As reported by the Newspaper Society: Lord Hunt (pictured) was appointed a year ago to set up a new body to replace the PCC in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.
He told MPs the system would be legally enforceable through binding contracts and that the regulator would have powers to impose fines and investigate wrong-doing but that it must remain entirely independent of Parliament.
Lord Hunt quoted the Leveson Report (page 1769) which said: “It is worth repeating that the ideal outcome is a satisfactory independent regulatory body, established by the industry, that is able to secure the voluntary support and membership of the entire industry and thus able to command the support of the public… In terms of organisational structure and contractual framework, there is no reason why Lord Black’s model should not be capable of adaptation to meet the requirements set down here if the industry were able to support such a move, and if the other, more substantive, changes around independence and effectiveness were made.”
He said he was currently putting together three workstreams: establishment of a Transition Board of independent figures, to be announced this Friday, to ensure the proposed system was Leveson-compliant, setting up an Implementation Group, with meetings of editors and publishers in December and January, and coordinating meetings of lawyers to work through the detail of an arbitration arm and the contracts which would be signed by publishers. He hoped to see the new body established in the first half of 2013.
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger also gave evidence to the CMS Committee. He told them there had been “a remarkable willingness of editors to get together and take Leveson seriously.” But he described government proposals that a new press regulator could be set up by Royal Charter as “alarming” giving ministers “a significant role in regulation.” This would be even worse that statutory underpinning.
