Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has written to party supporters tonight…
Having been in face to face negotiations till nearly midnight last night – followed by calls, texts and emails for many hours afterwards – I am delighted to have stood up this afternoon in the House of Commons to welcome the cross-party agreement on implementing the Leveson Report. It wasn’t easy but after a lot of hard work – led on our side by the tireless Jim Wallace, we have got there.
The Leveson Inquiry was established after public revulsion at the phone hacking scandal. So, when Lord Justice Leveson published his recommendations to reform the regulation of the press, the Liberal Democrats took a stand for the victims of press abuse, and supported them.
In fact, I took the unprecedented step of making a separate statement in the House of Commons, on an issue where we disagreed with the Prime Minister. Having been honest with the public about our differences, it was then our duty to sit down with all parties and come to an agreement.
As I mentioned in my latest “Letter from the Leader”, we set out three tests for press regulation in the future:
1. Delivering Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.
2. Commanding the widest possible cross-party support, as Lord Justice Leveson also wanted.
3. Striking the right balance between protecting and cherishing the great tradition of a free press in this country, and protecting innocent people from unwarranted intimidation and bullying by powerful interests in our media.
What has been agreed today meets those tests.We will achieve Leveson through the Royal Charter published by the Liberal Democrats and Labour last week. Our Royal Charter ensures that editors cannot sign off their own code of conduct; cannot veto appointments to the watchdog; can accept complaints from third party groups, and must apologise properly when they make mistakes.
And, crucially, all parties have now agreed that there should be a minimal clause in law that will prevent future governments chopping and changing the new system on a whim. This was important to me as, without it, the door would be open to political meddling by future governments. We cannot take this risk.
With these protections we have got the best possible outcome today: a fair, independent press watchdog to serve the British people while protecting our free press – a thoroughly liberal solution.
Nick Clegg
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest PollBase is out, with all the British voting intention polls since the 1930s
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A remarkable politician
Well done Planting Up Sunniside
Reform UK councillor was 'pen pal' of top Al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded 9/11
Peter Hirst
Brenda Will
22 Comments
What, not exclusive to the Times????
why do press freedoms get a liberal solution, but secret courts don’t? this surely was never part of a coalition deal.
please could we have ALL of the liberal bits of the Liberal Democrats back – until we do, I am with holding funding for the party.
Amazing how quickly after a Parliament vote the party can get emails out to people when it wants….
Well done Nick!
He may have got a good result. There is no justification whatsoever for rushing this legislation through in a way which allows no time for proper scrutiny. Clauses were being drafted at 3am and voted on, well sort of now. Total time allowed for debate? 3 hours.
Legislate in haste, repent at Leisure.
Mind you there has been some hysterical over reaction from both sides. But we should now get Libel reform through which will do more to ensure a free press than a frothing Daily Mail leader.
There is extraordinary confusion about who will actually be covered by the new regulator, because the draft text of the royal charter doesn’t attempt to define the relevant terms. I think this question is far more important than the esoteric ones that the parties have been arguing about so far. It obviously can’t be resolved by half-baked press releases from Downing Street. Can Nick Clegg assure us that this question will be properly considered and resolved?
This must not be the end of the story, we have still to tackle the issue of our media being owned by overseas interests, non-doms who pay no UK taxes.. and they are still too cosy with some of our senior politicians. There needs to be a tightly controlled protocol for MPs in their relations with the media.
There also needs to be a deletion of the print media’s right to be partisan. It needs to be made clear that if they claim to be a ‘news’ paper then they must report the news, not the version according to a vested interest.
Their freedom must go hand in hand with responsibility and if they cannot, after all this, have a fundamental respect for the interests of their readers, in terms of honesty and veracity, then they need further regulation.
How about a liberal solution for Libdem voice where enthusiastic and well meaning moderators stop interfering inappropriately and scaring off good constributers and potential members?
contributors!
oh goodness the comments that ‘contributors’ was a correction too hasn’t appeared…….
Moderation of online forums needs to be as light as possible and absolutely impartial. If there is any questions regarding moderation the poster should be contacted to discuss the issue.
