I have been listening intently and shall try to deal with the points that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made. However, it might be helpful if first I set out what we are doing in clause 75 and why.

The clause amends section 60 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to increase the penalties for offences under section 55 of the Act to allow for a period of imprisonment of six months in a magistrates court up to two years on indictment. It increases the current penalty, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, which is limited at present to fines in either a magistrates or Crown court.

Section 55(1) and (3) of the Act provide that a person is guilty of an offence if they knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller, obtain or disclose or procure the disclosure of personal data to another person. Section 55(4) and (5) provide that a person is guilty of an offence if they sell or offer to sell personal data obtained in breach of section 55(1).

I wish to make it absolutely clear that the origin of the clause has nothing to do with trying to create a chilling effect on the legitimate activity of investigative journalism. It has nothing to do with that at all. The Information Commissioner’s report “What price privacy? The unlawful trade in confidential personal information”, which was laid before Parliament on 10 May 2006, highlighted the extent of the illegal trade in personal data and recommended custodial sentences for offences relating to its misuse, as the existing financial penalties were not sufficiently protecting individuals’ rights.

On 24 July 2006, the Government published a consultation paper “Increasing penalties for deliberate and wilful misuse of personal data”. They invited comments on proposals to increase the penalties available to include  custodial sentences. The consultation closed on 30 October 2006. The majority of responses—not all of them—welcomed the introduction of custodial penalties to provide a greater deterrent to potential offenders and public reassurance that offenders would receive the appropriate sentence, and to achieve parity with several disparate pieces of legislation that deal with similar types of offence.

That is the origin of clause 75. I reiterate that the intention is not to try to undermine or chill in any way legitimate investigative journalism, nor do we wish inadvertently to cause problems in that regard. As the Committee will be aware, the clause does not create any new criminal offences. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that it did—I am not suggesting that he said that.