Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am glad that there is a telephone line. I am sure that the Information Commissioner will be watching the debate and will hear the plea for clear guidance on how small organisations in particular should implement data protection standards, whether they are small councils or small businesses. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office has already provided clearer guidance, as well as the telephone line. It is obviously listening, with the aim of getting the guidance right and ensuring that, in lay terms, meeting the new standards is straightforward. This issue came up in the other place as well. It is important for us to get the implementation right, especially in the case of small organisations.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has referred to the right to be forgotten. May I suggest that there might be another right, namely the right to be remembered correctly? All too often, in response to freedom of information requests about, for instance, national security, the Government have imposed a blanket ban on the publication of any information—even many years after the individual concerned has died, when it is pretty difficult to see why there should still be a national security issue. I wonder whether it would not be a good idea for us to have some means of extracting such information in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time.

[Matt Hancock]

The Bill does not change the freedom of information regime. However, it does establish a data protection regime relating to intelligence services and national security, about which I shall say more shortly, and which will no doubt be scrutinised by the House. The specific issue of the release of records is not in the scope of the Bill, because it is about the protection of live data rather than the release of records. The 30-year rule has, in the main, been changed to a 20-year rule, but of course there are national security opt-outs, some of which are incredibly important.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course there should be national security opt-outs, and when we were changing the rule from 30 to 20 years, I was one of the Ministers who ensured that they were strong. My anxiety is, however, that all too often the security services impose a complete blanket ban, which means that we as a nation are not properly able to understand what happened in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. If we were better informed about that, we might be able to make better decisions for our own national security in the future.

[Matt Hancock]

I do not wish to labour the point. I too was the Minister responsible for national security releases. All I can say is that that is not within the scope of the Bill, and I think the system works effectively.

As recommended by Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian for Health and Care, the Bill creates a new offence of the unlawful re-identification of de-identified personal data. It offers new safeguards for children, including a new code on age-appropriate website design. Currently, the law on parental consent for children on social media is complicated, but in most cases it applies to children up to 12 years old. The Bill provides for consent to be required in the case of children aged up to 13, so that parents have more control but the law is still practical.

The Bill also sets out clearer frameworks for data security—for example, by giving everyone a right to know when their data has been breached. We are strengthening the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner to reflect a world in which data is held and used in much more sophisticated ways than ever before. Under the Bill, the commissioner can issue substantial penalties of up to 4% of global turnover. When she finds criminality, she can also prosecute. With greater control, greater transparency and greater security for our data, the Bill will help to give us a statute book that is fit for the digital age as we leave the EU.

Let me now touch on some specific areas in a little more detail. This is a forensic Bill with 208 clauses. It covers a vast area of British life, including financial services, sport, the protection of equality and much more. It also includes provisions that will support Members of this House in the work that we do, and it will make it easier for us to take up casework on behalf of our constituents.

The Bill provides for three parallel schemes to protect personal data. First, on general data, which accounts for the vast majority of data processing across all sectors of the economy and the public sector, this part of the Bill works in tandem with the EU’s GDPR, which we have discussed. We know that small businesses need advice on this, and it is important to get right the advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office. It says in my notes that the ICO has a small business helpline, but we have already heard about that in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Watson]

Yes, indeed. Privacy in the age of the net, with huge data flows and information in abundance, is the debate of the age. There is no doubt that this House will be discussing privacy in the years to come, beyond this Bill and beyond further regulation. In this particular Bill, however, we must ensure that privacy is not just entrusted to the delegated powers of the Minister and that it is a fundamental right that our citizens can start to develop.

