ICO and Regulatory Membership
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: Information Commissioner
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
In any reconsideration of the powers of the Information Commissioner (or replacement body), power should be given to that body to determine that membership of a satisfactory regulatory body, which required appropriate governance and transparency standards from its members in relation to compliance with data protection legislation and good practice, should be taken into account when considering whether it is necessary or proportionate to take any steps in relation to a subscriber to that body.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created an incentive for publishers to join a recognised regulatory body, was enacted but never commenced. On 1 March 2018, the Secretary of State announced that Section 40 would not be commenced and would be repealed. Section 40 was repealed by Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 (Royal Assent 24 May 2024). This recommendation was contingent on a costs incentive framework that no longer exists. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leveson-consultation-response
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 27 Feb 2025 · Government / ICO The recommendation that the ICO should take regulatory membership into account when considering enforcement action was not implemented. The Data Protection Act 2018 does not give the ICO this power. The ICO has been notably cautious about enforcing data protection law against the press. View source → Not Implemented
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.