Draft Data Protection (Charges and Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 General Committees

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the case for this important exemption. The debate was rehearsed during the passage of the Data Protection Bill and in previous Delegated Legislation Committees, and the regulations enjoy cross-party support.

I want to put two requests to the Minister. The first is for her to underline in guidance to Members of both Houses precisely what their obligations are when it comes to the payment of data processing fees. She will remember that at the back end of last year, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority got into a bit of confusion in overstating some of the new responsibilities. In particular, the authority seems to find it difficult to spell out the difference between caseworking data and data collected during the course of canvassing, for example, or other such political campaigning functions. Both are covered by the terms of the Data Protection Act. We, as data processors, can process both kinds of data, but the proximity of a candidate, or Member of Parliament, and a political party working in this field will often lead to some confusion about who precisely is responsible for what, and who therefore pays what. As it happens, political parties, candidates and Members are covered in terms of the data processing obligations, but none the less there remains some confusion overhanging from last year.

The second point of clarity that I seek from the Minister concerns regulation 2(3)(c), which is drafted incredibly broadly in saying that the exemption will be enjoyed by

“a person seeking to become (or remain) an elected representative”

or, indeed,

“a person acting on the instructions”

of someone who is seeking office. In the Minister’s remarks, she used the phrase “validly nominated”. That is not the definition used in the regulation. There is nothing about valid nomination in the regulation, which is pretty de minimis in that regard; it simply defines the exemption as being for a candidate who is seeking office.

What does that mean? Does that mean someone who is seeking office a long time before an election, or a candidate who is seeking office and has been approved by a relevant political party, because political parties are regulated with all sorts of important regulations? Furthermore, what on earth are the safeguards around a person acting on the instructions of someone who is seeking office? When in the electoral cycle does that particular exemption bite? There was a degree of dissonance between the Minister’s remarks and the regulations as drafted. Perhaps she could clear that up before we approve the motion.

[Margot James]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, and his support for the amendment regulations. With regard to the issues that all Members had with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s guidance last year, in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the legislation, Members were rightly very concerned about the guidance that some of their staff members were receiving from officially sanctioned courses and training. For a period, there seemed to be something of a debacle around that issue, but we were able to clarify it.

I think the problem arose because the courses were designed before the legislation had fully progressed through both Houses, so they did not take account of the various amendments that we debated and passed—notably, the exemption for people in elected office to use the lawful basis of democratic engagement to process personal data. I think we have clarified that.

I was not aware, but the right hon. Gentleman has made me aware, that there was similar confusion about charges. Before we created the exemption, elected officials and all the other categories that we have discussed this afternoon were, strictly speaking, liable in law to pay a charge to the ICO. That is why we have introduced the exemption. We debated the exemption during the passage of the Bill, but we have been able to bring it into law only today.

There should be no further confusion about charges. We, as elected representatives, are data processors. Candidates are also data processors as soon as they start dealing with people’s inquiries in their constituencies or wards.

[Liam Byrne]

The Minister uses the word “candidate”, which elides two important definitions. One is that set out in the regulations:

“a person seeking to become (or remain) an elected representative”.

The second is that of an individual who is in that position and has been nominated by a political party. Most Members present think of a candidate as someone who has been validly nominated, rather than the definition in the regulations.

[Margot James]

I was going to come to that, because the right hon. Gentleman made that point clearly in his earlier remarks. I will look into the discrepancy in the language. He has raised an important point. I agree that valid nomination is the definition that we want, and if that is not in the amendment regulations, I will look into that and write to him. I should also point out that the Information Commissioner herself is developing a code of practice for political parties regarding their use of data, and this matter may well be something that she touches on during that work.

[Liam Byrne]

The Minister has sought a test that is not in the regulations, so she is inviting the Committee to approve them using a definition that is not in the regulations, but in her speech. Will she undertake, before she concludes her remarks, to write to me and provide an assurance that she will re-present the regulations if necessary? I am happy to give them our leave this afternoon, but I am also happy for her to re-present them if she thinks the definitions need tidying up to bring them within the definition that she set out in her remarks.

[Margot James]

I will certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman. Since I last rose to speak, I have been informed that the regulations apply to both prospective and validly nominated candidates. We have kept it deliberately broad to prevent unfairness between incumbents and those starting out on the democratic process. I think I have already covered that point.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for being very generous and giving way again, but that is not good enough, because anyone could seek to stand for elected office. If she and the Information Commissioner want to avoid a very large number of people seeking those exemptions and destroying the economic base of the ICO, the Minister must act, because otherwise that is what she will get. I think she will have to re-present the regulations, but let us just get something in place now to ensure that there is no lacuna in the law. However, please introduce stronger proposals.

[Margot James]

I will certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman. If it is clear that we need to tighten the definition up, I am happy to re-present the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment etc.) (EU EXIT) Regulations 2019

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 General Committees

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and a very happy new year to you and the Committee.

I was grateful to the Minister for providing such a long and detailed explanation of the regulations, but nevertheless I was quite surprised that she did not explain to the Committee just how the regulations have a bearing on the big game in town: whether we are going to secure an adequacy agreement on data transfer between the UK and the EU in the event of no deal, or indeed at the end of the transition period.

The absolutely critical nature of this adequacy agreement was well discussed during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018. Over 40% of European tech companies are based in this country, and 75% of our cross-border data flows are with other countries in the European Union. Services are getting on to about half our exports and are data-enabled, and yet under the new regime we will be treated as a third country. I think the Minister is trying to ensure a degree of regulatory harmonisation with the EU on telecoms. That is important in itself, but frankly it will mean very little unless it contributes meaningfully to ensuring that we have an adequacy agreement in place, especially in the event of no deal.

As the Minister will know, the Irish data protection authority issued guidance just before Christmas underlining that the UK will be treated as a third country, and that there is no guarantee that an adequacy agreement will fall into place. It also made the point that it has taken a long time for an adequacy agreement to be pronounced in some cases, even when a country looks like it meets the requisite conditions. In Argentina, it took about 18 months; in other cases it took something like five years. If we face such an elongated timetable before we get such an agreement in place, there will be a very meaningful impact on UK services exports extremely quickly.

Will the Minister let us know her views on two or three important questions? First and foremost, do the institutions that will acquire this new power actually have the capability to implement the new regulations? We are transferring supervisory responsibilities from agencies in the European Union to domestic authorities. The Minister did not say anything about whether she is satisfied that Ofcom and other regulators have the capability to perform those new responsibilities satisfactorily.

Secondly, we heard nothing about any kind of contingency planning for no deal if the adequacy agreement is not forthcoming. We heard nothing about when the timeframe for negotiating it might start.

Finally, can the Minister assure us that there will not be a regulatory race to the bottom? The tone that she struck in her remarks suggested that she is trying to ensure the regulatory regime remains in lockstep. Is that indeed her view of how regulation will evolve in this country when it comes to data adequacy?

We have some pretty big new telecoms regulations to get sorted over the next few years. The advent of 5G will require authorities in this country to work incredibly closely with their former partners in the EU. It is obviously a matter of regret that we will not have voting rights over the way the new standards are set. It would be extremely welcome if the Minister can assure us that we will nevertheless be able to influence some of those cross-European standards.

This set of regulations is important in itself, but it is merely a piece in a much bigger jigsaw puzzle. If the Minister is not able to get the jigsaw puzzle right, significant bits of British industry will shut down very quickly. I hope she can reassure us about a few of those points.

