Parliamentary activity

Answering body: 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 freedom. A free and fair press is vital to ensure the public has access to accurate and trustworthy information from a range of different sources. We are also clear that with this freedom comes responsibility, and newspapers must operate within the bounds of the law.

Given the substantial changes to the news landscape over the past decade, the Government remains of the view that beginning the second part of the Leveson Inquiry is not the right way forward. As a government we are closely following trends in media consumption and are carefully considering the best route forward to safeguard public trust in our news media.

Answering body: 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 freedom. We are also clear, however, that with this freedom comes responsibility. Publishers must operate within the bounds of the law and set and uphold high professional and ethical standards.

The news landscape has changed substantially over the past decade, and looking ahead, we want to maintain press freedom, whilst being clear the public must be protected from the harm caused by clear instances of intrusion and harassment. The Government is carefully considering next steps to determine the best route forward to ensure public trust and accountability in our evolving news media.

Ministers and officials working in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regularly engage with stakeholders on a range of press-related issues. Details of ministerial meetings are published on a quarterly basis on Gov.uk. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has previously met with families who have experienced press intrusion. She remains committed to considering the issues they have raised.

Answering body: 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 freedom. We are also clear, however, that with this freedom comes responsibility. Publishers must operate within the bounds of the law and set and uphold high professional and ethical standards.

The news landscape has changed substantially over the past decade, and looking ahead, we want to maintain press freedom, whilst being clear the public must be protected from the harm caused by clear instances of intrusion and harassment. The Government is carefully considering next steps to determine the best route forward to ensure public trust and accountability in our evolving news media.

Ministers and officials working in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regularly engage with stakeholders on a range of press-related issues. Details of ministerial meetings are published on a quarterly basis on Gov.uk. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has previously met with families who have experienced press intrusion. She remains committed to considering the issues they have raised.

Answering body: 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.

Answering body: 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 stay outside either regulator with their own detailed self-regulatory arrangements.

This self-regulatory system is important for press freedom, but with this freedom comes responsibility. Newspapers must operate ethically and within the bounds of the law. This includes ensuring that members of the public are able to raise concerns about inaccurate reporting through clear, timely and effective routes to redress. If the public wishes to raise concerns about press reporting, they can do so via the relevant regulator. These regulators enforce codes of conduct which provide guidelines on a range of areas, including discrimination, accuracy, privacy, and harassment. If they find that a newspaper has broken the code of conduct, they can order corrections.

The news and media landscape has moved on significantly since the Leveson Inquiry and we need to address the wider challenges in the digital age, including mis and disinformation. The Government’s priority is seeing an independent, thriving and plural press, where journalists are safe and able to report on stories in the public interest and that matter to communities, so that traditional news sources continue to be rated high on trust, accuracy, and impartiality.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

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 vary the restriction orders issued by Sir Brian Leveson on 2 December 2011 and 29 November 2012. This variation, at the request of Associated Newspapers Limited, will enable Associated Newspapers Limited to fulfil its preservation and disclosure obligations in relation to documents provided to the Leveson Inquiry in its possession, obligations that come from claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Sadie Frost Law.

The documents were prepared by the Information Commissioner's Office and consist of spreadsheets of the materials seized from the private detective Steven Whittamore/JJ Services during the course of Operation Motorman, a 2003 investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office into allegations of offences under the Data Protection Act 1998 by the British press.

We have decided to vary the restriction orders so as to allow Associated Newspapers Limited to retain the documents (previously retained in breach of the restriction orders) and disclose them solely for the purposes of the claims. In this case, in our judgement, the paramount public interest lies in enabling Associated Newspapers Limited to meet its disclosure obligations so that justice can be done.

A variation notice has been shared with the parties to the legal proceedings, and published on gov.uk.

This decision makes no comment on the merits of the claims, which is wholly a matter for the courts to determine.

