Leveson Report

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at on 4 December 2012.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

There are not many more important debates than this one about how we, the Scottish Parliament, respond to the findings and recommendations of the Leveson inquiry’s report.

As we have heard, the inquiry was set up by the Prime Minister following the uncovering of a phone hacking scandal, which, we all agree, shocked the British public to its core. The inquiry exposed unethical as well as illegal conduct by some elements of the press—that is the dry technical description. To the broader public, it laid bare squalid practices and unprincipled, shameless behaviour that all reasonable people find repugnant.

The inquiry went further. It demonstrated the elementary failure of the current regulatory regime and a fundamental failure of our political system over the past two decades to tackle an intensifying problem. In that context, Lord Justice Leveson asked what the Roman poet, Juvenal, asked near 2,000 years ago: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—who guards the guard dogs?

Well, Lord Justice Leveson has published his findings and recommendations. In among the responses and the commentary, one feature has emerged: the problem is not simple and whatever we do, we should do with caution. In many respects, the debate has captured that mood and there have been some measured and reflective contributions from across the chamber. Dennis Robertson’s speech was particularly courageous and, from a different perspective, Margo MacDonald’s was very thought provoking. Yes, we need to do something, but we should be mighty careful about what we do.

The Leveson inquiry took place against the background of the democratic tradition: the freedoms and values that we cherish in our open society. Those freedoms are the envy of oppressed peoples around the world. Thomas Jefferson said:

“The only security of all is in a free press.”

He added that it was necessary to “keep the waters pure”. Lord Justice Leveson echoed those sentiments when he said:

“a free press is the lifeblood of a mature democracy”.

That is not something to be sacrificed or lightly put at risk, although that does not mean that the freedom of the press is unlimited. There are legitimate boundaries within which the press must operate and an effective system of regulation is essential to ensure that those limits are adhered to.

Today, we have heard many members add their voices to the debate. Although at times they may have been in disagreement with one another, we should remember what we all agree on. First, we as a Parliament have a duty to consider these findings and recommendations—although I observe that responding does not necessarily mean legislating. Secondly, the status quo is no longer a tenable option.

Lord Justice Leveson rightly criticised the current regulatory system. The Press Complaints Commission made the press judge, jury and executioner in its own case, which was inherently flawed. In its place, Leveson recommended an independent self-regulatory body to remedy what he sees as a

“profound lack of any functional or meaningful independence from the industry”.

Under his model, appointments would be independent and representative of the public interest, as would be the setting of standards of conduct. He also detailed a speedy complaints-handling mechanism with significant remedial powers as part of a new regulatory system.