Narrow Section 32 Exemption Scope
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Government responsePrime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street: Noted (Nov 2012)
DeliveryUK Government states no delivery position (Dec 2017)
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
The exemption in section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 should be narrowed in scope, so that it no longer allows, by itself, for exemption from: (a) the requirement of the first data protection principle to process personal data fairly (except in relation to the provision of information to the data subject under paragraph 2(1)(a) of Part II Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act) and in accordance with statute law; (b) the second data protection principle (personal data to be obtained only for specific purposes and not processed incompatibly with those purposes); (c) the fourth data protection principle (personal data to be accurate and kept up to date); (d) the sixth data protection principle (personal data to be processed in accordance with the rights of individuals under the Act); (e) the eighth data protection principle (restrictions on exporting personal data); and (f) the right of subject access. The recommendation on the removal of the right of subject access from the scope of section 32 is subject to any necessary clarification that the law relating to the protection of journalists' sources is not affected by the Act.
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 narrowing the scope of data protection exemptions available to journalists. In December 2017, Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate-General for Scotland, stated for the UK Government that the Data Protection Bill protected journalists relying on exemptions for public interest journalism regardless of regulator membership, though the specific restrictions named in the recommendation were not mentioned (Lord Keen of Elie, Dec 2017). Earlier, in November 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that proposals reducing special data protection treatment for journalists required careful consideration regarding their potential effect on investigative journalism (David Cameron response, Nov 2012; David Cameron, Nov 2012).
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 1 Oct 2026.
Report-level response context
Government response
●Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street · Noted · 29 Nov 2012
In support of this, Lord Justice Leveson makes some important proposals. First, he proposes some changes to the Data Protection Act that would reduce the special treatment that journalists are afforded when dealing with personal data. We must consider this very carefully, particularly the impact that it could have on investigative journalism. Although I have been able to make only preliminary investigations about that proposal since reading the report, I am instinctively concerned about it.
Response document: Leveson Inquiry (House of Commons statement)
Delivery
●UK Government states no delivery position · 13 Dec 2017
Finally, I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness that aim to create a special group of exemptions only for those journalists who are members of an approved regulator. As drafted, the Bill is designed to protect journalists who should be able legitimately to rely on these exemptions when undertaking journalism in the public interest, regardless of which regulator they belong to or whether they belong to any at all.
From: Data Protection Bill [HL], Report (2nd Day) (Continued), Lords Chamber, Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate-General for Scotland, responding for the Government
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.