Answering body: 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. There are no current plans for further legislation.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

As was the practice under the previous Administration, information about official ministerial meetings with external organisations and individuals will be published as part of the Cabinet Office transparency returns and made available on the GOV.UK website.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Part One of the Leveson Inquiry and the subsequent police investigations were chaired by judge, Lord Leveson, and was independent of Government.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Ministers and officials working in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regularly engage with press stakeholders on a range of issues.The Government clearly laid out its priorities in the manifesto and in the King’s Speech.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The Government has no plans to instruct the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to amend rules of court in regard to the commencement and implementation of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This aligns with its commitment to repeal section 40.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

This is a joint statement 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 vary the Final Restriction Order (FRO) issued by Sir Brian Leveson on 29 November 2012. This variation, at the requests of the claimants, will allow documentation provided to the Leveson Inquiry to be disclosed for the purposes of the legal proceedings following the claims brought against Associated Newspapers Limited by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Sadie Frost Law.

The following documents will therefore be disclosed for the purposes of the legal proceedings:

Daily Mail ledger cards recording payments to private investigators.

The Mail on Sunday ledger cards recording payments to private investigators.

We do not consider that it is necessary in the public interest to withhold these documents from any disclosure or publication and have decided to vary the FRO so as to allow the disclosure of these documents solely for the purposes of the proceedings. In this case, in our judgement, the public interest in promoting the just, speedy and economic resolution of the proceedings outweighs the countervailing public interests.

A variation notice has been shared with the parties to the legal proceedings, and published on gov.uk.

This decision makes no comment on the merits of the Proceedings, which is wholly a matter for the courts to determine.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

Since May 2010, the Government has published on gov.uk details of official government meetings with external organisations.

In 2011, this was extended to include details of meetings with senior media executives, covering official government, social and political meetings.

But otherwise, the Government does not record political meetings.

I would observe that since 2016, the Labour Party has stopped publishing its own meeting data on shadow frontbench meetings with senior media executives, breaking a commitment made by the then Labour Party leader (the Rt Hon Member for Doncaster North) during the Leveson Inquiry. The Hon. Member may recall how previous data illustrated his engagement with Evgeny Lebedev (now Lord Lebedev). As a shadow DCMS spokesman, the Hon. Member may wish to raise this subsequent shyness with his Opposition colleagues.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

In 2017, the Government ran a consultation on whether to continue with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. Having taken into account all of the views and evidence, we announced in 2018 that we would not be taking forward Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry.

The Leveson Inquiry and subsequent police investigations were comprehensive with more than 300 people giving evidence to the Inquiry and over 40 people convicted during the three major investigations. Reopening the Inquiry would cost millions and we believe it is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest to do so. There have been extensive reforms to policing practices, as well as significant changes to press self-regulation.

Answering body: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The Government is committed to independent self-regulation of the press, and does not intervene in or oversee the work of the press regulators. Sir Joseph Pilling’s 2016 review found IPSO has made some important achievements in demonstrating it is an independent and effective regulator, and it has made further progress since then.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Since the report of the Leveson Inquiry was published in 2012, we have seen a fundamental reform of the self-regulatory landscape for the press, including the establishment of two new regulators, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS).

The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A small number of publishers have joined IMPRESS, while others, including the Financial Times and the Guardian, have chosen to stay outside either self-regulator with their own detailed self-regulatory arrangements.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Since the report of the Leveson Inquiry was published in 2012, we have seen a fundamental reform of the self-regulatory landscape for the press, including the establishment of two new regulators, Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS). The majority of traditional publishers - including 95% of national newspapers by circulation - are members of IPSO. A small number of publishers have joined IMPRESS.

IPSO has established strong regulatory standards and codes for its members, and offers individuals a means of redress where these standards are not met.

The Government is committed to protecting the freedom of the press and recognises that a vibrant and free press plays an invaluable role in our cultural and democratic life.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

Since July 2011, on the initiative of the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, the Government has published in its Ministerial transparency data details of meetings with senior media executives, including not only official meetings, but social and political meetings.

