I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of her Department’s policy. May I say that the chuntering was an unnecessary intervention, and that the further chuntering was my attempt to apologise for that from a sedentary position?

There are a number of illogicalities and inconsistencies in the Government’s approach. It may be that in the rush to make laws and so forth, No. 10 is not talking to the Ministry of Justice and vice versa. [Interruption.] I interpret what the Minister of State is saying and that is not in the least bit unusual. It is interesting that the Prime Minister has said that he wants a further consultation period and an investigation or inquiry into the way in which the Freedom of Information Act and its provisions work and has asked Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail to chair that investigation.

The Secretary of State for Justice said that the Bill raises concerns that it

“might impede legitimate investigative journalism”.—[Official Report, 25 October 2007; Vol. 465, c. 409.]

However, the clause will ratchet the penalty up. I am not talking about data thieves or blackmailers, even if part of the Minister’s response concentrated on that. I am not seeking to defend reckless, negligent or deliberately ill-motivated conduct by data processors—I would call it Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ story and the Minister will doubtless hear more of it in due course because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell her. I want to ask her about what is in the journalist’s mind at two different times. If we look at the civil regime, we will see that it is anticipatory because the defence applies if

“the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would”— in future—

“be in the public interest” or, secondly, if he

“reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with” data protection principles

“is incompatible with the...purposes” of journalism. We are therefore looking ahead when it comes to the civil liability regime, which allows the journalist to have some form of subjective input to his defence whereas, under the criminal regime, he has to show

“that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified”— that measure uses the imperfect tense—

“as being in the public interest”.

A proper construction of the expression

“was justified as being in the public interest” is an object test, which the court, jury or magistrate will assess for themselves on the basis of the evidence before them and the advice they receive on the meaning of the expression “the public interest”.

Having said all that, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she would be prepared to read carefully the report of our discussions with her officials and the Department’s lawyers, and also for offering me the opportunity to have further meetings with the Fleet Street Lawyers’ Society. I mentioned Alastair Brett, who is the secretary of that group; he is also legal manager of The Times newspaper group, so I am talking about major media operators, not irresponsible, dodgy, fly-by-night members of the yellow press. Such people have a legitimate and responsible attitude toward both the need to protect people’s privacy and the need to take a proper interest in maintaining, and fighting hard for, the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

I shall take up the Minister’s offer and get back to those who have been in touch with me to see whether they would like to meet the Minister. Perhaps meetings can take place between now and Report, or at least before the Bill leaves this House and goes to the other place. I am reasonably sure that the clause will receive close attention in the other place, whose Members will not be under the same time constraints as us. I suspect that that will be the case because Lord Lester of Herne Hill was very busy during the deliberations on the Human Rights Act 1998 when discussing journalistic endeavour, as was my noble Friend Lord Fowler, who is both an ex-journalist and a newspaper executive. There  will be plenty of interest in the clause in the other place, so it would be useful if the Minister would hold those meetings before the Bill goes there. Given those offers, which I accept with alacrity, I withdraw my resistance.