Industry leaders have today renewed their attack on the government’s plans to regulate the press, highlighting the ‘Yes Minister’ nature of the appointments system.

The Newspaper Society says details released by Sir David Normington, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, reveal the extent to which the government’s Royal Charter for the regulation of the press depends on the executive power of the state.

According to the NS, it shows that Sir David can only begin the process of appointing the recognition panel which will oversee the new regulator when asked to by the government.

NS director David Newell described the system as a “naked ‘Yes Minister’ arrangement” that was “deeply worrying” for the industry.

Writing on his organisation’s website, Sir David revealed that his role requires new powers which have been created for him by royal prerogative and that he can only act once he has been asked to by a minister:

“Although the Royal Charter has been granted, the Commissioner does not, as yet, have the legal powers to undertake the functions set out for him in the Charter.

“Article 4 of the Public Appointments Order in Council 2013 provides the mechanism by which the Commissioner can be given these additional functions. This involves a Minister writing asking him to take on additional functions, and for him to respond agreeing to the request.

“Until this exchange of letters takes place the Commissioner cannot begin the process of appointing the Board of the Recognition Panel.”

Mr Newell commented: “It is deeply worrying that such a naked ‘Yes, Minister’ arrangement lies at the very core of the Government’s Royal Charter.

“It is also very worrying that the Commissioner is to be expected to compromise his independence by using the executive power of the state to begin the process of imposing a Government-created Recognition Panel on an industry which has universally rejected it.

“We trust he will think very hard indeed, and consult the industry, before acceding to this request.”

However the Commissioner denied that this arrangement compromised his independence.

“There are plenty of examples of other regulators who are funded – and in some cases appointed – by the Government yet still operate fully independently,” he wrote.

“The Commissioner was asked to undertake these functions because of his independence and because the credibility of the appointments made to the Board of the Recognition Panel demands that they are made in a way that is entirely independent of Government and the oversight of Ministers.”