“Statutory” is not a bogey word

Why statutory regulation of the press is itself neither a good nor a bad thing.

In a striking passage in his essay On Prejudice”, the great pamphleteer and critic William Hazlitt noted:

Defoe says, that there were a hundred thousand stout country-fellows in his time ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse.

In the current debate about press regulation, one gets the sense that the word “statutory” also has the same sort of bogey quality as “popery” did for Defoe’s stout country-fellows.  

There may not be a hundred thousand stout fellows decrying the prospect of menacing statutory provisions, but there are certainly are those who are against “statutory” regulation regardless of what that would actually mean in practice.

For some, it is as if just saying that regulation will be “statutory” is enough to discredit any proposal by itself.

But what does “statutory” actually mean, and is it necessary something of which one should be scared?

All “statutory” means is that a regulatory regime has some basis in an Act of Parliament. It may well be that the statute merely gives legal personality to a regulator, allowing it to hold property and enter into contracts as a corporation (and thereby employ people). But it can also mean that specific and residual powers for that regulator are set out in statute, including perhaps the powers to obtain information or impose fines. It all depends on what the statute says.

What “statutory” does not necessarily mean is that either government or parliament will have any control or influence over the activities of a statutory body.

Unless the Act of Parliament formally allows for such a role for politicians or departments, a “statutory” regulator can be just as independent (if not more so) as one based on contract or consent.

Unless a regulator has a statutory basis for its powers, the effectiveness of the regulator is entirely at the behest of the regulated. The regulated are then free not to comply with a non-statutory regulator (which in respect of the press is called the “Desmond problem” after the proprietor of the titles who withdrew from the Press Complaints Commission).

And a regulator without statutory powers is impotent when faced with a lack of cooperation: compare the refusal of News International to provide information to the PCC when the hacking scandal first broke with News International’s ready compliance with the statutory powers of the Leveson Inquiry (for example in the Nightjack case).

Almost every profession has a regulatory regime based in statute or a similar legal instrument (such as a Royal Charter). This includes professions which emphasise their day-to-day independence from the government of the day, such as lawyers and the police. “Statutory regulation” does not, by itself, mean either government control or parliamentary supervision; indeed, statutory provisions can entrench independence from wrongful interference by the politically powerful. In this way, statutory regulation can provide a shield as well as a sword.

Some journalists say that there is no place for any statutory regulation of the press whatsoever: the newspapers are there to hold MPs to account, the argument goes, and they cannot properly do this if they are subject to any control enacted by MPs.

However, this view is misconceived, as journalistic activity is already significantly regulated by statute, from the Contempt of Court Act and the Magistrates’ Court Act to the Data Protection Act and the Computer Misuse Act.

Indeed, the current edition of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists lists over 85 statutes which can be applicable to a working journalist.

It may well be that some of these laws could be repealed or amended; but a journalist who does not believe themselves already regulated by statute is unaware of the legal context of what they do.

Accordingly “statutory” does not need to be a bogey word. And to sneer at “statutory” regulation, or be alarmist about it, is not enough to undermine it. The important question is what is being done with the statute.

And this also means “statutory regulation” is not necessarily a good thing either. The soundness of any regulatory regime for press will come down to how it will affect the behaviour of the regulated from that which would occur without regulation. A statutory power to obtain evidence or impose a sanction does not by itself mean a better outcome. Those in favour of a better newspaper industry cannot treat statutory regulation as a panacea. Black ink in a statute book is not enough to improve the culture which tolerated tabloid excesses.

As Lord Justice Leveson prepares to issue his Inquiry's report, the debate over press regulation risks being derailed by bluster and misdirection by vested interests.  The crucial thing is whether any proposed scheme actually works, and in what ways. And this is the case whether one thinks “statutory” to be a basis of legal power or a horse.

 

Some non-scary statute books today (pic: David Allen Green)

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.