Parliament is also considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which, in combination with this Bill, risks eliminating the GDPR as a check on the misuse of ministerial authority to undermine data privacy rights. It gives Ministers power to make secondary legislation to amend any retained EU law, which would include those governing data protection rights. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as currently drafted, eliminates the important data protection rights of article 8, which would otherwise constrain Ministers’ ability to erode fundamental data privacy protections. So we want to make it explicit in the Bill that those protections cannot be eroded. Strong rights need strong enforcement and a proper mechanism to enable enforcement to take place. This is all the more vital where the data rights of children are involved. We therefore want to see the Bill amended to ensure that consumer groups that operate in the privacy field can act on behalf of data subjects without a particular complaint—a right of collective, not just individual, redress.

The Government have chosen not to implement article 80(2) of the GDPR, which gives greater ability for civil society and other representative bodies to act on behalf of citizens and mirrors consumer rights in goods and services. A super-complainant system would help to protect anonymity and create a stronger enforcement framework. Collective redress and representative action led by a recognised body would also help individuals to enforce their rights to data protection when their data is exposed, stolen or misused as part of a large data breach that affects multiple people. It would create a stronger enforcement framework, which would build and reinforce trust without overburdening existing institutions.

I want to turn to two amendments—improvements—made in the other place that the Government have already said they wish to overturn. Indeed, as soon as the votes had taken place, the Secretary of State tweeted that they were votes against press freedom—even though they were also votes in favour of a policy agreed by all parties in 2012, and for which he himself, the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister had previously voted. So it was no great surprise when the Secretary of State made his announcement last week about ditching Leveson part 2 and binning section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. His tweet, as I think he will recognise, somewhat pre-empted his consultation response. However, we live in a country where Parliament is sovereign, so the decision is not entirely up to him. It is up to us in this House. We can decide whether to keep the promises made by David Cameron—and by all parties—to the victims of phone hacking and other press abuse in 2012, or to break them.

[Chris Bryant]

Was there not also a promise, in a sense, to Brian Leveson? The guarantee was that a single inquiry was to be carried out. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the correspondence in which Leveson himself says that he fundamentally disagrees with the Government’s position because the only regard in which he thinks the terms of reference should be changed is that they should be increased, so that we could see whether the Independent Press Standards Organisation was indeed any different from the Press Complaints Commission at all.

[Tom Watson]

A characteristically articulate question, there. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am coming on to that point in my speech now.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 legislates for the part of the Leveson system that would provide access to justice for ordinary citizens, while offering protection to journalists and newspapers that signed up to any Leveson-compliant self-regulatory body. I want to take on one argument that I think is a complete red herring. Some elements of the media do not like IMPRESS —the only self-regulator that has so far been given royal charter recognition. They are, to coin a phrase, unimpressed with it. They would prefer not to be regulated by it, and they pretend that section 40 would force them to be members of it. But that is not accurate. There is absolutely nothing preventing those elements of the press that dislike IMPRESS from setting up an alternative self-regulator and seeking royal charter recognition for it. They could seek recognition for IPSO, but it continues to fall short of the criteria applied by the Press Recognition Panel. The fact that they choose not to do so suggests that IMPRESS is not really the problem. So we will seek to retain the amendment on section 40.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I start by declaring an interest, in that before I became embroiled in the world of politics, I was a journalist for 20 years, although not in the print media—I had the perfect face for radio, so it was the wireless that beckoned. As a former journalist, I take a close interest in two of the matters before us this evening, and I refer to two of the amendments that were made in the other place. I am a bit perturbed as to why we would be dealing with those two specific issues in a data protection Bill, because this Bill seems to be being used somewhat as a Christmas tree, on which all sorts of things can hang, and I am not sure that that is appropriate.

I am sure, however, that the Secretary of State was right to say in his statement last Thursday that the Government will not be accepting those two amendments. I refer, of course, to that on the implementation of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which I shall come on to in a moment, and the amendment providing that we should proceed with Leveson 2. I was glad that he announced on Thursday that we would not be going ahead with that, because it is absolutely the right decision, for a number of reasons, not least because the manifesto on which we were elected nine months ago said that we would not be going ahead with it.

