Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

I make one further comment because of the eloquent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the use of commencement powers and failing to carry out the law that Parliament has passed. This is a serious matter and it extends far beyond this Bill. We will be looking at a great deal of legislation which will depend on a variety of statutory instruments, ranging from policy issues to matters of timing. It is not a good precedent to accept that it is appropriate to leave in the hands of Ministers the ability to decide whether the law which Parliament has passed should exist in reality or not.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House because my voice is annoyingly masked. I urge noble Lords to put their hearing aids on because it might not last until I have said what I want to say.

Every now and then in this House, we have a debate of such importance and significance that the House behaves in a completely different manner from its normal routine. We have had that today. There is a sense of stillness, expectancy and interest that we do not always get, and it is important that we hold on to it because we are touching on some very important and deep issues. While we obviously need to deal with the narrow question of the amendments before us, I hope very much that the wider resonances of this debate might help unpick some of the difficulties that have been raised in our discussion and which are relevant in society today.

I am so taken by the debate we have had that I want first to mention to the House that our amendment in this group, which was laid as one of the first amendments, is an entirely “fake” amendment, if I may use that word. It is a probing amendment and does not mean anything. I can tell the House now that I will not be pressing it. I hope the Minister will do me the justice of not even bothering to respond to it because it has lost all relevance in the light of the issues that have been raised subsequently. My second point is a slightly cheeky one: since I am no longer involved with our amendment in this group and we do not have any names attached to any of the others, I will bring a completely new and independent view to the discussions. I hope that noble Lords will enjoy that.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Black, does not take this my final opening point the wrong way. I am not going to follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and accuse him of crimes he is not going to commit, but this is so important that we need to come back to it in another place and at another time. I hope that he will understand that. I think that it probably needs a Bill of its own to get this right. We can discuss that later.

Okay. Trying to make sense of what we have in front of us—in this alphabet soup that we often have in complicated parts of Bills—I want to approach this in the following way. I said at Second Reading, and I repeated in the debate last week, that I do not think the Bill is the right place to rerun some of the long-standing arguments about Leveson. I do not think that anything said today should be withdrawn; it is really important stuff that needs to be resolved. But this is probably not the Bill to do that in and I will give some reasons for that.

The main worry that I have, and several noble Lords have mentioned this, is that we are talking about a package of measures that were the product of a particular time. For all the reasons that have been given, bits have succeeded and bits have not succeeded; bits have been implemented and bits have not been implemented, and I do not think that it is right for this Bill at this time to try to kick-start some of the bits that need to be looked at, particularly the amendments that relate to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was a very good introduction to those. He made a very good case for them. That case does need to be answered, but this is not the right place for that, so I do not support them.

I do not think that Amendment 179A works in the context that I am trying to sketch out. The case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as always, was incredibly powerful and one’s heart reaches out to everything she says, which was also picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We want to do something about this and we think that the way that the Government have treated Leveson 2 is a disgrace. It is a shameful way to behave, given the treatment of the victims. We must never forget that.

The third group of amendments here—the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—also makes very good sense. They are sensible amendments but, for the same reason, we should not continue with them today.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is giving the Government a “get out of jail free” card, unless he has something else to say. There are areas in all these amendments that have massive implications for data and data protection. If they do not fit into the scope of a Data Protection Bill, where on earth will they fit?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would also like to have a little pop at the noble Lord. I understand his point that this is a Data Protection Bill and not something to amend the Crime and Courts Act. Of course, I experienced significant difficulties with the clerks trying to table an amendment to try to amend that Act. But if we had a suitable legislative opportunity—another criminal justice Bill—would the noble Lord’s party support an amendment to make Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act commence forthwith?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To answer that last point first, we have supported that in the past and on the right occasion we would probably support it again. But my point is not about the quality of the case made or the correctness of the approach. It is just not the right time to do that. The same answer applies to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I did not say that we would not support him if he brought this back at Report. I am simply saying that, at this particular point, I want to use this debate to focus on something else and that is why I am trying to approach the issue in this way. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me before my voice gives up finally. I hope that I can allow that to ring out so that noble Lords can be inspired by it. That is a faint hope.

Underneath the debate that we have had today are some really important questions. I will pose them quickly in the hope that we will get a response from the Minister. It is really important that the noble and learned Lord uses this opportunity to set out very clearly what the Government’s position is on a number of these key points. Is the regime that currently applies to the press, as set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, still the case in the Bill? In other words, has the regime that has worked well since 1998 been changed in any way by its transposition into this Bill? If it has not, he has to be very clear that that is the case. The case that has been made suggests that, in the rewriting and repositioning of Clause 164, something has happened that has alerted everyone to the point, which was made very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Black. I do not think that that was what we understand to be the case, and certainly I and my noble friend Lord Griffiths have asked for chapter and verse on this so that we can be sure that what we are seeing is exactly what the current law is. That is a straightforward question.