[Margot James]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and remarks. I will reassure him on the question of adequacy, as far as I am able. In the event of a deal, the Commission has agreed to start adequacy discussions at the beginning of the transition period, which will last two years. He made the point that, once the Commission starts adequacy discussions, they usually take an average of two years. I am optimistic that we will have concluded adequacy decisions and got an adequacy agreement by the end of the implementation period.

In the event of no deal, that is less easy to predict. I have no doubt that the Commission will wish to start adequacy discussions if the country leaves without a deal. The right hon. Gentleman and I agree—I hope, anyway—that that is unlikely, but it is possible, hence the need for this statutory instrument. In that event, it is harder to predict, but the Government’s absolute intention is to secure an adequacy agreement. We will co-operate with the Commission as soon as it initiates discussions.

[Liam Byrne]

I want to make sure I have understood this correctly. Is the Minister saying to the Committee that, in the event of no deal, it is harder to predict whether an adequacy agreement will come into force?

[Margot James]

No. I am sorry if I gave that impression. It is harder to predict the timing of the adequacy decision. I am confident that we will get an adequacy decision whether we leave with a deal or with no deal, but I feel more confident that it will be a swift process if it takes place in the context of our implementation period and our discussions about the future framework, in line with the political declaration. There is a framework, which is highly beneficial to the swift agreement of an adequacy decision if we leave with the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to support that deal, if he is so concerned about the timing of an adequacy decision.

Let me move on to supervisory powers. The draft regulations will not introduce new powers; they will merely facilitate the smooth operation of existing powers by the regulator in accordance with UK legislation, without the need to consult the EU or to satisfy, report to or consult the Commission. They will allow the regulator to pursue its existing powers without needing to do things that are required by our membership of the European Union but that will no longer apply once we have left.

I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman and reassure him that the draft regulations are not a race to the bottom in terms of consumer protection, regulation of the telecoms industry or support for the regulator. We are introducing them because we wish to maintain existing powers, rights and protections. The UK has a robust telecoms regulatory framework; the draft regulations will make no changes to that regime, beyond correcting deficiencies in retained EU law. I think we can all agree that it is essential for the regulations to be in place in the unlikely event of a no-deal outcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Heritage Action Zones

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I do not intend to distract the House for very long because we have had a good and thorough debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing it. We did not hear much about Wedgwood in his 23-minute speech, but it is entirely appropriate that a representative from Wedgwood’s hometown secured this debate.

As we know, Wedgwood was one of the great pioneers and entrepreneurs of the industrial revolution, but his field of interest extended far wider than simply the business of pottery. He was a great civic entrepreneur. What he created in Etruria was a model not only of modern factories, but of modern communities. He was a civic entrepreneur with a great interest in civil engineering, so his great push behind the Grand Union canal literally changed the economic geography of our country by providing the crucible of the industrial revolution in the west midlands, with new access to the ports, particularly the ports of Liverpool.

This debate needs the inspiration of great forebears such as Wedgwood. That is a long way of saying that I think the starting point for this debate and the consensus on which I want to start is the idea that our heritage and history bring us together. A deepening understanding of the place around us helps us to develop a sense of our own place in the world around us. That is why heritage action zones are such a good idea and I, too, add my congratulations to Historic England and its partners in local authorities and elsewhere on introducing and developing the initiative. We can learn a great deal from it.

Heritage action zones are particularly important for the Opposition, because we know now that culture is an important driver of modern economic development. We have seen it in towns and cities around the world. We saw it in spades in the extraordinary year of culture in Hull and we are now seeing it in the great city of Coventry, superbly led by my friend, the leader of Coventry Council, George Duggins. Many of us relish what will go on in Coventry. I hope the Minister will have the opportunity to spend some time there and draw out some of the lessons from that successful council’s leadership to inform others.

I want to add a particular note about industrial heritage and its role in town centre action zones. I agreed very much with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South when he underlined the importance of that particular aspect of town centre heritage. I commend the superb report written and presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who chairs the all-party group on industrial heritage. He underlines the way in which industrial heritage can often be better protected and celebrated by ensuring that there are good development plans for town centres. The history that we find in our town centres is often one of the big magnets—one of the big draws—and therefore one of the secrets to economic development in the years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen wrote:

“Industrial heritage has to be accessible: both physically, and to our modern, diverse communities.”

That is a lesson that we are now seeing incorporated in some action zone plans.

However, we have to be honest about the challenges. The scale of the fund, £55 million, comes nowhere near close to filling in the gap carved out by a 32% cut in council funding over the past few years. As the son of a planner, I feel quite strongly—this will echo some of the comments that we have heard this afternoon—about bad planning decisions scarring the urban landscape taking shape around us. Very often, such decisions are made these days because there are no planners left. In the great city of Birmingham, for example, very few people are left in the planning department. As for the number of architects now employed by local authorities, once upon a time I think half the country’s architects were employed by councils, but now there are very few left. I am afraid that that has implications for the quality of planning decisions and the urban environment that we will leave to the people who take our place.

Equally, we have to be realistic about the economic pressure that now weighs heavily on our high streets. That is of enormous importance to this House. Our high streets contribute some £100 billion to our economy and employ some 21,000 people. It is not a marginal issue in the debates that we have about the future of our economy; it is of critical importance.

The Heritage Lottery Fund, through its programme, “New ideas need old buildings”, made the point that our historic quarters are very often the crucibles of new ideas, new businesses, new jobs, new potential and new opportunities, which is something that we see in my home city of Birmingham. In the jewellery quarter, for example, ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), we see a flourishing of small business that has helped to ensure our city is now the second biggest home for start-ups outside London. If we wander around the jewellery quarter, we see a lively amount of economic activity as new businesses begin to flourish.

In conclusion, I want to make three points to the Minister—advice, perhaps, from the Opposition. I have two general points and one specific point. I will follow others in adding to his list of good ideas that need much closer attention. The first is that, given the economic pressure on high streets and the scale of cuts that have been made in local authorities, the Minister and those of his poor officials not currently engaged in no-deal planning in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport would do well to look at Labour’s idea for a £1 billion cultural capital fund to put in their bid to the comprehensive spending review next year. If the House believes that culture has a critical role to play, not just in equipping the country for the digital economy, but in making sure that we put the requisite level of investment into the ideas we have discussed this afternoon, it will not happen for free. Local authorities are not geared up to supply the funds that are needed. Therefore, it is important that a good strong culture bid goes to the Treasury from the Department next year.

The second idea that I urge the Minister to look at is the Daily Mirror’s high street fightback campaign. The Daily Mirror has done a good job, zeroing in on a concern that is of huge interest around the country. It has been well backed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and its general secretary Paddy Lillis, and it has developed a common-sense manifesto of ideas, such as free bus travel for young people, free wi-fi, good bus routes, a register of landlords for empty shops, and regular reviews of business rates. Those are good ideas, which the Department should champion if it wants to advance the agenda set out by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South.

I want, finally, to make a point about Birmingham. As the Minister will know, the second biggest civic collection outside London is in Birmingham. The civic collection of art and historic artefacts is worth something like £2 billion—there are about £1 billion-worth of paintings, and about £1 billion-worth of objects. Many of the objects are now languishing in a warehouse in Nechells that has a leaky roof and is prone to floods.

