I want to discuss an anomaly that arises between the current civil liability under the Data Protection Act 1998, section 55, and the intended criminal liability that will emerge from clause 75, if and when it becomes the law of the land.

First, I have an interest, or used to have an interest, in this area of the law. I want to talk particularly about journalistic endeavour and activity, so I am speaking as someone who acts for and against newspaper journalists, publishers of one sort of another and it is right that I should put that on the record.

Secondly, I want to clarify a point that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice and I were discussing last week on the nature of the privilege that attaches to fair and accurate reports of the proceedings of Parliament. She was correct to say that in relation to Parliament, even contemporaneous fair and accurate reports are covered only by qualified privilege. However—this is where I confess to the confusion—judicial proceedings, when reported fairly, accurately and contemporaneously are covered by absolute privilege. Since we last met to discuss that subject I have yet to find a logical explanation of that difference; I think that it is one of those historical accidents where the statute law, which has amended the common law, has not caught up with itself. There may come a time when it does. I am happy to correct my earlier mistake.

I approach this discussion purely from the angle of journalistic activity; I am not concerned with discussing the fiasco over the data issues relating to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is causing the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather a lot of embarrassment. I am not talking about data theft by malevolent people who wish to mine other people’s data sources and make improper use of data and sell it. Other occasions may come when others will want to talk about the Chancellor, the HMRC fiasco and so on, but today I do not want to deal with that.