Secondly, we need to be persuaded, if we have not been already, that either the technology or the working practices in print journalism in particular, but also in relation to how print journalism is now often paired up with moving image technologies, has produced such a step-change in the way they operate that the additional defences proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Black, or the additional protections that might be needed by victims, which are so important and relevant, do not need to be brought into the Bill. The case has been made, the charge is there, and the Government must come back and tell us what arrangements have been made.

Thirdly, does the fact that many, but not all, direct investigations of a journalistic type are now done jointly with an audio-visual component, so that we have combinations between major newspapers and television broadcasters or even film, mean that we now have in perpetuity dual regulation, in which case the approach taken by Ofcom has to sit with the regulations under the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Data Protection Bill when it becomes law? If that is the case, we have a problem that needs to be confronted. We have one post hoc regulatory structure and one that is mainly post hoc but has an element, albeit restricted and on a narrow basis, in print journalism. If the way the world is moving suggests that everyone doing this work will have to be involved with two regulators, the Government’s Bill does not take that trick and we will need to come back to the point.

Fourthly, what is it about print journalism which is so different that it requires there to be a predetermination capacity for the ICO compared with the situation when the same work, and possibly the same output, is done under Ofcom? My noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made the point that the difference is that the media in this country are very strongly regulated. There are codes, statutory frameworks and editors who are clearly responsible for them and work to them well. However, a different situation pertains here. That does not mean to say that it should be applied across all the outputs involving investigative journalism, but it must be said that if there was in existence a robust, independent and effective press complaints system which enjoyed the confidence of victims, perhaps we would make better progress on the particular issues which have been raised today. That is the point on which we must focus as regards where we might go with this. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to respond, he can bring some light to this issue.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to all noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I would hope that recent debates, particularly in Committee on the Bill, have assured noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to preserving the freedom of the press and maintaining the necessary balance between privacy and freedom of expression in our existing law that has generally served us well over many years.

Perhaps I may take some of the amendments in turn. The first, Amendment 163A, was brought forward by my noble friend Lord Black. It asks that the Bill should require that greater consideration be given to the right to freedom of expression and information when the Information Commissioner is exercising her enforcement powers. Amendment 164A would require the commissioner to consider, for example, any other financial penalties imposed by another regulator as a result of failure—a point that was touched on tangentially by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in his closing remarks.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Black agrees that it is important that any amendments in this space do not impact disproportionately on the commissioner’s resources and her ability to execute her regulatory functions in an effective manner. I will give further consideration as to whether these amendments meet that test. I will address my noble friend’s contribution on this point in Hansard and the Government will reflect upon it. I do not hesitate because I am making a concession; I am merely making an observation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

170CA: Clause 162, page 91, line 3, leave out “de-identified” and insert “anonymised”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a relatively narrow point and affects only a very small part of the Bill, but is still quite important. The amendments in the group mainly cover the question of how the Bill can reach out to the question about anonymisation and how, or not, it plays against de-identification. There are two amendments and a clause stand part Motion which relate to other slightly different issues, which we will get to in turn.

Amendment 170CA would insert into the Bill the term “anonymisation”, as there is no definition of de-identification in the Bill. I will come back to explain what that means in practice. Amendment 170CB provides an important exemption for data scientists and information security specialists dealing with a particular area, because there is a fear that the introduction of criminal sanctions might mean that they would be caught when they are trying to consider the issue for scientific and other reasons. Amendment 170CC adds a definition of identified data—after all, if it is to be criminalised, there needs to be a definition. This definition will cover cases which involve names of individuals, but will also cover those where fingerprints, for instance, are used to identify people.

The clause creates a new offence of knowingly or recklessly re-identifying information that has been de-identified without the consent of the controller. Amendment 170F asks for guidance relating to this offence. It is at the request of the Royal Society, because it wants clarity on the legal basis for processing.

Amendment 170G concerns transparency. If we are going to go into this area, it is very important that we know more about what is happening. The amendment suggests that the Information Commissioner,

“must set standards by which a data controller is required to anonymise personal data”.

There may be lots of new technologies soon to be invented or already available, and it is important that the way in which this important work goes forward can be flexed as and when new technologies come forward. We think that the Information Commissioner is in the strongest position to do that.

