Among the editorials, interviews and opinion pieces cooked up in support of the newspaper industry’s PCC Mark Two last week was one particularly revealing document: a Q&A which argued that the plan to create PCC Mark Two was for the public good – rather than the press defending their own interests. Hacked Off has been checking the facts...Questions and answers about the new proposed Press Industry Royal Charter

Q1. There’s already a Royal Charter agreed by all three political parties. Why do we need another one?A. That Royal Charter is an empty vessel. It was cobbled together over 2am takeaway pizzas by a group of politicians and the Hacked Off lobby group. The people it seeks to regulate – Britain’s 4,000+ newspapers and magazines - were not even told the meeting was taking place. Not a single newspaper or magazine has said it will sign up to it. We believe it is our duty to the public to get a new regulator up and running – a regulator that will work. Our Independent Royal Charter is a reasonable and responsible way of doing that.

This isn’t true. The Royal Charter was the product of many months of work by civil servants working on behalf of the Prime Minister and senior politicians of all parties. The process included numerous meetings between ministers and the newspaper industry. The Charter was agreed in a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister at 3pm on Sunday, as testified by Oliver Letwin in front of the CMS Select Committee. All three party leaders stated that the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry would have to be acceptable to the victims of press abuse. In presenting the final version of the cross-party agreement to the victims’ representatives, the politicians were keeping their word.

 Q2. But doesn’t that Charter deliver what Leveson called for?A. Leveson called for "voluntary independent self-regulation" - it’s there on page 1,758 of his report. The Royal Charter cobbled together by politicians and Hacked Off is neither voluntary, nor independent, nor is it self-regulation. It’s been condemned all around the world, from the New York Times to Russia Today. The Economist called it a "shameful hash". It’s not Leveson-compliant anyway – he called for oversight by Ofcom – and in other respects it goes way beyond Leveson.

The Royal Charter agreed by all three party leaders delivers exactly what Leveson called for: voluntary, independent self-regulation of the press in full. It is closely based on the judge's detailed recommendations after an exhaustive public inquiry. The only people who cannot accept that are those closely involved in the previous, failed system of press regulation which protected the newspapers at the expense of the public. If it were not voluntary, the industry would not have the choice to stay outside as they claim they are doing. If it were not independent, the press would not now be complaining that they did not have a veto or enough influence on the regulator. And if it were not self-regulation the public would not have to wait for the press to set up the system they are incentivised to do.

 Q3. How does it go beyond Leveson?A. It gives the Recognition Panel – a body from which editors and publishers are specifically excluded - powers to interfere in the running of the regulator at any time.

This is factually incorrect. The independent recognition panel is a core recommendation of Lord Justice Leveson's report. It’s job is to periodically check that regulators are doing an independent and efficient job in the public interest. It cannot interfere in the running of the self-regulator, or even make judgements on individual complaint decisions. It can only approve it (or not) as independent and effective, unlike the PCC.

 Q4. But under that Royal Charter the newspaper industry is still able to set up its own regulator?A. Yes, but the Recognition Panel – from which representatives of the industry are specifically excluded – has the power to hold ad hoc reviews of the regulator whenever it wants. It’s the regulator of the regulator.

That is precisely the point. The PCC failed because it was a poodle of the press industry. It encouraged a culture of impunity to grow up, which gave us phone-hacking, bribery and the defamation of innocent people. Having heard the evidence, Leveson called for an outside body (the recognition panel), independent of politicians and newspaper proprietors, to ensure that a new self-regulator would not be captured by the industry it was supposed to be watching. (Answer 2 tried to argue that the cross-party Royal Charter doesn’t provide self-regulation. But this answer proves that even the industry accepts that it does: “(Is) the newspaper industry is still able to set up its own regulator? Yes.”)

 Q5. Why is your Royal Charter any better?A. A Royal Charter is supposed to be a device by which an independent group of people set rules for themselves – it’s how our universities and professional bodies are governed – not a device by which one group people imposes rules on another, which is what has happened here.

