Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am grateful for the contributions made by noble Lords. The first thing to acknowledge is that these amendments were made at a reasonably late stage in the Bill but not a very late stage, in the sense that it was in the second House. We considered the Bill first and the second House amended the Information Commissioner’s powers, so we are now looking at them again. However, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the Information Commissioner was involved in these powers. That is not to say that, in the course of those discussions, she did not put up some powers that she might like to have but, in discussion with the Government, we settled on some powers that she was content with. I can confirm that she is content with this suite of powers; in fact, she has written to the Minister for Digital confirming as such.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned a dawn raid and asked whether we can do that and, further, whether these powers are on all fours with the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom. By and large the powers are on all fours but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, they are not exactly the same. They were modelled on them but they are slightly different, given the different roles and functions that regulators have. As for a dawn raid, the Information Commissioner has the power to ask for a warrant to be issued without notice if the judge is satisfied that giving the controller advance notice would not be appropriate. As I say, we looked closely at the powers of the CMA and Ofcom and modelled them as closely as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked about protection for journalists’ sources. I can confirm that, yes, the new ICO powers continue to respect the need to protect journalistic sources and legal professional privilege.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also talked about the Information Commissioner’s resources. As he knows, we have increased the fees and made a commitment in the past that we will make sure that the Information Commissioner has the resources available to do her job properly. We understand the issues that that involves. We need the Information Commissioner to do a proper job and to be able to do so, not least because of the Brexit negotiations and the data adequacy requirements that we will want to continue for electronic commerce.

I think I have dealt with the points raised and, on that basis, I thank noble Lords for their support for these powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a long and hard struggle to attempt to convince the Government to meet their commitments to complete the Leveson reforms and, most importantly, complete part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. During earlier debates, I claimed not to know any celebrities who were not politicians. I apologise to the House because I should have inserted the caveat, “other than a world-famous international yachtsman”.

I agree with my noble and learned friend the Minister that we should accept the Commons rejection of my Amendment 147, which sought in effect to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in respect of data protection. I shall try to explain why in a moment, but it has nothing to do with the merits.

First, I would like unreservedly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her new amendment which seeks to commence the Leveson 2 inquiry. I agree with everything she has said, and I hope that she will seek the opinion of the House. If she does, I will be supporting her in the Lobby.

I am bound to say that the print media have consistently misrepresented the issues in question. For instance, it has been said that the noble Baroness and I hijacked this Bill to pursue our amendments. It is actually fair comment, but as any noble Lord who has been in opposition knows, it is a perfectly proper standard parliamentary procedure, and I am sure that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has himself used this technique many times when he was in opposition.

It was also alleged that we cynically excluded politicians from the scope of the inquiry. This is simply not true. We did try to table an amendment that sought much wider terms of reference for the inquiry. Quite properly, the clerks advised us that we needed to restrict the scope of the amendment to data protection issues. It would, of course, be open to the Government to set wider terms to include politicians, and if a Conservative politician is alleged to have done something wrong, I am happy to see them explain themselves to the inquiry.

I turn to my amendments. When my noble and learned friend comes to reply, while he has explained the stick component of Section 40, will he remind the House of how its carrot component works, because I do not think that he mentioned it?

Although the Commons never actually divided on my amendments, they were fully debated and it is clear to me that there is no realistic prospect of the Commons changing their mind. There is no Salisbury problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, because she genuinely believes that if we send it to the Commons, we may get a different answer. However, I would suggest that this will probably be the last roll of the dice.

I feel bound to comment on the exceptionally effective campaign run, presumably, by the News Media Association. Whoever is running it knows what they are doing, although we have all been playing hardball. However, what is disturbing is that I have been silenced and skilfully suppressed nearly everywhere except in your Lordships’ Chamber, and therefore I am extremely grateful to the BBC programme, “The Big Questions”, for allowing me to contribute to yesterday’s debate. It is not clear to me why the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers politely declined my offer to address the Peers on my amendment but nevertheless later allowed Sir Alan Moses, the chairman of IPSO, to address the Cross-Bench Peers. In the days immediately after our votes on Report, despite one national newspaper devoting three whole pages to criticising some noble Lords, my name was mentioned only once in any national newspaper, and I suspect that that was an accident. It is good that the press is supposed to be biased, opinionated and partisan.