Putting politics aside for a little while, let me say that there are a number of reasons why it is it not necessary to go ahead with that. The main one is that the environment has changed dramatically since the first Leveson inquiry. It has changed dramatically since I was last working as a journalist, which was way back in 2006, but even since 2012 and Leveson 1, the landscape has changed dramatically.

[Chris Bryant]

That is neither here nor there, because the whole point of the Leveson inquiry was to establish what happened. Hundreds of individuals have had to go through the civil courts to try to establish what happened in their individual case. Many of them now know more than the country does about what happened at that time, but they are unable to say so because they have had to sign confidentiality agreements. The truth of the matter is that we still have never got to the bottom of what level of collusion there was between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World, and many newspapers have simply lied.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I was coming to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but the issue is that if Leveson 2 had gone ahead, it would have been narrowly and tightly about the relationship between the media and the police.

I absolutely welcome Leveson 1: it did a job that needed to be done by shining a light into the dark corners of some media practices and, importantly, giving redress to people who had been wronged by the media—there were too many of those. There are people who feel that it did not go far enough, and some still feel that they did not get their confirmed right of reply, but the fact is that Leveson 1 has happened, and it happened some little time ago.

Leveson 2 would have had the fairly narrow remit of the relationship between the police and the media. The argument I was coming to was that since Leveson 2 was mooted, so much has changed in the regulation of the press, as we have already been discussing. The new regulatory regime is now under way—I might come to some of its drawbacks in a moment—and, furthermore, the practices of the police have changed a lot.

Leveson shined a light on the problems. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that the relationship between some officers and some journalists was shown by Leveson 1 to be absolutely inappropriate. I do not believe that we need a costly, lengthy, long-drawn-out second phase of the Leveson process, which probably would not do the job we would be hoping of it anyway.

[Chris Bryant]

The point is that the investigation is sort of happening now through the civil courts, except that it is individual members of the public who have to fork out £350,000 or £450,000 in legal fees to get to the truth. In Leveson 1, Brian Leveson was expressly not able to look at anything for which there might have been any criminal charges. The fact that the Daily Mirror has now admitted—in the civil courts, but not to Leveson—that it did engage in phone hacking is one of the matters that still has not come to the public.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

However, Leveson 2 would not necessarily put any of that right.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes it would!

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Well, we do not know that. The difficulty is that a lengthy, costly process that in the end might not even achieve what was hoped for is not the answer. The answer, as the Secretary of State rightly said in his statement on Thursday, is to ensure that we shine a light through proper regulation on the practices that have done wrong to a number of people in the country.

I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). We should absolutely focus on the rights of people in this country—people who cannot afford the voice to stand up for themselves—but Leveson 2 was never going to solve that issue. It was going to be a long-winded inquiry that would not have got there, and the Secretary of State made that point convincingly on Thursday.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I very clearly and carefully described my position and Sir Brian’s. Now that his letter is in the public domain, I think it is all very straightforward.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but I was in here and listened very carefully, and I—and, I think, the majority of Members of this House—certainly got the very distinct impression that Sir Brian Leveson was agreeing with the Secretary of State, whereas one could only describe his reaction to having been described in such a way as incandescent fury. In future, would it not be helpful if, when a Secretary of State makes a statement of this nature—particularly one citing another person and praying them in aid—he published that person’s correspondence at exactly the same point as making the statement?

Leveson Inquiry

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend, not least because, as he points out, one of the jobs of a Secretary of State is to look forward and consider how to solve the problems of today. The problems of local newspapers are not a marginal or side issue. More than 200 local papers have closed in the past decade and a bit, including local papers in my patch. I do not want to see that accelerated by the actions of this House, and that is what would happen if we do not take the course of action I have proposed today.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Having spent many hours with the Dowler family, Christopher Jefferies and many others, may I say on behalf of all the victims that many of us will feel that the Secretary of State has shoved another little knife in our heart? In all honesty, we had hoped that the promises were real promises that we would get to the truth—not just the bits and pieces that were able to be dealt with, as Sir Brian said, but the elements that were expressly excluded from the original investigation, particularly the Metropolitan police’s collusion with the press, which could not be looked at at all.

I find it inconceivable that the Secretary of State talks only about the freedom of the press—of course the freedom of the press is important—because to many of us, it is also important that politicians should be able to speak without fear or favour. That means we should no longer be cowed by press barons; we should be able to do what is right for society. I simply ask the Secretary of State why on earth, if everything he has said today is true, did the Government make all those promises in the past, and why did he vote for the legislation?

[Matt Hancock]

The world has changed since 2011. The truth is that the rise of the internet means that some of the issues the hon. Gentleman rightly raises about making sure the debate we have is a reasonable one, not one based on abuse and bullying, are much broader. Tackling the problems of today is our task now. Of course there were abuses that were looked into during the inquiry, and they have been looked into by the police in three investigations, with over 40 criminal convictions since. The judgment we have to make is: what is the best thing to do for the future of this country, when the way in which we debate politics and make decisions is under challenge, because of new technology, in a way it has not been for decades if not centuries? Getting those solutions right is mission-critical to our future as a liberal democracy, and that is what we are putting our attention to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A number of interventions are made from a sedentary position that are not always heard by everybody, but if the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) heard that said, and if it was said, the short answer is that it is not in order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can respond.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obviously absolutely happy to make it clear that I make no insinuation about bribery or corruption of any hon. Member of this House. All hon. Members are honourable Members. I also bear in mind that when we prayed earlier this morning we said that we should always speak without fear or favour. I am absolutely sure that that is what we would all want to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think he did err in the heat of the moment, but I accept what he said, and its spirit, and I am sure that the Secretary of State does too. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset, who I trust will be content to leave the matter there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that problem about the M40, which I experience regularly on my way to my constituency of Stourbridge. Current coverage on UK motorways is 97% for telephone calls, but that is no comfort to those travelling on the stretch she has identified. I will work with her to bring about a solution as swiftly as possible.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I urge the Minister to be much more sceptical about the figures given out by mobile phone companies and operators? In all honesty, looking at their maps on the ground, they have nowhere near the figures of which they boast.

[Margot James]

The Ofcom “Connected Nations” report contains new measures that reflect truer consumer standards, and it is opening the new 700 MHz spectrum band, which will be suitable for wider area coverage. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are working to get better consumer measures on those matters.

BBC Pay

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Minister on assuming his new job, but I did not like the tone he adopted when he said that he was delighted that this issue was going to be “aired”. There is no point in airing it, because we have been airing it for decades now. The point is actually to bring about change. Perhaps Carrie Gracie should be made chair of the BBC; perhaps she should be given a role specifically to bring about change in the organisation. In the end though, are not some of the men, such as John Humphrys, going to have to say, “You know what? I am paid too much. I should take a 50% pay cut.”?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting suggestion. It is not true that this issue has been aired for decades. This information has been in the public domain only since last July, because of the actions that we took to insist on transparency, so while the broader issue may have been discussed, we have not had the details to hand in the public debate. That is very important, because it is only once something is measured that it can be managed.

Russian Interference in UK Politics

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I admire the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and he said some good things, but ultimately I found his speech to be utterly naive and complacent. He cannot just say “Russia is a kleptocracy and there we are; that’s fine.” It is also a ruthless security state: it prevents elections; it prevents journalists from doing their proper jobs; it murders journalists; and it makes sure that journalists elsewhere in the world are put out of their jobs and are unable to scrutinise Russia properly.

