I hope they do not, and I think the Minister has to answer that question quite directly. The issue here is about quality material that would otherwise be taken down being kept in place so that we can all as a society be informed by that. That does not mean it needs to be from particular sources that we know to be egregious or running material which is certainly not in the public interest. Again, I make the point that that would have been a better way of approaching this in the legislation, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who knows his stuff—I often think we ought to bottle him and carry it around so we can take a whiff of his expertise and knowledge every time we get stuck on a problem, but I am not quite sure how we manage that.
6.45 pm
That is a long way in to what is a relatively straightforward point. At the end of the day, we need some system under which the material that we want in circulation in our democratic society, supporting the essential characteristics we have just talked about, is protected. I think the Bill moves that way. We will have to see whether it works in practice, but it gives us a basis for that. That is not the same thing as in any sense trying to address the questions raised about whether particular groups of newspapers perform or are categorised in a way that meets a particular set of regulations or laws, which may or may not still be in effect post-Leveson. As I said, that is for another day, and I am sure there are issues there that we can talk about.
At the end of this debate, which I think has been useful and will help in future, the narrow point is whether we believe that freedom of expression is enhanced by the proposals in front of us, and I very much think it is. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.