The other set of amendments to which our names are attached, Amendments 170E and 170H, relate to particular problems that can arise in large databases within health. There is a worry that where re-identification occurs by accident or just through the process of using the data, an offence will be created. MedConfidential suggests that some form of academic peer reviewing might be useful in trying to assess whether this was a deliberate act or just an unfortunate consequence of the work being done by those looking at the dataset concerned. The further amendment, Amendment 170H, clarifies whether an offence actually occurs when the re-identification work applies to disseminated NHS data —which of course, by its very nature, is often rather scattered and difficult to bring together. There is a particular reason for that, which we could go into.

At the heart of what I just said is a worry that certain academics have communicated to us: that the Bill is attempting to address what is in fact a fundamental mathematical problem—that there is no real way of making re-identification illegal—with a legal solution, and that this approach will have limited impact on the main privacy risks for UK citizens. If you do not define de-identification, the problem is compounded. The reference I have already made suggests that there might be advantage to the Bill if it used the terms used in the GDPR, which are anonymisation and pseudonymisation.

The irony which underlies the passion with which we have received submissions on this is that the people likely to be most affected by this part of the Bill are UK information security researchers, one of our academic strengths. It seems ironic that we should be putting into the Bill a specific criminal penalty which would stop them doing their work. Their appeal to us, which I hope will not fall on stony ground, is that we should look at this again. This is not to say in any sense that it is not an important issue, given the subsequent pain and worry that happens when datasets certified as anonymised are suddenly revealed as capable of being cracked, so people can pick up not just details of information about dates of birth or addresses but much more important stuff to do with medical health. So it is very important—and others may want to speak to the risk that it poses also to children, in particular. I hope that that is something that we might pick up.

There needs to be a proper definition in the Bill, whatever else we do about it, and that would be right in a sense. But we would like transparency about what is happening in this area, so that there is more certainty than at present about what exactly is meant by anonymous data and whether it can be achieved. That could be solved if the Information Commissioner is given responsibility for doing it. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

We are in the thickets here at the interface between technology, techno-speak and legality. Picking our way through Clause 162 is going to be rather important.

There are two schools of thought. The first is that we can amend this clause in fairly radical ways—and I support many of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Of course, I am speaking to Amendment 170E as well, which tries to simplify the language and make it much more straightforward in terms of retroactive approval for actions taken in this respect, and I very much hope that parliamentary draftsmen will approve of our efforts to simplify the language. However, another more drastic school of thought is represented by many researchers—and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has put the case very well that they have put to us, that the cause of security research will be considerably hampered. But it is not just the research community that is concerned, although it is extremely concerned by the lack of definition, the sanctions and the restrictions that the provisions appear to place on their activities. Business is also concerned, as numerous industry practices might be considered illegal and a criminal offence, including browser fingerprinting, data linkage in medicine, what they call device reconciliation or offline purchases tracking. So there is a lot of uncertainty for business as well as for the academic research community.

This is where we get into the techno-language. We are advised that modern, privacy-enhancing technologies such as differential privacy, homomorphic encryption—I am sure that the Minister is highly familiar with that—and question and answer systems are being used and further developed. There is nothing worse than putting a chill on the kind of research that we want to see by not acknowledging that there is the technology to make sure that we can do what we need to do and can keep our consumers safe in the circumstances. The fact is that quite often anonymisation, as we are advised, can never be complete. It is only by using this new technology that we can do that. I very much hope that the Minister is taking the very best legal and technology advice in the drafting and purposes of this clause. I am sure that he is fully aware that there is a great deal of concern about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

In which case, I will read Hansard, the noble Lord can do so and I am sure we will come to an arrangement. We can talk about that, if necessary.

Amendment 170F seeks to require the commissioner to produce a code of practice for the re-identification offence three months after Royal Assent. We can certainly explore with the commissioner what guidance is planned for this area and I would be happy to provide noble Lords with an update on that in due course. However, I would not like to tie the commissioner to providing guidance by a specific date on the face of the Bill. It is also worth mentioning here that, as we discussed on a previous day in Committee, the Secretary of State may by regulation require the commissioner to prepare additional codes of practice for the processing of personal data under Clause 124 and, given the issues that have been raised, we can certainly bear those powers in mind.

Finally, Amendments 170G and 170H would oblige the commissioner to set standards by which the controller is required to anonymise personal data and criminalise organisations which do not comply. I reassure noble Lords that much of this work is under way already and that the Information Commissioner’s Office has been working closely with government, data controllers and the National Cyber Security Centre to raise awareness about improving cybersecurity, including through the use of pseudonymisation of personal data.

