The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

So I was postulating a situation where the ombudsman is focusing on redress, whilst the regulator is focusing on sanction. And there clearly needs to be a process by which there is a flow of information from the ombudsman to the regulator in order to inform the regulator's general view as to the behaviour of the industry, and indeed where sanctions need to be imposed.

It's also helpful for there to be a flow of sort of non-business specific information about new and emerging trends, so that the regulator can be developing policies in order to deal with those as they go on.

As we have indicated in the evidence, there are clearly some advantages to the ombudsman of being a statutory body, or being underpinned by statute, but there clearly would be risks, if the regulator were a self-regulatory body, to have an ombudsman who was underpinned by statute, because there would be inexorable pressure, I think, from the public if they were to be satisfied with the self-regulatory body to look to the ombudsman for that which the ombudsman could not in fact deliver.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech