Data Protection (Charges and Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde)]

My Lords, I declare an interest which every Member of this House who speaks will have to declare so perhaps I can save them the bother. I will benefit from the fact that I will not have to pay the £40 charge if the regulations are approved. Secondly, my wife is a parish councillor and will also benefit.

The original regulations were debated and approved in this House on 20 March 2018. Noble Lords may recall that those regulations introduced a new charging structure to fund the Information Commissioner’s Office. The authority for doing so derived at the time from the Digital Economy Act 2017, now superseded by the powers set out in Section 137 of the Data Protection Act 2018. As we promised during those debates, we are now looking to implement a new exemption from the annual data protection charge for elected representatives, candidates for election and Members of the House of Lords for processing that they undertake in the course of fulfilling their democratic duties.

The new data protection framework is about protecting personal data—that is, information that can identify individuals. Some of us in this House will be data controllers—we may hold personal data—and are responsible for how that information is processed. There may be a number of reasons why we hold that personal data—for example, we may have been entrusted with it by members of the public for particular aspects of parliamentary work—but, as data controllers, we have various obligations under the Data Protection Act, including how we look after that information.

While we have previously debated the importance of having an adequately funded regulator, there will be some situations where it would be unreasonable for some data controllers to pay the charge or where the charge would give rise to unintended negative consequences. For that reason, Schedule 1 to the funding regulations details a number of exemptions to the payment of the charge. For example, any data controller who processes personal data only for staff administration purposes, or purely for advertising, marketing and public relations reasons, is not required to pay.

During the parliamentary debate of the original funding regulations on 20 March last year, the Government undertook to review these exemptions. A public consultation took place last summer and has been available online since June 2018. The consultation sought views on whether each of the exemptions was still appropriate; a proposed new exemption for elected representatives, prospective candidates for election and Members of the House of Lords; and whether any other new exemptions should be introduced. Respondents were broadly supportive of the current exemptions regime. However, there was also support for one new exemption for elected representatives, candidates, including prospective candidates for election, and Members of the House of Lords.

The Government’s view is that activity deriving from elected representatives’ public offices and functions should not be liable to a charge. Charges of this nature potentially represent a perceived or actual barrier to democratic engagement. A number of respondents supported this view. In light of this support, we have decided to take this amendment forward for implementation, so I now come to the details of the instrument.

The amendment introduces an exemption for: Members of the House of Lords who are entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to attend this House specifically for the purposes of related functions; elected representatives, as defined in paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 in connection with the discharge of their respective functions; and relevant processing undertaken by candidates, prospective and nominated, seeking to become elected representatives. These exemptions cover those who are acting on instructions or on behalf of such Members and elected or prospective representatives. Importantly, that is not to say that all processing of data conducted by those listed in the amendment, including all Members of this House, is automatically exempt from paying a charge. The instrument makes it clear that the exemption relates solely to processing carried out by these parties in connection with their democratic functions.

In the case of prospective candidates, the exemption would apply only to processing in connection with those activities related to election or re-election in a post. It is important to extend the exemption to anyone seeking to become an elected representative, not just to nominated candidates. This is because formal nomination, the stage at which candidates are defined in electoral legislation, occurs only in the immediate lead-up to an election. Activity to support re-election is likely to predate this stage. Excluding prospective candidates from this exemption would place them at a financial disadvantage compared with their incumbent counterparts. We have restricted the application of the exemption to data processing associated with the functions of our respective roles. This provides a safeguard against misuse, for example by individuals falsely claiming to be prospective candidates.

I want to be clear that the exemption relates only to the payment of the annual data protection charge. It is not an exemption from data controllers’ important data protection responsibilities. Anyone who does not adhere to those responsibilities and principles will face enforcement action by the ICO.

I hope noble Lords will agree that this amendment is important to encourage wider participation in the democratic engagement process. The removal of a requirement to pay the annual data protection charge to the ICO will ensure that all prospective candidates will start their electoral campaigns on a footing equal to that of elected representatives already in post. It also reflects the high regard the Government place upon those undertaking public functions. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this statutory instrument and the exemptions provided for. Like the Minister and, I think, everybody in this House, we do not want a tax on democracy, but people should be assured that the legal responsibilities remain the same and can be quite onerous. The Minister’s last remark was that we must not allow people to use the candidate or even the MP or Peer as cover for activities that would be outside the narrow exemption of this House.

This reminds me of debates we had some 20 or even 30 years ago—in the early 1990s—when we brought in legislation about the financing of political parties. I remember that those of us who had experience of working for political parties were very conscious that they are all made up of volunteers, often amateurs. There was a danger in that legislation—and I think there still is—of putting on to enthusiastic volunteer amateurs, who make our democracy work, very onerous financial responsibilities in terms of election spending and, in this case, very onerous data protection responsibilities. There might be a case for giving political parties some funding for advice, training and support to make sure that these responsibilities are understood and work well.

What the Minister has had to say is very welcome, and we are all involved in this, but it appears that the initial advice was a little confusing and caused concern. Once these regulations are approved, as I am sure they will be, I wonder whether the House authorities can issue some clear and definitive advice that will be of benefit to Members of this House. We look forward to this SI being passed.

Ofcom: RT News Channel

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not want to talk specifically about RT for the reasons I mentioned. Ofcom has sanctions which can include fines, suspension or revocation of a licence if Ofcom deems that suitable.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Ofcom licenses many hundreds of broadcasters in London? This is a good example of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, often refers to as Britain’s soft power. Is it not very important that we leave Ofcom to the job it was given with the powers it was given? The idea that some kind of political or government pressure was involved does not set a good precedent with regard to closing radio or television stations. We should let RT make its case to Ofcom, let Ofcom use its powers and then see what happens.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That is why I said in my initial Answer that it is right for Ofcom to make decisions without government interference.

Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree with that. The difference here is that it was a very popular decision, which always makes it easier.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister take a more sober judgment? In 2005 this House, and Parliament as a whole, thought that it had done a magnificent thing in stopping the advent of super-casinos. It was the euphoria of stopping them that allowed for the introduction of gambling machines to go through almost unnoticed. There is a danger in the euphoria here also. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others are right. It is the growth of online gambling and the changes in technology that afford it that will give us the next problem. I urge that the research and analysis into online gambling is carried out with rigour and it is not simply left to the industry to self-regulate, clever as it may be with its artificial intelligence and its algorithms. Independent research is needed, which can advise government in the future, otherwise this problem will come back in another form.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I take that point. I am absolutely not suggesting that today’s announcement is the end of it. We will be very specific: the Gambling Commission is looking at requiring operators to set limits on customer spending until affordability checks have been concluded and at bringing forward stricter licence requirements for gambling companies to interact with vulnerable customers. This is not something that we are just letting them get on with; it is being required of them. If a company were to break such stricter licence requirements, it could lose its licence. There would be very serious sanctions if a company did it wrong. The Gambling Commission is also examining proposals to prohibit reverse withdrawals and the use of credit cards for online gambling. We will continue to pay close attention to the operators’ progress in using behavioural data to identify problem gamblers. We are not just sitting back and saying that this is it. We are monitoring it. The Gambling Commission continues to monitor it and is putting in stricter conditions.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

I raise fake news as an issue not because it is or is not covered by the amendment but because it must concern us all, particularly as a society.

There are good reasons for rejecting the amendment. It would be an analogue inquiry in an overwhelmingly digital age. It would also—rightly, in my view—be seen as yet another attempt by politicians to meddle in the internal affairs of news media and, ultimately, to muzzle free expression.

This country, which should be a beacon of free expression in a world bedevilled by state censorship, has just fallen from 30th to 40th in the global ranking for free speech, according to a survey conducted by independent minds right across the world. Let that sink in my lords: from 30th to 40th. It is shaming. What message are we now to send out? That the free media are enemies of the state? They may be unruly and they may challenge us in ways that make us uncomfortable, but they are not our enemies.

Furthermore, it concerns me that we are playing around with the Salisbury convention. The noble and learned Lord has just spoken about promises. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, this amendment flies directly in the face of last year’s Conservative Party manifesto. On page 80, that document said that,

“we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.

That was pretty clear. I know that the Labour Party had a euphoric moment after the last general election, almost persuading itself that it had won, but it did not.

I take no comfort from the qualifying words that the noble Baroness has added to her amendment this time around. We are dealing here with profound matters that touch on the very basis of our society and our political philosophy, and the question of whether we truly cherish our freedom of expression and our free media. I suppose ping-pong can be an enjoyable pastime but at some point the views of the elected House must prevail. I have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness and the greatest sympathy for the unacceptable treatment that she and her family, and far too many others, have received from the press. Having said that, I sincerely hope she will not seek to divide the House again on this matter.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, this has been a passionate and, actually, very balanced debate. A number of noble Lords have expressed concern about the amendment before us and have, sort of, made a case against it.

When the noble Lord, Lord Black, came in, struggling on his crutches, I did think: is there no end to which this man will not go to get sympathy from this House? I wish him a speedy recovery.

When introducing the debate, the Minister said first that these amendments have no place in the Bill because it is about data protection and then began to dazzle us with the number of government amendments that pertain to the media. Of course it is perfectly sensible that this matter should be in the Bill.

By the way, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, that I did not say I object to journalists; I object to journalists at the Times. She mentioned the growing power of the ICO in all this, which is something that the press should think hard about. The press have been so busy trying to avoid having a proper regulator for themselves that they find themselves well and truly regulated by a powerful ICO. Where the ICO does not regulate the press, the courts may with some of the judgments that are coming down the track.

As always, the perorations against, as with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have been about freedom and liberty, as though we on this side are not as passionate in our defence of those. Today’s debate has produced the usual press stories that crop up when either House debates the issue. They always either rubbish one or other of the more popular proponents of reform or carry, as did the Evening Standard just before the Commons debate, such headlines as that from the Commons Culture Minister, Margot James: “We will lose freedom of the press if MPs back new curbs”. It is my belief that the real defenders of press freedom are not the Ministers scrambling to close Leveson down but those of us who want to see a press that is respected and trusted, as well as free.

When the Commons debated our amendment, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, the new Erskine May, said rather imperiously that Parliament had every right to renege on promises made by a predecessor. Of course, he is right—we know that, Jacob. However, it is also a long and honourable convention that there is a continuity of responsibility from one Parliament and one Government to another. We saw it last week when the Prime Minister gave a full and unequivocal apology to the Libyan family for Britain’s part in their rendition and subsequent torture, although it did not happen on her watch. The long tradition of continuity of responsibility means that a promise given by one Prime Minister and one Parliament is unlikely to be abandoned by another. There is a double matter of honour when the promise in question was made by a Prime Minister of the party now in power. David Cameron gave such commitments, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, gives the House of Commons a way of redeeming that promise while taking into account the passage of time since it was made.

I often find that, when I am indignant having read in the newspaper or seen on TV some summing up or sentence by a judge, my lawyer friends will say, “Ah, but the judge who has heard all the evidence is the best placed to make a balanced judgment on the matter”. In this case, we have the balanced judgment of Sir Brian Leveson himself. Let us remember, after the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that Sir Brian had all the information they had to make their speeches but came to a different conclusion: that it should go on. As I said when the Leveson letter first came up, here is the third most senior judge in the land taking six pages in a very carefully argued letter to give his views on the inquiry on which he spent a year of his life. Some noble and learned Lords in the House should have a little modesty when challenging his judgment because it is absolutely clear that Leveson 2 should go ahead. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has already quoted from the letter, so I will not waste time.

The amendment before us is proportionate to the task at hand in addressing issues not yet adequately addressed. It redeems a solemn promise made by our Prime Minister and our Parliament. Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of Index on Censorship, when briefing against these proposals before the Commons debate, said that she wanted,

“a free, vibrant, independent and troublesome media”.

So do I, and so does the proposer of the amendment. The biggest threat to a free, vibrant, independent and troublesome media is one so held in public contempt because of corrupt and illegal practices that few defenders will come to its aid if press freedom is really threatened.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, that, when the Leveson inquiry exposed sins and criminality, the Government of the day could at that time have done anything they liked to the press. What they did was make a strong attempt to create something as far from political control as possible—I was one of the privy counsellors who signed the royal charter. It is absolutely false to claim that the attempt was to create a state-controlled press. That was never on the table and it is not on the table now.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been brave in carrying through on Section 40, has said that we will not press it beyond tonight. I am interested to see which bit of legislation will include its repeal and how that will be favoured when it comes back to us. I say to the Minister: this is not the end of Section 40.

