Harman writes to Letwin over “serious concerns” with draft Royal Charter on Media

12th February, 2013 7:46 pm

Harriet Harman has written to Oliver Letwin in response to his draft Royal Charter on the media, which has been published as the Conservative Party’s contribution to cross-party talks on the Leveson Report. The letter is reproduced in full below:

Dear Oliver,

Today you have published your Royal Charter, the Conservative Party’s contribution to cross-party talks on the Leveson Report.

We have substantive concerns that the Royal Charter as drafted fails to comply with the recommendations that the Leveson Report makes. At the heart of Leveson’s proposals was that a new system should be independent of politicians and independent of the press.

The draft Royal Charter fails this test in two particular respects.

Firstly, there is nothing to stop the Privy Council, which consists of ministers, from amending the Charter at any time and thereby changing the terms of the recognition and regulatory framework.

Secondly, Leveson recommended that, in the event that the recognition body was not Ofcom, the appointment process for the recognition body should be independent of the press. The process set out in the draft Royal Charter fails in that respect because of the four people to carry out the appointment process, one is to represent the interests of the press.

Leveson proposed a cross-party agreement on a system that is durable and that works. I believe it to be the case that there is a strong view across all parties and in both Houses in Parliament that Leveson must be implemented in full. That was shown by the debate and vote in the House of Lords on amendments to the Defamation Bill.

I don’t believe it would be right to proceed with a proposal which offers less than the independence and stability recommended by Leveson.

This letter sets out in detail five key issues where we have serious concerns, spells out why we believe they don’t comply with Leveson’s recommendations and proposes what we think would make them Leveson-compliant.

Amendment of the Charter

Leveson recommends that any recognition body should be independent of government and the press (K, 7, 6.14).

The draft Royal Charter sets up a Recognition Panel which judges whether the self-regulatory body matches Leveson’s criteria. But the structure of a system created by Royal Charter could be changed at any time by ministers through the Privy Council. The whole system is subject to ministers and could make ministers vulnerable to press influence. Ministers of their own volition, or under pressure from the press, could therefore interfere with the Recognition Panel which is against Leveson’s proposals. The Royal Charter would be open to interference by ministers and by the press.

The draft Royal Charter draft provides for amendment only to be with the agreement of all three party leaders and a resolution by both houses with a two-thirds majority. But the Privy Council cannot be bound by a Royal Charter – it is the Privy Council that is in control of Royal Charter bodies.

For it to be Leveson-compliant, we propose that the way to protect the system from interference by ministers would be clauses in statute preventing ministers from amending the Royal Charter through the Privy Council and allowing changes only with the approval of a resolution in both Houses by two-thirds majority. You drafted such clauses and produced them in cross-party talks. We think these must be taken forward if there is to be a Royal Charter.

The appointment of the Recognition Panel

Lord Justice Leveson recommends (K, 7, 6.22) that if the recogniser is to be other than Ofcom, ‘He or she would have to be appointed by another process independent of the press’.

But in the draft Royal Charter, the proposal to appoint the first board of the Recognition Panel is that the Royal Charter names Lord (Simon) Brown and requires him to appoint three other members to an Appointments Committee, one of whom ‘must represent the interests of relevant publishers’. Your process therefore includes someone who is not independent of the press.

For it to be Leveson-compliant, the Charter must be amended to provide for all appointments to the initial Appointments Committee to be independent of the press.

Recognition criteria

Leveson sets out in some detail and great specificity the recognition criteria by which the recognition body should judge the regulator.

We see no reason to depart in any respect from the recognition criteria thought through so carefully by Lord Justice Leveson, and to be compliant with Leveson the recognition criteria in the draft Royal Charter should be amended so they reflect Leveson’s recommendations precisely. For example, Leveson recommended that arbitration should be ‘free for complainants to use’, while your Royal Charter says it should be ‘inexpensive’ for complainants. The Royal Charter should follow Leveson.

