Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to replace the EU–US Privacy Shield insofar as it relates to the UK, following Brexit.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The EU-US Privacy Shield contains protections only available to those within the EU. We will therefore discuss with the US how best to ensure that the current protections afforded to UK citizens can be maintained post exit. We want a smooth and orderly transition to our new arrangements.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Court of Justice of the European Union will continue to have jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit in relation to the General Data Protection Regulation.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Data Protection Bill was introduced on 13 September. The Bill is intended to create a new data protection framework fit for the digital age, which incorporates the provisions of the EU’s GDPR into domestic law. It builds on existing standards for protecting personal data, in accordance with the GDPR, giving people more control over use of their data, and providing new rights to move or delete personal data.
The EU (Withdrawal) Bill will ensure that the remainder of the GDPR is incorporated into domestic law.
In leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations they have held with the parties in Northern Ireland on whether Northern Ireland will be subject to the General Data Protection Regulation after Brexit.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Data Protection Bill, which includes the implementation of GDPR into UK law, will apply to Northern Ireland post Brexit. We have engaged with Northern Ireland Executive in the creation of the Bill.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the status in the UK after Brexit of previous decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as the Judgement of 6 October 2015 in Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
Clause 6 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill provides that UK courts must continue to interpret unmodified retained EU law in accordance with retained EU case law and retained EU general principles, so far as they are relevant to that retained EU law. EU case law is retained to the extent it relates to anything falling within clauses 2-4 of the Bill, and is not excluded by clause 5 and Schedule 1.
Clause 6 also provides that the UK Supreme Court and High Court of Justiciary will be able to depart from pre-exit CJEU case law, using the the same tests they do when departing from their own case law.
This is without prejudice to the detail of the implementation period, which will be for negotiations.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 23 October (HL1753), what steps they have taken to examine the legal status of Privacy Shield.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Privacy Shield is a statement of principles issued by the US Department for Commerce, following on from an agreement between the US and the European Union. The EU-US Privacy Shield is accompanied by a decision of the European Commission under articles 25(6) of Directive 95/46 EC. The Commission Decision addresses the CJEU's invalidation of the previous Commission Decision - the Safe Harbor framework in the Schrems judgment of 2015. In this respect, any subsequent examination of the legal status of matters concerning the EU-US Privacy Shield would be a matter for the CJEU in the face of a legal challenge being brought against it.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken any steps to examine the liability of the Information Commissioner’s Office under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in the light of the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 6 October 2015 in respect of the European Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision (Case C–362/14).
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The ICO, as an independent regulator, would need to consider itself what liabilities, if any, it might have as a result of any judgments. The Government expects the ICO to comply with all of its legal obligations. However, it is not the Government's duty to advise an independent regulator on what these are.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to implement the judgment and findings of the European Court of Justice in Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
In October 2015, the European Commission's adequacy decision on the Safe Harbor Agreement was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the Schrems case. The Court considered that the third country concerned must ensure an adequate level of protection safeguarded by its domestic law or international commitments, and that the reliability of such a system, in light of that requirement, is founded essentially on the establishment of effective detection and supervision mechanisms in relation to the protection of fundamental rights. Consequently, the Court found that the Safe Harbor Agreement failed to comply with the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC and established Human Rights law. The judgment was addressed to the Commission. The EU-US Privacy Shield decision has since replaced the Safe Harbor agreement, in providing a basis for personal data transfers from the US to the US companies certified under the scheme.
The Information Commissioner has provided regular updates to the status of the Privacy Shield and remains an active member of the Article 29 Working Party Privacy Shield annual joint review team.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received a legal opinion on the Privacy Shield framework between the EU and the US; whether they have taken independent legal advice on that framework; if so, what was the content of that (1) opinion, and (2) advice; and whether they will place a copy of that (1) opinion, and (2) advice in the Library of the House.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Government has no intention of commenting on or publishing any legal advice that may have been received on these matters.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken (1) to implement the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 6 October 2015, Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, and (2) to ensure that the Information Commissioner implements the findings set out in that judgment.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
Whilst the UK is a member of the European Union, we will continue to rely on the Privacy Shield for data flows to and from the US. The UK Government views this agreement as a major step forward for restoring certainty and a stable legal footing for transatlantic data flows.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of the £3 million grant received by Kids Company in July 2015 was (1) spent on staff wages, (2) returned to the Cabinet Office, and if so, on what dates, and (3) returned with interest if the funding was placed in a bank account with Kids Company.
Answered by Lord Ashton of Hyde
The return of the grant payment made to Kids Company in July 2015 is a matter for the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver's consideration is ongoing.