Newspapers and magazines in the UK have lost their bid to carry on a legal battle over the rejection of their version of a Royal Charter to govern the regulation of the press.
- The contract which will bind publishers to IPSO and give the regulator tough powers of investigation, enforcement and sanction.
- Regulations under which it will operate, investigate complaints and undertake standards investigations.
- Details which set out the governance of the regulator and guarantee its independence.
- Financial sanctions guidance under which fines of up to £1 million will be imposed.
- Details of a new Regulatory Funding Company setting out transparently how IPSO will be funded.
The decision by the Government and the Privy Council on this matter has enormous ramifications for free speech both here in the UK, and – because of our leadership role in the Commonwealth and developing world – across the globe.
The Government and the Privy Council should have applied the most rigorous standards of consultation and examination of the Royal Charter proposed by the industry, which would have enshrined tough regulatory standards at the same time as protecting press freedom. They singularly failed to do so, and that is why – as the issues at stake are so extraordinarily high - we are having to take this course of action.
The newspaper and magazine industry has applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the Privy Council's decision to reject its self-regulation proposals for a Royal Charter.
A statement said "it is the clear view" of the industry’s trade associations that the application "was not dealt with fairly".
"We believe that the decision and the Order were therefore unlawful, and the industry’s associations through PressBof [ the industry body which funds the regulatory system] are applying to the High Court for judicial review and to have the decision quashed".
The newspaper Industry Steering Group has criticised the latest proposals for a new system of press regulation.
The group, which represents newspaper publishers, said they could not be described as either "voluntary or independent".
Maria Miller has said the final draft of the Royal Charter on press regulation could still be changed.
The Culture Secretary said that although it is a final draft, if other changes are proposed by politicians then they may be looked at.
Miller also defended the "lock" imposed on the charter, meaning a two-thirds vote is required to change it once it is in force.
She said that "without that lock it would be liable to be tinkered with".
The Royal Charter on press regulation published today proposes a "small fee" for those wanting to make a press-related complaint.
The fee was not included in previous drafts of the charter, and has been described by Chris Blackhurst of the Independent as a "step in the right direction".
The final draft has been published of the proposed Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press.
The document has been published on the government's website gov.uk.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said a press regulation plan devised with Labour leader Ed Miliband would "deliver what Leveson wanted", as he invited Tory MPs to back it.
"I hope the approach we are publishing today plots a middle course between the dangers of doing nothing and the fears some people have of a full-scale legislative approach," he said.
"This is a system that both myself and Ed Miliband back, and that I believe Conservative MPs can also support."
Clegg called the Charter a "strengthened version" of David Cameron's plan for press regulation, which the Prime Minister championed yesterday after halting cross-party talks on the issue.
MPs will choose between the two approaches in a series of votes on Monday.
The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have published a Royal Charter on self regulation of the press, with Ed Miliband calling it a charter with "real teeth".
In a statement, Miliband said:
[The Royal Charter] differs from the proposal set out by the Prime Minister in three crucial respects.
“First, this must be an enduring settlement. That means underpinning the charter with the minimum amount of legislation needed to guarantee its success and independence over time.
Second, the regulator should be properly independent of the press, so we would remove the industry’s power of veto over appointments.
Finally, when wrong is done, the regulator should be able to investigate, as well as ensure a proper and prominent apology is made.