When Sir Brian Leveson published his report into the British press last November, he was clear about the regime that he wanted. A new regulator, endowed with strong enforcement powers, would protect the public against abuses. This would be dominated by independent minds. Newspapers would no longer get to mark their own homework.
The Financial Times has few quibbles with the vision. Independent and robust regulation is not only desirable in itself; it is a necessary precondition if public confidence in the media is to be rebuilt after the shaming revelations of the hacking scandal. However, we have also always been clear that well-meaning reform must not unwittingly open the door to state interference in the press.
Lord Justice Leveson’s original proposals would have taken us too far down this path, putting the new regime under statutory control for the first time, and appointing the broadcast regulator Ofcom, which reports directly to government, to oversee it. So now, the Conservative party has come up with a modified plan – albeit one that does not command the support of its coalition partners. Rather than Ofcom, the overseeing body would be an independent entity. Meanwhile, the entire regime would be placed, like the BBC, under a royal charter.
In spite of the archaic title, this would not banish the shadow of state interference. Incorporation by royal charter is a form of government regulation. These instruments can be amended by the “royal prerogative” – an undemocratic procedure that hands power to the government of the day without reference to parliament. These powers have been used. Tony Blair’s administration amended the BBC’s governance in retaliation for its critical reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war.
To protect the press, the Tory plan provides that the charter’s terms can only be changed if all three party leaders agree, and are backed by “supermajorities” in parliament. Yet this does not exclude the possibility that at some future date parliament might rein back press freedom.
The royal charter is an ingenious concept, and parliamentary lawyers must be salivating at the task of drafting a quintessentially British instrument. But it cannot eliminate the risk of creeping state interference. While some may see such a fudge as a better expedient than statutory control, this newspaper continues to favour credible independent regulation at arm’s length from the state.