What Chris said. It seems fairly clear from the text released that it will apply to blogs like Liberal Democrat Voice. Was it the plan to regulate the Internet?
@Liberal Eye
“Was it the plan to regulate the Internet?”
Of course it was – it’s an ideal time for politicians to gain a measure of control.
These press regulation measures appear likely to have a chilling effect on bloggers and campaigning organisations and gawd knows who else, the current wording is such a mess.
Are we to see campaigning organisations ruined by exemplary damages following complaints against them, potentially by the powerful they are challenging? Perhaps large organisations will not be cowed, but there could easily be a chilling effect on small, independent publishers and organisations. Considering the costs (as I understand it) must be borne by the defendant, it clearly will have a great impact on smaller organisations. This may not be the intention of the legislation, but it seems likely to be the result.
We may have significantly reduced free speech, just to spite Murdoch, Dacre, the Barclays and Desmond.
I hope the wording is properly and clearly re-drafted up at the very least.
Sorry Clegg, I am still a Lib Dem, but you have lost me. I no longer trust you!
I must admit I didn’t realise there were two quite different definitions of “relevant publisher” – one in the royal charter and another much more restrictive one in the Crime and Courts Bill (in which the provisions for damages and costs have been inserted):
‘(1) In sections [Awards of exemplary damages] to [Awards of costs], “relevant publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.
This is subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(2) News-related material is “subject to editorial control” if there is a person (whether or not the publisher of the material) who has editorial or equivalent responsibility for—
(a) the content of the material,
(b) how the material is to be presented, and
(c) the decision to publish it.
(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).
(5) A person is not a “relevant publisher” if the person is specified by name in Schedule [Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”].
(6) A person is not a “relevant publisher” in so far as the person’s publication of news-related material is in a capacity or case of a description specified in Schedule [Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”].’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130318/debtext/130318-0004.htm
I suppose the one in the Bill is the one that really matters, but what a shambles!
“I hope the wording is properly and clearly re-drafted up at the very least.”
Very little opportunity to do that. The Crime & Courts bill has completed 3rd reading and the Enterprise etc bill has finished its report stage in the Lords so just 3rd reading to go. This legislation has received desperately poor scrutiny.
@Chris: Thanks, that is, in my mind, a vital part of this. As I said in my previous posts, the word publisher will be critical, and the success/failure of this depends on how the regulators deal with it. In English Law, the word ‘publisher’ has different meanings depending on the Law in question. The reason for this is due to just how complex freedom of speech and these issues are.
@ peter.tyzack
“we have still to tackle the issue of our media being owned by overseas interests”
Surely the issue is the concentration of power not the residence of the owner. That is an issue that is being partly addressed by the internet. Papers will be dead in 20 years, then we will look at a market where more people can freely compete.
Though I agree on the rules for politicians contacts with outside interests.
“In English Law, the word ‘publisher’ has different meanings depending on the Law in question.”
Yes, but I can’t think it was intentional that “relevant publisher” had two different meanings, both in relation to the new press regulator.
Comment from a barrister who originally suggested that Leveson’s recommendations should be implemented by royal charter:
“We need to remember, by the way, that we live under the rule of law. It is the law that is the citizen’s chief protection. Extreme misbehaviour by journalists, such as phone hacking and harassment, is dealt with by the criminal law. Lesser misconduct, such as trespass or defamation, constitutes the civil wrong that lawyers call a tort. Both kinds of law are administered by the state. If their remedies prove inadequate, that should be dealt with by law reform measures.
Other types of misbehaviour by journalists are best dealt with by their fellow professionals – people with accumulated wisdom about their area of work – applying their own well-rehearsed ethical standards. If that is not thought sufficient in a particular instance, the solution is to widen the legal remedy.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9940539/Press-regulation-after-the-Leveson-Report-this-is-not-what-I-had-in-mind-Mr-Cameron.html
Create a panic then rush legislation through with, for good measure, a few extras tacked on – in this case the Internet dimension; it’s standard operating procedure for a government that doesn’t think its plans will bear scrutiny and I’m appalled to see it used here. We should have no part of this plan.