Tonight, we are looking for something more. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, have shown, we are looking at something for the victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, should note that it is also something for journalists who need protection from being bullied into illegal acts by their employers. Most of all, it is for our own self-respect in keeping a promise made. I urge support for this amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we are 90 minutes in and we have heard lots of familiar tropes rehashed and replayed, but have we achieved very much in this debate? While sitting here I have been wondering how on earth one brings together the two very different sides that are emerging in this debate. I whispered to my colleagues on my right and left asking for help and support, and all I got was, “You need the judgment of Solomon on this”, and I do not have that. However, we are going to ask noble Lords to vote on this issue, and so I want us to think very hard about what we have been doing here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. It is nice that in the last group I will handle on it—touch wood—I leave the Bill in a glow of good will. I am particularly pleased that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and that we have been able to respond to some of the concerns and points raised in this House. In many ways, the Bill has been an object lesson of discussion on a very technical Bill. We have made progress. I certainly acknowledge and am very grateful for the support and co-operation I have had from both opposition Front Benches.

[Lord McNally]

As a little footnote, which might give encouragement to others, I first raised the Thomson Reuters matter because it sponsored a conference at the Guildhall well over a year ago about the coming of the GDPR. I went along to find out about it. I and the other Benches raised this from that. It has now ended up in the Bill. It is an encouragement to companies that sometimes think that legislation is a mysterious place that, by taking little bit of effort to put the case and extend it, they can have real influence.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. That brings me nicely to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about arbitrators. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, mentioned the importance of arbitration to the economy of this country. I am only too well aware of it from my background in insurance. London has a very well-respected legal system, but the arbitration system is linked to that. We certainly would not wish in any way to hinder it. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did, the people who brought this up seemed to do so at the last minute. I slightly wonder how they managed to miss this trick, if it is so obvious, for the two years that the GDPR has been in place, let alone—

Social Media: News

Lord McNally Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, the summing up of a debate such as this is always difficult and today it is almost impossible. I will not mention all the contributions—as I say, that would be impossible. I will mention three. I am delighted to be following the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. As she knows, I am one of her groupies in that I have looked to her for advice on this area since I was a Minister and she was part of an advisory group, which I confess I referred to in my private office as “Geeks Anonymous”. I am also thankful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I said after her amendment that hers was a parliamentary triumph and a game-changer. I believe that the Kidron amendment will be referred to time and again in the years to come as having changed the weather in how we approach this. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has been my mentor and friend on these issues for 20 years and I am grateful that he has intervened again today. As for the rest of you, all I can possibly do is amend a saying beloved of our American friends: there has not been so much wisdom concentrated in one place since Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

My own mentor, Jim Callaghan, used to like to say, “A lie can be halfway around the world before truth has got its boots on”. Jim used to say that in the 1970s: now, of course, it is in nanoseconds, or whatever is the flash of light in terms of information. How our societies come to terms with what has been termed the fourth industrial revolution, the data revolution or whatever, will be one of the great challenges. Matthew Parris, who entered the Commons in the same 1979 intake as I did, wrote in the Times on 30 December:

“The internet is a jungle that can’t be tamed. It would be impossible to censor social media so we might as well embrace fake news and learn to ignore the insults”.


I admire Matthew Parris, both in his political career and as a journalist, but it is a thought with which I profoundly disagree. It is the task of this generation to bring the new technologies within the rule of law and of democratic accountability. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that we need to get the balance right and to make a proper judgment about benefits and real harm, but I also agree with her that saying no politely is not enough of a response for these social media giants.

I think that in many ways we are in the same position as politicians who had to face the massive changes of the industrial revolution, and in the United States the massive growth of corporations. The political systems showed the ability to tackle the big trusts, the monopolies and the health and safety, hours of work and all the rest. We must not preach a feeling of doom about this: they are not beyond our control, but when I say control, it is that light touch. When I was the Minister working on the general directive which is at the core of the Bill that was debated in the House yesterday, the British position was constantly to have light-touch regulation. We were mostly opposed by countries which only but recently had experience of a Stasi, or the power of an intrusive state, so I understand the balances and the discussions.

In many ways, some of the agonising in this debate today is always there in a liberal democracy—small “l”, small “d”. In liberal democracies, we agonise about what the limits of free speech are, and if we put limits on it, we worry about why we do so. In that respect, as I hinted in the debate yesterday, I am closer to the noble Lord, Lord Black, than might be imagined. I really am worried that these big companies can, as it were, asset-strip the communications industry in a way that undermines the ecology of all communication. I cannot remember which of the White Papers it was from some time during the 1980s or 1990s that talked about diversity, quality and choice as the aim of policy, as far as communications in its widest sense goes. I still believe that is important and that to have that diversity, quality and choice, we must make sure that our print media are not dramatically undermined. I took to heart what the news media associations said on how these new technology companies are undermining and weakening them.

I have also had the briefing, as most of those taking part probably have, from ITV, Channel 4 and Sky about the impact on them. Of particular interest, and an old concern of mine, is the BBC. If our communications ecology is under threat from these companies, it is more important than ever that we continue to support the BBC and the other public service broadcasters in the job that they do. We need to be careful that they are not undermined by what these tech companies are doing. This is not only in the provision of news but in the undermining of these companies in providing an underpinning of our cultural values, in the programmes they commission and the work they do. Ofcom has to take on its new responsibilities by not only regulating or oversighting the BBC but by defending it against unfair attacks. In this new age, a BBC dedicated to inform, educate and reform is more needed than ever.

I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about education. Again, it is good that we have had this overlap between the Data Protection Bill, which we debated yesterday, and this debate. We are talking about getting ourselves ready for this transformation. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that it is as big a change as the invention of the printing press. It is a complete challenge to almost every sector of our society and if our democratic institutions are to be able to survive the assault that this era of rapid change brings to us, we will have to be ready. I will cite again that when the Education Act 1870 was passed, it was said that they had to educate their masters. Well, now we have to educate our population—not just our children but us all.