Why on earth are we allowing High Speed 2 to develop, in the middle of our city, something that looks like a shed, with limited design and cultural potential? Why are we not using that massive-scale investment in a brand new High Speed 2 station, at the heart of the industrial revolution, to create the greatest science museum in the country? Why do we not designate the area around Curzon Street a heritage action zone? Why do we not use the hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment to create a space enabling us to take the objects out of the warehouse—artefacts going back to the days of Boulton and Watt—and build a facility that means that anyone who arrives on the high-speed train in Birmingham knows they are arriving at the home of the industrial revolution? The director general of the Science Museum and others from our home city will lobby the Minister about that in the coming months. However, some positive vibrations from the Minister about the notion would be welcome this afternoon.

Digital Economy

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I will be as brief as I can, because I know that the whole House will want to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), given the level of expertise she brings to this debate.

The Minister will be pleased that I am able to start on a note of cross-party consensus; we do not have many of those at the moment. I think we can agree across this House that this is an important debate because it gives us the opportunity to say, when it comes to legislation in this territory, that we have rights to honour. We have rights to honour because we have duties to honour—duties to our children. As Baroness Kidron in another place has put it so well, “Children are children until they reach the age of maturity, not until they pick up a smartphone”.

If those duties bite on us, as legislators and indeed as parents, those duties should also bite on companies and indeed on social media companies. These measures go a little distance towards imposing some of those duties on commercial providers. They do not go far enough, and I will explain why there are shortcomings. However, they come so late and are needed so urgently that we will not oppose them or divide the House this evening.

These measures are a stopgap. I hope the Minister will at some point during these proceedings explain just how long this stopgap is expected to last. At the moment, we have the situation, as the Information Commissioner has put it, that the internet has become something of a “wild west”. As the Minister has been candid enough to admit in her really quite helpful explanatory remarks this evening, these regulations may touch on the problem, but they absolutely do not solve it. We need a very different regulatory approach to the online harms we are seeking to police.

In debating the shortcomings of these regulations, I hope we are able to help the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is good enough to be on the Front Bench tonight, to get two crucial reforms right. We asked for these reforms in the Data Protection Bill. They are the age-appropriate design code, which was promised under the Data Protection Bill, and the internet safety strategy, which I know the Secretary of State is hoping to bring forward as soon as he can get his civil servants back from no-deal planning and get them back on to the Department’s important business.

I hope the Minister is able to set out for us how long she expects this stopgap to last, and I want to flag up to her the 10 obvious deficiencies that leap out from the measures and the explanatory notes to them. I will rattle through them fairly quickly, in the interests of time.

The first problem is the very strange conclusion in the regulations of a de minimis of content at which the regulator will deem it necessary to trigger a safety wall of age-verification software. It is really not clear why a third was chosen. I appreciate that the Minister has to start from somewhere, but there are obvious flaws in this plan, not least providers simply filling their sites with virtuous content in order to get around the regulations. It strikes me we can fully anticipate that even at this stage of the legislation.

As has been highlighted by a number of hon. Members, some of whom are not now in their place, these regulations do not bite on social media firms. This is lunacy. This is surely one of the most dangerous areas in which our children are exposed to these kinds of online harms, so bringing forward a set of measures without explicit reference to their non-applicability to social media firms seems to me to be a shortcoming. As the House will know, the reason why this is such a problem is that when we took the Data Protection Bill through this place, we exercised a derogation under European law that allowed us to deem that children were basically unfettered on social media platforms from the age of 14, not 16 as other European countries insist. Debating the right protections for our children on social media platforms is extremely important, and hon. Members are absolutely right to clock that the orders do not touch on that important arena.

The second problem is the odd definition of “commercial basis” that is used as the trigger for requiring age-verification systems. We have had a useful exchange about business models that entice users by offering free content—the money is made either by advertising or through premium content. The orders and the explanatory notes are not terribly clear about the sins that will be allowed through the net because of that odd definition.

The third problem, which was debated in the other place, is the challenge of what definition of “obscene material” to use. At least a couple of definitions are knocking around different bits of legislation and it is not clear that the orders are all-encompassing in the definitions used.

That brings us to the fourth issue, which was championed by Baroness Howe in the other place. The definitions that have been used create a couple of important new gaps. I am grateful for the briefing circulated by Christian Action Research and Education, which has set out the challenge in important ways. The Government have changed what the BBFC can ask internet service providers to block from so-called “prohibited material” to the much narrower definition of “extreme pornography”. In so doing, they exclude the power to ask ISPs to block non-photographic, animated child abuse images. Those are illegal to possess under section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 but, at the moment, they are outwith the protections of the orders. If those images are located outside the UK, they are not within the remit of the Internet Watch Foundation. Given the number of such images that we know are available, that is a serious shortcoming in the orders. It is a great concern to the House that neither the Internet Watch Foundation nor the BBFC has the power to deal with those images.

That brings us to the fifth issue. Just as significant is another challenge. Because of the same use of definitions, it is not possible to prohibit violent pornography that is illegal under the Video Recordings Act 1984. I understand that Baroness Howe has a Bill in the other place to step on and do away with these problems, and perhaps at some point we might learn whether the Minister is minded to support that legislation. I am not sure whether the Minister gets a chance to wind up under the rules of tonight’s debate, but she might want to intervene if a box note is forthcoming.

The sixth problem is that the orders give power to what is essentially a private company. When the orders were passed to give the BBFC the role we are debating this evening, the Opposition raised significant concerns about whether, despite its extensive experience, the measures constitute mission creep for the BBFC. The Opposition and other hon. Members have serious doubts about whether it is resourced enough to do the job. This is a new departure in its business, and it does not have a track record. It does not have a royal charter, and it cannot de facto be assumed to be operating in the common good. The basic challenge hon. Members have is this: who will watch the watchmen? How will we ensure that that private organisation, which is blessed by us with statutory powers and statutory regulatory oversight, executes the task we give it effectively? We cannot rely on its mission. I welcome the fact that the Minister says that the Secretary of State will come back to the House in 12 to 18 months with a progress report, but that is rather a long time in the future if the BBFC is found to be seriously failing in the execution of its duties at a much earlier stage.

The seventh problem is that there is not an exhaustive list of age-verification solutions. The Minister will say that the technology moves on and that we need to preserve a degree of flexibility to allow the legislation to keep up to date but, none the less, the lack of specificity worries me. It worries me that the BBFC is not yet able to insist on minimal regulations and solutions for age-verification systems. The eighth problem is that the guidance on what is appropriate in systems is vague.

When we take those eight objections together, we see that the orders are half-measures. The reality is that, this year, we have learned about and debated a great many different approaches to clamping down on the harms that may hurt our children online. A much better approach to the problem would be to use a tried and tested concept in health and safety legislation: the duty of care principle, which has been around in English law since at least the early 1970s. That approach would require companies and organisations to take specific steps to understand the potential harms they are causing to their consumers, and then to take appropriate steps to ameliorate those harms.

If I went to London tonight and built myself an arena and filled it with people, I would rightly be asked to observe all kinds of health and safety measures to ensure that that the people were safe and sound. If I build an online arena, I am under no such obligations and can pretty much do what I want. If I ensure that the arena is a social media platform, I will not be hampered in any way by the orders.

The duty of care principle is a much better approach, but it needs a different kind of regulator. We currently have something like 13 different regulators overseeing different aspects of internet safety, internet regulation, content regulation and financial processing regulation online. That is far too many. That landscape is much too complicated, and those regulators do not have sufficient powers to implement the safeguards against online harm that we as legislators would like. I am not proposing that we reduce those 13 regulators to one this evening, but I am saying that 13 needs to come down to something closer to one. The House needs to ensure that that regulator has the right power to enforce proper duty of care regulation.

