Every single change in the newspaper press charter


(Source: Getty)

Our politics reporter James Waterson (@jimwaterson) has compared the newspaper industry proposed charter with the old royal charter, and has found all the changes made. We have them below.


New version hands major role handed to Press Standards Board of Finance in determining Board of the Recognition Panel – which will oversee the new regulator
"The Press Standards Board of Finance will be the first Members of the Recognition Panel."
New version removes the requirement to produce report "on any success or failure of the recognition system."
New version will allow a serving or former member of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales to sit on the board.
Changes to remit of Board of the Recognition Panel will not be controlled by parliament.
Government version required changes to the charter to receive approval from two-thirds of both Houses of Paliament.
The new version would only require unanimous approval from the following organisations before changing the charter:
(a) the Members of the Recognition Panel; and
(b) the members of the Board of any recognised Regulator; and
(c) the members of the Boards of all trade associations represented on the Industry Funding Body.
Process for abolishing the Royal Charter and the Board of the Recognition Panel does not involve parliament at all
Government version required a two-thirds majority of both Houses to abolish the charter
New version allows the Board surrender the Charter and dissolve on the organisation on whatever terms they see fit.
State funding options for Board of the Recognition Panel replaced by simple commitment to industry funding.
Government version allowed Commissioner for Public Appointments free rein to appoint four people to choose board appointments. Newspaper version allocates specific requirements for the four appointments position.
The Chair of the Appointments Committee shall be a retired Justice of the Supreme Court appointed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
The Chair shall appoint to the Committee:
(a) one person who, in his opinion and in that of the Industry Funding Body, represents the interests of relevant publishers;
(b) one person who, in his opinion, represents the interests of the public; and
(c) one person who is a Public Appointments Assessor (appointed pursuant to the Public Appointments Order in Council 2002) who has been nominated for membership of the Appointments Committee by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for England and Wales.
Under the new version the regulator will be allowed to treat national and regional papers differently
"The Board of the Recognition Panel shall not refuse to grant recognition to a Regulator by reason only of the Regulator making different arrangements for the regulation of different classes of its members, including, but not limited to, differential regulation between those of its members which are regarded as publishing on a national basis and those which are regarded as publishing on a local or regional basis."
Under the new version there will be a greater role for editors in setting code of conduct
Rather than "equal proportions of independent members, serving journalists and serving editors" defining the code, there will just be a "Code Committee which is comprised of both independent members and serving editors"
The new version removes the 'whistleblowing hotline' and public guidance role
Newspapers have rejected the establishment of a whistleblowing hotline for journalists who feel uncomfortable with what they are being asked to do. They also remove the requirement to explain the new rules to the public.
The new version removes strict liability for material
This is in contrast to the government version which suggests "Subscribers will be held strictly accountable under the standards code for any material that they publish, including photographs, however sourced."
The new version removes the need to provide guidance on public interest defence
This is in contrast to the government version that suggests "non-binding guidance on the interpretation of the public interest that justifies what would otherwise constitute a breach of the standards code."
The new version backs a simple complaints system
Instead of specific guidance of the treatment of complaints there is a simple demand for an "adequate and speedy complaint handling mechanism"
The new version allows vexatious complaints to be rejected out of hand
Newspaper proposal allows "the discretion not to look into complaints if they feel that the complaint is without justification, is an attempt to argue a point of opinion rather than a standards code breach, or is simply an attempt to lobby."
The new version removes the payment of fines into an account to fund investigations into breaches of law
This rejects the original requirement that "The Board should establish a ring-fenced enforcement fund, into which receipts from financial sanctions could be paid, for the purpose of funding investigations."
The new version waters down requirement to provide arbitration process for civil legal claims against newspapers
While the government version says they "should" provide such a service, the newspapers say they "may" provide such a service. The newspapers' proposals would allow them to operate a pilot scheme to see whether it is effective.