Despite trying very hard, I was able to secure only two meetings to discuss the Leveson amendments with two Conservative MPs, and they had very good reasons to do so but nevertheless, quite understandably, they voted with the Government. Even the Leader of your Lordships’ House declined to have a meeting with me in the week preceding the vote in the Commons to discuss these problems—so much for free speech. The very same honourable Members who declined to meet me had helped to produce a majority of 530 to 13 in the vote to insert new Section 40 in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. What is going on?

I welcome the Government’s Cairncross review into the sustainability of the press. This is one of the Government’s arguments for not implementing Leveson. When I talked to my local editor, he was not worried about regulation; his problem was sustainability.

Recently, in accordance with the principal VAT directive, the appropriate tribunal decided that online publications would attract VAT at the standard rate. This is a tax on information and knowledge, when books and publications are exempt. The EU withdrawal Bill has enough difficulties without me raising another one, and I do not want to tie the Minister’s hands, but can my noble and learned friend write to me—and perhaps to my noble friend Lord Black—to assure us that the appropriate officials are aware of the risk of negotiating away our freedom to zero-rate online publications post Brexit?

Much of the debate on Section 40 has centred on state regulation of the press. At the moment, unfortunately, we have covert state regulation because anyone in government, particularly sources close to No. 10, can suggest to the media that Ministers are reconsidering commencing Section 40. This is a completely unacceptable gun, held to the press’s head, which must be deactivated at the earliest possible moment. Worse still, it could inadvertently lead to the press self-censoring in the case of a story that might, in any case, make for difficult ethical and legal decisions for the editor concerned. Can the Minister indicate when this very short Section 40 repeal Bill will be presented to Parliament?

If we are not to implement the Leveson press reforms, we need to commence part 2 of the inquiry to find out what has gone wrong in the past, ensure that it is not continuing and prevent it from recurring. As one of our briefings today put it, the past is a prologue for the future.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the few counsel who has acted in privacy cases for both the Daily Mail and Mr Max Mosley. I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I remind your Lordships of what the Conservative Party manifesto said before the election last year:

“Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.


As your Lordships know, the Commons held a lengthy debate on this subject last Wednesday and voted not to institute a Leveson part 2. Your Lordships’ House has heard the pro and con arguments on many occasions.

I want simply to emphasise two points. Amendment 109 introduces extensive new powers on the Information Commissioner in relation to the press and, as the Minister has already indicated, it requires the commissioner to conduct a review of the press in the short term. Also, over the years, there have been not just police, and other, inquiries: a large number of civil actions—cases against the press—have been brought by phone-hacking victims. Those victims have not gone without remedy; they have received very substantial financial compensation, and rightly so. It is true that some of the claimants were celebrities, but many were not; they were victims of phone hacking because, for example, they were related to television actors or spent the night with a footballer. Reprehensibly, the press hacked their phones. They brought legal actions; the lawyers acted on a conditional fee basis. After the event, insurance ensured that there was no financial risk to the claimant, so it is simply not the case that victims of phone hacking lack, and have lacked, legal remedy. Newspapers have rightly been ordered to pay substantial sums by way of compensation. It is simply unrealistic to think, in the light of the criminal prosecutions and civil liability, that the message has not got across. I respect, of course, the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the others who support this amendment, but it really is time for this House to give way to the views of the Commons on this matter.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said. I also have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She has shown that she is a doughty campaigner; she passionately believes in her cause, and she has every right so to do.

I want to dwell on just one aspect: the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. I hope that I have shown that I am not afraid to vote against the government line; I have done so frequently recently and I do not regret it, because I have done what I thought was right.

