Leader: PM must delay before crossing this Rubicon

Both in length and in content, the report by Lord Leveson into the culture, practices and ethics of the press is by far the most concentrated and searching investigation of the conduct of UK newspapers ever undertaken.

It follows a series of abuses and intrusions into individuals, often at a most vulnerable period in their lives when such abuse was all the more hurtful and unacceptable: practices which had, as Lord Leveson declared, “wreaked havoc into the lives of innocent people”.

But it should be clear that Lord leveson accepts that this was perpetrated by “parts of the press” not the majority of the press. It is against this background, and the ensuing condemnation and clamour for reform, that Leveson has reported. Now newspapers need to accept that appalling things happened and that genuine penitence and contrition needs to be shown. And there is also need for reform.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Sections of the press did lose sight of the communities and society they purported to serve and it is beyond doubt that a new relationship with the public is now urgently required. There is a need for a recognition of collective responsibility and that a new system of regulation has to bind in the press as a whole.

The principles of the new regulatory regime the report sets out are absolutely right: it has to engender public trust; it has to be independent; and it has to be effective.

But this new independent regime, the report goes on to argue, should be underpinned by legislation. The exact nature of what the legislation would be is unclear and that is a clear worry.

But among the key questions to be debated are whether such legal underpinning is necessary to effect the reforms Lord Leveson has itemised; whether it will augment and not undermine the proposed system of oversight and sanctions he has also recommended; and whether such a legislative response is proportionate, bearing in mind the overall conduct of the press over a long period.

The resort to legislation is not to be taken lightly. On this issue we believe Prime Minister David Cameron to be right: it would mark, historically and constitutionally, the crossing of a Rubicon. It would create a means by which future resort to statute would be made less difficult. Once legislation starts setting the boundaries and definitions of what the standards of the press should be, on this issue politicians have strong views, and those views, together with an ambition to extend and enforce them; will be difficult to control once such a bridgehead is established.

It would also sit oddly with the recognition by Lord Leveson himself in his report that “all of the press served the country very well for the vast majority of the time,” holding a privileged and powerful place as a defender of democracy and the public interest. He has also made clear that he does not favour statutory control of newspapers, an assurance both to those who rely on newspapers for news and diversity of comment and opinion that a press may only be considered free if it is not operating under parameters set by politicians.

One glaring gap in Lord Leveson’s report is a discussion of the explosive growth of online or digital journalism and the mushrooming of websites and blogs. It is for practical reasons very difficult to legislate in this area, but it is on overseas websites – freely accessible here – where some of the most glaring intrusions into the privacy of individuals have taken place. It would be odd, to put it no stronger, to seek a legal underpinning to regulation of the print side of media companies, which would presumably have the same standards for their digital operations but compete with other digital offerings from abroad that have no regulation whatsoever.

In this important debate, First Minister Alex Salmond has sought to propose a separate Scottish approach. Specifically, he has proposed the establishment of an independent implementation group, chaired by a Court of Session Judge with five non-
politicians. It would consider how best to implement Lord Leveson’s proposals in the context of Scots law and the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Salmond has made clear he personally does not favour state regulation of the press “but a strengthened voluntary press council which will have the support of the print media industry and, most importantly, the confidence of the wider public”.

Mr Salmond is right to request that members of the Scottish parliament have an opportunity to debate the Leveson Report in further detail next week and his approach is to be welcomed but perhaps for now the Scottish parliament should keep a watching brief on the implementation of the Leveson proposals and, on the basis of this, to consider in due course whether a further, separate regulatory procedure is needed here.

In the meantime the Westminster parliament should allow passions to cool and take time to debate this report – not just the immediate new independent regulatory regime it proposes, but the consequences, now and in the future, of a resort to legislation.