The official recognition of Impress as a regulator moves us one step closer to yet another confrontation between press and parliament.

By itself, the decision by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) doesn’t mean much. But should this government, or any government in the future, decide to implement section 40 of the crime and courts act, it will become hugely significant.

Even so, in advance of that law kicking in, newspaper publishers are anything but delighted by the recognition of Impress under the terms of the royal charter.

They have created their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which they are determined will not seek recognition because they view the charter as an instrument of the state and therefore inimical to press freedom.



Now, with Ipso and Impress, we have two press regulators that, on the face of it, look hopelessly unequal. Ipso regulates a massive slice of the newspaper and magazine industry, including the majority of national titles, the overwhelming number of regional and local titles and the bulk of the magazine publishers.

Impress, by contrast, is regulating 26 small online news websites, with a further 24 awaiting compliance checks. David is pitched against Goliath?

What Goliath fears, however, is David’s sling: charter recognition is a threatening weapon that has the potential to hurt all publishers who are outside Impress, whether or not they have joined Ipso (such as the Guardian, Financial Times and Private Eye).

Impress’s very existence means that should the government bring about the introduction of the section 40 provision at any stage, then non-Impress publications face the possibility of paying the legal costs of people who sue them for libel or breaches of privacy, even if they win the case.

Impress members, by contrast, will enjoy protection from costs if people use its low-cost arbitration arm.

At present, if government leaks are to be believed, section 40 has been shelved for the time being. But the threat remains, as culture secretary Karen Bradley, suggested on Monday in addressing members of the Commons culture, media and sport committee.

She said: “I have made no decision on the timing of a decision on section 40. I don’t rule it out at some point in the future”.

So it appears as if the founder of Impress, chief executive Jonathan Heawood, and its funder, Max Mosley, will have to wait to achieve the full effect of their initiative.

Nevertheless, recognition represents a big step along the path to the kind of press regulation favoured by Lord Justice Leveson in the report that followed his eponymous inquiry.

Clearly, the upper house agrees with Sir Brian. The House of Lords voted for an amendment to the investigatory powers bill, which was aimed at forcing the government to introduce section 40.

That gave heart to Impress and its supporters, notably the press victims’ body, Hacked Off, while upsetting publishers and the Ipso chairman, Sir Alan Moses.

Several papers carried hyperbolic leading articles attacking the possibility of section 40 being triggered. The Sunday Times went so far as call it “state regulation of the press”.

Like so much of the newspaper comment on the subject, at both national and local level, this was way over the top. Even though I think the use of a royal charter, set up through the privy council, was misconceived, I cannot see how it amounts to state regulation.

Do publishers really think broadcast news is state-regulated because outlets are monitored by Ofcom? Is Sky News’s output subject to state regulation?

And while we’re on the subject of News Corporation, I hope no-one imagines that prime minister Theresa May and Rupert Murdoch sorted out the section 40 business when they met recently in New York. That would be too far-fetched, would it not?