We have also got to educate ourselves. I was invited to a round table as an expert on the digital economy. I said that I am not an expert but a politician trying to learn about what this involves for our society. I strongly support the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, of an ad hoc committee of this House. I know that is not a ministerial responsibility. This debate is not an end in itself. It is part of a process of getting ourselves prepared and ready for some of the challenges that new technologies are going to bring to Parliament and to our society.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting Hansard: House of Lords
Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a Times columnist. Perhaps I may also start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the opportunity to listen to what she had to say, which it was impossible to do without regarding it as moving and passionate and a cause for reflection. It would be an insult to free debate if I did not say to the noble Baroness that listening to her has made a deep impression on me. I thank her for what she had to say.

I am afraid that I do not agree with the remedy being proposed by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I could propose a minor procedural innovation, which is that before people go through the Division Lobbies and vote for a further inquiry, they might be required to provide evidence that they have read all of the previous one. It ran to 2,000 pages, with 115 pages on data protection, which people may not have come across because they started on page 997. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested that a second inquiry which delved into the relationship between politicians among others and the press was a good idea. That inquiry was also conducted by Leveson. I know that because I was in it. It was set out in the third volume, and not many people who were not working in the legal departments of newspapers mentioned it to me.

I understand the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about the Times’ comments this morning. It is the normal habit of columnists to say, “I didn’t write the headline”, but in this case I am happy to stand behind it. Of course I understand that nothing would occur less to noble friends and noble Lords than to attack free speech—nobody thinks that that is what they are doing, and de jure they can claim that it is not what they are doing—but please do not have the impression that, de facto, it makes no difference to the free publication of criticism and newspapers if we have yet another inquiry. I know that it is not what the motivation is, but it is effectively harassment to continue to ask the same questions and have inquiries into the same issues. We have heard many moving examples that are covered by two things. They were either raised by the Leveson inquiry or they are capable of being dealt with by criminal, political or arbitration solutions. The idea of having another inquiry therefore justifies how the Times put it this morning.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer or journalist. If I was to describe myself as anything it is a jobbing politician. But each and every one of us in this House has to make their decision as a jobbing politician. Quite frankly, and with the utmost possible respect—I know that is what you always say when you are about to be rude—having listened to the lawyers, my head spins. That is why, in the end, we have to make a political judgment.

The truth is, we are where we are because the press that the noble Lord, Lord Black, speaks for—I make no criticism of that—decided that they would not co-operate. We could have had a working system backed by a royal charter from the beginning. Those of good will on all sides could have made that effective. It was the decision of the noble Lord and his friends not to make it work. Everything we have had since then flows from that determination that they would not make the legislation, which passed through both Houses with massive majorities, work. That is why we are in the position we are in now.

We then have to add to that the fact that, sadly, the Conservatives decided to go back on the pledge that the Prime Minister of the day made to the victims that they would have the full second inquiry. They put it into their manifesto, which, noble Lords may have noticed, did not get the approval that they would then claim as a strength in this House.

The position we have now is that the consultation is in the works. Lord Leveson, who must be a glutton for punishment, has said that he wants to look at not only the conclusions, but the submissions and will make positions of his own. What worries me is that, unless we do something tonight to send this matter forward to the other place, it will be taken out of the hands of Parliament. It is a rough old way of doing it, but by passing this amendment it will go to the Commons at a time when the Commons will be cognisant of the amendment as an opinion of the House of Lords, the outcome of the consultation and the opinions of Lord Leveson. That strengthens the position of Matt Hancock, the new Secretary of State—an appointment I very much welcome—but we all know how it works: Ministers in the department may be very willing to give assurances that we will have an inquiry somewhere down the line, but then they will get a call from No. 10 saying, “You can’t: you won’t do this”. We have to strengthen the hand of Ministers who want to carry this through to a proper and honourable conclusion.

We have again heard all the usual arguments. There is no threat of state control of the press. I say to the noble Lord, Finkelstein, to look again at that headline and see whether he is still proud of it. Another Lord Attlee once said he only read one newspaper, the Times, and that was for the cricket scores. I am not sure he would trust the cricket scores these days.

One pertinent item of briefing noble Lords will have had, and to which a number of Members have alluded, was in the rather shrill briefing paper from the News Media Association, which says that,

“the industry faces acute challenge from global digital platforms which reap commercial rewards from the news industry’s investments, yet invest nothing in news content themselves and are treated as mere conduits, with freedom from the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers”.

As the noble and learned Lord said, that is the real challenge to the press. The noble Lord is diverting and losing friends by this obstinate refusal to build the strength that would come from royal charter-approved press regulation. I know that he worked with the PCC, but this is not a 10-year problem. For the last 30 years, we have had this problem that press regulation by itself has never carried credibility. It did not carry it in his day, which is why they got rid of it. If I can remember rightly, they got rid of the one before that in the midst of a scandal. They will probably get rid of IPSO when the next scandal comes along, because it will not work.

I suggest that we strengthen the hands of Ministers by passing these amendments to make sure that, when it goes to the Commons, there is an opportunity in the light of all the facts to make a fully informed decision. I was one of the Ministers who signed the royal charter. I can assure the House that for both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers—we were in full consultation with the Opposition at that time—the one thing we wanted to avoid was any sniff or smell of state regulation. The real intention was to protect the press, not just the press owners. My belief is that, if they had followed through on the royal charter and had a proper regulator, it would protect individual journalists. I always remember during another scandal a very senior member of the Times had just rewritten their regulations yet again. I said, “What if the Daily Mail scooped you on something that you decided was prevented by your new charter?” He said, “Rupert would fire me”. It is that that we want to protect individual journalists and their integrity from.

This would be a step forward. It would keep the political debate going in the place where it needs to be made—the House of Commons. We should make sure that we vote as politicians, thinking about the reality of it. All my life in politics I have made judgments on things by looking around and seeing who was smiling. If noble Lords defeat these amendments, those who will be smiling are those who have done most damage to the press by what they did while in charge of the press. Those who will be in despair are those individual citizens who have not seen their privacy or civil liberties protected. The House would feel ashamed of itself.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally (LD)]

We need to get to the Front Benches soon. I am sorry but I think the Times newspaper has had quite a good run tonight.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

We have heard from journalists, we have heard from lawyers—come on.