When we take such a line, we ask the other place to think again. However much the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, may regret it, the other place has thought again. This is not the moment to introduce new amendments—to protract the ping-pong by bringing in a new ball. With proper deference to the elected House, we have to accept the line that it has taken. There are of course other arguments that one could deploy—it has been said that this is not the right Bill and all the rest of it—but the matter has gone to the other place; it has made its decision. We would be overemphasising our constitutional legitimacy if we sought to reject what it has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Government having carried these provisions in the Commons. More importantly, the patient support groups for which I spoke are very gratified because they regard these amendments as absolutely vital to their ability to carry on their important work. If I might say so, it is a very satisfactory outcome.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I welcome Commons Amendment 188 on the confidentiality of legal advice. As the Minister knows, a concern has been raised, long after the 11th hour, about the position of arbitrators. The concern is that the Bill addresses the data protection obligations of judges and lawyers but does not address the data protection position of arbitrators. Arbitration is of course an important legal service, in which this country leads and provides services to the world. All I can do at this stage is to ask the Minister and the Bill team whether they will reflect on this concern, which has been raised not just with me but with him. If he thinks that there is any basis for concern, will he consider using the very extensive powers conferred under the Bill to bring forward regulations to address the issue?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as the Minister made clear in his lucid introduction, this is a really significant group of amendments. It is very good to see that some of the work that was done in this House has come back in the form of amendments. In particular, the Minister will remember that it was my noble friend Lord McNally who raised issues around Thomson Reuters in the first place. However, I know that there will be considerable pleasure in the financial services industry, which is very concerned about such things as money laundering, anti-corruption measures and so on, and making sure that it can process data in pursuance of achieving those important goals.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on her campaign, which has clearly borne fruit here. I had not heard what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had said but there seems to be a bit of a hole in the Bill if that is the case. I can certainly testify to the fact that arbitrators are an incredibly important part of our judicial system. Indeed, within it they are one of our global competitive advantages; therefore if anything is done that is to the detriment of our arbitration system, it would be really quite serious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. That brings me nicely to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about arbitrators. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, mentioned the importance of arbitration to the economy of this country. I am only too well aware of it from my background in insurance. London has a very well-respected legal system, but the arbitration system is linked to that. We certainly would not wish in any way to hinder it. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did, the people who brought this up seemed to do so at the last minute. I slightly wonder how they managed to miss this trick, if it is so obvious, for the two years that the GDPR has been in place, let alone—

[Lord Pannick]

Could I suggest to the noble Lord that they were too busy arbitrating?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

They should have hired a lawyer. The point is that it is a perfectly valid point. We have sought to replicate in the Bill, as far as possible, the existing provisions relating to legal professional privilege. We had several discussions about that in the 1998 Act, including the relevant exemptions to rights and obligations for personal data. I cannot help but notice that the Arbitration and Mediation Service, given that we are trying to replicate as far as possible existing provisions, appears to have been operating without undue burden for the last 20 years, but I am certainly prepared to undertake to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we will look at that with a view to making sure that this is not a serious problem. We certainly have not been able to do it in time. I can confirm to him that, if there is a problem, the Bill contains regulation-making powers to address this concern. The only thing I can say on that is that, quite rightly, those regulations would have to come before both Houses of Parliament. If there is a concern he will be able to address it later.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is quite correct that we talked about me making a statement or addressing concerns about the individual application of the GDPR and the Bill to Peers. I assumed I would do so if it was necessary and if the subject came up, which, luckily, it has not. Just to be clear, it is not just that Peers and other citizens of this country are suffering under the GDPR, although they might have obligations that they were not aware of before and, I agree, certain extra ones because the GDPR has direct effect; it also greatly increases individual subject rights. It makes sure that individuals’ personal data, in particular sensitive personal data, is better protected in law and by a regulator, who, thanks to your Lordships’ agreement, has real power to make sure that the data regime is obeyed. I believe that the House authorities have issued a statement to all Peers. Of course, my department is there to address this. The first avenue that Peers should use for the individual circumstances is the House authorities.