Q. There’s already a Royal Charter agreed by all three political parties. Why do we need another one?

A. That Royal Charter is an empty vessel. It was cobbled together over 2am takeaway pizzas by a group of politicians and the Hacked Off lobby group. The people it seeks to regulate – Britain’s 4,000+ newspapers and magazines - were not even told the meeting was taking place. Not a single newspaper or magazine has said it will sign up to it. We believe it is our duty to the public to get a new regulator up and running – a regulator that will work. Our Independent Royal Charter is a reasonable and responsible way of doing that.

Q. But doesn’t that Charter deliver what Leveson called for?

A. Leveson called for "voluntary independent self-regulation" - it’s there on page 1,758 of his report. The Royal Charter cobbled together by politicians and Hacked Off is neither voluntary, nor independent, nor is it self-regulation. It’s been condemned all around the world, from the New York Times to Russia Today. The Economist called it a "shameful hash". It’s not Leveson-compliant anyway – he called for oversight by Ofcom – and in other respects it goes way beyond Leveson.

Q. How does it go beyond Leveson?

A. It gives the Recognition Panel – a body from which editors and publishers are specifically excluded - powers to interfere in the running of the regulator at any time.

Q. But under that Royal Charter the newspaper industry is still able to set up its own regulator?

A. Yes, but the Recognition Panel – from which representatives of the industry are specifically excluded – has the power to hold ad hoc reviews of the regulator whenever it wants. It’s the regulator of the regulator.

Q. Why is your Royal Charter any better?

A. A Royal Charter is supposed to be a device by which an independent group of people set rules for themselves – it’s how our universities and professional bodies are governed – not a device by which one group people imposes rules on another, which is what has happened here.

Q. Isn’t your Royal Charter just another stitch-up?

A. It is the result of weeks of discussion earlier this year between editors, publishers, ministers, civil servants and lawyers. We were on the point of agreement between ministers and the industry when everything had to be put on hold because Lord Puttnam hijacked the Defamation Bill, threatening the Government’s whole legislative programme. We still believe that that Royal Charter is a workable model that will deliver what Leveson was calling for.

Q. Aren’t you trying to involve the Queen in controversy?

A. Not at all. The Royal Charter on the table at the moment would go against all the principles of Royal Charters, by being imposed on an unwilling industry by the state, so it is inherently controversial. The Royal Charter we are putting forward will do what a Royal Charter is supposed to do: enable an industry that is largely united regulate itself for the benefit of the public.

Q. But what if people like Hacked Off disagree with it and want to change it?

A. We have been trying for weeks to get the Culture Department to agree to a consultation process on their Royal Charter, but they have refused, saying it is a state-sponsored Charter so there is no need for consultation. Our Royal Charter, which is a genuine voluntary Charter, will go through the normal Royal Charter consultation process supervised by the Privy Council Office. Anyone who wants to suggest amendments will be able to do so.

Q. But your charter isn’t Leveson compliant, is it?

A. Yes it is. All the key elements are there – fines of up to £1m for systematic wrongdoing, upfront corrections, investigative powers to deal with deliberate malpractice and a majority of independent members at every level. Ministers certainly believed it was Leveson compliant when they published it on February 12 and David Cameron told editors its provisions were "set in stone".

Q. What about arbitration? You don’t follow Leveson, there, do you?

A. Neither Royal Charter does. Leveson recommended an arbitration system that was free for complainants to use and inexpensive for the industry to run, which is a contradiction. Regional papers, which are already under enormous financial pressure, are concerned that a scheme offering a free route to compensation, entirely funded by the newspaper, will be wide open to exploitation by ambulance-chasing lawyers. We will never persuade the regional press to sign up unless we can find some means of making arbitration manageable. Our formula allows for a pilot scheme and an administration charge as a way of achieving that.

Q. Won’t your Charter be open to interference by politicians through the Privy Council?

A. It will be governed by the same clause under the new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as the other Royal Charter. This means that a royal charter can only be changed by the means laid down in the charter itself. Under their charter, which of course was drawn up by politicians, if we find that some aspect of the new system simply doesn’t work, and is putting newspapers out of business, the prescribed means of changing it is by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament, which will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Under our charter politicians will play no role in making changes. If the Recognition Panel, the Board of the Regulator and all the various elements of the industry decide unanimously that changes are needed, they will be able to make them.

Q. Aren’t you defying the will of Parliament?

A. The March 18 Charter was not drawn up by Parliament. It was put together at two in the morning by a group of politicians and the Hacked Off lobby group. Our Royal Charter is the product of weeks of discussion and careful thought between ministers, civil servants editors, publishers and lawyers.

Q. What about the victims, aren’t they being betrayed?

A. No one is keener than we are to put in place a system of regulation that will give the public the protection they deserve. It is now five months since Leveson reported but thanks to constant unrealistic demands from Hacked Off and bickering between politicians the only proposal on the table is one that no one in the industry believes will work. Our Royal Charter gives us a clear framework that we can all sign up to and get on with the job of setting an effective new regulator.

Q. Isn’t this just News International and Associated imposing their will on the rest of the industry?

A. Not at all – our Royal Charter has support from all across the industry: Trinity Mirror, which owns the Daily Mirror and our biggest regional newspaper group, the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the vast majority of regional papers and our biggest magazine publishers.

Q. You’re just protecting your own interests, aren’t you?

A. We are not in any way trying to defend the excesses of the past, which are being dealt with by the police and the courts. But there are important principles at stake. Britain has enjoyed a free press for three hundred years. It is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and one of our greatest contributions to the world. 40 million people read newspapers and magazines in Britain. I passionately believe we have a duty to them to ensure they have a press that has the freedom to call the powerful to account and to voice any shade of opinion, however outspoken, and whether or not it chimes with that of the political elite.