Before we hear from the Front Benches, I want to say that it would be perfectly good to have this debate and listen to all these distinguished speakers if we were looking at a few tweaks to the 1998 Act, which otherwise had run perfectly smoothly, and if in the 20 years since then we had seen nothing to perturb us about how the law was working. The truth is that we are operating against the background of Lord Leveson’s report. I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as all three of them know, but I also have the greatest respect for Lord Leveson. I saw him week after week in one of the most public examinations of how the law was working that we have ever seen in this country. It revealed abuse on an industrial scale by many of the people who have spoken about their profession tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham]

Does the noble Lord accept that the amendment he supports will tilt the argument against free speech and chill the ability of the press to publish?

[Lord McNally]

No. The amendment I have put forward is exactly the finding of Leveson—that what was wrong in the 1998 Act was an imbalance the wrong way. That is what Leveson found and suggested that Parliament put right. There may be many other ways of putting it right, but to say that what Leveson did was somehow to be totally ignored ignores not only Leveson itself but the findings and support of both Houses of Parliament. Since Leveson and the setting up of the royal charter—I was the Minister involved with that—nobody could have tried more than that set of Ministers to find a solution that was as far away from state regulation as we could possibly find.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I—

[Lord McNally]

I am trying to wind up, but carry on.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

The noble Lord said that Leveson found that the press had abused its position and looked to Parliament to put it right. Would the noble Lord not agree that Parliament has put it right with Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, but that the Government have not given effect to that provision?

[Lord McNally]

I am grateful for that accurate intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asks from a sedentary position what the answer is. The noble Lord, Lord Low, is right: the Government have not gone ahead with Section 40. The Government have sat on their hands.

All I will say in conclusion is that the media can roll out all their lawyers and journalists, and they can write their editorials suggesting that we are attacking press freedom: they know it is rubbish and not true. Unless the Government deal with the real hurt, problem and exposed faults of the media, this will continue. A sensible, smart Government—one advised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—would deal with these problems now rather than let it drag on into 2018, as it will. We will vote for the amendment.

[Lord Finkelstein]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will forgive me, but I feel his comments require response. I recall at a university meeting when we had to discuss rules for debate, one student started a speech with, “I’m a liberal, but I’m against free speech”. I notice we have a very large turnout of both small “l” and big “L” liberals in the House, which usually suggests we are about to ban something. I am very sorry to be on the other side from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who has been my inspiration and mentor for many years, but I have to disagree with him on this.

First, the proponents of these various amendments argue that these changes are not an attack on free speech but, in practice, they are. They tilt the balance against investigative journalism, scrutiny of the powerful and legitimate inquiry. The high bar introduced of necessity would have a chilling effect for anyone who has worked on practical investigations. What will happen is not so much that the law will be used, but that it will never be used because investigations will not take place.

Secondly, the proponents say that this is not about state regulation of the media, but it is. It will be done in two ways. The Information Commissioner will end up with so much power that he or she will become a press regulator whether or not he or she wishes to. That would be the impact of Amendment 55. At the same time, newspapers will be pulled against their will into Impress, which has been the burden of several remarks in this debate. That is also an aim of Amendment 55. It is simply nonsense to say that all that is being sought is voluntary self-regulation when the failure to volunteer or regulate in a state-approved way and be licensed by a state body is backed up by repeated attempts to penalise and punish, as these amendments would do.

Thirdly, the proponents say that all we will be doing is controlling behaviour, not content. I am afraid that this is wilfully naive. Impress has been named as a regulator. That choice by the panel is instructive. The behaviour of the staff and board of Impress, the body the panel has approved, shows quite clearly the agenda being followed. Its chief executive has been sharing views such as:

“John Lewis is bringing its name into disrepute by advertising in a Neo-Fascist rag”,


and:

“I do like @StopFundingHate’s campaign to defund racist media”.


This means it cannot claim to be the independent regulator the noble Lord, Lord Low, talked about. This is apparently acceptable as charter-approved behaviour, yet some noble Lords are critical that national newspapers are suspicious of the charter and fear Impress.

My fourth point is very important because the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said this in Committee. I respected it and listened to it. He said that newspapers have “got away with it”. This is not the case. People went to jail, newspapers closed and the regulatory system changed utterly. Those of us working in the industry all know and agree that there has to be change. Anyone who thinks that there has not been has not read a newspaper or been in a newspaper office since the scandal broke. I respect and understand the pressure for change, but you have to take “yes” for an answer.

Finally, there is a suggestion that the public are crying out for further regulation and more inquiries. People who advance this argument must have been in different constituencies from me. The attempt to hijack Bills to bully the press into compliance is a diversion from the public interest and there is no public pressure for it. Of course, it is right to insist on high standards of behaviour, but to introduce amendments designed to help powerful people keep secrets and to make free publication harder is an odd position for liberals. All I ask is that we do not remove protections in Britain enjoyed by Europeans. Normally, this rallying cry is very effective in this House. Let us hope that it is today.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, posed the question: what does “so far as it is possible to do” mean? The Minister will be invited to respond to that but presumably it means in so far as it is not inconsistent with the specific legislative provisions contained in the Bill—I do not know; the Minister may have a better answer than that. However, it seems to me that by invoking broad generalisations there is almost an admission that the Bill is not doing the proper job. It may satisfy a number of people’s understandable concerns about somehow striking the right balance between protecting personal data and allowing free access to data that is appropriate, but inserting, rather at the last minute, two general provisions of this sort does not seem to me to be making good law.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I follow with some trepidation my successor at the Ministry of Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I do so because, for the three years before he took up his office, I was the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice who had responsibility for the negotiations around the GDPR in its early stages. It is interesting that this debate reflects very much the early gestation of the GDPR. At that point, there was a very clear division between what I would describe as the Anglo-Saxon approach—which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has expounded—and the continental approach. I suspect that is something that has bedevilled our approach to law-making in the EU over 40 years.

The truth of the Anglo-Saxon approach is this: of course we believe in these things, and if we look here, there and everywhere we will find that they are all covered; but hold that against points made by people who have only very recently experienced the power of the state and its abuse of the law by the Stasi and others. They want a much clearer definition that can be clearly observed. Thanks mainly to the hard work of my noble friend Lady Ludford in the European Parliament, we got a GDPR that was not overprescriptive in that direction but satisfied those very real concerns. We are at the same point again in this Bill.

