UK Constitutional Law Association

affiliated to the International Association of Constitutional Law

Iain Jamieson: The Leveson Report, the Royal Charter and the Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Parliament can legislate to regulate the press in Scotland. This is because this matter  is not made a reserved matter. In principle, therefore, it would be competent for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to give effect to the Leveson Report in whatever way they thought fit.

It was for this reason that the Scottish Government appointed an Expert Group under the chairmanship of  Lord McCluskey  to consider what was the most appropriate way of giving effect to that Report in Scotland. The Expert Group has now published their report but it has been met with an almost universal hostile reception by the press.

However, the Expert Group Report may, to a large extent, now be irrelevant.  This is as a  result of the way in which the UK Government is proposing to give effect to the  main recommendations in Leveson regarding the setting up of the Recognition Panel  to recognise the independent regulatory body for the press.   The UK Government propose to do so by means of a Royal Charter. This will be contained in an Order in Council made under the Royal Prerogative. There is nothing in the Royal Charter to indicate that it is not intended to extend to Scotland. In the absence of any such indication, it will extend to Scotland.

By implementing the Leveson Report in this way, the UK Government has, in effect, bypassed the need to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament to the terms of the Royal Charter in so far as they extend to Scotland.. This is because the consent of the Scottish Parliament is only required, under the Sewel Convention, to approve any Bill proposed in the UK Parliament which deals with devolved matters or affects the legislative competence of the Parliament. Neither the Royal Charter nor the Order in Council will constitute such a Bill. The Scottish Parliament will, therefore, have  been deprived of having any say in the provisions of that Royal Charter.

Given the terms of the Royal Charter, it would not appear that the Scottish Parliament could provide for the press in Scotland to be compelled to join a regulatory scheme, as the McCluskey Report proposed.  Accordingly, it would seem that all that would be left for the Scottish Parliament to do is to provide , as a matter of Scots law, for  similar incentives to encourage the press to join the new regulatory scheme as those made in clause 21A of the Crime and Courts Bill (as amended  at Third Reading in the Commons).

In certain circumstances, the UK Parliament can over-ride the prerogative and it is thought that the Scottish Parliament would also be able to do so within devolved matters.  It may be thought, therefore, that it would still be possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to amend the Royal Charter or to provide that it should not apply in Scotland.

However, this would not appear to be possible because the Royal Charter also provides that it cannot be amended, or the Recognition Panel dissolved, unless a draft of the proposed change has been laid before the UK Parliament and approved by a resolution of two thirds of the members of each House.  No mention is made of any need to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament, whether by simple majority or otherwise.

These provisions in the Royal Charter are entrenched by clause 92 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (as amended at HL Report) which provides-

“Where a body is established by Royal Charter after 1 March 2013 with functions relating to the carrying on of an industry, no recommendation may be made to Her Majesty in Council to amend the body’s Charter, or dissolve the body, unless any requirement included in the Charter on the date it is granted for Parliament to approve the amendment or dissolution have been met.”

This clause extends to Scotland (see clause 97(8)). However, it may be doubted whether, given the very general terms of clause 92, it would trigger the need for a LCM (or Sewel motion) in the Scottish Parliament but, even if it did, the consent required would only relate to that provision and not to the terms of the Royal Charter itself.

The effect of all this is that the Scottish Parliament has, in effect, been  deprived of its power to make substantive provision for the regulation of the press in Scotland. This has been done not by any of the recognised ways of amending the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, such as by means of a section 30 order, but indirectly as a by-product of the UK Government deciding to use the Royal Prerogative to give effect to Leveson.

Suggested citation: I. Jamieson, ‘The Leveson Report, the Royal Charter and the Scottish Parliament’ UK Const. L. Blog (20th March 2013) (available at

3 comments on “Iain Jamieson: The Leveson Report, the Royal Charter and the Scottish Parliament

  1. Pingback: Salmond prepares to let Westminster take the hit over post-Leveson press regulation « Slugger O'Toole

  2. Waldron-fan
    March 21, 2013

    An interesting take, but I cannot see that the Royal Charter mechanism deprives Scotland of the ability to bring in a more rigorous regime if it wanted, particularly if McCluskey is recommending compelling the Scottish press to join. That is not about Charters as opposed to Acts, but is just because the UK government’s approach is so light touch that it seems to mean they are not occupying the field.
    The 18th March text of the Charter on the government’s website is just setting up the Recognition Panel – nothing in the Charter sets up a Regulator, or compels anyone to come forward as a potential Regulator, or applies any consequence to recognition or to withdrawal of recognition. As I understand it that fits the policy, because the hands off approach is that the only consequence is that non-subscribers (whether because there is no Regulator for them, or because they choose not to subscribe to one) will be subject to exemplary damages (for which statute is being used – Crime & Courts Bill?) – it is up to publishers whether they choose to put forward a Regulator and then whether they choose to “subscribe” to that Regulator’s scheme.
    The text of the Charter assumes there can be more than one Regulator and there is no suggestion any particular Regulator would have to have a nation-wide remit. Para 10 of Sch 2 comes closest, but only says the Panel must report back to Parliament if no Regulator at all is recognised or if “the system of regulation” does not cover “all significant news publishers”. If the Scots set up a compulsory scheme that does not fall within whatever is meant by the undefined “system”, then the Panel will just have to tell Parliament that Scotland is not covered, and Parliament will be left unable force Scotland into line (if I have understood the author’s argument correctly).
    The point on this is not about Royal Charter versus Act of Parliament – if this text was in an Act the result would be the same, because it is only laying some groundwork in the hope that the press will exercise a voluntary choice to self-regulate. The UK government cannot have its cake and eat it – if the chosen vehicle (Charter/Act) contains no obligation on anyone to be a Regulator, let alone on any publisher to “subscribe” to any scheme, and does not (and probably could not) contain any express prohibition on compelling publishers to submit to other types of scheme, then it leaves nothing in the way of the Scots setting up a compulsory scheme (to which the Charter & the exemplary damages are just irrelevant). No “statutory underpinning” may be a vague and contentious claim, but the clearer corollary seems to be no statutory/legal protection against compulsory regulation.
    If the Charter had set up a compulsory scheme and the Scots wanted to legislate for a voluntary scheme, that might have been a different story where the devoltion points would bite.

  3. cruachan3
    April 9, 2013

    Well, it’s pretty clear that the power of press regulation should not have been devolved by Parliament to the devolved Holyrood legislature.

    This has been recognised, not only by the response to the wholly unnecessary McCluskey report, but more significantly, by the response of the First Minister to the proposal for a Royal Charter. He acknowledges, by “consideration” that the only way forward for press regulation is that it is of UK-wide applicability.

    We can expect developments in the matter to come from Parliament rather than Holyrood.

    John McAleer

    JPM Consultancy

    24 Clelland Avenue

    Bishopbriggs G64 1RL

    UK141 772 6659

    07984 711830

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Ordinary membership

UKCLA yearly membership (ordinary)


Student membership

UKCLA yearly membership (student)


Associate membership

UKCLA yearly membership (associate)


%d bloggers like this: