Leveson stays tight lipped amid a week of hot air and battle lines being drawn - Chris Boffey's view
This week, the battle between government and the press over how to implement the recommendations of the Leveson report into press ethics has shown no sign of a clear forward path. Amid the wrangling, the report's author, Sir Brian Leveson, appeared in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Select committee to answer MPs questions. Here, the former news editor of The Observer, Sunday Telegraph and Daily and Sunday Mirror, Chris Boffey, gives an overview of his eagerly anticipated appearance in front of MPs.
Report: Sir Brian Leveson appeared in front of MPs
“Read my lips.” It was not what Sir Brian Leveson actually told the Culture, Media and Sport Select committee - he would not be so rude - but it is what was meant by his refusal to get involved in the stand-off between press and politicians over the implementation of his report.
He showed the opposite of contempt when politely not agreeing to answer questions about the opposing factions, giving chapter and verse about why, as a judge, he couldn’t and in the best traditions of the judiciary he had two expert witnesses in the shape of former Chief Justice Lord Judge and the new senior judge Lord Thomas backing him up.
What he did say was: “Read my report,” and appeared baffled that press and politicians having done just that were unable to agree on a system of regulation that ensured the freedom of the press while maintaining the rights of the public.
He believed the answers were in his report, “which I hope is not bonkers,” he said. This was no arbitrary use of the word “bonkers” but a carefully aimed reference to David Cameron pledging to implement it in full unless its recommendations were “bonkers”.
He consistently reminded MPs, and presumably his statements were aimed at editors and publishers, that it was inconceivable that anyone could believe it diluted the essential freedom of the press or that it meant statutory regulation. Leveson also reassured the local media that his plans for arbitration would not lead to them facing massive costs for minor problems with accuracy.
When asked if he was disappointed with politicians for failing to break the impasse, he said: “It is not for me to criticise parliament or politicians. There are plenty of people to do that but it is not going to be me.”
But the impression he gave was of wanting to get both sides in a room, force them to read his report and then bang their heads together.
In his carefully considered answers he rarely appeared flustered, only looking to lose his temper when quizzed about the relationship between two opposing lawyers during the inquiry.
“Did you hear rumours about this relationship?”
Answer:”No”
“Really?”
Leveson looked furious and the MP shut up quickly. Not good form to accuse a law lord of lying.
At the end of his two hours in front of the committee, Leveson reminded them that his call for independent self-regulation would never gag the press. No board would have the power to prevent publication. He didn’t say it; but not even the publication of an attack on the dead father of a leading politician.
So we are still left waiting for inspiration to strike Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary (God help us) or for negotiations between the press and parliament to break the impasse. As a stand-off, it is nowhere near the spat between President Obama and the Tea Party but the tantrums and lack of negotiation could be considered similar.
Even before Leveson gave his evidence, John Witherow, editor of The Times, said the press would go ahead with its own proposals, even though they had been rejected by the Privy Council. Parliament will come up with its own draft text of a Royal Charter on Friday which will be considered by the Privy Council on 30 October.
So, despite all the hot air this week nothing has moved forward but what we are seeing is increasing divisions between the national newspapers with battle grounds being drawn.
Everyone is against the Daily Mail for its attack on Ralph Miliband. The Guardian is accused by the Mail of treason for its Edward Snowden revelations and The Times ran a story saying that there were calls for Alan Rusbridger to be prosecuted under the official secrets act for having made Britain more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
And these are the editors who have to sit in a room and come up with a workable solution to press regulation.
However, they do agree on one point: the efficacy of the culture secretary.