Of course the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is undoubtedly right about the various guarantees found in this and other legislation, but the politician in me says that if we are to get the adequacy we want in due course, we must not—to use a phrase of an old mentor of mine, Joe Gormley—build platforms for malcontents to stand on. We must not leave in everybody’s mind the question of why they did not want this in the Bill, when it is such a clear statement of their beliefs and our beliefs.

To revert to my old job as a political adviser, my advice to the Minister is this. In doing what he has been asked to do—to withdraw the amendment—he should work with the amendment tabled by the Opposition and bring through at Third Reading something that will cover our Anglo-Saxon desire to see these things in law but also reassure in a very political way those who have genuine concerns and want to see us carry out and stand by these responsibilities.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I find this situation slightly difficult because it looks to me as though what is wanted is to say that there is something in the charter that is not already in the Bill; otherwise it does not seem very much to the point. If it is already in the Bill, the two proposed new clauses—which are not intended to be additional but optional—are unnecessary. If it is not in the Bill, surely we should put it in the Bill and not leave it. I do not know whether I am Anglo-Saxon, Celtic or what, but I do not distinguish between these various matters. As for being political, I am not sure that I want to be that either.

I want the Bill to be as precise as it can be in a difficult area. Both the government amendment and the opposition amendment strike me as vague. I will say a few words about the opposition amendment because the government amendment, as the Minister says, is not intended to confer any new rights. That is a clear situation. Proposed new subsection (5) of the opposition amendment states:

“Restrictions on the rights of a data subject and any limitation on the exercise of the right to the protection of personal data under this section must be provided for by legislation”.


I would like to see it stopping there. I do not see how you can start to judge the legislation that has already been passed by considering whether it respects the essence of that right. If it does not, it should not have been passed as legislation.

Proposed new subsection (6) has the same effect. It states:

“Subject to the principle of proportionality, the restrictions and limitations under subsection (5)”—


these are restrictions brought in by statute, according to subsection (5)—

“may be made only if they are necessary to support a democratic society”,

and so on. I think I know where that comes from. The point is that if that is right, it should not be in the legislation. This is a requirement about the nature of the legislation which, on the theory of proposed new subsection (5), has already been passed.

It is not appropriate for the Bill to try to control legislation which, according to this, does not seem to have been passed, unless it is already in this Bill, in which case we should accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

Does the Minister also agree that a further answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is that it is absolutely inevitable that the detailed provisions of the Bill will be, on occasion, the subject of dispute, uncertainty and litigation, and that it would be very helpful to have a statement of principle on what is intended at the commencement of the Bill? This would not be the first time that a Bill has done that. Everybody would then know what the principles were. Of course, the Minister still needs to consider before Third Reading what that statement should be, but that is the point, as I understand it, of government Amendment 1.

[Lord McNally]

Why does the Minister feel it so necessary to push ahead with his amendment when it is quite clear that the best and most constructive way forward would be for both amendments not to be pressed to allow constructive discussion and resolution at Third Reading?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Government Amendment 1 provides a basis for the discussion that we will have before Third Reading. Of course, I accept that it could be amended at that stage.

As for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I will have to read my noble friend Lord Faulks’s words. I was not entirely sure that he was as supportive as the noble Lord feels, but I may have misinterpreted him.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving these amendments with such incredible clarity that I was able to understand what they were saying. My question follows on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about how these amendments would be enforced. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said in Committee, all these issues arise in an international context. How will the international dimension work with regard to these amendments? I would be concerned if we were to impose rules in this country which might create divergence from the GDPR and hence make it more difficult to achieve the eventual accommodations with the European Union that would allow us to continue to do business with it in the longer term. There is an international dimension to all this and I do not understand how it would work with regard to these amendments.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, not for the first time in her distinguished career in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has asked some pertinent questions, the answers to which I look forward to. First, however, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is quite often difficult for a parliamentarian to know whether they have made a difference; we all get swept up in the tide of things. However, I have looked at the Bill as it has moved through both the other place and here, and without her intervention, her perseverance and her articulate exposition of the case, we would not be where we are today. She should take great credit for that.

In some respects, there is a sense of déjà vu. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in his place; I was on his committee 15 years ago which looked at the Communications Act and the implications of what were then new technologies. However, looking back, the truth is that we had only an inkling of the tsunami of technology that was about to hit us and how we would control it. There are some things that we might have done during the passage of that Bill to anticipate some problems that we did not do. However, it is always difficult to know the future. Indeed, of all the things I have had a bit to do with, the creation of Ofcom is one that I take great pride in. For all its problems, Ofcom has proved itself a most effective regulator, and these days it seems that it is asked to do more and more.

That brings us to what is being suggested with the ICO. It is extremely important that the ICO is given the resources, the teeth and the political support to carry out the robust tasks that we are now charging it with. That was not thought of for the ICO when it was first created. We are therefore creating new responsibilities, and we have to will the ends in that respect.

One of the good things about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is that this is beginning slightly to impinge on the tech companies—they cannot exist in a kind of Wild West, where anything goes. I think I said at an earlier stage that when I hear people say, “Oh well, the internet is beyond political control and the rule of law”, every fibre of my being as a parliamentarian says, “Oh no it’s not, and we’ll show you that it’s not”. This is a step towards making it clear to the tech companies that they have to step up to the plate and start developing a sense of corporate social responsibility, particularly in the area of the care of children.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord McNally Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I start by adding my strong support to the elegant amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and thank him for his perceptive evaluation of the media storm about Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.

My Amendments 170K, 170L, 170M, 171A, 172AA, 172E and 174AA would remove the existing pre-publication staying mechanism currently available to data controllers when they may be processing data for special purposes. The old Data Protection Act required that a determination had to be made by the Information Commissioner before any data protection claim could be brought in court where data might be processed for journalism. This determination, set out in a “determination notice”, would specify whether the data was indeed being processed for the special purpose of journalism.

Any claim which might involve the special purposes could be stayed in this way. This means that someone has no way of accessing the courts to establish if such publication of their personal data was legal—for example, because it was in the public interest—until after it happened. In contrast, people can do this with a privacy claim—and the sky has not fallen in, nor has investigative journalism been affected. Data privacy claims should be no different.