A Royal Charter is not defined as a way 'by which an independent group of people set rules for themselves'. A royal charter is a document signed by the monarch that gives an organisation particular rights - including for example the right for a town to become a city, or a university to award degrees. As quasi-legal instruments go, it is quite a broad one. The cross-party royal charter, backed by parliament and 75% of the public, doesn't impose rules. It establishes a framework for a system of voluntary self regulation which nobody will be forced to take part in.

 Q6. Isn’t your Royal Charter just another stitch-up?A. It is the result of weeks of discussion earlier this year between editors, publishers, ministers, civil servants and lawyers. We were on the point of agreement between ministers and the industry when everything had to be put on hold because Lord Puttnam hijacked the Defamation Bill, threatening the Government’s whole legislative programme. We still believe that that Royal Charter is a workable model that will deliver what Leveson was calling for.

Victims of press abuse do indeed fear “just another stitch up” after 60 years of failed self-regulation of the press. The newspaper industry's charter published on April 25th is similar to (but worse than) the version produced by the press in February, which was rejected by the parties at the time as it gave the press effective control over the regulator, gave editors a veto on appointments to the board, enabled them to bury apologies in the back of the paper and allowed them to decide which complaints to take seriously. It turned a crucial element of the Leveson recommendations - the affordable arbitration scheme - into an optional extra, denying the public access to justice.

 Q7. Aren’t you trying to involve the Queen in controversy?A. Not at all. The Royal Charter on the table at the moment would go against all the principles of Royal Charters, by being imposed on an unwilling industry by the state, so it is inherently controversial. The Royal Charter we are putting forward will do what a Royal Charter is supposed to do: enable an industry that is largely united regulate itself for the benefit of the public.

If necessary, sections of the newspaper industry will try to drag the Queen into the controversy. They will stop at nothing to ensure that the same group of people to continue running the press regulator for their own ends, instead of in the public interest.

 Q8. But what if people like Hacked Off disagree with it and want to change it?A. We have been trying for weeks to get the Culture Department to agree to a consultation process on their Royal Charter, but they have refused, saying it is a state-sponsored Charter so there is no need for consultation. Our Royal Charter, which is a genuine voluntary Charter, will go through the normal Royal Charter consultation process supervised by the Privy Council Office. Anyone who wants to suggest amendments will be able to do so.

This is wishful thinking. The Privy Council Office has not agreed to hold any consultation on behalf of the newspaper industry (nor would it do so – that’s not its job). By contrast, the Leveson Royal Charter is the outcome of a 15 month-long public inquiry and three months of cross-party negotiations which the press took part in. Opinion polls show that the majority of the public will not accept a system run for the benefit of the press.

 Q9. But your charter isn’t Leveson compliant, is it?A. Yes it is. All the key elements are there – fines of up to £1m for systematic wrongdoing, upfront corrections, investigative powers to deal with deliberate malpractice and a majority of independent members at every level. Ministers certainly believed it was Leveson compliant when they published it on February 12 and David Cameron told editors its provisions were "set in stone".

The most telling phrase in this answer is "all the key elements". The newspapers' charter is not Leveson compliant by any measure. It removes or weakens the majority of Leveson's recommendations, enabling the press to keep control over the system and the rules. Under their plan, the press can choose politicians to appoint to the regulator. It removes the requirement for front-page apologies for front-page libels. It means editors decide which complaints to take seriously. They can opt out of the cheap arbitration service which would enable people to get access to justice. Effectively, they can organise the system to suit their own ends, not the needs of the public.

 Q10. What about arbitration? You don’t follow Leveson, there, do you?A. Neither Royal Charter does. Leveson recommended an arbitration system that was free for complainants to use and inexpensive for the industry to run, which is a contradiction. Regional papers, which are already under enormous financial pressure, are concerned that a scheme offering a free route to compensation, entirely funded by the newspaper, will be wide open to exploitation by ambulance-chasing lawyers. We will never persuade the regional press to sign up unless we can find some means of making arbitration manageable. Our formula allows for a pilot scheme and an administration charge as a way of achieving that.