Even the Russian embassy in the UK flouts every single one of the normal rules of an embassy. It wrote to Mr Speaker on a previous occasion to try to prevent a debate on Russia taking place. On other occasions, it has tweeted aggressively against several Members. It even tried to rig the election of the chair of the all-party group on Russia. One would think it had more important things to do. I am the present chair, and the former chair, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is in his place on the Government Benches. He departed because he was so fed up with the way the Russian embassy was dealing with us.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) may say something about this later—he is more of an expert than I am—but the Russians are engaged in a form of hybrid warfare. It does not involve military weapons so much, although they are keen to continuously flex those muscles and we know, from Georgia and Ukraine and what has happened in Crimea, that they are territorially ambitious. I just want to explain one element of this hybrid warfare.

I asked a man called Ben Nimmo, who runs digital forensic research at the Atlantic Council, to look at MPs’ Twitter accounts, including those of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, me and others and analyse the attacks we had received. I and others—the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to this earlier—believe that some anonymous troll accounts are centrally organised from St Petersburg.

The pattern is that the accounts often pretend to be British, even though they might originally have been tweeting in Russian. They tend to tweet in bad English and at Russian times of day. They infiltrate the hard right to propagate and amplify views held by others—that relates to the point about Goebbels that was made earlier—and they ostentatiously, aggressively and with foul language attack critics of Putin. They support the Kremlin line on Syria, George Soros, the Olympic ban, Ukraine, the M17 flight and Senator McCain.

The accounts tag other factory troll accounts. For instance, @iatetwit attacked Lucy Fisher, the journalist at The Times who has written about this, and me. It looks like a normal account, but the profile picture is of a Russian skater. It is not her account at all. It used to tweet in Russian, but now tweets very aggressive anti-immigration stuff in the UK. “I” effing “hate Irish”, for instance, was one of the more expressive recent tweets, and @iamjohnsmith called on the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to resign. [Interruption.] Well, that of itself does not prove it is a bad person. But seriously, he was only being attacked because of his political views. This is why it is dangerous for us to be complacent: there is a specific body of work attacking Twitter accounts to intimidate British MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak today, and I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing forward this topic for debate.

It is of course the first role of Government to protect the nation and its people and to safeguard our democracy, and we recognise and acknowledge the concern expressed by the House today about the threat posed to our politics and society by the exploitation of digital technology and platforms. We are happy to work with Members across the House on this. Of course, digital technology brings huge benefits and we celebrate the freedom that they bestow, but they also allow malign actors new means by which to communicate. We are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign state interference, whether from Russia or anywhere else. When there is any suggestion that the Kremlin has sought to interfere in the political process, we treat such allegations seriously and carefully. The position is that, to date, we have not yet seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes by a foreign Government.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because there is an interesting divergence between the three Ministers who have spoken on this topic. The first response was, “I have seen no evidence that the Russians were trying to do anything”, and then the version that we have heard today is, “I have not seen any successful interventions.” What would success be? How is he defining success? I presume he means that there have been attempts.

[Matt Hancock]

We have seen no evidence of interference that has successfully affected democratic outcomes in the UK by a foreign Government. That has been the UK Government position for some time.

[Chris Bryant]

What would success be?

[Matt Hancock]

In a political process, success would potentially involve changing the result of that political process, and we have not seen evidence of successful attempts.

Sky/Fox Merger

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Those emails have filled up inboxes and distracted colleagues from important constituency casework. I have made this decision in spite of the lobbying, not because of it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Good corporate governance in a construction company means that the directors of the company make sure that its building sites, for instance, are safe to work on. Good corporate governance in a supermarket company means that the directors make sure, for instance, that their staff do not sell alcohol to underage kids. One would think that good corporate governance in a broadcasting organisation would mean that the directors of the company would make sure that their organisation abides by good broadcasting standards, which is why I wholeheartedly support what the Secretary is State is doing today. Rupert Murdoch’s defence over phone hacking was, in the end, that his company was far too big for him to possibly know what was going on across the whole of it. That was not good corporate governance, and it could not possibly lead to good broadcasting standards.

[Karen Bradley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments on corporate governance that I made in my statement: “I have outstanding non-fanciful concerns about these matters, and I am of the view that they should be considered further by the CMA.”