MSPs question Scottish press regulation judge

Press regulation will come under the spotlight at Holyrood today as MSPs question a judge on the controversial issue.

Members of the Education and Culture Committee are to quiz Lord McCluskey who chaired the independent group appointed to examine the recommendations of the Leveson Report into press standards and how these would be implemented under Scotland’s separate legal system.

While he is giving evidence on the impact of the UK Government’s proposed royal charter to establish a press regulator, it is likely he will also face questions on the recommendations of the McCluskey report.

That report suggested that the Scottish press should be subject to mandatory regulation, underpinned by law, even if the press in the rest of the UK is not.

Understood

The committee announced last month it would examine the implications of the royal charter for Scotland, looking at what it will mean in practice for newspapers north of the border.

David Cameron put forward plans for a powerful new press regulator, backed by legislation, last month after talks between the three main UK political parties and the Hacked Off campaign group which wants tighter regulation.

Committee convener Stewart Maxwell said at the time that it is “vital the relevance and implications of the royal charter in Scotland are fully examined and better understood”.

He said: “Something which profoundly affects how the newspaper industry operates in Scotland must be discussed openly, in depth and in public. Our consideration will do just that.”

In a letter sent to MSPs before this morning’s meeting, Lord McCluskey said the Press Complaints Commission has failed.

Opt out

The new regulatory system recommended by both the independent group and Leveson is “effectively a complaints system to replace the one operated by the failed Press Complaints Commission”, he said.

Lord McLuskey highlighted a “vital difference” between his report and the Leveson report.

“Leveson said that all publishers should be encouraged to accept the jurisdiction of the regulatory body - but on a voluntary basis. We thought that that would simply not work: some significant publishers had already said that they would not join; now many more are saying the same.

“So we proposed that publishers should not be asked to opt in or allowed to opt out of anything.”