Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I agree with the Minister that this is a welcome step forward. I have three minor points to put to him and I shall ask a question about the powers at the end. He said several times that he had had conversations with and was in agreement with the ICO about the powers that were taken. Following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, has the ICO agreed that these powers are what she asked for and will achieve what she aims to do in cases such as that of Cambridge Analytica?

Secondly, what are they modelled on? I have had the benefit of a conversation with the Bill team and the Minister on this and I think the answer to the question of whether they are modelled on the Competition and Markets Authority’s powers is that they are coming from slightly different directions. It is not necessary that the powers should be exactly the same, but I think the answer is that they were broadly what was envisaged for the CMA when it was set up and therefore appropriate for the powers required by the ICO. Can the Minister confirm that is the case?

My third question is one that we have explored at length in Committee and on Report. Given these new duties and responsibilities, which are substantial and will have to be exercised with great care but will add a burden to its existing work—as was laid out in the Bill when we saw it in this House some time ago—will the resources be available to the ICO to carry out that work? If not, what will the Government do about that? This bears particularly on the question of staff and staff capacity because, as the Minister says, we are talking about the cutting edge of technology.

My final point is that we are legislating in haste. There is no reason why we should be suspicious of that but it was done very quickly and there was not as much scrutiny as one would have wished, in either this House or the other place. I was not able to find this in the Bill itself, but can the Minister confirm whether, should it turn out that these powers are not as well drafted or well expressed as they could be, he has the powers to go back and amend them through the appropriate procedures in due course, should that be necessary?

[Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have one question that builds on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I note that the Minister said that organisations that refuse to hand over information will be in contempt of court. Can he confirm whether there will be a public interest defence built into these provisions?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Building on the point about the limited time for scrutiny here, can the Minister also explain whether there is a protection for the sources of journalism, with no obligation to disclose sources? Is there a protection for legal professional privilege and matters of that sort?

--- Later in debate ---

I understand and share the concern about the intense financial pressure on our newspapers, particularly local ones. I also recognise the wider concerns about how we have a fact-free system working in social media. In the end, though, I support the establishment of an inquiry, as proposed in the amendment, because a promise was made by all the main political parties—not just their leaders—that there would be a second phase, and as a general rule I think promises should be kept. It is the clear recommendation of Sir Brian Leveson himself—who ought to be in a position to know whether or not the issues have been addressed—that there should be a second phase. In my view, it is perfectly possible, particularly with the amendments now made, to do this inquiry in a proportionate way that does not put at risk an independent press. Finally, I know from personal experience that, sadly, the issues that gave rise to the proposed second-phase inquiry have not yet been adequately addressed. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

[Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice]

My Lords, I do not think anybody can listen to that description without being worried about the state of the press. There is no point pretending that everything is perfect. As a former and current practising journalist, I would not. I welcome the narrowing of the scope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has suggested, particularly the exclusion of local newspapers, but I suggest that in recognising the importance of that she has also recognised the significant burden that the kind of wide-ranging inquiry she is proposing would place not only on those papers but on all the others that would be covered by the remaining scope.

The last time I had the temerity to speak in this debate, the noble Lord who spoke after me said that he had heard quite enough from journalists, thank you. Actually, there are very few journalists in this House and, I suggest, very few people who understand just how difficult the task of investigative journalism is. Although the issues we are immediately concerned with in the amendment are about the salacious nature of journalism, I fear that even this amendment would touch on some of the important issues that I, as an investigative journalist, have dealt with.

I won the Paul Foot Award for exposing miscarriages of justice in the courts. As a result of that the Labour Government changed the law, I am pleased to say. I was also involved in the exposure of the Rotherham sex-grooming scandal at the Times with Andrew Norfolk, who was referred to earlier. I believe that Andrew Norfolk’s view about Section 40, as expressed by the Minister, is very important. He is at the front line of investigative journalism and understands what that would actually mean in practice. This should not be just about revenge. If we are going to legislative effectively, we have to think about exactly what we are trying to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, suggested that nothing has changed since his experiences. I suggest that a great deal has changed, and other Members have referred to that. The landscape is different. IPSO is a tougher regulator. I was so disturbed by some of the events in Manchester that I contacted IPSO to find out how it had dealt with them and how many complaints had been made. In fact—I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, would agree—only one complaint was made to IPSO about the Daily Star; that complaint was upheld. There may be a problem, as he suggests, in that people could not trust exactly which publication they were talking to but we need to take that into account when we are reflecting on this.

We have heard today and in subsequent readings of the Bill about the significant new powers to be given to the Information Commissioner. I asked the Minister a question, which arose out of my ignorance, and was shocked to hear the scope of the new powers that are being so rapidly extended. We need to reflect on that again. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said earlier, one of the powers the Information Commissioner will get under House of Commons Amendment 109 is to review journalistic application of data protection laws. I would rather wait and see how that pans out. I suggest to the noble Lord that that will put significant pressure on the press.

I do not like public inquiries. They tend to be a last resort for Governments who do not know what to do. They are extremely expensive and work only when they have a specific end in mind.

My real fear about the amendment is that the specific end that many of its supporters have in mind is to reopen precisely the questions and amendments we have been debating and which have been defeated in the House of Commons, in particular those relating to Section 14 of the Crime and Courts Act. If we launched yet another public inquiry, of which the public would not be greatly supportive, we would reopen a series of questions, some of which would go back over old ground. I appreciate the promise of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to move forward—she is right on that—but we would open the door again to people who are keen to impose enormous costs and burdens upon the major newspaper groups. It would expose those groups to having to pay malicious damages in groundless, malicious lawsuits.

Let me remind noble Lords of the history of this House. When I arrived here I thought it was about defending free speech. I totally accept the concerns that have been raised—I do not believe that everything is perfect—but this amendment is not going to move us forward.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, standing on one leg will at least ensure my brevity. I declare an interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group.

I agree entirely with the comments of my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the advisability of sending this amendment back to the House of Commons. Were we to do so, we should remember a few points on the substance of the noble Baroness’s amendment.

First, we should always bear in mind that the amendment would produce yet another inquiry covering the same ground that has been ploughed over not only by the first Leveson inquiry but by three police investigations, at least three Select Committee inquiries, a Joint Committee of this House, the US Department of Justice and, in this country on the question of corporate liability, the DPP. There is little left to uncover.

Secondly, since Leveson reported, there has been a genuine, wholesale change in press regulation. We have moved from a voluntary complaints handling service, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, to a system of tough, legally enforceable regulation with strong powers of sanction. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it is those tough legal powers which IPSO possesses that mean there could be no backsliding to the standards of the past.

Thirdly—this an important point we all need to bear in mind—since IPSO introduced a mandatory arbitration scheme in the past few weeks, there are virtually no lawful recommendations of Leveson that have not been introduced. It has produced a sea change in how newspapers are run, managed and deal with complaints, and in how journalists are trained and monitored.

Fourthly, since the first Leveson inquiry, the situation facing the press has changed dramatically. I note the noble Baroness seeks to cut out the local press from this but all publishers, including national ones, are under huge and sustained commercial pressure, which will not abate. It is a struggle for survival on a day-to-day basis, which will be made all the more complicated by having to wind the clock back 10 to 15 years to rake over a world which, frankly, no longer exists.

Fifthly, the biggest threat today to the sustainability of high-quality journalism comes from Google and Facebook, which are not even mentioned in the amendment. If we go down this route, in 20 years’ time people will ask why on earth this Parliament insisted on endlessly rerunning the repeats of an ancient black and white drama rather than looking at how journalism could survive in the global digital environment.

I have always been taught that this House must try to understand that, as an unelected Chamber, it needs at least to try to understand the realities of the outside world and take note of the will of the people. During a consultation on what is, in effect, this amendment, the people spoke in huge numbers and, by an overwhelming majority, rejected it. For all the reasons that I set out today, so should we.