Advisory Service on Public Interest
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: Press
Government responsePrime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street: Accepted in part (Nov 2012)
DeliveryNo statement from Press found
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
A new regulatory body should consider whether it might provide an advisory service to editors in relation to consideration of the public interest in taking particular actions.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
AI-generated evidence summary
The Inquiry recommended that a press regulator consider offering public interest advice to editors. In November 2012, David Cameron, Prime Minister, stated to the House of Commons that he accepted the Leveson principles and that the onus lay with the press to put them in place (David Cameron response, Nov 2012). The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press, granted by the Privy Council in October 2013, provided that a regulatory body should give non-binding guidance on interpreting the public interest that justifies code breaches, and that its board should have discretion to advise editors on code compliance (Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press, Oct 2013; Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press, Oct 2013).
Sources
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 2 Oct 2026.
Report-level response context
Government response
●Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street · Accepted in part · 29 Nov 2012
In volume IV of the report, Lord Justice Leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organised by the media. He details the key “requirements” that an independent self-regulatory body should meet, including independence of appointments and funding, a standards code, an arbitration service, and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose up to million-pound fines. These are the Leveson principles. They are the central recommendations of the report. If they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims, and a step change in the way the press is regulated in our country. I accept these principles, and I hope that the whole House will come in behind them. The onus should now be on the press to implement them—and implement them radically.
Response document: Leveson Inquiry (House of Commons statement)
Delivery
No statement on delivery from Press has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.
What other bodies have found
●UK Government · 30 Oct 2013
17. The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, at any time although (in its discretion) it should be able to offer a service of advice to editors of subscribing publications relating to code compliance.
Earlier findings (1)
●UK Government · 30 Oct 2013
8C. A self-regulatory body should provide non-binding guidance on the interpretation of the public interest that justifies what would otherwise constitute a breach of the standards code.
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.