division_name: Data Protection Bill [Lords] &#8212; Data protection breaches by national news publishers
motion: <p class="indent" pid="c168.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">That this House disagrees to Lords Amendment No. 62B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 62 but proposes amendments (za) to (a) to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) inserted by Commons Amendment No. 109 and amendments (c) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c174.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;like a driver learning to steer by looking in the rear-view mirror at the road behind rather than the one ahead.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c175.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;What upset me most about the media intrusion we have had was the fact that my youngest daughter...heard from a journalist on our doorstep that her brother died. You cannot unhear what you hear. She was a child and this was absolutely not fair, fiercely unethical and cruel.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c175.0/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Whilst a lot of noise is being made that press behaviour has improved since the Leveson Inquiry, I totally disagree. As a family we have had first hand experience that this is not the case.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c176.2/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;That second stage cannot go ahead until the current criminal proceedings have concluded, but we remain committed to the inquiry as it was first established.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2018-11-29">29 November</phrase> 2012; Vol. 554, c. 446.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c180.1/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Not allowing Leveson 2 is bad for journalism and bad for the public&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c181.2/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c182.2/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;I am inclined to agree that there is little public interest in re-opening many of these same investigations again. I also agree that the guidance from the College of Policing regarding Media Relations represents significant change.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c184.2/5" pwmotiontext="yes">That this House disagrees to Lords Amendment No. 62B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 62 but proposes amendments (za) to (a) to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) inserted by Commons Amendment No. 109 and amendments (c) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="c184.2/6" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="c184.2/7" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 301, Noes 289.</p>