Completed
· Chair: Lord Justice Leveson
· Established July 2011
· Commissioned by Cabinet Office
The Leveson Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal.
More about this inquiry
The Leveson Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. Part 1 made 92 recommendations on press regulation, data protection, police-media relations, and media plurality. Many recommendations were not implemented; the government rejected statutory press regulation in favour of the industry-created IPSO.
No statement from Press found in the sources searched 38
No statement from UK Government found in the sources searched 12
No statement from Information Commissioner found in the sources searched 9
UK Government states no delivery position 7
No statement from National Police Chiefs Council or Police found in the sources searched 4
UK Government says not accepted 4
Ministry of Justice says in progress 3
No statement from Police or National Police Chiefs Council found in the sources searched 3
No statement from Politicians found in the sources searched 2
Department for Culture, Media and Sport says in progress 1
Department for Culture, Media and Sport says partially delivered 1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says not accepted 1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) states no delivery position 1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says partially delivered 1
Home Office states no delivery position 1
Information Commissioner says completed 1
Ministry of Justice says not accepted 1
No statement from Ofcom found in the sources searched 1
Ofcom says in progress 1
Blanket response: PM David Cameron responded to all 92 recommendations with a single statement accepting them "in principle" or "in part". No per-recommendation response was published.
Record checked against the sources 24 February 2026. Latest activity 14 September 2026.
Under consideration · No statement from UK Government found
Recommended
The levels of influence that would give rise to concerns in relation to plurality must be lower, and probably considerably lower, than the levels of concentration that would give rise to competition concerns.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended setting media plurality concern thresholds lower than those for competition. In August 2014, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that it would not consider framework changes until a measurement framework and baseline assessment were delivered (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014). It explained that its consultation response did not seek to review existing policy levers or propose remedies (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014).
Under consideration · No statement from Ofcom found
Recommended
Ofcom has presented the Inquiry and the Government with a full menu of potential remedies, and it has not been argued or suggested that any of them are inappropriate in principle. Each of them might be appropriate in a given set of circumstances and the relevant regulatory authority should have all of them in its armoury.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended that regulatory authorities hold a full menu of media plurality remedies. In a written parliamentary answer in November 2015, Ed Vaizey, Minister of State for Culture and the Digital Economy, stated that Ofcom had published a measurement framework, but the government needed to consider it and how to make a baseline assessment before considering further work in this area (Ed Vaizey, Nov 2015). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport previously stated in its August 2014 consultation report that it would not review existing regulatory levers or propose remedies until both the framework and baseline assessment were produced (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014).
Under consideration · No statement from UK Government found
Recommended
The Government should consider whether periodic plurality reviews or an extension to the public interest test within the markets regime in competition law is most likely to provide a timely warning of, and response to, plurality concerns that develop as the result of organic growth, recognising that the proposal for a regular plurality review is more closely focussed on plurality issues.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry asked the UK Government to consider periodic plurality reviews or competition test extensions. In August 2014, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that it asked the Office of Communications (Ofcom) to develop a measurement framework for a baseline plurality assessment, but that no decision had been made on periodic reviews (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014). The department added that it was "reserving its position on future media plurality policy until after a baseline assessment", while an extension to the public interest test in competition law was not mentioned (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014).
Under consideration · No statement from UK Government found
Recommended
Before making a decision to refer a media merger to the competition authorities on public interest grounds, the Secretary of State should consult relevant parties as to the arguments for and against a referral, and should be required to make public his reasons for reaching a decision one way or the other.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended consulting relevant parties and publishing reasons regarding media merger referrals. In August 2014, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that it would not consider changes to the regulatory framework for media plurality until a measurement framework and baseline assessment were delivered (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014). The department noted that its consultation response did not review existing policy levers or propose remedies (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014).
Under consideration · No statement from UK Government found
Recommended
The Secretary of State should remain responsible for public interest decisions in relation to media mergers. The Secretary of State should be required either to accept the advice provided by the independent regulators, or to explain why that advice has been rejected. At the same time, whichever way the Secretary of State decides the matter, the nature and extent of any submissions or lobbying to which the Secretary of State and his officials and advisors had been subject should be recorded and published.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry asked ministers to explain rejected regulator advice and publish lobbying on media mergers. In August 2014, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the government would not consider changes to the regulatory framework for media plurality until a measurement framework and baseline assessment had been delivered (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014). Consequently, the department did not review existing regulatory levers or propose potential remedies (Department for Culture, Media and Sport response, Aug 2014).
