Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the USO that we will introduce by 2020 will enable faster speeds to be delivered by both fixed line and wireless technologies.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Data Protection Bill on data protection agreements with the EU after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)]

The free flow of data is critical to both the EU and the UK, and it is at the core of any modern trading relationship. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we will keep data flows open after the UK leaves the EU.

[Joanna Cherry]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but the immigration exemption in schedule 2 to the Bill is not reflective of the stated permissible exemptions under article 23 of the general data protection regulation. Why is the Secretary of State resisting amendment to the Bill when he must know that it could affect the grant of adequacy by the European Commission following our exit from the European Union?

[Matt Hancock]

On the contrary, the Data Protection Bill is entirely compliant with the GDPR. Indeed, it implements the GDPR in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that we rather suspect led a great number of our fellow countrymen and women to vote for European Union exit was exactly that prospect.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) asked the Attorney General to comment on clause 6 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. It is not just the Scottish Parliament that thinks that clause 6 is inadequate. Yesterday, the President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court told the House of Lords Constitution Committee that clause 6 as it stands is “very unhelpful” and that it could leave the judiciary at risk of

“appearing to make a political decision”.

What is the Attorney General going to do to address not just the concerns of the Scottish Parliament, but those of the President of the UK Supreme Court?