The new Bill currently replicates the process that was set out in the old Bill. Unlike other areas of law, and unlike processing for other purposes, before any member of the public can bring a data protection claim in the courts against a data controller prior to publication, Clauses 164 to 166 of the Bill require the ICO to make a determination as to whether the data was being processed for journalistic purposes. This means that when an individual’s data rights are unlawfully breached for publication, without any public interest justification, they can do nothing to prevent use and publication of that data until the determination process is complete, with appeal. That data could include, for example, private medical records or financial transactions that expose deeply personal information.

In practice, this means that ordinary people are denied the right to challenge in court the legality of the data being processed prior to publication. Moreover, determination is slow. When the Information Commissioner produces the determination notice, it is then subject to appeal by the publisher. Lord Justice Leveson argued that this whole mechanism is wrong in principle, and that it should be removed. This amendment would have that effect, by removing journalism from those purposes to which the stay could apply. Publishers and the public would still have access to court action, and the courts could determine whether the material has been unlawfully processed and, if it has, whether publication is protected in the public interest under the existing exemptions in the Bill.

Journalistic exemptions in the Bill would be entirely unaffected by the amendments. Where breaches are in the public interest and undertaken for publication, journalists remain exempt from all the exemptions listed elsewhere in the Bill. That is right, and it will be protected. However, the additional stay, which prevents victims of data protection breaches by newspapers trying to prevent the damage that would be done by publication before they can argue their case in court, would be removed. In summary, nothing in the amendments will interfere with investigative journalism—that is not my intention. Because this is a complicated area, with many amendments to these clauses, I certainly stand ready to discuss with colleagues the best way forward in this area before Report.

My Amendment 179A would require the Government to proceed with a public inquiry into allegations of data protection breaches by or on behalf of newspapers. Such an inquiry would be similar to the already-agreed second half of the Leveson inquiry. In 2005 it was reported, though only in the Guardian, that thousands of individuals had had their personal data, including private phone data, stolen by or on behalf of newspaper publishers. Noble Lords will recall that Operation Motorman was the scandal that allowed phone hacking to occur, but it was far more widespread than just phone hacking. It affected tabloids and other newspapers alike. Data was illegally harvested by private investigators in the pay of newspapers and used for stories or to hack phones, often without any public interest justification. A whole industry of illegal data theft propped up the front pages and exclusives of some of our most powerful and recognisable newspapers for a decade.

The Information Commissioner published two reports on Operation Motorman, first, about this practice and, secondly, on the findings of the police investigation. These included the revelations that 58 clients or journalists working for the Daily Mail had used private investigators, and that 1,482 transactions were identified between the investigators and Mirror Group titles such as the Daily Mirror and the Sunday People. Rarely was there any public interest justification. For example, the victims of crime were targeted and their partners, their colleagues and even their painters and decorators were targeted, too. Some newspapers even rehired private investigators who had been convicted of illegal data handling.

This is not ancient history. The judge in the Mirror hacking civil trial ruled that the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World used an entirely different set of private investigators hundreds, if not thousands, of times to steal phone billing data and “reverse phone numbers”, and that this was a precursor to hacking their phones. In a new civil action against the Sun, it is alleged that that newspaper continued to use a series of private investigators for illegal activities on an industrial scale all the way up to 2011, if not beyond.

A public inquiry, the Leveson inquiry, was established to investigate these matters, and I gave evidence to part 1. However, part 2, established to investigate the extent of breaches of data privacy and other illegality, and to investigate the cover-up of it, has still not taken place. This requirements of the amendment would be satisfied by the Government proceeding with Leveson part 2.

I believe I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in finding the Government’s positioning and repositioning on Leveson part 2 shameful. In 2011, when the scandal of hacking broke, the inquiry was established in two parts, the first to deal with regulation and the second to deal with illegality and allegations of corruption and cover-up. The Government claimed they were committed to part 2 of the inquiry once relevant trials had concluded. Those of us affected by this conduct took the Government at their word.

A few years ago, though, the Government began to revise their position following heavy lobbying from the press. After this House voted overwhelmingly in support of one of my amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill last year, the Government faced the prospect of a Commons defeat and announced a consultation on Leveson part 2 on the day of that vote. That consultation was judicially reviewed by a victim of press abuse who had been promised by the Government that part 2 would happen. The Government defended that judicial review by claiming that they had an open mind on the matter of Leveson part 2, but within three months their party manifesto for the 2017 general election pledged to scrap Leveson part 2 altogether.

Today, we are no further forward. The Government have still not published the outcome of last year’s consultation. The integrity of the consultation was questioned, and the Government’s intentions were rather exposed by the manifesto commitment to scrap Leveson part 2, although I gather that Conservative Members of neither this House nor the other place were consulted. Nor were victims consulted, despite previous prime ministerial promises to them on this matter.

I see no alternative but to return to legislation and the role of Parliament to see that the Government stand firm on these matters and do not cave in to the press lobby. I hope colleagues will support this amendment. I would not of course return with it on Report should the Government proceed with Leveson part 2 with the agreed terms of reference before then.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, this debate is part of the unfinished business of Leveson in relation to both Section 40 and Leveson part 2. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained, we are having to do this not because we are hijacking the Bill but because the Government have used various devices to avoid their commitments on those parts of Leveson. It is unfinished business because sections of the press, for which the noble Lord, Lord Black, is an eloquent spokesman in this House, have deliberately tried to frustrate the will of Parliament. The noble Baroness, with telling eloquence, has spoken for the people who were hurt and damaged by the excesses exposed by Leveson. They do not feel that they have received either closure or justice; nor is there much evidence of the press mending its ways.

I was one of the privy counsellors who signed the royal charter. The coalition Government went out of their way to defend the freedom of the press. Looking back, it is easy to forget just how much public horror, distaste and loathing there was for what was shown to be happening by the Leveson inquiry. Frankly, a Government of the day who had not been interested in the freedom of the press would have had a free hand to deal with it in the most draconian way. So I sometimes resent—not speeches in this House, of course, although they occasionally refer to this—articles in the Times and other papers that see any amendment as an immediate attack on the freedom of the press. We who are tabling these amendments want to strengthen the freedom of the press.

