Nevertheless, editors are too ready to characterise any statutory solution as "draconian", or as likely to place the press under the thumb of the government. It is perfectly possible to design a system in which a press ombudsman entirely independent of government is selected by representatives of the media and relevant NGOs like Liberty and consumer groups. This person would be empowered to award compensation to victims of press malpractice and to order the adjudication to be published with a prominence equivalent to the original story, and to direct that a reasonable-length right of reply should be accorded to complainants who have been identifiably attacked. Most good newspapers and editors will agree to this in any event. An ombudsman should never be empowered to order an apology, of course, since a forced apology may not be sincere. (When Richard Ingrams was asked whether he had ever knowingly published falsehoods in Private Eye, he replied: "Only the apologies.")

There are various permutations of the "statutory ombudsman" model, some of which might liberate newspapers (and why not other media?) from the expense and the distraction of court actions. An ombudsman, selected independently of government, could by statute be made an alternative to legal action if given power to order corrections or publications of replies and to award modest compensation to victims of privacy invasion, defamation or other breaches of the Code of Conduct which had caused damage or real suffering. Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, supported a debate on the creation of an ombudsman when he appeared before the Leveson inquiry last month. The carrot for this stick for the press would be relief from court actions for these wrongs — the statute would prevent complainants from suing for defamation or breach of privacy unless they could show malice. If compensatory damages under the statutory scheme were capped at, say, £10,000, this might actually be an advantage for newspapers, saved from the danger of damages as high as £200,000 and legal costs that are often five times higher.

The PCC, with its portentous adjudications and declarations, has in the past received a good press. The suspicion remains that editors and journalists, so quick to find fault with the performance of other public bodies, have turned a blind eye to PCC failings because they have a vested economic and political interest in fostering a public perception that it is a powerful body and an effective alternative to the courts. Now that this pretence can no longer be sustained, something more — in the form of a statutory regulation — is in the offing. Ivan Lewis, until recently the Shadow Culture Secretary, wants newspapers to have licences that could be withdrawn like broadcasting licences, and reckless journalists to be debarred, i.e. "struck off" a professional register like errant doctors or lawyers.

He overlooks the fact that journalism is not a profession. It is the exercise by occupation of the right of free speech to which all are entitled. It cannot in principle be withdrawn from a few by any system of professional registration. That sinister Restoration office of "Surveyor of the Press", empowered to seize unlicensed presses and prosecute disrespectful journalists and printers, is no more than a distant and bad memory. 

The best result from the Leveson inquiry would be a sweeping away of all the deceptive panoply of self-serving self-regulation, with a recommendation that Parliament enact a carefully defined tort (civil wrong) of invasion of privacy, with a public-interest defence and a right to trial by jury. The media — broadcasters and electronic publishers as well as the newspapers — should be urged to make common cause by setting up a new body to defend freedom of speech at its own expense. The PCC might survive as a conciliation and arbitration service available to mediate between editors and complainants who lack the money to hire lawyers. If statutory powers are to be given to anyone (such as an independently selected press ombudsman), they should be limited to ordering the press to publish factual corrections or to allow rights of reply. That would mean curing abuses of free speech by the simple device of ordering more speech.