THE proposals for a new regulatory system for newspapers that emerged from the Leveson inquiry may not have the support of the newspapers themselves, but support for the plans among politicians at Westminster – never the media’s most reliable of allies – is still strong. So much so that there remains a very real risk that the plans could be passed into law.

Some politicians are not buying it though, including Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives. Ms Davidson is a former journalist, which may help to explain her position. But, in speaking out on the issue, she has identified two of the worst problems with the scheme, which, under Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, would require newspapers to sign up to the new regulator or face having to pay the costs of both sides in court actions, even if the newspaper won.

Ms Davidson acknowledges how many people feel about newspapers. The press, she says, is infuriating, challenging and a pain in the backside, but she says those are the qualities that make them important. “Section 40 threatens their ability to hold power to account,” she says, “And, worse, it could put local titles out of business altogether.”

This is not just political hyperbole. Should the plans become law, there is a risk that investigative journalism, already suffering in the face of cheaper – and in some cases fake – news on social media, would be killed off. Newspapers might also hold off from exposing public figures for fear they would be sued.

As Ms Davidson says, the potential costs of the scheme also represent a threat to the viability of many titles, including in Scotland, where even if Section 40 did not apply under Scots Law, newspapers could face being sued in England. The current proposals also do not acknowledge the fact that the industry’s own body IPSO is doing a good job or that most of the offences which were examined by Leveson are already illegal. Newspapers need to be regulated. But Section 40 is not the answer