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

  • Featured News Miliband announces plans for emergency nursing recruitment drive as part of “NHS Rescue Plan”

    Miliband announces plans for emergency nursing recruitment drive as part of “NHS Rescue Plan”

    Ed Miliband is set to announce Labour’s “NHS Rescue Plan” – starting with an emergency recruitment drive designed to get another 1,000 nurses into training this year. Speaking to student nurses at Manchester Metropolitan University, the Labour leader will say that this 1,000 nurses is the first installment of the 20,000 nurses (and 8.000 doctors) the party would fund thanks to its “time to care” fund. Labour would – on the first day of a Miliband government – ask universities to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured 5 things we learned from Miliband’s Evan Davis interview

    5 things we learned from Miliband’s Evan Davis interview

    Ed Miliband was the third leader to face an Evan Davis grilling tonight. Davis isn’t not as pugnacious as Jeremy Paxman, nor as dogged as Andrew Neill (who I’d like to see interview all of the party leaders), but he’s smart, well prepared and hammers home at points of potential weakness. He’s an incredibly tough interviewer – you’d have to be to do the Today Programme and Newsnight – and that was certainly the case for Miliband tonight, at least in the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Scotland The SNP manifesto is a dangerous throwback to the 80s

    The SNP manifesto is a dangerous throwback to the 80s

    This isn’t the article I expected to write about the SNP manifesto. I was ready to praise Nicola Sturgeon’s political guile for producing a carbon copy of Labour’s programme. After a full week to digest Labour’s offer, I fully expected an identikit policy programme, presented as a ‘hand of friendship’ from the SNP: part of the party’s lethal campaign to minimise the differences between itself and Labour; to prove to Scots that there is nothing to fear from switching to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Shrewsbury 24 deserve to know what really went on in 1972

    The Shrewsbury 24 deserve to know what really went on in 1972

    In 1972, after an industrial dispute in the Shropshire town of Shrewsbury, 24 men were prosecuted under the ancient 1875 Conspiracy Act. Ever since then, the 24, their family and friends protest their innocence and have tirelessly fought their convictions. It’s become a cause célèbre for the trade union movement. There have long been suspicions of murky political interference in the trial. Many have accused the then Tory Government of orchestrating a show trial.  Yet, time and again, demands for the truth have […]

    Read more →
  • News Weekly Survey: Coalition, campaign and leadership

    Weekly Survey: Coalition, campaign and leadership

      We are now over halfway through the short campaign, and very little movement has been spotted in the polls. We’ve had manifestos, pledges and difficult interviews – but how would you rate Labour’s campaign so far? On current polling, it would seem a hung parliament is the likeliest outcome. If Labour have chance to form a government, and had a choice, what would be your preferred type of government? Finally, Ed Miliband’s personal ratings appear to be on the […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit