Lord Puttnam:

I should explain I am here in a personal capacity because our parliament was dissolved yesterday. I bring apologies from Damian Collins, MP, for whom I was supposed to act as sidekick. Suddenly, I have become the main part of the show. One point I would like to get across is that my select committee would very much like to take evidence from the witnesses. We have a problem because unless we get that evidence, either in writing or orally, I cannot use it in our select committee report. The witnesses will definitely receive invitations and we will find a way of circumventing those obstacles. There is a wonderful irony here. I am an unelected politician, yet the one security I have is that I know our select committee will be reformed in January, whereas if I was in the House of Commons, I would have no such certainty.

It is a rather bizarre situation in which to find oneself. As I see it, we are on the horns of a major dilemma. The bad actors - Russia, China and whoever else - have no real interest in achieving specific outcomes, which is very unusual. They do not, for example, really care who wins the British election. What they care about is seeding confusion, disharmony and disrespect for democracy. The very worst that could happen - I suspect it might happen on 12 December - is that there would be a contested election. That would be a massive win for the people who wish to deal in disinformation. I have no idea what the result will be. Likely as not, it will end up in the Supreme Court. There is irony in all of this. The more one can create confusion, the more one justifies the sovereignty of the social media companies because, in their competence, they begin to look as if they are almost a safe haven, as opposed to the incompetence of plural democracy. That is a very serious problem and the problem is amplified by the fact that within our own nation states, going by all of my experience of 20 years of legislation and as I am sure Mr. Cicilline will confirm, if a government wants to defeat something that is coming at it, it will try to split ranks and sow confusion. What is happening is that each nation state is looking at the benefits of employment, the tax take and so on versus its own security and the security of democracy. That becomes an internal discussion within each country. It is certainly true in the United Kingdom, Ireland and other countries. It further confuses the entire issue.

We are looking at various possible solutions. I totally support everything Ms Cadwalladr said. What she did not mention that is bang up to date is the suppression of the Grieve report. We have a report that has been right the way through all of our institutions, but the Prime Minister personally has refused to release it. We had a question in the House of Lords on Tuesday when the Front Bench spokesman, the Minister, confirmed that it was a personal decision of the Prime Minister. That is outrageous. Our entire democracy relies on what is termed the "good chap" principle, that the Prime Minister of the day, man or woman, behaves like a good chap. I am sorry about the gender inflection, but that is the way it is. We are going through a process, whereby all norms are being defied. That is playing to the benefit of the major social media companies, which is very worrying.

We have had one suggestion made to us as a committee by which I am intrigued, namely, the possibility of having a Euro SWAT team of high competence that could be moved around in situations where there was palpable vulnerability to democracy on the grounds that the problem was so enormous no one country would be able to put together the permanent competencies to deal with it. Having a European SWAT team that would be constantly looking for it and that could be moved around might be one at least temporary answer to the problem we are discussing. Does anyone have a view on it?