Lord Hunt: Publishers 'willing to accept' new regulation proposals

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

Lord Hunt, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission , has said that "virtually the whole range of publications" he has spoken to about reform of the commission have shown willing to proceed in the way he has suggested, including Northern & Shell, which withdrew from the commission last year. In evidence to the Leveson inquiry , Hunt, who has been looking into the areas of the commission which could be reformed, said he has shared his proposals with editors who have given him "very helpful and positive responses".

During his evidence session he outlined in detail his ideas for reform of the PCC, but warned that if statutory regulation were to be involved parliament may try to use it to control the press.

"There are very strong views in parliament that there must be stronger limits on the power of the press and this would, therefore, in my mind, open a Pandora's box," he told the inquiry.

"It would be, for many of my colleagues in Parliament, a wonderful moment if they were given the opportunity to move amendments, to debate a bill regulating the press, and I just do not know what would emerge the other side."

When asked if he would still oppose the idea of a statutory regulator if it "did not have power to set standards" he said, "yes".

"Perhaps the best way to describe my background is to say that I've seen too many examples of where a simple objective was to be reached through a new bill, and perhaps I would summarise it by saying the road to parliamentary hell is paved with good intentions.

"I have in front of me the Constitutional Reform Act, and I do recall when it was going through Parliament and the debates that we had, where judicial opinion was greatly valued, particularly in the upper house, and there was general agreement that we had to enshrine the independence of the judiciary in legislation.

"But there is no such agreement and I'm well aware of the views of my parliamentary colleagues -- there is no such agreement about the independence of the press.

"We were determined that what would emerge the other side with the 2005 Act was the independence of the judiciary. There is no such agreement about the independence of the press."

He added that "many" of his fellow parliamentarians have told him that any such legislation may be used to control the press.

"That is what is driving me forward to find a solution and to respond positively to your own comments, right at the outset of this, particularly in the seminars, that there is a wonderful opportunity for the press itself to put its own house in order."

Lord Justice Leveson added that he did not express it in that way, but that he "certainly said, and firmly believe, that it's critical that the press engage in the debate about how its regulation, with a very small 'R', should move forward, because it's critical that whatever system emerges works for them, but it's equally critical, as I have made clear, that it works for, I've said 'me', but by 'me', I of course mean the public."

Hunt added that "this is a tremendous opportunity for the press themselves to come forward with the sort of system which Sir David Calcutt was asking for".

Outlining his proposal to the inquiry Hunt said "the new regulator should have two arms".

"One that deals with complaints and mediation, continuing the valuable work that's been going on hitherto, by the staff of the PCC, and a separate arm that audits and, where necessary, enforces standards and compliance, compliance with the editors' code, with much greater emphasis on internal self-regulation, with a named individual carrying personal responsibility for compliance at each and every one of the publishers and those responsible for newspapers and magazines."

He added that the Editors' code should also go under independent review.

"This is all part and parcel of the overall proposals, which I have summarised in a two-page document which I have circulated to each of the editors who attended that meeting, and on which I'm now getting a number of very helpful and positive responses."

Pushed on how we would get publishers to join, he responded: "by asking them".

"Everyone I've asked so far, covering virtually the whole range of publications, have said that they are willing to agree to proceed in the way I have set out," including Northern & Shell, publisher of Express Newspapers, he said.

"I sense there is a willingness to accept a fresh start and a new body. I did immediately call a meeting of all the general counsel, who advise each of the publications, and found that there was agreement around the table that it was perfectly possible to reach agreement.

"The abiding theme was that it should be simple, short, easy to understand, and that one could foresee exactly the sort of structure that I had in mind."