Regional press leaders are refusing to get behind David Cameron’s plans for a new press regulator, claiming they would “cripple” the industry.
The Prime Minister last night called on publishers to back his proposals for a regulator overseen by Royal Charter after securing cross-party agreement at Westminster.
But the Newspaper Society, which represents the local and regional press, has refused to fall into line, issuing a defiant thumbs-down to Mr Cameron’s proposals last night.
In a statement, NS president and Archant chief executive Adrian Jeakings said the proposed new arbitration system for press compaints would “open the floodgates” to scores of compensation claims against already hard-pressed local publishers.
He said: “Lord Justice Leveson found that the UK’s local media had nothing to do with the phone hacking scandal which prompted the Inquiry. Indeed, he praised regional and local newspapers for their important social and democratic role and recommended that the regulatory model proposed should not provide an added burden to our sector.
“He called on the Government to look urgently at what action it might take to help safeguard regional and local newspapers’ ongoing viability as a valued and important part of the British press. Yet the deal announced by the three main political parties today completely ignores the Leveson recommendations on the local press.
“The Royal Charter proposals agreed by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour – with huge financial penalties for newspapers which choose to be outside the system and an arbitration service which would open the floodgates to compensation claimants – would place a crippling burden on the UK’s 1100 local newspapers inhibiting freedom of speech and the freedom to publish.
“Local newspapers remain fiercely opposed to any form of statutory involvement or underpinning in the regulation of the press. A free press cannot be free if it is dependent on and accountable to a regulatory body recognised by the state.”
Earlier Mr Cameron outlined details of the cross-party deal agreed in the early hours of yesterday morning in an emergency debate in the Commons.
Insisting the proposed solution was not a form of statutory legislation, the Prime Minister said there was a “danger” the press would not comply with a new system of regulation which had statutory underpinning and he was not prepared to “cross the Rubicon”.
Mr Cameron said that the deal reached complied with the key proposals put forward by Lord Justice Leveson following his inquiry into press standards.
He said: “My message to the press is clear: We have had the debate, now it is time to get on and make this work.”
The Royal Charter agreed by the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems will be submitted to the privy council for approval at its May meeting.
Mr Cameron said the new system of regulation would include prominent apologies, million-pound fines and a robust standards code.
He added: “We can put all of this in place without the need for statutory regulation.”
The Prime Minister said there would be two “small legislative changes” in adopting the Royal Charter and changes to the crime and courts bill to ensure that newspapers belonging to the new press watchdog will be exempt from exemplary damages for libel.
Labour leader Ed Miliband has also welcomed the deal and said it would uphold the principles of a free press while protecting the victims.
He said: “It will allow the press to hold the powerful to account without abusing their own power. Today the parties have come together to put the victims first.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
The morons managing the regional newspaper industry have done far more to damage it than any new press regulator will ever do
Report this comment
While agreeing with Smallfry, isn’t there also another element – providing Newspaper Society members make sure they tell the truth in their news stories, don’t hack phones etc., then surely they won’t be having any floodgates opened to claims for compensation?
Report this comment
The only papers that need to worry are those taking short cuts, stitching people up and using
dodgy methods. The public must be sick of the pomposity of newspaper editors over this issue. Time to join real world boys and girls.
Report this comment
A possible scenario to consider.
Hopefully NO newspaper organisation or group will sign up to this shameful attack on democracy (except no doubt The Guardian, Independent, New Statesman et al).
The political consensus that rules this country (someone said it is impossible to put a cigarette paper between the three major parties) will then attack dissenting editors/newspapers/magazines with fines and threats of prison.
The bulk of the industry (less The Guardian etc who will collaborate) will then take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, who may, just may, support democracy.
There is already widespread international shock at the attack on democracy being sponsored by a majority of UK politicians, shamefully colluding with an unelected and unrepresentative pressure group,
I wonder what Michael Foot would have had to say about it?
Wouldn’t it be ironic if it was an EU institution that saved democracy in the UK?
Report this comment
Hmmm! Bit more to it than that!!
Report this comment
Sit in any news conference and the overwhelming mood is “let’s stitch people up, it’ll make a great story”. There is salivation at the prospect of highlighting misery on the front page. Yes, you will say, that’s news. Well maybe, but you can’t then complain when people are wary and distrustful of press motives.
You see, when you put to one side all the rubbish (and it is rubbish) about being part of the community, being a champion of the underdog etc, all the papers want to do is sell more papers. That in itself is not wrong but please don’t dress it up as ‘serving the public good’ etc.
We’ve all been there when a person makes a complaint and the attitude is always … “they can p*** off, they had it coming, they are mad etc” and every PCC complaint was fought tooth and nail with a view to printing the smallest clarification possible. You see, the papers simply don’t care about anyone but themselves and they wonder why people think they need regulation.
We blather on about a free press … that’s right, up until now free to do what they want, on the whim of editors and sod everyone else.
Until our press can show some humility, the future is bleak. And the great irony is that the pursuit of sales doesn’t work anyway as the ABC figures show every year.
Report this comment
I assume the NUJ in the form of its general secretary Ms Stanistreet is delighted by this political stitch up of the press, which has given MPs power over newspapers for the first time in more than 300 years.
Quite why the union has thrown itself so enthusiastically behind state control of the press is a mystery I will never fathom.
Maybe they’ve just never been all that keen on freedom of speech?
Report this comment
Smallfry, I salute you.
Report this comment
Think before you print. Easy, really!
Report this comment
Writing the truth and using ethical means of gathering information probably won’t always be enough to avoid being penalised. We are challenged constantly by people who are prepared to lie, and persuade their influential mates to lie, in an attempt to win retractions and payouts. I hope they, or the state, pick up the cost of holding hearings, because these people bank on regional and local newspaper groups not wanting to spare any cash on defending cases.
Report this comment
It seems that the pivotal element here has been lost. Nationals may have overstepped the law but any form of legislation or threat endangers freedom of speech and democracy. It’s a slippery slope and this nanny state is already intruding heavily into our personal lives – having considered tax on ‘fattening foods’, fizzy pop, alcohol, etc., etc. – that a sense of discomfort prevails! Was 1984 a century out!!! Our freedoms were hard fought and we must hold firm to ensure no government, under cover of fudged agendas, removes it.
Report this comment