The Minister spoke at great length and I am grateful that she took a wide variety of interventions. The orders are important and necessary, and an advance on where we are today, but if we are to get the future right, hon. Members on both sides of the House need to be candid and honest, and work together in identifying the shortcomings of the current approach, which was conceived and constructed in legislation that is a couple of years old. We need to be honest and open about its shortcomings so that we can put in place a better solution when we have the White Paper and, I hope, when the Secretary of State brings the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I will rattle through some points, because I would like them to be on the record for the Minister and the Secretary of State.

On the guidance on the ancillary service providers, under section 15(1)(d) of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and annex one of the guidance, pornography material is defined as a video work or material that has been issued an 18 certificate and that

“it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal”.

This is a neutral definition that fails to recognise that porn is almost always coercive, usually violent, aggressive and degrading, and is gendered. It is also almost always men doing it to women. Other countries are broad in their definition of pornography, to capture that aspect of it. In Spain, it is defined as “pornography, gender violence, mistreatment”, and in Poland as very strong and explicit violence, racist comments, bad language and erotic scenes. Does the Minister agree that our definition could be amended to acknowledge that pornography represents gendered violence, misogyny and abuse?

[Liam Byrne]

Am I right that the point my hon. Friend wants to register this evening is that there is much to learn from other countries?

[Sarah Champion]

That is absolutely right, and that becomes more apparent as we go forward. This legislation is very UK-based; pornography, of course, is international.

Minister, I am very concerned about the ability of the BBFC to compel ancillary service providers and payment-service providers to block access to non-compliant pornography services, as described under sections 21 and 23 of the Digital Economy Act. What power does the BBFC have to force companies to comply with its enforcement measures? What happens if credit card companies, banks or advertising agencies refuse to comply? I know of pornographic sites that accept supermarket points instead of cash to get around such legislation from other countries. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of opportunistic websites being established to circumvent UK legislation and the child protection risks that follow? It is unclear how the BBFC will appraise sites and what review mechanisms it will put in place to judge whether the scheme is effective in practice.

Under part 1, paragraph 10 of the guidance:

“The BBFC will report annually to the Secretary of State”.

Will the Minister commit to an interim review after six months from the implementation date, so that we can see whether this is working? Under part 1, paragraph 11 of the guidance,

“the BBFC will…carry out research… into the effectiveness of the regime”

with a view to child protection “from time to time”. As that is the very purpose of the legislation, does the Minister agree that this should occur at least every two years? Under part 2, paragraph 7 of the guidance,

“the BBFC will…specify a prompt timeframe for compliance”.

However, there is no detail on what this timeframe is. It could be a week—it might be a year. Will the Minister please explain the timetable for enforcement?

The guidance also details the enforcement measures available to the BBFC in the case of a non-compliant provider. I broadly welcome those enforcement measures, but I am concerned about the ability of the BBFC to take action. Will the Minister tell us which body will be effectively enforcing these punishments? Will it be the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the Home Office? Will the Minister put on the record the additional resources being committed both to the BBFC and whichever Government agent is meant to enforce the legislation?

Turning to the BBFC guidance on age-verification arrangements, I want to register my concerns about the standards laid out on what constitutes sufficient age verification from providers. Section 3, paragraph 5 mentions

“an effective control mechanism at the point of registration or access by the end user which verifies that the user is aged 18 or over at the point of registration or access”.

That is very vague and could in practice mean any number of methods, many of which are yet to be effectively put to the test and some of which may jeopardise the security of personal data. That raises concerns about the robustness of the whole scheme, so will the Minister detail how she plans to ensure that the qualifying criteria are not so lax as to be useless?

Part 4, paragraph 3a states that

“age-verification systems must be designed with data protection in mind—ensuring users’ privacy is protected by default”.

Has the Minister also made an assessment of the safeguarding implications for the personal data of children, some of whom may attempt to falsify their age to access pornographic imagery? Following the data hack of Ashley Madison, that has concerning implications for adults and children alike. While age verification certainly is not a silver bullet, as an idea it does have a place in a regulatory child protection framework. However, we need to ensure that that framework is as robust as it can be. Guidelines for websites that host pornographic material must be clear, so that the policy can be rigorously applied and potential loopholes are closed.

I also want to say that this has to work across Government. At the moment, we are still waiting for the Department for Education to bring forward the guidance on relationship and sex education. Unless we prevent, we cannot—

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is more that we can do in relation to the road network. The aspiration is to get to a point, in 2022, where all major road networks are covered. As he mentioned, there will then be a knock-on benefit to areas near those roads. One way in which we can do that is to make maximum use of the emergency services network that is being rolled out by my colleagues in the Home Office that is producing increases in coverage, but as I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—I make no bones about it—there is a good deal more work to be done.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

We have some of the worst networks in the advanced world. We heard yesterday that download speeds in Gloucestershire, for example, are 2,000 times slower than they are in Birmingham. Frankly, it adds insult to injury for those struggling to get on to universal credit, which is of course a digital-only benefit. The National Infrastructure Commission and Ofcom think that it is going to cost something like £11 billion to bring our networks into the 21st century, so will the Secretary of State assure the House that that is the full sum that he is seeking from Her Majesty’s Treasury?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman has gradually shaded into the subject of broadband from mobile coverage, but it is certainly right to point out that considerable progress has been made on digital connectivity of all kinds—both mobile and broadband—over the last few years. There is a radical difference between the position that we are in now and the position we inherited in 2010 but, as I have said a number of times this morning, there is a good deal more to be done; the right hon. Gentleman is right about that. We will ensure that we are making full use not just of the market roll-outs, but of the extra support that needs to be provided to the parts of the country that will not be covered by a market roll-out. The right hon. Gentleman will have carefully read the future telecoms infrastructure review that we produced in the summer, which deals exactly with how we reach parts of the country that will not be reached by a market roll-out.

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This Government tend to have ambitious plans for us to be an also-ran in the data age. We have an infrastructure that is hopelessly out of date, an education system that most teachers think is not fit for the future and a voluntary approach to regulation that will not ensure that the online world is a world of trust or a safe space for our children.

We welcome the Minister’s statement, and I thank her for advance sight of it. I also thank her for her words of praise for my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), the shadow Secretary of State, who was indeed a pioneer of open data and the Open Data Institute and the Power of Information Task Force. However, if the new centre is to be an establishment that simply writes voluntary codes and publishes best practice, it will not stop the online hate speech, the data breaches, or the risk of new algorithms coding old injustices into new injustices and inequalities. The centre joins 12 other regulators and advisory bodies with some oversight of the internet, so we now have 13 different regulators and advisers, and this one lacks any statutory basis for either its independence or its focus.

As a test case, will the Minister tell us whether the centre will advise her on the Google DeepMind deal, whereby British health data and its control were transferred to California despite all the assurances that were given to the Government and the public at the time? Will she tell us what specific guidance she is seeking on algorithmic unfairness, given that she voted down the amendments that we had proposed to create a legislative basis in the Data Protection Act 2018? Will she tell us what advice she is seeking on reforming the competition regulation regime, given that more companies, like Amazon, are using data to create monopolistic practices in this country? Finally, will she tell us what steps she will take to ensure that the centre builds on our proposal for a digital rights Bill in a new clause earlier this year?

