Recommendation L49: Narrow Section 32 Exemption Scope
From An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, published 29 November 2012.
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.
In brief (written by this site)
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. The record below is the sources' own words.
Government response
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.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: The Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 2012, the day the report was published, and his answers to members' questions on it (Official Report, HC Deb vol 554, from col 446). He speaks for the Government; the site files his words under the Prime Minister's Office.
Site note: The Prime Minister speaks of the report's proposed changes to the Data Protection Act together (col 448), without naming a recommendation. The same words are recorded on recommendations 48, 49 and 51, the proposals that would change how journalists are treated under the Act. He states no position on them, so the site records the response as noted.
Blanket government agreement does not establish acceptance or delivery by each addressee. Some response passages cover groups of recommendations.
Scope of the government response
PM David Cameron responded to all 92 recommendations with a single statement accepting them "in principle" or "in part". No per-recommendation response was published.
Delivery
UK Government states no delivery position (13 December 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
Source
Responsible bodies
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street
Response - UK Government
Delivery statement