In his famously long report, Lord Justice Leveson took time to consider how his recommendations should be dealt with once published, and drew lessons from the disappointing aftermaths of previous inquiries into the press. "It is critical," he wrote, "that the public must have full confidence in the political process" – politicians responding to the report must act in an above-board manner; otherwise they will inevitably encourage suspicions they are courting favour with editors and proprietors, and any outcome will be compromised.
Five weeks have passed since the report came out. How is the process going so far? The prime minister rejected an explicitly "essential" element of the report – on statutory underpinning – on the basis of a scruple he had never previously revealed, even under oath at the inquiry. Then he and other Tory ministers met editors, and published no minutes. And a series of cross-party meetings began from which, equally, no minutes emerged.
It is impossible to have confidence in this. One poll found that 56% of people believed Cameron acted merely to protect press chums, while even bodies dedicated to upholding free speech, such as Article 19, couldn't share his supposed scruple about legislation. What is happening is a subversion of Leveson and an insult to the idea of an open society that editors and ministers claim to uphold.
Leveson said one reason his inquiry was necessary was because politicians themselves admitted in July 2011 that they had got too close to the press, in a way contrary to the public interest.
Have they mended their ways? Consider this: before Christmas the prime minister met Rebekah Brooks. He hasn't met Hacked Off, the campaign for press reform, since the report was published, or the victims of press abuses who work with us, or (so far as we know) any other relevant civil society body – yet he talks to a former News International boss awaiting trial on criminal charges.
And consider this: in July 2011 Cameron promised that government contacts with the press would be made public as a matter of routine, "to bring complete transparency to the relationship", yet the latest contacts listed on the Cabinet Office are more than six months old, long before Leveson reported.
They can't be trusted, and the more they meddle privately with Leveson's recommendations the more they are certain to contaminate and compromise them. Day by day, they are burning up public trust.
Cameron twice promised he would implement Leveson's proposals if they were not "bonkers", and Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband said something similar. No one can say they are bonkers; indeed they are cautious and modest – and, unlike politicians' interventions, based on conscientious public evidence-gathering in which every stakeholder was heard.
The right thing to do now – and our politicians should know this – is to implement Leveson's proposals with minimum meddling. That is why Hacked Off is bringing forward a draft "Leveson bill", which reflects as faithfully as possible all relevant recommendations in a form suitable for legislation.
Other draft bills have been published, and ministers talk of a royal charter, but the Hacked Off approach is closest to the Leveson vision and is the "clean" way to proceed, free of the self-interested distortions and industry manipulations inevitable in behind-closed-doors haggling. We are opening it up for consultation on our website www.hackinginquiry.org and inviting views.
If party leaders back this bill and discourage amendments that add to or subtract from what Leveson proposed, they will create our best chance of having press regulation that protects the public from the kinds of abuses that made the inquiry necessary but is also free of political interference. And for the first time – as the judge wished – they will enshrine press freedom in the law.