We are not living through an era of change; we are now living through a change of era, and it is time that the Government rose to the challenge.

[Margot James]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. First, I should make it clear that the centre is not a new regulator. It will be an advisory body, which, for its first year or so, will be in the business of advising the Government and leading public debate on serious ethical issues associated with artificial intelligence. However, I can give a positive response to his question about its independence. It will become independent, and it will be placed on a statutory footing as soon as parliamentary time is available for us to introduce the necessary legislation. We fully intend this body to be totally independent of the Government in due course. Only on that basis, I believe, will it become the world-leading authority on data ethics and innovation that we want it to be in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman asks what the centre will do about online hate speech and other well-known online harms, which my Department and, indeed, the whole Government take extremely seriously. Earlier this year, we published a response to the Green Paper on internet safety, in which we stated that we were working on a White Paper that would explore various options, including legislation and statutory regulation to hold internet companies, particularly social media platforms, to account, and that we intended to produce legislation when parliamentary time permitted. We regard that area as separate from the ethical issues on which the new centre will advise public debate and the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions data protection. As he knows, that is regulated by the Information Commissioner, who has been involved in the development of the centre. He also mentions competition and the concentration of huge amounts of market power in the hands of a few companies. I am sure that many Members on both sides of the House share that concern, but it is very much a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority rather than for the new centre.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the centre will advise on Google’s decision to move parts of the healthcare practice of DeepMind to its Californian headquarters. As DeepMind and Google are private corporations, it is not up to the Government to pass comment on how they manage their affairs, but it is, of course, up to the new centre to opine on the practices and code of corporate governance of companies with which public services and Government contracts might work in the future. So there is a connection for the centre, albeit a rather tenuous one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

We have a fantastic organisation, Tech Nation, with which we work closely to build the hubs around the country that directly support SMEs; the British Business Bank also does this and it is now starting a regional network of advisers for SMEs in tech.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The tech sector is important, but it is not yet a big enough contributor to the Treasury. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of sales will be paid in the new tax introduced by the Chancellor by the big five tech giants next year?

[Margot James]

My understanding of what the Chancellor announced in the Budget on Monday is that he will be introducing a digital sales tax approximating to 2% of digital turnover. I think the right hon. Gentleman can make his own calculations.

[Liam Byrne]

I can tell the Minister that, based on last year’s sales, next year the big five will be paying 0.01% of their sales in tax. That is the Treasury forecast in the Red Book, but even the Office for Budget Responsibility says that that is highly uncertain, and it will be outweighed by the cut in corporation tax to 17%. So is it not true that she has conspired with the Treasury to give a free pass to some of the wealthiest firms on earth?

[Margot James]

I have had no discussions with the Treasury on that matter. [Hon. Members: “What?”] No, I have not. The right hon. Gentleman has alleged that I have had discussions, which I have not. To answer his substantive point, the Treasury expects to raise £1.5 billion over the next four years; 2% is a start and he should know that other countries are planning to take action, but no country has yet done so. Therefore, I suggest that the UK is taking the lead on this. We hope for international action, which will land a bigger hit, but at this stage international action is not forthcoming so we are taking action unilaterally—

Exchanging Data with non-EU Countries

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 General Committees

[The Chair]

We now move on to questions to the Ministers. As we have two Ministers, perhaps Members could indicate which one they are directing their question at. This will go on until 3.37 pm, unless we get a Division, in which case injury time will be added.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

May I preface a couple of questions with some initial thoughts, Mr Evans? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West on bringing this matter to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I advise the shadow Minister to be brief, because there will be further opportunities to speak when the debate starts.

[Liam Byrne]

Of course; I appreciate that, Mr Evans.

Like me, my hon. Friend will have been alarmed by the catena of platitudes from both Ministers this afternoon about the importance of data, the importance of trade and the importance of data to trade. We heard absolutely nothing about whether the Ministers are confident of securing an adequacy agreement, especially in the event of a no deal Brexit. As is eloquently set out in the paperwork for today’s hearing, the Ministers know as well as we do that this has to be signed off not only by the European Commission, but by the European Parliament, the article 29 working group and the European data protection supervisor.

Given the imminence of Brexit, I am extremely concerned that we have heard nothing about a timetable or a level of confidence. My question is blunt: in the event of a no deal Brexit, are the Ministers prepared to guarantee to the House this afternoon that a data adequacy agreement will be secured and that free data flows will continue?

[Margot James]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I cannot give him a categorical assurance that an adequacy agreement will be in place at any particular point during the negotiations. I can tell him that the UK Government have made it clear to the Commission that we are ready to commence discussions on a future adequacy agreement, even though the Commission has not indicated that it is yet ready to start such discussions. If we are successful in securing the transition and implementation period, we will stand ready to begin those preliminary discussions on an adequacy assessment during that period. Indeed, we stand ready now, but the Commission has indicated that it is not yet ready.

We agree that our primary goal is to secure an adequacy agreement. Through the recent publication of a technical notice, we have various provisions in place that should allow for the free transfer of data during the period in which we are discussing adequacy but have not yet secured it.

[Liam Byrne]

I do not know whether you prefer me to ask these questions standing up or sitting down, Mr Evans.

[The Chair]

Standing up.

[Liam Byrne]

Thank you, Mr Evans. I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but perhaps she could go further and tell us the precise timetable her officials have given her for what needs to be agreed when. Ultimately, we need to know when an adequacy agreement needs to be in place to ensure the free flow of data after we have left the European Union, which the Prime Minister assures us will happen at the end of March. Given that long stop date, as it were, what is the timetable for securing the necessary agreements from the European Parliament, the article 29 working party and the European data protection supervisor?

[Margot James]

As I said, the UK is ready to begin preliminary discussions on an adequacy assessment now. I cannot give a cast-iron timetable, because I cannot speak for the European Commission, which is the vital party to such discussions. The ball is in its court. We have indicated that we are ready and willing to start adequacy discussions. We anticipate that those discussions will take place during the transition and implementation period. Through the technical notice, we have established the arrangements that we would put in place if there were to be a gap between our departure from the European Union and the timing of the future framework. We all know what is going on—on both sides—on many fronts, not just data protection.

[Liam Byrne]

My last question is to press the Minister on a single point: by what date must an adequacy agreement be reached and in place to ensure that the free flow of data continues?

[Margot James]

The Government will ensure the free flow of data, even if there is a gap between the time at which the United Kingdom obtains an adequacy decision and the time at which we leave the European Union. We are scheduled to leave the European Union at the end of March next year. We anticipate that there will be an implementation period that takes us a further 20 months. During that implementation period, we anticipate discussions with the Commission on an adequacy decision.

We cannot guarantee exactly when that adequacy decision will be made. I reassure all members of the Committee that on our departure from the European Union we will be 100% aligned with European data protection law, particularly the provisions of the GDPR. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and I shared many discussions during proceedings on the Bill. When it received Royal Assent in May this year, it put us in 100% alignment with EU data protection law. We can be optimistic that an adequacy decision will not require the usual length of time that it takes the Commission to bestow such decisions on other third countries. However, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give a guarantee on that, because to do so is not in the UK Government’s gift. The decision will be forthcoming from the European Union.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to tell members of the Committee what will happen if we do not have an adequacy decision, either as we leave the European Union next March or even after the implementation period, I am happy to do so, but he looks as though he wants to intervene.

