Repeal Procedural Provisions
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
The procedural provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 with special application to journalism in: (a) section 32(4) and (5) (b) sections 44 to 46 inclusive should be repealed.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- The procedural stay provisions that had allowed media organisations to halt ICO enforcement action simply by claiming journalistic purpose no longer exist in the DPA 2018 framework (Data Protection Act 2018, legislation.gov.uk).
Sources
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
The Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012: "I am instinctively concerned about this proposal. There is a real danger of this recommendation being used to curb freedom of the press. We need to consider this very carefully - particularly the impact this could have on investigative journalism." The Data Protection Act 2018 retained a broad journalism exemption (Schedule 2, Part 5) and did not implement this specific recommendation. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-cameron-statement-in-response-to-the-leveson-inquiry-report
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 23 May 2018 · UK Parliament The procedural provisions with special application to journalism were not repealed as Leveson recommended. The DPA 2018 maintained equivalent protections for journalistic processing. 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.