Coverage of significant news publishers

Lord Justice Leveson recommends (recommendation 23) that ‘A new system of regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does not cover all significant news publishers’.

But the draft Royal Charter makes no reference to this.

For it to be Leveson-compliant, the Charter must be amended to include it.

Recommendations 34 to 47

Lord Justice Leveson recommends that recommendations 34 to 47 – on internal governance, protecting the public, the public interest and protecting journalists – are points that the self-regulatory body should, or should consider, meeting.

The draft Royal Charter says that the Recognition Panel should not refuse to recognise a body if it fails to comply with recommendations 34 to 47 of the Leveson Report.

For it to be Leveson-compliant, the Charter should be amended such that those recommendations which Lord Justice Leveson says ‘should’ happen – 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 46 – be included as recognition criteria, and that in the cases of the others, where the regulator ‘should consider’ a provision, that the regulator should submit to the recogniser reasons for not doing so.

Next steps

We expect these issues to be the basis of our discussions at cross-party talks on Thursday. We are sending you this letter in good time to ensure you are fully prepared to discuss them.

These are our initial concerns on the draft Royal Charter published today, but if on further consideration we have others we will also send them to you before Thursday.

We would also expect to discuss and agree on Thursday a timetable for our discussions to be brought to a conclusion – we suggest talks conclude on 21 February.

The Leveson Report was published on 29 November. We need to make progress on implementing its recommendations.

Yours sincerely,

Harriet Harman

Latest

  • Comment 10 reasons to be wary of assisted dying

    10 reasons to be wary of assisted dying

    1. Assisted suicide is almost certainly not as popular as its supporters claim. Dignity In Dying claim that 82% of British people support assisted suicide, based on an online survey by the polling organisation Populus. This oft-repeated figure is a very bold claim, and so deserves to be subjected to some severe critical scrutiny (and even if it is accurate, it would not clinch the argument: sometimes we need to protect minorities regardless of majority feeling). So should we trust […]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband going to rule out a return to frontline politics?

    Is Ed Miliband going to rule out a return to frontline politics?

    Ed Miliband could publicly rule out a return to frontline politics next week, according to this morning’s Times. The move would mean ruling himself out of a Shadow Cabinet position under Labour’s new leader. The paper reports that Miliband wants a break after spending five years as Leader of the Opposition. It is common for Labour leaders to step back from the frontbenches after leaving the role, with most never returning to a prominent role in the Commons. However, Miliband’s relative […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Clement Attlee chosen as Labour’s greatest ever leader

    Clement Attlee chosen as Labour’s greatest ever leader

    The Spirit of ’45 lives on – Clement Attlee was the Labour Party’s greatest ever leader, according to LabourList readers. In our survey this week, which also found that readers feel they have most to fear from an Osborne-led Tory Party, we asked those who took part to pick who they thought was Labour’s best leader from history. People could only pick one, and the list does not include acting leaders (sorry Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman). Unsurprisingly, Clement Attlee […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News George Osborne as Tory leader would pose the biggest threat to Labour, say LabourList readers

    George Osborne as Tory leader would pose the biggest threat to Labour, say LabourList readers

    Last week Jeremy Corbyn argued that the House of Lords should be replaced with a proportionately-represented elected second chamber. We asked LabourList readers what they thought about this. The vast majority of people are in favour of Corbyn’s proposals; 70% said yes while about 25% said weren’t in favour of this particular idea but wants the Lords reformed in some way. Only 4% said no and 1% opted for ‘don’t know’. Although all eyes are focussed on the Labour leadership […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    My main reason for introducing the Assisted Dying Bill is simple. It’s a straightforward question of choice and dignity: with appropriate, strong safeguards, terminally ill adults of sound mind should be legally allowed to choose to have assistance to end their own lives. I value life, and I do understand that some people believe very deeply that ending one’s own life is always wrong. Nevertheless, the depth and sincerity of their belief should not mean that they deny choice to […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit