I am making it up. I am not reading any paragraph. I do sometimes read out paragraphs, but I am not doing so at present. The hon. and learned Gentleman was doing a fair amount of reading himself. I am sure that it was stuff that he had prepared earlier.

We are not creating a new criminal offence. [Interruption.] Everyone is chuntering this afternoon, Mr. O’Hara. It must be something to do with the time. In any event, I shall try to deal with some of the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman made.

We are not creating a new criminal offence. As a result of the process, we are increasing the penalty because we have been convinced that we need to do so. I do not want us to have too arcane an argument, but the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the defence for the civil offence under section 32 of the 1998 Act was of a higher threshold than the defence for the criminal offence under section 55. I am not convinced of that. We could debate exactly where the threshold is, but the point of much of what he was saying was bound up in that. If there are civil and criminal penalties for similar offences, one can understand why the threshold for the civil offence ought to be lower than for the criminal offence. That is common sense under our system of law.

However, sections 32 and 55 of the 1998 Act are different in numerous respects. Section 32 gives media organisations exemption from some parts of the Act that apply to them as data controllers. It exempts them from most of the data protection principles and certain other provisions of the 1998 Act if, after due regard to the public interest and freedom of expression and publication, they reasonably believe that publication is in the public interest.

Section 55, however, is not about the normal business of being a newspaper in the same way. It concerns a wilful obtaining, disclosing or procuring of information without the data controllers’ consent. The prohibitions in this section apply equally to everyone, as do the defences listed in 55(2). Section 55(2)(D) requires that the knowing or reckless obtaining, disclosing or procuring of information without the consent of the data controller to be justified in the public interest.

The purposes of those two provisions are very different. Section 32 ensures that the data protection principles do not prevent or inhibit responsible journalism, while  section 55 ensures that the prohibition on the misuse of personal data does not prevent disclosures that are in the public interest. The Government do not believe that it is necessary to amend section 55 and to extend the exemption in section 32. We are not proposing to criminalise any behaviour that is not currently against the law. The section 55 offence with its public interest and other defences is a proportionate measure to deal with the risk to people’s privacy.

I accept that not everyone will agree with that. The hon. and learned Gentleman set out in great detail the reasons why he does not. Let me assure him that there is no intention to create a chilling effect, and to inhibit in any way responsible investigative journalism. Not everyone accepts that there would be a chilling effect. When the Committee on Culture, Media and Sport was considering self-regulation for the press, it looked at this provision and suggested that the penalty did not have a chilling effect, and it welcomed the amendment. There are other reasons of public policy for signalling very strongly that the obtaining and selling of public or private data is not only a breach of human rights, but a matter that causes a great deal of damage and it ought to be treated as seriously as the provision suggests.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because of his close interest in this matter, there have been meetings between newspapers and various interests who believe very strongly what he, the former Lord Chancellor, former Ministers and the Department for Constitutional Affairs put forward in respect of this. I am not saying that we will all agree, but we have considered the matter very carefully. We believe that the current clause is correct. While I am not promising to make any changes, I am perfectly happy to look very closely at what has been said today. I do not feel convinced that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but I will look very closely at what he has said and talk to him and the Newspaper Society further about it. However, we believe that clause 75 is the right provision. I have heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman has had to say, but I commend the clause to the Committee.