The Conservative Government, freed from the constraints of coalition, have gone back on their word to implement Section 40 and dragged their feet about Leveson 2. They added insult to injury by including the IPSO code in their list of approved codes but ignoring the Impress code, which had been approved by the Press Recognition Panel. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, explained very well how the charter would have given a defence in the David v Goliath contest often faced by the ordinary citizen.

We are in Committee, so we will listen to the Government’s response to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Black. We will then make our decision on issues to vote on at Report. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Black, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, he gave us food for thought, although he often sounds like the boy who murdered his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan. However, there are issues there that need to be considered.

My approach, and the two amendments that I have signed, come from a person whom I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, knows very well: the man on the Clapham omnibus. My concern, so very well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Colville, is that it seems to me, as the man on the Clapham omnibus, that to ask investigative reporters to get prior permission is counterintuitive. Again, I would be very interested to hear the Government’s explanation, particularly of Clause 164(3)(c), which my amendment would delete, and how it would impact on investigative reporting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House because my voice is annoyingly masked. I urge noble Lords to put their hearing aids on because it might not last until I have said what I want to say.

Every now and then in this House, we have a debate of such importance and significance that the House behaves in a completely different manner from its normal routine. We have had that today. There is a sense of stillness, expectancy and interest that we do not always get, and it is important that we hold on to it because we are touching on some very important and deep issues. While we obviously need to deal with the narrow question of the amendments before us, I hope very much that the wider resonances of this debate might help unpick some of the difficulties that have been raised in our discussion and which are relevant in society today.

I am so taken by the debate we have had that I want first to mention to the House that our amendment in this group, which was laid as one of the first amendments, is an entirely “fake” amendment, if I may use that word. It is a probing amendment and does not mean anything. I can tell the House now that I will not be pressing it. I hope the Minister will do me the justice of not even bothering to respond to it because it has lost all relevance in the light of the issues that have been raised subsequently. My second point is a slightly cheeky one: since I am no longer involved with our amendment in this group and we do not have any names attached to any of the others, I will bring a completely new and independent view to the discussions. I hope that noble Lords will enjoy that.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Black, does not take this my final opening point the wrong way. I am not going to follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and accuse him of crimes he is not going to commit, but this is so important that we need to come back to it in another place and at another time. I hope that he will understand that. I think that it probably needs a Bill of its own to get this right. We can discuss that later.

Okay. Trying to make sense of what we have in front of us—in this alphabet soup that we often have in complicated parts of Bills—I want to approach this in the following way. I said at Second Reading, and I repeated in the debate last week, that I do not think the Bill is the right place to rerun some of the long-standing arguments about Leveson. I do not think that anything said today should be withdrawn; it is really important stuff that needs to be resolved. But this is probably not the Bill to do that in and I will give some reasons for that.

The main worry that I have, and several noble Lords have mentioned this, is that we are talking about a package of measures that were the product of a particular time. For all the reasons that have been given, bits have succeeded and bits have not succeeded; bits have been implemented and bits have not been implemented, and I do not think that it is right for this Bill at this time to try to kick-start some of the bits that need to be looked at, particularly the amendments that relate to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was a very good introduction to those. He made a very good case for them. That case does need to be answered, but this is not the right place for that, so I do not support them.

I do not think that Amendment 179A works in the context that I am trying to sketch out. The case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as always, was incredibly powerful and one’s heart reaches out to everything she says, which was also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We want to do something about this and we think that the way that the Government have treated Leveson 2 is a disgrace. It is a shameful way to behave, given the treatment of the victims. We must never forget that.

The third group of amendments here—the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—also makes very good sense. They are sensible amendments but, for the same reason, we should not continue with them today.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is giving the Government a “get out of jail free” card, unless he has something else to say. There are areas in all these amendments that have massive implications for data and data protection. If they do not fit into the scope of a Data Protection Bill, where on earth will they fit?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would also like to have a little pop at the noble Lord. I understand his point that this is a Data Protection Bill and not something to amend the Crime and Courts Act. Of course, I experienced significant difficulties with the clerks trying to table an amendment to try to amend that Act. But if we had a suitable legislative opportunity—another criminal justice Bill—would the noble Lord’s party support an amendment to make Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act commence forthwith?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am certainly open to any meeting that the noble Baroness would wish to engage in to discuss these matters. In so far as I am able to inform her, and indeed the Committee, of developments, I will seek to do so.

[Lord McNally]

Just to be helpful to the Committee, if it was published after Report, does the Minister agree that it would be perfectly reasonable to have a Third Reading amendment to reflect whatever has come out of that response?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord, I am not the litmus test of reasonableness—at least, I have been told that in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I quite understand the force of the noble Lord’s observations. Nevertheless, I am not in a position to say that the response will be available for publication before Report. I am afraid that we have to proceed on that basis. It may have consequences such as those set out by the noble Lord, and we will have to address those in due course. I am afraid that I cannot go further on this point.

Finally, I come to some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who spoke to his Amendments 185E and 185F. I begin by saying that I have no wish to disappoint either the gentleman on the Clapham omnibus or the noble Lord himself. Therefore, I will endeavour to address the questions that he raised as fully as I can. I take account of his commendable intention to peruse Hansard over breakfast and to come to a view as to whether or not I have fully responded to his points.

Amendments 185E and 185F seek to make the unlawful obtaining of personal data a criminal offence with a custodial sentence of up to two years under Clause 175. Of course we recognise the seriousness of any offence that is committed in this context. That is why it is important that proper thought is given to the introduction of any changes which would seek to put in place custodial penalties that could remove people’s liberty. Under the coalition Government, in March 2011, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the Government would not commence prison sentences for Section 55 offences but would continue to keep the matter under review. At that time Ministers agreed to pursue non-custodial options, instead of a custodial option, including encouraging the use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and making the offences recordable. Indeed, it is this Government’s intention in this Bill that the offences should now be made recordable. That is addressed in Clause 178.

Again, this is one of those complex areas where we have to achieve a balance between competing rights and obligations. We believe that, for the reasons I sought to set out earlier, we are achieving the right balance with the provisions in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will feel open to not moving his amendment.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I will consider that point in a few moments, but I am much reassured that the noble and learned Lord has more respect for the man on the Clapham omnibus than he seems to have for BBC lawyers. That is a step forward.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No inference can be drawn regarding the considerable respect in which I hold the legal advisers of the BBC.