Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and to endorse everything he has just said about Amendments 10 and 11.

In speaking to Amendment 11, about which I hope to seek the opinion of the House if there is not a satisfactory reply to the debate, although I hope there will be, I should say that I moved a similar amendment in Committee on 13 July. As in Committee, the amendment enjoys all-party support from across the House; I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but also to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has spelled out that it would insert a new clause requiring the Government to review any telecommunications company based in foreign countries which have been banned in a Five Eyes country. It is quite straightforward. This amendment would strengthen international action and bolster UK resilience and security.

If such a provision had previously existed in statute, it might have saved this country a great deal of money over the expensive 5G Huawei debacle, which we have known was a security risk since 2013. If the House approves this amendment today, it will send a clear signal that the Bill must be further strengthened to deal with companies that have been banned in other jurisdictions, the need to dig deeper into ownership and investment of companies and the desirability of acting in concert with our Five Eyes allies. Significantly—I suppose this is another development, as the noble Lord just referred to, since Committee—there has been the, in my view, very welcome decision to create AUKUS, the security pact in the Asia-Pacific which, in addition to giving Australia greater defence capacity, also covers AI and other technologies.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, urged us to work

“in close partnership with our Five Eyes allies”.—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 727.]

She was right. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked us to guard against “another costly security debacle”. She was right. My noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup told us that we

“need to develop an approach … that constantly monitors and rebalances this equation in the context of our complex and dynamic world.”—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 715.]

He was right, and the amendments seek to do just that.

In Committee, I detailed many of the companies that have now been proscribed and banned in the United States of America. I would be grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—I asked this question in Committee, he will recall—if we have looked at those companies, and what action we are now taking against those that are on the list that President Biden has published. Specifically, I refer to one example, Hikvision. This is what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons said in its unanimous report. The committee recommended

“that the Government prohibits organisations and individuals in the UK from doing business with any companies known to be associated with the Xinjiang atrocities through the sanctions regime. The Government should prohibit UK firms and public sector bodies from conducting business with, investing in, or entering into partnerships with such Chinese firms”.

I raised that in Committee. Have we acted in concert with principal Five Eyes allies in prohibiting Hikvision or not?

The failure to co-ordinate with allies leads to costs and uncertainty for business and endangers our national interest. The Government’s own estimate, based on the Huawei decision, is that it cost the Exchequer some £2 billion, excluding the broader economic cost of a delayed rollout of the 5G network caused by having to change horses. Earlier collective action could have prevented the later expensive U-turns.

Amendment 11 seeks to better protect our national interest in concert with our allies in the free world. I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am used to hearing powerful speeches from my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool, but what a delight it was to hear also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. He spelled it out exactly: it beggars belief. I cannot believe that my noble friend, a wise and intelligent Minister, will reject this amendment.

I support Amendment 11, which does not detract from the Bill in any way; it does not sabotage the Bill or pull the guts out of it, it merely adds to our arsenal. All it asks the Government to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, is to review the security arrangements with a telecoms provider if one of our vital, strategic Five Eyes partners bans its equipment. We are not calling for a similar immediate ban, or an eventual ban, we are just saying let us review it and come to a conclusion.

Why do I want this added? My motivation is quite simple: I believe this will be another small warning shot to China that we will start to stand up to its aggression. I share the view of the new head of MI5, Mr Ken McCallum, that Russia is an irritation but China is a threat to world peace and our whole western way of life. Yes, Russia—or Putin, more accurately—is nasty and will happily kill opponents, as we saw in Salisbury, and attempt to interfere in elections, but Russia is not capable and is afraid of the consequences of waging a world war.

China, I believe, does not share that view. It is building that massive economic and military capacity to dominate the whole world. It will overtake the USA in military capability in the next few years and has already overtaken all western powers in its attitude to using force. It is not that China wants war: it believes that war will not be necessary, since it will win when we surrender without firing a shot. If it attacks Taiwan, will the USA and the UK rush to support it? I hope so, but I do not hold my breath. China believes we do not have the moral guts to do as we did with plucky little Belgium before the First World War or Poland before the second, and guarantee their security.

To return to this amendment, it is a small symbol of our intention to begin our moral fightback—to say that we will not be bullied by China, either in our universities and supply chains or in the freedom of the seas. China has been achieving world domination by small incremental steps: making the WHO its puppet; infiltrating universities; subtly taking over international organisations; robbing African countries of all their minerals as payback for loans; and stealing every bit of technology that it can. It is, therefore, by incremental steps, such as this little amendment, that we will show that we will not be cowed—that we will resist and not become China’s slaves.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there are many merits to the plans, set out by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in Amendment 10, for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term strategy on telecommunications security and resilience. However, in the interests of time, I will quickly shift my focus to Amendment 11 and disappoint the House by saying that my words will be brief. The House has heard very strong speeches, not just from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but from the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra, and it is a pleasure to see my name alongside theirs on this amendment.

The point has been made three times: this is a very small ask of the Government. Referring back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, working closely with our Five Eyes partners was identified as the whole point—certainly a key objective—in the integrated review. It is one of the central pillars of our security planning. So we are not asking for something outrageous. There is a strong theme of working with our Five Eyes allies across the field of security. The UK has to work with other countries to be effective—and if not with these countries then which?

The UK’s telecoms networks face the same challenges as those of our key allies, and this amendment simply ensures that when it comes to this most crucial component of security—increasingly, communications are at the heart of all our security decisions, whether we are finding things out, transmitting information or looking at what others are doing—we take into consideration what those allies are doing. If we were not doing this, there would be a strong danger of putting a wedge between us and them. Indeed, we began to see that happening with the United States, before this Government decided to change their mind over the Huawei decision—for which some noble Lords present should take a lot of credit.

The question we have to ask ourselves, therefore—it is very difficult to understand the answers, so I look forward to the Minister’s reply—is why the Government are not adopting this amendment. The Minister may take the stance that it is not necessary. If so, it is not a problem and could be included. More worryingly, does the Minister know that this is perhaps the thin end of a wedge, and that there is a lot more technology already installed in our infrastructure across the country that the Government would have to start to remove? If there is, it would be expensive but important to do. Or perhaps the reason is the worst of all excuses: that the Government did not think of it and so are resisting suggestions from others, which is the worst sort of institutional resistance, of a kind that we see all the time.

We on these Benches, therefore, support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and if he sees fit to lead us through that virtual Lobby, we will be virtually beside him.

Amazon

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I confess that I buy things from Amazon, but I hate doing so because it is singlehandedly destroying the United Kingdom high street. Will my noble friend the Minister make strong representations to the Treasury that the trivial amount of business rates paid by Amazon is an absolute disgrace? Its giant warehouses are rated like an empty farmer’s barn, rather than the ruthless mega retail operations they are. Its failure to pay business rates is a greater scandal than its failure to pay corporation tax.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government and the Treasury absolutely recognise the importance of our high streets. That is why the Treasury announced a fundamental review of the business rates system earlier this year.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

The Minister gave us a very positive response during our debate. She said she recognises the strength of feeling among Members and is prepared to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and colleagues before Third Reading. Those are very generous offers. She also spoke about her objections: that the amendment as drafted does not meet the intent, not least because the Bill is about broadband and not 5G; and that the Bill is essentially about broadband connections where the landlord is not co-operating, and the amendment would inhibit that. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his fellow sponsors of the amendment will consider carefully these serious points—but was the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, not right when he said that ultimately the time has come for the UK Government to make a stand? The fact is that this is the Bill before us; it is an opportunity for us to do so. If the Government do not want this amendment, it is up to them to come forward with something else at Third Reading to show some teeth—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, a human rights threshold.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I can be reasonably brief since the key points have been very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others who have spoken in favour of the amendment. I hope noble Lords will not feel constrained to curtail their remarks, since we have only one other item of business tonight and nothing better or more important to do than this amendment. I strongly support its purpose: to stop companies complicit in the atrocities suffered by Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province from gaining further access to our telecommunications infrastructure.

There is no doubt that Huawei works hand in glove with the People’s Liberation Army—indeed, it was founded by an officer of the PLA—and if anyone believes that Huawei could have grown to the size that it has without complying with every instruction of the communist regime, then please continue living on Mars. Huawei is a tool of the communist regime’s security forces. As has been said, it has boasted of working with the security bureau to build a safer society. Of course, what it means by “safer” is hundreds of thousands of Uighurs locked up in concentration camps, where they will be forcibly re-educated from believing in their God. This amendment would debar any companies from participating in our digital networks if they are involved in human rights abuses.

I also remind my noble friend the Minister and this Conservative Government of the 70-page authoritative report published in 2016, outlining countless human rights abuses in China. It has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth. As part of its conclusions, the report refers to

“the scope of human rights abuses in China and the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration and expansion in the world reaching a level unprecedented since the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989.”

It goes on to say that perhaps the most noticeable development

“is how China has turned state-owned mass media into a quasi court to convict detained human rights defenders before they appear for trial.”

As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, I understand that the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission is finalising a new report that will come to even more devastating conclusions about the appalling human rights abuses perpetrated by the communist regime.

Huawei is involved in human rights abuses with the Chinese Communist Party regime’s security services. Note that nearly all of us in this debate are not criticising the Chinese people; we are referring to the Chinese communist government regime. Thus, the amendment would debar Huawei in this country and I commend it to the House. If the Government do not accept it, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will push it to a vote. I am afraid that I will have to support him. I also hope that all those people active in the Twittersphere will mount a massive campaign to draw attention to every Huawei user that they are supporting slave labour by using its products. It is more important to tear down the edifices of current abuse, rather than ancient statues.

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister realises that, in proposing a Bill which I support in principle, she finds herself caught up in a vast argument about not only rights but the security implications of using a company that is hand in glove with the Government of China.

I am not anti-Chinese. I have great admiration for what they have done. I am aware of the privations that they suffered during World War II, for example. The current regime has got so powerful largely because we in the West exported our manufacturing capacity to China, but it now poses a threat to many of its neighbours. There are the situations on the border with India and in the South China Sea. It is creating island bases for its military. A whole range of things is happening.

What does that have to do with the Bill? I hear what the Minister says and I understand what she is trying to tell us. Yes, she legitimately raises issues, in particular about people’s ability to access broadband, which we all want. However, she also has to recognise that many of the complications she highlighted could be resolved if the Government brought forward their own amendment. The unusual actions to, in effect, try to close down the debate at such an early stage were unfortunate and are backfiring on the Government, because Members are angry about how this country seems to be ambivalent about how it handles its relationship with the Chinese Government, and not only on security issues.

It is not, however, only about China. Our electricity infrastructure is owned largely by the French Government. Lots of our transport infrastructure is owned by the German Government. Very soon, moreover, significant slices of our telecoms infrastructure will be owned by the Chinese Government. This country has to decide what it wants. The fact that this amendment is passing by Parliament at the moment is why so many of us feel that we have to send a signal.

With regard to scope, and whether things are appropriate in a particular Bill, I also draw my noble friend’s attention to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill, which came before this House with virtually no proper parliamentary processes and dealt with very significant social issues—in a Bill that had nothing whatever to do with the subject matter before the House. The Government can, therefore, in many respects do what they want, and I say to my noble friend that the solution to this problem is for the Government to bring forward their own amendment. If I caught what she said correctly, however, she does not seem prepared to do that. She is prepared to meet the noble Lord, Lord Alton; that is good, but she is hoping to steer him and the House away from sending a signal.

The Chinese Government need to get the message that the patience of the West is not infinite and that there are circumstances in which we are ready to act. While this may seem a very minor issue in comparison with others, I believe that the significance of sending a signal is probably worth the downsides that she has pointed out. The Government themselves can resolve this at Third Reading. I would be very happy to take guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, at the end of this debate. Should he call a Division, I will support him.

Covid-19: Television Licences

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Baroness is right that the words “pension credit” were forming in my mind. We are clear that we want everyone who is eligible to claim this benefit to do so. People should claim what they are entitled to. We also know that the BBC is working with older people’s groups and charities to try to design the simplest possible payment system for the over-75s and the over-80s, as the noble Baroness referred to specifically.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, while it is absolutely clear to everyone that the BBC is reneging on its commitment to free TV licences for our elderly, will the Minister remind the House all that the Government are doing to assist the over-75s and to combat loneliness?

[Baroness Barran]

I have the great honour of being the Minister for Loneliness—the only one, I think, in the world. We have recently launched a new campaign trying to address stigma around talking about loneliness. We have announced dedicated funding to combat loneliness both for smaller organisations and for those with a national reach. We have created a new Tackling Loneliness Network, which we hope will bring a real energy to this important issue; we will shortly meet its stakeholders across business, the voluntary sector and the public sector.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

We all know that connectivity is vital in today’s world to enfranchise and enable all UK citizens—indeed, the Prime Minister has said this on many occasions—yet the Bill is mysteriously cautious. Finally, I enjoin the Minister to test whether the Bill is reasonable. I suggest substituting “broadband” or “connectivity” in the Bill with “electrical connection”. If the Minister were to do this, it would be immediately clear that the Bill’s equivocation, qualification and lack of ambition do not add up to the Government’s stated goal for the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too wish to make a Second Reading point which I would have made if I had had a chance to speak at Second Reading. I am speaking on the proposed new clause because I want to query the meaning of

“achieving access to 1 gigabit per second broadband”

and explain why it is meaningless without a guarantee of minimum speeds.

Most of us probably already have superfast broadband, defined as download speeds of at least 24 megabits per second, but has any colleague ever had that? If one logs on at 3 am, one might get close to that, but in the main it is bogus. That is nothing to do with the Government except that we let ISPs get away with claims that their system delivers “up to 24 megabits per second”.

The Government’s commitment is to build “gigabit-capable broadband” nationwide by 2025. That is a sensible change from the May Government’s terminology of “full fibre”, as it will permit 5G and wireless technology rather than trying to run cables to extremely remote locations. However, I, and I suspect millions of others, do not want or need to download a high-definition, overlong two-hour film—as many seem to be these days, as modern directors are incapable of sensible editing—in 20 seconds. That is not important. I suggest that we need better connectivity for our Zoom and Teams conferences, and reliable speeds for the exchange of business information and PowerPoint slides. Of course, some specialist companies will need to send gigabit video files, but the main users, or abusers, of that will be kids downloading films and games. Therefore, I come back to the point that most of us will never get one gigabit constantly, since the airwave or cable space will be taken up with rubbish films being downloaded by children.

The correct solution would be a differential charge for the amount of material downloaded. I endorse that, but I believe that it is strongly opposed by powerful internet activists who demand any amount of material at the same price as for those who send only a few emails. I ask the Minister to deliver a minimum guaranteed floor by the internet service providers. I do not care what it is, but I want consistency. I for one am fed up being ripped off with “up to” speeds. I do not necessarily want one gigabit; I will happily pay for 100 megabits, 250 megabits or 500 megabits, but I want that speed all the time, 24/7, and not just for two minutes of the day at 3 am.

A commitment to a guaranteed minimum speed is far more important than access to a theoretical speed which most of us will never need and those who do will never get, since millions of unnecessary films will block up the system. Therefore, although it is not in the Bill, I would love to hear my noble friend the Minister say that she will introduce a measure to compel internet service providers to deliver a minimum speed, no matter how low that might be so long as it is guaranteed 24/7.

[Lord Adonis]

I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in seeking to make moral, let alone ageist, judgments on different users of internet services, but I completely follow him in his point about the need for a universal service obligation that is both universal and an obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke about the parallel with electricity, but the more relevant parallel may be with the development of the postal service, which was done nearly two centuries ago. The principle of access on an equal basis to the most remote parts of Britain was at the centre of the postal service that Anthony Trollope and others developed in the mid-19th century. Irrespective of what people chose to put in the envelopes, the principle was that you would get a delivery at least once a day everywhere for the same price.

The bit that the Government keep ducking is turning this into a universal service obligation; they keep talking about targets for increased rollout. The steps being taken in this Bill are welcome because they will make it possible to get more gigabit coverage to more people quickly. But there is no definition of a universal service obligation, and if it is not in this Bill, then sometime soon Parliament will have to grapple with the issue of a universal service obligation that provides coverage at around the 1 gigabit level to all premises in the United Kingdom. We would then map out how to do that in exactly the same way as we have done with utilities in the past.

