to veto appointments to the new regulator was always a non-starter. Imagine the banks, doctors or lawyers demanding a right to disqualify people they didn't like from sitting on a regulatory body. On this score we also prefer the royal charter plus. On other issues there are small differences – the gap between "requiring" or "directing" corrections or apologies; the precise composition of the code committee; the scope of the recognition panel etc. An argument could be made on either side for such matters. We reject the idea of exemplary damages for those outside the system – but they are there in both versions of the charter. The culture secretary, Maria Miller, has suggested that last-minute talks might resolve the differences. That would be a good outcome.The idea that the press should be able to veto appointments to the new regulator was always a non-starter. Imagine the banks, doctors or lawyers demanding a right to disqualify people they didn't like from sitting on a regulatory body. On this score we also prefer the royal charter plus. On other issues there are small differences – the gap between "requiring" or "directing" corrections or apologies; the precise composition of the code committee; the scope of the recognition panel etc. An argument could be made on either side for such matters. We reject the idea of exemplary damages for those outside the system – but they are there in both versions of the charter. The culture secretary, Maria Miller, has suggested that last-minute talks might resolve the differences. That would be a good outcome.
The Leveson inquiry was a necessary and useful examination of the ethics and standards of the press. The judge's report contained much that was sensible, along with some things that were much more contestable. It is a healthy thing, not a bad thing, that the whole issue of press regulation is the subject of open discussion and scrutiny. All sides in the debate have moved during the course of the past few months, including the political parties, the press and the campaigners on behalf of the victims of press abuse. There is now much less at stake than anyone might guess from some of the hyperventilated discourse. Royal charter plus is, by and large, a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. We hope that, within a reasonable period, an improved system of independent regulation will be up and running, and we doubt John Milton will be spinning in his grave.The Leveson inquiry was a necessary and useful examination of the ethics and standards of the press. The judge's report contained much that was sensible, along with some things that were much more contestable. It is a healthy thing, not a bad thing, that the whole issue of press regulation is the subject of open discussion and scrutiny. All sides in the debate have moved during the course of the past few months, including the political parties, the press and the campaigners on behalf of the victims of press abuse. There is now much less at stake than anyone might guess from some of the hyperventilated discourse. Royal charter plus is, by and large, a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. We hope that, within a reasonable period, an improved system of independent regulation will be up and running, and we doubt John Milton will be spinning in his grave.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.