It is important to point out that there is no weakening of the provisions contained in article 5 of the GDPR, which require organisations to ensure appropriate security of personal data. Failure to do so can, and will, be addressed by the Information Commissioner, including through the use of administrative penalties. Some have said that criminalising malicious re-identification would create complacency among data controllers. However, they still have every incentive to maintain security of their data. Theft is a criminal offence but I still lock my door at night. In addition, I am not convinced by the mechanism the noble Lord has chosen. In particular, criminalising failure to rely on guidance would risk uncertainty and unfairness, particularly if the guidance was wrong in law in any respect.

I accept that the issues noble Lords have raised are important but I hope that, in view of these reassurances, the amendment will be withdrawn, and that the House will accept that Clause 162 should stand part of the Bill. There are reasons for wanting to bring in this measure, and I can summarise them. These were recommendations in the review of data security, consent and opt-outs by the National Data Guardian, who called for the Government to introduce stronger sanctions to protect de-identified patient data. People are generally more willing to participate in medical research projects if they know that their data will be pseudonymised and held securely, and the Wellcome Trust, for example, is supportive of the clause. I hope that those reassurances will allow the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and enable the clause to stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and welcome her to her first full session. I am glad that we have been able to reorganise our timings so that she has been able to attend and contribute—something that we have missed until now. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Clement-Jones, for their comments and support for this series of amendments.

There is a whiff of Gilbert and Sullivan about this. We are talking about a technology that has not yet settled down, and about protections which I do not in any way say are wrong. The technology is still developing and still uncertain, and we are told by experts that what the Bill is trying to do cannot happen anyway. The amendments offer the Government the chance to think again about the need to find a progressive path. We set out on what is often a voluntary basis, under the Government’s approach, with a code that works. People are brought in and consulted, and eventually the crime to be committed is defined—until we have that, we really do not have anything—and we try to be respectful of the fact that people would move out of the sector if they felt that their work would be attacked because it was illegal.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for listening to the debates. I hope that we can have a meeting about this to pick up some of the points and take the matter forward from there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170CA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

184: Clause 173, page 98, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) In relation to the processing of personal data to which the GDPR applies, Article 80(2) of the GDPR (representation of data subjects) permits and this Act provides that a body or other organisation which meets the conditions set out in that Article has the right to lodge a complaint, or exercise the rights, independently of a data subject’s mandate, under—(a) Article 77 (right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory body);(b) Article 78 (right to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority); and(c) Article 79 (right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor),of the GDPR if it considers that the rights of a data subject under the GDPR have been infringed as a result of the processing.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister and others have been at pains to stress the need to ensure that, whatever we finally do, the Bill should help to build trust between those who operate and accept data and those who provide it—the data subjects. It is important that we look at all aspects of that trust relationship and think about what we can do to make sure that it fructifies. Amendment 184 tries to add to the Bill something that could be there, because it is provided for in the GDPR, but is not there. Will the Minister explain when he responds why article 80(2) of the GDPR is not translated into UK legislation, as could happen? The proposed new clause would provide that,

“a body or other organisation which meets the conditions set out in that Article has the right to lodge a complaint, or exercise the rights, independently of a data subject’s mandate”.

I will largely leave the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to introduce Amendment 185 because he has a new and brief style of introduction, which we like a lot.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

It is not a new style.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is certainly new to me. He may have been here a lot longer than I have and there have been other occasions where he has been less than fulsome in his contributions. But I am not in any sense criticising him because everything he says has fantastic precision and clarity, as befits a mere solicitor. It is important that we give him the chance to shine on this particular issue as well.

I mentioned what a pleasure it is to have the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, here today, particularly because she will speak very well to the fact that only a few happy months ago we worked on the Consumer Rights Bill, which is now an Act, in which a power was given to private enforcers to take civil action in courts to protect collective consumer rights via an enforcement order. The campaigning consumer body Which? is the designated private enforcer.

Also, in the financial sector, Which?, Citizens Advice, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland have the power to present super-complaints to the FCA. The super-complainant system is working very well; one reason why the PPI mis-selling scandal was discovered was as a result of the work of Citizens Advice. These independent enforcers of consumer rights in the traditional consumer sector and in the consumer finance sector exist. Why is there no equivalent status for digital consumer enforcers? That is the question raised by the amendment.