[Liam Byrne]

I am much less sanguine than the Minister about the possibility of an adequacy agreement. As she knows, we will not have article 8 to rest on after we leave the European Union. We have also sketched into the Data Protection Act 2018 sweeping exemptions from the GDPR for anyone who happens to be an immigrant, so I think the European Parliament will have some serious questions for the Minister about the adequacy agreement. Do we need an adequacy agreement in place to cover the implementation period, or not?

[Margot James]

I am not sanguine about anything to do with this; it is a serious matter. I may be optimistic, but there is a lot of work to be done, and I cannot guarantee when an adequacy decision will be made. I can only state categorically that it is the Government’s intention to prioritise discussions in relation to adequacy with the European Union, such that we get an adequacy decision as soon as it is practically possible for the European Commission to grant us one.

We have put in place some exemptions to the GDPR, as have other member states, but we have done so in a framework that permits member states to apply such derogations and exemptions. Other member states will have put in place similar or different exemptions. I contest the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that the exemptions are “sweeping” in respect of immigration. I remember the debates well. The powers are extremely contained, and they were amended on Report to constrain them even further.

I can answer questions about the measures that we will put in place if there is a gap between the granting of an adequacy decision and our departure from the European Union—and, indeed, after the implementation period, assuming the implementation period is agreed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 5191/17, a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on Exchanging and Protecting Data in a Globalised World, and an Unnumbered European Union proposal for provisions on Cross-border data flows and protection of personal data and privacy; welcomes the adequacy framework as an effective means of ensuring a free flow of data from the EU to third countries; and further notes that in the context of the UK leaving the EU it provides the right starting point.—(Margot James.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

I am slightly alarmed by the content of this afternoon’s debate. Perhaps it might be easier for everyone if I tabled several parliamentary questions to follow up on the debate.

I am not clear whether adequacy discussions have begun in detail; I am not clear whether an adequacy agreement is needed for the implementation period; and I am not sure about the Minister’s level of confidence that an adequacy agreement will crystallise and be in place by the time the implementation period finishes. I have heard nothing about the Government’s assessment of the attitude in the European Parliament and the other organisations that have to sign off the decision. I am afraid that today’s debate has opened rather more questions than it has closed.

Question put and agreed to.

Addictive Technology

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing the debate and on making a brilliant opening speech; he set out the issues with clarity and great purpose.

My hon. Friend started with the fact that it is just 10 years since Steve Jobs gave the world the iPhone. I was intrigued to discover, when researching for this debate, that when he introduced that new technology, he made extremely sure that he did not give it to his children. We now face a period in which we will be having this debate with increasing frequency. Statistics that I have seen show that some 40% of people now have some kind of internet-based addiction, whether that involves checking emails, scrolling through Facebook or Twitter, or online gambling. Indeed, figures that I came across this morning show that Generation Z—just slightly younger than yourself, Sir Edward—are now exposed to some 13 hours of media every single day.

We have to recognise that the technology companies that now pervade everyday life will need a very different kind of regulation in the years to come. I was delighted to meet representatives of the Centre for Humane Technology, from the United States, earlier this afternoon. They had a very good analogy. They were looking at various tech scandals around the world and made the point that sometimes, when we look at those symptoms, they are hurricanes, but the addictive technology at the centre is actually more akin to climate change. What we need to do as a legislature is figure out how to introduce a new regulatory regime that will control that climate change. As Tim Berners-Lee said,

“social networks—they are manmade. If they are not serving humanity, they can and should be changed.”

Nearly 30% of children who spend more than three hours on social network sites show symptoms of poor mental health; that is compared with just 12% of children who spend no time on social network sites. It is becoming increasingly obvious to all of us that there is some link between the use of social media, the overuse of social media and, frankly, the mental illness epidemic among many of our young people.

We are also beginning to see significant differences in the ways in which people from different income groups relate to social media. I think that it was Ipsos that this week published research showing that children from better-off families use social media for three and a bit hours less than those from poorer families, and of course there are differences in the way it is used.

With regard to the most dangerous end of the spectrum, we have The Telegraph to thank for a very compelling campaign in which it showed how, at its worst, social media and addictive technology are used to hook children on gambling, particularly casino-style gambling, and to engage children in suicide games, such as the Blue Whale challenge, which has been linked to 100 teenage deaths in Russia. It is no surprise that earlier this year 50 psychologists in America wrote an open letter accusing many of their colleagues of unethical behaviour in advising technology companies on the misuse of addictive tech. If we compare that problem, which is becoming increasingly well defined, with the sort of social contract that we expect from social media firms, we start to see a gulf emerge.

I looked at figures for the taxes paid by social media firms, prepared for me by the Library. It is remarkable how most of the big tech firms in this country are paying very low rates of tax—1.5%, 5%, 6% or 10% at best. That is a long way below even our low levels of corporation tax. We are beginning to see with some clarity the externalities—as economists would call them—or pollution that is created by social media firms, and the taxpayer is expected to clear it up. Unless we begin to change the tax regime and the regulatory regime, this problem will become more pronounced.

The Government need to step up to their responsibilities. The Minister’s former boss, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and others have made a splash in the newspapers, wringing their hands in big interviews, but their concern has not translated into Government action. The Foreign Secretary recently told the newspapers that he thinks there should be safeguards, and that the failure of technology companies to provide these safeguards is “morally wrong” and “unfair on parents”. The chief medical officer has a review in hand and we are waiting with bated breath for the White Paper on internet safety, but I call on the Government to step up.

I have three pleas for the Minister. First, she should look closely at the recommendations that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and by those on the Labour Front Bench who have called for a duty of care to be placed on social media companies. If I bought a chunk of land, built a stadium and put loads of people in it, I would quite rightly be held to some pretty rigorous health and safety legislation. If I build a virtual forum, where I put loads of people, there are no obligations on me whatsoever. We need to ensure that there is a duty of care, which is rooted in some tried and tested legislation that goes back to the early 1970s. We need to ensure that the social media firms are understanding and analysing the dangers that their work can pose to their customers. We need them proactively to put in place measures to ameliorate that risk. That needs to be auditable and punishable with significant fines if these firms fall short of their obligations.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am not at all unsympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. There is a concern here that social media may be associated with poor mental health if it is overused, but there is a second issue to do with potentially addictive behaviour in gaming and social media use. It is very difficult to put in place mechanisms to fine the international companies responsible, or to make them adhere to good behaviour in recognising the risks.

[Liam Byrne]

That is an important point. The duty of care framework, which has been tried and tested in case law since the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, is a useful, very British and pragmatic solution to these kinds of problems, because it puts the locus on the company to identify the harm it may cause and then take reasonable steps to prevent it.

I think that it is possible for an individual nation state to take action against these companies. That is what we see with the “NetzDG” law in Germany. One in six Facebook moderators work in Germany, which should not surprise any of us. There is a €50m fine if companies in Germany do not take down hate speech within 24 hours and wipe out all illegal content within seven days. I think it is possible for individual countries to introduce domestic regulations that can have a material effect, both on the safety of our fellow citizens and on the behaviour of some of these big companies. If the Government do not do it, we parliamentarians will have to try to build an international coalition for responsible tech. I hope that my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group can make strides towards not only a cross-party consensus in this Parliament, but brokering an international consensus.

