Time Gentlemen Please

November 29, 2012 10:40 am

I’m about to read the Leveson report and then listen to his statement. Whilst I wait, I cast my mind back to 1990 and the publication of the Calcutt Report. It led to the axing of the ineffectual Press Council and the introduction of the Press Complaints Commission to strengthen self-regulation of newspapers.

The press were told at the time they were drinking in the last chance saloon. Some responded by going on a 22 year pub crawl.

That’s why it’s so important that we get it right this time. George Eustice was absolutely right in highlighting how many ‘last chances’ the press have had.

The Press Complaints Commission under the stewardship of Sir Christopher Meyer and Baroness Buscombe was a toothless lapdog that looked the other way and never bit the hand that fed it.

During the investigation into phone hacking, it took the News of the World’s side in saying the Guardian evidence was wrong. The News of the World is no more and hopefully this ineffectual body will follow it into extinction.

During my evidence to the inquiry as a core participant, Lord Leveson invited me to submit my thoughts on what could replace the Press Complaints Commission.

Don’t get me wrong, we need a vibrant and inquisitive press to hold the establishment to account, to expose injustice and fight for a better society. The Guardian successfully did that in proving the rogue reporter theory peddled by News International, the Met Police and the PCC, was a total lie.

But we can’t have a regulator that’s effectively financed and run by the very people it’s supposed to hold to account. It’s like putting criminals in charge of the probation service.

So I set up a working group with several academics and legal experts to suggest what a truly independent regulator would look like. You can read the report in full here but these are the top lines.

The disastrous failure of the PCC in recent years would render any direct successor tainted by association. A complete clean break is needed with the past.

The new regulatory framework has to cater for press activity across all media, should such parties choose to join. Any such framework restricted to the printed press is out of date now, and will be completely irrelevant in the near future. But it should be voluntary and not mandatory.

It is both possible and desirable to have a voluntary regulatory framework, but this will require a cocktail of incentives to make membership commercially compelling to the press.

Some of these incentives will need statutory support. There are useful precedents in the Irish Defamation Act on how some of these incentives can be brought into being.

The regulatory framework should include an Ombudsman, which will encourage the press to resolve complaints in-house, and, if this is not possible, then seek to adjudicate on unresolved complaints in a non-legalistic way. This is of pressing importance at a time when the ability of most people to take the press to Court is becoming limited as the process become more expensive.

The Editors’ Code of Practice has a lot of useful guidance, and much of it needs no amendment. However there needs to be a wider debate on the definition of the Public Interest in today’s society, especially if this is to provide defence in the Courts.

The European Convention on Human Rights already balances freedom of expression and press regulation adequately. Articles 8 and 10 on the rights to privacy and expression should be the reference points for any new regulatory framework.

Furthermore, the Courts are best placed to continue to be the final arbiter in resolving these tensions. We should leave these legal calls to judges not editors.

The scope of the Editors’ Code of Practice should also be widened to address how each press organisation operates as an entity, in terms of its ethics and its governance.

Finally, the new regulator should have real teeth to oversee the efforts of editors to achieve compliance with the Code through robust internal governance measures.

The regulator should be able, in exceptional circumstances, to go beyond simple requests for information and undertake its own investigations (which the editor and publication would have agreed to submit to, as part of the initial contractual agreement to join the scheme).

It should use third parties to support its work where its own resources will not suffice and be able to better adjudicate on complaints where mediation has failed and have stronger powers to obtain equal prominence for apologies and corrections in papers, as well as the ability to award compensation commensurate with the distress and damage caused.

The Leveson Inquiry has seen the good actions of the large majority of journalists undermined by the irresponsible actions of those who have abused the power of the press.

A new independent regulation system will require cross-party support. It will probably take some time to get agreement but it is worth getting right.

The victims of gross press intrusion like Chris Jefferies, the Dowlers and McCann’s don’t want to give the press ‘one last chance’ and neither should we.

So hopefully at 1.30 today, Leveson will finally be calling ‘Time Gentlemen Please’ on discredited and useless press self-regulation once and for all.

And we should all drink to that.

Lord John Prescott is the former Deputy Prime Minister

  • Pingback: Live Blog: The Leveson Report - Media Reform

  • IAS2011

    In response to Mr prescott’s views, I do think that it should be ‘time gentlemen please’ on MPs Not having a Legal or Statutory Obligation to Represent Constituents.

    Surely, given that MPs are funded by the public purse, and the press isn’t, there should be a Leveson Inquiry part II that addresses the effect by the ‘non-existent measurement in quality of MPs representations of tax payers/constituents. The impact that this weakness has on constituents must be overwhelming! It no doubt has had a detrimental effect of the upwards social mobility goals of constituents as there is a failure by politicians not to be accounted for in this way – a way that underlines the role and purpose of an MP.

    There is no doubt that the Parliamentary Ombudsman SHOULD be independently set-up to measure this quality of representation by MPs, and giving a voice to constituents as complainants, and even have the remit to achieve redress for constituents who continue to be failed by weak political representation.

    After all, we have been paying MPs for a role that is never scrutinised!

  • Pingback: Latest News Headlines - Lord Justice Leveson publishes report into press standards: live

Latest

  • News Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y