Debates between Earl of Kinnoull and Countess of Mar during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Countess of Mar
Monday 6th November 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Countess of Mar Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

If this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 25A or 26 because of pre-emption.

Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
- Hansard - -

I speak to Amendment 25A and declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly those in respect of the insurance industry. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for a clear introduction to his thinking. I am also looking forward to hearing what the Minister says later on.

Amendment 25A is essentially a probing amendment relating to another problem of unintended consequences of the Bill’s far-reaching provisions. The impact assessment, in its section entitled “policy objectives and intended effects”, talks of setting new standards in accordance with the GDPR,

“whilst preserving existing tailored exemptions from the Data Protection Act”.

Later on, the assessment talks about ensuring that,

“the burden on business is kept minimal”.

Amendment 25A is designed to avert just such an unintended consequence which, although small in words, would be substantial in effect for insurers and therefore affect people who want to take out policies. Without this amendment, the Bill would affect insurers’ ability to process data in relation to obligations in connection with employment law. In short, they will have to redesign all their processes in what is a substantial and important area. The amendment changes the wording back to that in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Data Protection Act 1998, so that insurers can continue to use existing procedures. It is entirely consistent with the GDPR, in particular with article 9(2)(b), which is the bit which affects this and calls for safeguards. I can think of no better watchdogs than the Information Commissioner’s Office and the FCA. I therefore feel that this amendment should be uncontroversial and look forward to hearing the Minister’s reasoning on it. I would welcome discussions outside the Chamber should he want further detail.