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsIan Sollom · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of Part One of the Leveson Inquiry; and whether she plans to resume Part Two.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to changes in the regulatory system of the press, which included the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter, and two new press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress). This is a self-regulatory system, which was established to be independent from Government and protect press …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsFreddie van Mierlo · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what plans the Government has to meet with the victims of press abuse who have written to the Government to request a meeting.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to changes in the regulatory system of the press, which included the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter and two new press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress). This is a self-regulatory system, which was established to be independent from Government and protect press …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsCatherine West · Labour
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether she plans to take steps to implement the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to changes in the regulatory system of the press, which included the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter and two new press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress). This is a self-regulatory system, which was established to be independent from Government and protect press …
Early Day MotionHouse of CommonsKim Johnson · Labour
Said: This House notes the findings from the Lammy Review of 2018 that shows that Black and Chinese women are found guilty at much higher rates than White women by magistrates, but not by juries; further notes the 2022 Racial Bias and the Bench report, which …
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsCat Eccles · Labour
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of holding the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Government has clearly laid out its priorities in the manifesto and in the King’s speech, and the second part of Leveson is not among them.
Written QuestionHouse of CommonsAlex Brewer · Liberal Democrat
Asked: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what steps her Department has taken to (a) implement the recommendations made by the Leveson Inquiry and (b) support victims of press misinformation.
Answered by Department for Culture, Media and Sport: The Leveson Inquiry led to the establishment of a strengthened, self-regulatory system for the press, this includes the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter. There are also two press regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the Independent Monitor of the Press (Impress), while other publishers, including the Financial Times and the Guardian, have chosen to …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of CommonsLisa Nandy · Labour
Statement: This is a joint statement made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.As Ministers with joint responsibility for the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, today under section 20(7) of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have decided to …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of LordsBaroness Twycross · Labour
Statement: I am repeating the following Written Ministerial Statement made today in the other place by my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy MP:This is a joint statement made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.As …
The Leveson Inquiry was established in November 2011 following revelations about phone hacking and other press misconduct. Lord Justice Leveson's report, published on 29 November 2012, made 92 recommendations covering press regulation, data protection, police-press relations, and media plurality.
The government's response was mixed. The Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012 that he accepted "the principles that Lord Justice Leveson has laid out" for independent self-regulation but rejected statutory underpinning, expressing "serious concerns and misgivings" about crossing "the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land." Of the 92 recommendations, the government accepted 19 (21%), accepted in principle 58 (63%), and did not accept 15 (16%).
The government's legislative response centred on establishing the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (October 2013) and passing the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This created an alternative to Leveson's recommended statutory framework. The Press Recognition Panel was established under the Charter, though no major news publisher has joined a recognised regulator.
Specific reforms that followed include: the Data Protection Act 2018 incorporating some Leveson recommendations, including compensation for distress without pecuniary loss and requiring the ICO to produce a journalism code of practice; the College of Policing publishing guidance on media relations; and continued publication of ministerial transparency data.
However, a key provision - Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created costs incentives for joining a recognised regulator - was never commenced and was repealed in 2024. The government stated this was because "this recommendation was contingent on a costs incentive framework that no longer exists."
Published evidence of progress is limited. Records indicate that 77 of the 92 recommendations (84%) remain listed as "Awaiting Action" with no documented evidence of implementation thirteen years after the report's publication.
Reforms attributed to this inquiry · AI-generated- The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press was established (granted 30 October 2013), creating a framework for press regulation - The Press Recognition Panel was created under the Royal Charter as the recognition body for press regulators - The Crime and Courts Act 2013 was enacted, including provisions for exemplary damages against publishers not belonging to a recognised regulatory body (Sections 34-42 commenced 3 November 2015) - The Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 168) provides for compensation for distress without requiring pecuniary loss - The Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 124) required the Information Commissioner's Office to produce a data protection and journalism code of practice, published in 2023 - The College of Policing published Authorised Professional Practice on Media Relations in May 2013 - Quarterly publication of ministerial transparency data on meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives (continuing since 2010) - Ofcom developed a measurement framework for media plurality in 2015 and publishes regular Media Nations reportsReforms reversed or weakened · AI-generated- Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created costs incentives for publishers to join a recognised regulatory body, was enacted but never commenced. The Secretary of State announced on 1 March 2018 that it would not be commenced and would be repealed. It was repealed by Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 (Royal Assent 24 May 2024)Unfinished business · AI-generated- No published evidence has been identified for action on 77 of the 92 recommendations (84%), which remain recorded as 'Awaiting Action' - The formal review of damages for privacy and data protection breaches recommended by Leveson was not conducted, though court awards have increased through case law - The recommendation to remove the broad journalism exemption from data protection law was not accepted - No evidence of implementation for recommendations on civil justice reforms beyond the repealed Section 40