However, the bit that I do not think anyone can question is that this is now a utility-type service that people require. We need only to look at the most advanced nations in the world that are doing best with their internet services, led by South Korea and many east Asian countries. Some time ago, they regarded high-capacity networks of this kind as universal services and put an obligation on someone—whether the state or private providers—that they had to meet. We are still behind the curve. We cannot claim that we are building world-class networks while we refuse to define a universal service obligation. This Bill provides a good opportunity for the Government to do so, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reasons why we should yet again kick the can down the road.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

It is clear that a free press must enjoy special rights in respect of data protection. I slightly part company with some in that I am relaxed about how much data the media collect, provided that the data are collected legally, that the reporting is accurate and, most importantly, that the media operator is signed up to a genuinely independent regulator. I hope that Members from across the House will support these amendments so that we can finally achieve the reform that all sides agreed to.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the cross-party amendments in this group, spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to remedy imbalances in the Data Protection Bill and provide new incentives for the press to join a properly independent system of self-regulation, which is what Leveson recommended and both Houses of Parliament agreed.

Let us remember what led to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry: we had revelations of data breaches on a massive scale. I have never met Hugh Grant—I have not even seen any of his films—but I suppose that one can say that film stars and politicians, as we are public people, are perhaps considered fair game by the media. I do not believe that, but it is an understandable point of view. However, we saw ordinary members of the public and anyone vaguely of press interest being targeted. That meant victims of crime, the bereaved and other totally innocent, private people. Medical records were stolen, mobile phones were hacked and bins were sifted through. Often, there was no public interest or even a suspected story. It was speculative—or “fishing”, as it is known.

Before we get bogged down in legal arguments that this is not the right Bill for these amendments, let us go back to basics and remember the one glaring example that started all this off. A little girl called Milly Dowler disappeared and the media hacked into her voicemails even before her murdered body was found. Despicable as that was, the police did nothing about it, because it was accepted that it was par for the course and that journalists did that sort of thing. That was the view I had as a Member of Parliament in the other place; we took it for granted that that would happen. It was part of the police/media mutual back scratching. Police tipped off friends in the media about arresting the actress Gillian Taylforth performing what was called “a sex act” on her boyfriend in a Range Rover and the media returned the favour by giving some crime story greater coverage in order to help the police.

All parties at the time recognised the need for reform and the Leveson inquiry was established. The inquiry was established to make recommendations to protect freedom of expression and take the matter of press regulation out of the hands of government and give it to an independent body. That is the proper way to reform regulation of the press: a public inquiry the recommendations of which all sides sign up to. Governments of left and right are always vulnerable to pressure from the press, whether it is from Murdoch, Dacre or other individuals, to sway policy in their direction, often at the expense of the public. Let us be honest that no Government have been immune from those pressures. All Governments run scared of doing anything on press regulation when the press might criticise it and not back the party at the next election. That is no way to settle policy, least of all when it overrides the will of both Houses of the British Parliament.

These are not new points; they are a summary of Sir John Major’s evidence to Leveson. I am supporting these amendments today in order to bring those reforms into effect, as Leveson recommended and as Parliament intended and voted for. As noble and noble and learned Lords have said, it is vital that newspapers have access to the exemptions necessary for investigative journalism—Leveson recommended that. We are all defenders of free speech. Newspapers that wish to continue to enjoy the broadest range of exemptions need only sign up to an independent regulator, whereupon they will enjoy not only all of the exemptions already in the Bill, but three new exemptions added by these amendments.

Let us be clear that we mean an independent regulator, not the in-house, fey, bogus, patsy system that the media have created for their own benefit and which is no better than the discredited Press Complaints Commission. We have heard enough examples from noble Lords tonight to show that they have failed to do their duty. We have a cross-party, judge-recommended way forward on these matters. We should take it and take press regulation policy out of the hands of government and into Leveson’s independent system. It is probably just as well that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, is not here for this debate. In my 40 years in Parliament I have never agreed with anything he has said except every word tonight. I assure noble Lords that it would be as terrible a shock to the noble Lord to hear it as it is to me to say it, but he is absolutely right—we have implemented only a trivial amount of Leveson.