[Hannah Bardell]

The right hon. Gentleman brings to the debate huge knowledge of the matter. Does he agree that one of the issues with content and responsibility online is pornography? The rise of online pornography has had a huge impact on behaviour, particularly that of young men. I commend to him the book “Misogynation: The True Scale of Sexism” by Laura Bates. I went to the Edinburgh international book festival, where she spoke about the rise of incidents in playgrounds, which schools do not necessarily have the tools to deal with, as well as young men becoming addicted to online porn, which is having an effect on their behaviour towards women. Does he agree that that is a serious issue, which we must work together, across parties, the UK and beyond, to tackle?

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have bored the Minister endlessly with this point, but during the 19th century there was not one Factory Act, but 17. As business, technology and marketplaces change, we have to update the legislation.

The Minister knows that if we are to maximise the degree of predictability and certainty for the business world and others, there is a good case for setting out a bill of digital rights for the 21st century. That would include all sorts of useful things, for example enshrining the right to privacy—enshrined in article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights—and action on algorithmic justice. It could also include some of the initiatives, devices, techniques and legislative approaches, such as the duty of care legislation. I hope that is something that my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group will be able to discuss. If we want a set of principles that can with- stand the test of time, and underpin the reform and re-reform of this sector over the course of the 21st century, we will have to work hard to build that cross-party consensus not only in this country, but around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I always learn something new when I am answering debates. I did not know that. I am not sure that I look forward to finding out more about it, but I certainly will.

We are undoubtedly living in an age where mobile devices mean that people feel compelled to be connected at any time. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) clearly made that point when she talked about her desire for some off-screen time in her personal time in the countryside, which proved difficult. We have dwelt on the darker side of those devices and platforms during the debate, because we are talking about addiction, but it is incumbent on us to recognise that a great deal of positivity has come forth from those devices.

We are looking at the impact on children and young people, to whom we have a particular responsibility. Youth policy is one of my Department’s responsibilities, so that is close to our hearts. The chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, is reviewing the impact that internet use can have on children’s mental health. There are no results from that yet, because it was requested only about a month ago by the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who, I am delighted to inform hon. Members, shares the concerns that we have heard and is in a position to do more about them in the Department of Health and Social Care.

[Liam Byrne]

As the Minister knows, the national health service is under tremendous strain. What arguments is she making to Her Majesty’s Treasury to do something about the low rates of tax paid by those companies, so that there is money to do something about the problem?

[Margot James]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, tax is a matter for the Treasury. The Chancellor indicated that he was looking at a digital services tax in his speech a few weeks ago. His first priority is to gain international agreement for the fairer taxation of technology companies, particularly these platforms. Actually, I should retract that; I do not think that he said particularly these platforms, but he did say that he wanted an international agreement for the fairer taxation of technology companies as his first priority. If he does not get that, I am told that he will introduce a tax unilaterally in the United Kingdom.

The health review will cover important and diverse issues, including cyber-bullying, online gaming, sleep problems and problematic internet use. I gather that the chief medical officer’s report will be published next year, and I will try to get a handle on when within that 12-month period we can expect it.

The Department of Health and Social Care has also reviewed evidence on the impact that social media can have on children, which showed that those who spend more than three hours using social media on school days are twice as likely to report high or very high scores for mental ill-health. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said that he had seen research showing a socio-economic difference in the amount of screen time, which, along with the research I have mentioned about some sort of causal link in the time spent, shows that digital technology is in danger of widening the social gaps in society, although it has the potential to bring people together. We obviously need to work to ensure that the latter prevails. The Government have made children and young people’s mental health a top priority for the NHS, and a major programme to improve access to specialist services is supported by £1.4 billion of new funding.

We are also looking at the use of smartphones in schools, which I know inspires strong passions. I have seen some initial results from that analysis, and most schools have rules in place that require that smartphones are not visible during school hours. We need to see more research on whether that is universally applied.

The Government believe that schools are best placed to make decisions about how best to use technology. Headteachers are empowered to manage mobile phone usage. Many schools and parents would appreciate more guidance, however, which we are working on across Government, inspired by the commission of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the chief medical officer to advise on the mental health impact of social media and smartphone usage.

On internet safety in the wider sense, the overuse of technology and concerns about online harms are not limited to young people. Our forthcoming joint Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Home Office White Paper will be published in the winter. It will set out a range of legislative and non-legislative measures and will detail how we propose to tackle online harms. It will set clear responsibilities for tech companies to keep citizens safer.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill asked whether we would look to place a duty of care on social media platforms. That route is certainly worthy of consideration. It is a proven method in other areas, and we will look at its relevance to the online world. Working with the Department of Health and Social Care and across Government, we will develop proposals targeted at improving the ability of users. We are also reforming the UK council for child internet safety so that it no longer focuses exclusively on children. Children will continue to be a top priority, but its remit will be widened.

In response to the hon. Member for Livingston, video games are indeed enjoyed by a large number of people across the UK. For the majority of people, that is a recreational activity, but research shows that, for a minority, their gaming can become excessive, to the extent that they prioritise it over other activities and experience negative effects from it. In recognition of that, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the World Health Organisation has recognised the potential to diagnose gaming disorder in some circumstances. It has not reached a conclusion yet, but I gather that it is working on it. Through its internet safety strategy, my Department is working to improve online safety in games, including by promoting healthy and responsible gaming. To do that, we will work closely with the gaming industry and organisations such as the Video Standards Council. Gaming will also be an important part of our internet safety White Paper.

On isolation and loneliness, I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Sport and Civil Society, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She has taken responsibility for tackling loneliness, which affects between 5% and 18% of the UK population, and social media is often highlighted as a cause. The strategy includes how Government can set a framework to enable local authorities, the third sector and businesses to support people’s social health.

Research suggests that the reality of social media and its connection to people’s relationships is nuanced and that how negative or positive the impact is depends on which social media service is being used and whether it is substituting for or complementing real-life interactions. For example, there are applications that help new mothers to stay more connected through difficult early stages of parenthood and products that use artificial intelligence to provide real-life experiences for those unable to leave their homes. If used correctly, the technology has real potential to break down barriers and improve the situation that isolated people might be exposed to. That is why social media companies are a core part of initiatives to tackle isolation. Digital means of bringing people together can be especially important to people with mobility problems and families separated by distance.

Technology can be and largely is a powerful force for good. It serves humanity, spreads ideas, and enhances freedom and opportunity across the world. However, what we have heard today gives us great pause for thought. It is informing our deliberations on online safety and I look forward to the continued debate with colleagues here in this Chamber and beyond as we develop our White Paper. We look forward to hearing their further thoughts on the various actions that we might take.

Draft Research Code of Practice and Draft Accreditation Criteria Draft Statistics Statement of Principles and Draft Code of Practice on Changes to Data Systems

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 General Committees

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. These measures are incredibly important because they will become the foundation for most of the public service reform that lies ahead in the next 20 years, so I want to start with a word of praise for and thanks to Sir Andrew Dilnot for the way in which he pioneered this agenda when he was chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

I think that the Minister has slightly undersold the fact that we are moving from a position whereby public policy decisions are made using official statistics to an increasing use of real-time official statistics. Anyone who has had to take big public decisions based on data that is available will know how frustrating it is to be relying on data that is basically looking in the rear-view mirror. I am thinking of, for example, the way in which we revise GDP forecasts, tax forecasts and annually managed expenditure forecasts. That leads to errors and mistakes by politicians such as the hon. Lady and, indeed, myself, in previous posts, so the power of these measures will be incredibly important in the years ahead.