The press charter effectively ditches the arbitration scheme, a core recommendation of Leveson, by relegating it to an optional extra for editors. The cross party Royal Charter, by contrast, would deliver a cheap and accessible arbitration service for the public to use if they have legitimate complaints against the press.There is no evidence that the new set-up proposed by Leveson would result in more complaints. Because it avoids prolonged and costly court actions, it will actually make disputes cheaper to resolve for both sides. The arbitration process will also protect public interest journalism by saving publishers who join from potentially ruinous legal actions by corporations.

 Q11. Won’t your Charter be open to interference by politicians through the Privy Council?A. It will be governed by the same clause under the new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as the other Royal Charter. This means that a royal charter can only be changed by the means laid down in the charter itself. Under their charter, which of course was drawn up by politicians, if we find that some aspect of the new system simply doesn’t work, and is putting newspapers out of business, the prescribed means of changing it is by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament, which will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Under our charter politicians will play no role in making changes. If the Recognition Panel, the Board of the Regulator and all the various elements of the industry decide unanimously that changes are needed, they will be able to make them.

The newspapers' charter is wide open to political interference. Party political peers will continue to be allowed to run the regulator as they did the PCC for many years. The Leveson charter would outlaw this. The two-thirds majority rule prevents another stitch up because any change would have to be agreed by all main political parties in both Houses of Parliament. Without it, it’s just the press marking their own homework once again.

 Q12. Aren’t you defying the will of Parliament?A. The March 18 Charter was not drawn up by Parliament. It was put together at two in the morning by a group of politicians and the Hacked Off lobby group. Our Royal Charter is the product of weeks of discussion and careful thought between ministers, civil servants editors, publishers and lawyers.

The Leveson Royal Charter was overwhelmingly and democratically endorsed by all parties and by both Houses of Parliament, as well as by the victims, having rejected the press’s attempted stitch-up in February. It is however a voluntary system, so no newspaper is forced to join in. If they wish to “defy the will of parliament”, as they put it, they are entitled to do so.

 Q13. What about the victims, aren’t they being betrayed?A. No one is keener than we are to put in place a system of regulation that will give the public the protection they deserve. It is now five months since Leveson reported but thanks to constant unrealistic demands from Hacked Off and bickering between politicians the only proposal on the table is one that no one in the industry believes will work. Our Royal Charter gives us a clear framework that we can all sign up to and get on with the job of setting an effective new regulator.

The victims feel that the newspapers who defamed them, bugged them, bullied and harassed them are behaving outrageously by trying to continue with business as usual. It was an act of political courage on the part of the leaders of all three parties to ensure that victims of press abuse would not be betrayed this time. Hacked Off called for the full implementation of the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson on press regulation - no more and no less – and we will stand by the victims in holding the politicians to their promises.

 Q14. Isn’t this just News International and Associated imposing their will on the rest of the industry?A. Not at all – our Royal Charter has support from all across the industry: Trinity Mirror, which owns the Daily Mirror and our biggest regional newspaper group, the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the vast majority of regional papers and our biggest magazine publishers.

News International, Associated Newspapers and the Telegraph Group are clearly in the driving seat, representing the vested interests of the newspaper industry and also the papers most frequently condemned during the Leveson Inquiry. The Financial Times has not signed up, neither has The Independent, Independent on Sunday, The Guardian or The Observer.

 Q15. You’re just protecting your own interests, aren’t you?A. We are not in any way trying to defend the excesses of the past, which are being dealt with by the police and the courts. But there are important principles at stake. Britain has enjoyed a free press for three hundred years. It is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and one of our greatest contributions to the world. 40 million people read newspapers and magazines in Britain. I passionately believe we have a duty to them to ensure they have a press that has the freedom to call the powerful to account and to voice any shade of opinion, however outspoken, and whether or not it chimes with that of the political elite.

Yes. This is a section of the newspaper industry doing what it does best. Ignoring the will of parliament, the will of the people and trying to steamroller opposition. We can't let them get away with it.