Noble and noble and learned Lords have said, “This is not the right Bill”. There never is a right Bill, unless the Government bring in a press regulation Bill, which I can understand that no Government would want to do. So we are forced to try to implement Leveson by tacking a bit on to this Bill, hoping that there will be another criminal justice Bill next year so we can tack another bit on and gradually, bit by bit, getting Leveson implemented. Of course, the Government could easily implement Section 40, which would give us 90% of what Leveson wanted. These amendments, or implementing Section 40, are the only ways to protect the public while ensuring freedom of the press. I hope that noble Lords from all sides of the House will support these amendments tonight—or, if not tonight if we do not have a vote, in the new year.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make very few remarks and confine them to Amendment 53—which I oppose, I should say at once. In my arguments addressed to an earlier group, I referred to Section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred again this evening. He is plainly right: if you look at the text of that, the amendment and paragraph 24(3) of the schedule—which the amendment would excise—you see that the amendment makes no sense. It would leave out precisely what is already there, which mirrors what is already in Section 12 of the Human Rights Act. If ever there were such a thing as a constitutional Act, that is. It has a considerable place in our overall constitution.

I have been searching the Leveson inquiry report, not least the paragraphs devoted specifically to the press and data protection. I certainly hope to be corrected if I am wrong, but I cannot find any suggestion by Lord Justice Leveson—Sir Brian Leveson, not Lord Leveson—that Section 12 of the Human Rights Act should be repealed. In effect, however, Amendment 53 is, if not repealing it, at least producing a position that would be inconsistent with it.

I do not seek to address Section 40. Manifestly, this is not the right Bill, but my objection is deeper still. It would be wrong and unwise, all these years on from the enactment of the 2013 Act, to bring into force Section 40. I set out all the reasons why I take that view in the full debate that we had in this Chamber on 20 December—just before Christmas—a year ago. I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating it all, although, if I did so, I fear that what I would say would be in plain conflict with a good deal of what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Surely the right course now on Section 40 is to wait to see the Government’s final response to their admittedly prolonged consultation process. We will not get there tonight, so I leave it at that. I oppose the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. Obviously, despite the fact that we won the court case in the end and that there was a small apology in the said newspaper—I think it was on page 6—I was not able to recover the serious damage done to my reputation. I am grateful to be standing here in the House today to address noble Lords on this issue, but there are many people whose reputations have not recovered.

[Lord Blencathra]

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord some information which he may not have been aware of, as he may have left the Met by then. The reason that maybe up to 100 people were able to sue on the hacking was because their names appeared in the Mulcaire diaries, and the Met team kindly went and told every single person who had possibly been hacked, “They’re after you. You’re in Mulcaire’s diaries and you may care to contact some lawyers. Here are some lawyers who are doing a group action. If you join that, there is no great risk to yourself—you will be in there with a lot of others. The lawyers will be there on a no-win no-fee basis and you’re perfectly safe to do it”. That is why most of those people were able to go together in a joint action, but the thousands of individuals do not have a hope.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been trying to search for words to explain what is going on at the moment. It seems to me that we are living in two parallel universes. My first thought was that we were back in World War I territory—the noble Lord, Lord Black, will get the reference—and that we were engaging in sniping over long pieces of dead ground over issues that nobody could understand, fought by people who did not want to be there and led by people even more stupid than that. But I have decided that this is the rerun of an acrimonious family dinner that we had before the break. We are now reflecting on that and trying to nerve ourselves up to talk again to each other and restore relationships, because relationships must go on.

Again, we have had these passionate stories, anecdotes and recollections of times when things have gone disastrously wrong. No amount of legal redress can undo that suffering. From others, we have heard a perfectly robust and understandable account of why things are perfectly all right at the moment and, given time, will be sorted out. I begin to think that Leveson, for all the great work he did and the excellence of his report—and the longevity of its recommendations—is a bit of a McGuffin here. This is about us and society; it is about Parliament. I tried to address some of that at the end of the last debate. We have to get serious about this and work out how to make progress. We have to restore the rightful balance between Parliament, which must be sovereign, and those who work within an environment in which Parliament seems at the moment to have been discounted.

If we do not get this sorted, we will continue to be like this for the rest of time. It is insufficient and ineffective. It will not be the way we want to live our lives and we will all be much the losers as a result. We must give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her proposals. Yes, they come from Leveson—but underneath that there is the greater truth that things are not working as they could be. They should be working better.