In traditional British civil service fashion, what we have is a set of measures designed to create some process integrity, and some order in the process, so that decisions are taken according to a process that is well understood, well articulated and set out on bits of paper. It was slightly surprising, though, that the Minister did not say anything about the ethics that would be involved in the decisions that were taken, the way in which data is collected and the way in which data is interpreted over the years to come.

The data and the provisions in these measures will be incredibly important in two particularly important fields of public policy. One is tax forecasting and the other is the use of health data. As the International Monetary Fund and Christine Lagarde said earlier this year, the advent of the digital economy creates the ability to start doing real-time tax forecasting, based on predictive models that are reasonably robust. That has an incredible impact on the Treasury’s ability to put together Budgets that bear some resemblance to the truth and the real world.

However, there will be ethical questions about the way in which the information is collected and interpreted and, crucially, who the information is made available to, whether that is accounting firms, for example, or businesses that rely on accurate market understandings in order to produce sales forecasts. There will be all kinds of uses for this kind of information, which is of tremendous benefit to all sorts of people, but the ethics of what is released and how things are released are incredibly important.

In the area of health data, the information that we are talking about is even more important. Who will have access to patterns of health diagnosis information? Will it be the insurance companies? Will we begin to see the break-up of the risk pool because insurance companies are able to use the data to price the Minister’s health insurance in a different way from someone else’s? Who will make the information available to drugs companies, for example? How will that be done?

The Minister, in our debates earlier this year, put some store by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation that the Government propose. We still do not know much about that. We do not know when it will be set up, its terms of reference, who will be in it, its scope or how people will be appointed. However, the Minister has said nothing about the inter-relationship between a Government centre for artificial intelligence ethics and the measures before us. That is surprising because, in relation to principle 3, paragraph 5.1 on page 7 in the first set of measures states explicitly:

“Data can only be disclosed to processors…where expressly permitted, and must comply with the six conditions set out in the Act.”

Those six conditions are pretty high level, and that is why the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation is so important. However, as the centre produces judgments, how will they be reflected in revisions of these orders? Will we have a Committee meeting such as this every six months as we seek to update the orders in the light of new judgments that come from the centre?

The orders have our broad support, but the Minister must say more about how the architecture for revision of the orders will unfold, given the important institutional reforms that she seeks to introduce.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that the Whips put me on this statutory instrument Committee because it gives me an opportunity to ask important questions that need to be answered.

Given the scandal over Cambridge Analytica, the appalling behaviour of Facebook and the way in which data and information, including information of this House of Commons, was stolen and then sold to The Daily Telegraph a few years ago, how confident can we be about the processes here and the transferring of data and personal information? The draft research code of practice for accreditation criteria states that that information will go to various organisations that will be allowed to process and use it. Many of those organisations will get commercial benefit from that. Will the state receive any income as a result of the commercial exploitation of personal data, which was not acquired for the benefit of a commercial company but was acquired for fulfilling a function within our health or education system or for the general governance of our society? Why should private companies benefit without the individuals themselves who presumably own that data or the Government Departments that collected that data being beneficiaries of that income?

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend might know that our noble Friend Lord Parry introduced proposals to amend the Data Protection Bill to ensure that the wealth that may arise from the investigation of health records, for example, was held in a sovereign data fund. These ideas of sovereign data funds will catch on over the next few years, but at the moment we do not have any provisions to capture what is socially produced wealth—data—and to recycle that wealth for the good of the nation.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful for that information. I was not aware of that, but it adds to my knowledge.

Principle 7 on retention and onward disclosure states that the pre-processed data will be retained “for a limited time”, but that can then be extended. It is not clear how often it can be extended or whether there could be indefinite extensions. I want to know whether at those extension points a premium would be charged to the organisations that retained that data in order to continue to use it for years to come.

The various documentation is copious and I do not intend to delay the Committee unnecessarily, but I have one other question on the statistics statement of principles. Many organisations collect data. Every time I go into Sainsbury’s or Tesco and pay with my card, they seem to have collected information about what I have bought. When they send me their points, they send me vouchers to buy the things I normally buy to encourage me to go back to their store with that data. No doubt the data is very interesting and useful, but it could be very useful to the Government.

If bodies and institutions that are part of the Government—public sector organisations—must make data available to the UK Statistics Authority, why should there not be an obligation on private sector organisations, commercial companies and retailers to make data available? That would be very interesting. For example, if the Department of Health and Social Care could analyse the consumption patterns of a cohort of people by age and location, we might be able better to target our anti-obesity initiatives for healthy eating. We could make a judgment about the size of packets or whether orders of a product would be useful for the data within the Department of Health and Social Care.

I am not clear whether such obligations will apply to the private sector. From reading the codes superficially, it seems that they will not. I would be grateful to know whether there is a plan to think about that. We want joined-up government. Private sector organisations are able to exploit public data, but surely the public should be able to make use of it for the benefit of citizens as a whole and for the public good. Data will increasingly be a public good. Whether it is held by the Government or by private companies or individuals, it could be important in improving health, extending life expectancy and giving people better life chances. It should be made available in a timely manner, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill pointed out, to the Government when they are making decisions. I hope the Minister will address those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to look to the future more that I am able to do. To reiterate what I said, all data that emanates from publicly funded research must be used for the benefit of the public good. That may in time also produce a commercial return, but it would have to be for the public good.

In the deal between DeepMind, a private sector company, and Moorfields Eye hospital, a national health organisation—they have come together in a joint venture—the data is being used with AI to improve diagnosis and treatment patterns at the hospital. The connection between commercial gain and the public interest is being well managed in that example, and strict rules will be in place to ensure that any further such commercial endeavours using public data will be similarly managed under an ethical framework.

That leads me neatly to the remarks and questions of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. I share his optimism that real-time data will hugely benefit public decision making and I am sorry if I downplayed that significant advantage in my opening remarks. I certainly believe that that will be immensely valuable, and that it is underpinned by the codes of practice we are discussing.

We are in the process of establishing the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. A chair has been appointed, other board members will be appointed during the summer and its remit is available for public comment. In its embryonic form, it is working with the UK Statistics Authority to ensure seamless communication between the two bodies in future. I agree with the shadow Minister that that is important.

The shadow Minister talked about the ethical principles that must continue to underpin the use of data sourced in the way that the UK Statistics Authority manages. The use of data must have clear benefits to the users and serve the public good. Where individuals are concerned, identity is protected. Information must be kept confidential and secure, and consent will have been considered appropriately. Data used, and methods employed, are consistent with legal requirements such as the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Statistics and Registration Service Act and the common law duty of confidence. The access, use and sharing of data must be transparent and communicated clearly, and accessibility for the general public must be protected.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to learn that there is a seamless channel of communication between the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and the UK Statistics Authority, but that was not the question I asked. I asked how the guidelines are going to be revised as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation pronounces new judgments. It is not for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and the UK Statistics Authority to sort something out between themselves; it is for this House to set out the principles by which both organisations act.

[Margot James]

The right hon. Gentleman is right—he did ask that question. The UK Statistics Authority will continue to keep these principles, and documentation underpinning these principles, under close review. That will include the work of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation as it evolves. The future review of these principles and the codes underpinning them will be subject to scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament under the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Statistics Statement of Principles and Draft Code of Practice on Changes to Data Systems

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Statistics Statement of Principles and draft Code of Practice on Changes to Data Systems.—(Margot James.)