As outlined in the transparency return for the Q2 2022 period, this was a social meeting. The Government does not hold details of such informal, non-governmental meetings.

I would observe that since 2016, it is the Labour Party which has stopped publishing transparency data on frontbench meetings with senior media executives, breaking a commitment made during the Leveson Inquiry.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Since the report of the Leveson Inquiry was published in 2012, we have seen a fundamental reform of the self-regulatory landscape for the press, including the establishment of two new regulators, Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS). The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A small number of publishers have joined IMPRESS.

These regulators enforce codes of conduct which provide guidelines on a range of areas, including discrimination, accuracy, privacy, and harassment. If they find that a newspaper has broken the code of conduct, they can order corrections.

The Government is committed to independent self-regulation of the press, and does not intervene in or oversee the work of IPSO.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

I can confirm that the Government has not stopped publishing this data. The Government has consistently published transparency data on official hospitality at Chequers since 2010.

Since 2015, the Chequers hospitality data is clearly listed within the "ministerial gifts, hospitality, travel and meetings" category of Ministerial returns on gov.uk.

I would observe that since 2016, it is the Labour Party which has stopped publishing transparency data on frontbench meetings with senior media executives, breaking a key commitment made during the Leveson Inquiry.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Since the report of the Leveson Inquiry was published in 2012, we have seen a fundamental reform of the self-regulatory landscape for the press, including the establishment of two new regulators, Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS). The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A small number of publishers have joined IMPRESS.

IPSO has established strong regulatory standards and codes for its members, and offers individuals a means of redress where these standards are not met.

The Government is committed to protecting the freedom of the press and recognises that a vibrant and free press plays an invaluable role in our cultural and democratic life.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

The Government has made clear that it does not intend to proceed with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. This decision was reached following a public consultation and having taken into account all of the views and evidence submitted. Reopening the inquiry is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest. This position was reiterated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

There have been extensive reforms to policing practices as well as significant changes to press self-regulation.

Since Lord Justice Leveson published his report on part 1 of the inquiry in 2012, the Government has considered all eight recommendations and introduced a number of reforms to policing. This includes the publication of the policing Code of Ethics by the College of Policing in 2014; guidance on relationships with the media; guidance on whistle-blowing; new powers for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate without referral from the police and voluntary notification by chief constables of post-service employment for 12 months.

There now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A number of smaller publishers have joined Impress.

These regulators enforce codes of conduct which provide guidelines on a range of areas, including discrimination, accuracy, privacy, and harassment. If they find that a newspaper has broken the code of conduct, they can order corrections or critical adjudications.

IPSO, unlike its predecessor the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has the contractual power to legally enforce all the obligations into which the press has entered. This includes determining the wording, where a ruling is placed in a newspaper, in what font size and on what page. As well as dealing with complaints, IPSO can launch a standards investigation in cases where there may have been serious and systemic breaches of the Editors’ Code. IPSO also now has a compulsory low cost arbitration scheme, introduced in August 2018, that all member national newspapers have signed up to. This can be used to make claims for defamation, privacy and harassment, and some data protection breaches.

In 2016 IPSO commissioned its own independent review which found it had made some important achievements in demonstrating it was an independent and effective regulator, and that it was largely compliant with the recommendations of the Leveson Report.

Answering body: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

The Government has made clear that it does not intend to proceed with Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. This decision was reached following a public consultation and having taken into account all of the views and evidence submitted. Reopening the inquiry is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest. This position was reiterated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

The media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson Inquiry. Today, our press is facing new and critical challenges that threaten its livelihood and sustainability.

The Inquiry and subsequent police investigations were comprehensive. More than 300 people gave evidence to the Inquiry, and over 40 people were convicted during the three major investigations. There have been extensive reforms to policing practices as well as significant changes to press self-regulation.

There now exists a strengthened, independent, self-regulatory system for the press. The majority of traditional publishers—including 95% of national newspapers by circulation—are members of IPSO. A number of smaller publishers have joined IMPRESS.