Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Lord Hunt of Wirral, Chair, Press Complaints Commission—Oral evidence (QQ 1594–
1628)
Q1616 Mr Buckland: I do not know whether the Bar Standards Board would view
themselves as being controlled by the Legal Services Board. They view themselves as an
independent regulator.
Lord Hunt: I have the honour to chair the all-party group on legal and constitutional
affairs, where I heard senior people in the Bar Standards Board advocating strongly the
abolition of the Legal Services Board, but that is another issue.
Q1617 Mr Buckland: Can I deal with some points you made in written submissions
to the Leveson Inquiry, about the management board that you would envisage having a
governance and financial role in the new authority? Independence from the media industry
would be a very important principle of that. How would you ensure that the leadership of
that management board would be independent?
Lord Hunt: It is very difficult to define independence. I am really talking about people
in the majority on any management board being seen to be people of independent mind,
who would be trusted by the public to exercise any authority and power they had from an
independent point of view. Regulation can be wholly independent, even though it may be
paid for by the industry that has set it up. I think we demonstrated that with the lay majority
on the Press Complaints Commission. I see the complaints and adjudication arm carrying on
much as it does now, without the ability to award compensation or impose fines, whereas
the new standards and compliance arm would be able to issue detailed reports and impose
fines. I think that, in many ways, it is the independence of the overall structure that will be
the test of whether it will have the confidence of the public.
Q1618 Mr Buckland: You say independence. It is something readily
understandable. You would not have serving editors on it, would you?
Lord Hunt: I have always felt that peer review is a very effective system. We see that
on the Code Committee, which has established the Editors’ Code, which is at the heart of
everything that I am seeking to build on. It is the foundation stone. When I had ministerial
office, I always felt that peer review was a very effective method because people value their
reputation, particularly before people in the same business.
What I am arguing for is not a lack of industry involvement, but a clear perception
that the independent side of the management of this body should be in the majority. It would
need very effective members, who understand and are much closer to the heart of the
industry, if it is to make informed decisions. On the Press Complaints Commission, I found
that sometimes the most testing people of editors are their fellow editors. We have very
good discussions, where the editors will contribute not only their expertise, but their
criticism of any practices that fall below the standards that they all want to establish.
Q1619 Mr Buckland: But the problem is, is it not, that whatever the highmindedness
of the individuals involved, the perception could be that there will be a
commercial conflict. Richard Desmond, for example, said bluntly that he found it difficult that
rival newspaper editors were having such a role in the PCC. With that tension, we have the
976