The powers for independent action here are important in themselves and I am sure other noble Lords will speak to that point, but they are also really important at the start of this new regime we are bringing in. With the new Data Protection Bill we have a different arrangement. Far more people are involved and a lot more people are having to think harder about how their data is being used. It makes absolute sense to have a system that does not require too much knowledge or detail, which was aided and abetted by experts who had experience in this, such as Which? and others, and would allow those who are a little fazed by the whole process of trying to raise an action and get things going to have a steady hand that they know will take it on behind them.

The Government will probably argue that by implementing article 80(1) of the GDPR they are providing effectively the same service. That is a system under which an individual can have their case taken up by much the same bodies as would be available under article 80(2). However, when an individual complainant is working with a body such as Which?, we are probably talking about redress of the individual whose rights have been breached in some way and exacting from the company or companies concerned a penalty or some sort of remuneration. One can see in that sense that the linking between the individual and the body that might take that on is important and would be very helpful.

However, there are cases—recent ones come to mind such as TalkTalk, Equifax, Cash Converters and Uber—where data has gone missing and there has been a real worry about what information has escaped and is available out there. I do not think that in those cases we are talking about people wanting redress. What they want is action, such as making sure that their credit ratings are not affected by their data having come out and that they could perhaps get out of contracts. One of the issues that was raised with EE and TalkTalk was that people had lost confidence in the companies and wanted to be able to get out of their contracts. That is not a monetary penalty but a different form of arrangement. In some senses, just ongoing monitoring of the company with which one’s data is lodged might be a process. All that plays to a need to have in law in Britain the article 80(2) version of what is in the GDPR. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 184. The Minister will have noticed that Amendment 185 would simply import the same provisions into applied GDPR for this purpose. The rationale, which has been very well put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is precisely the same.

I do not know whether the Minister was choking over his breakfast this morning, but if he was reading the Daily Telegraph—he shakes his head. I am encouraged that he was not reading the Daily Telegraph, but he would have seen that a letter was written to his right honourable friend Matt Hancock, the Digital Minister, demanding that the legislation can and should contain the second limb that is contained in the GDPR but is not brought into the Bill. The letter was signed by Which?, Age UK, Privacy International and the Open Rights Group for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put forward. The noble Lord mentioned a number of data breach cases, but the Uber breach came to light only last night. It was particularly egregious because Uber did not tell anybody about it for months and, as far as one can make out from the press reports, it was a pay-off. There is a very important role for such organisations to play on behalf of vulnerable consumers.

The Which? survey was particularly important in that respect because it showed that consumers have little understanding of the kind of redress that they may have following a data breach. A recent survey shows that almost one in five consumers say that they would not know how to claim redress for a data breach, and the same proportion do not know who would be responsible for helping them when data is lost. Therefore the equivalent of a super-complaint in these circumstances is very important. To add to that point, young people are often the target of advertising and analysis using their personal data. I think they would benefit particularly from having this kind of super-complaint process for a data breach.

I hope very much that the Government, who I believe are conducting some kind of review, although it is not entirely clear, will think about this again because it is definitely something we will need to bring back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Lord will admit that the GDPR allows member states to do that; otherwise, it would have been made compulsory in the GDPR. The derogations are there to allow member states to decide whether or not to do it.

To summarise, we have chosen not to adopt article 80(2) because the Bill is based on the premise of getting consent—but these amendments are saying that, regardless of what the data subject wants or whether they have given consent, other organisations should be able to act on their behalf without their consent. That is the Government’s position and I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for his honesty and transparency—but not for the content. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I find this very odd. Is it not true that when early consultations on the Bill were carried out, the consultation included the possibility that article 80(2) would be implemented—in other words, that the derogation would be accepted—and responses were gathered on that basis? That is what we were told by some of those who were consulted. Therefore, the Government must have had a formal change of mind, either based on their own whim or because they received substantial contributions from very important people who felt that these things should not go forward. I would be interested to follow that up with the Minister, perhaps in another meeting.

I do think this is very strange. Here is an opportunity to win friends, get people on side and offer them something that will be really helpful. We have heard about children; and there are other vulnerable people who are not experts in these areas, for whom a little extra help was promised by the Government because they felt that that would be right. The idea that, in some senses, this would empower a whole industry of people to manufacture claims to get at data holders seems completely ridiculous.

If we look at the comparable arrangements in the consumer field that I tried to draw the Minister’s attention to, we see very strict rules about the levels at which super-complaints can be made: they must be proportionate, relevant and have evidence of support from a wider group of people that allows them to go forward. We are not talking about an open-ended commitment—that would be daft—but when we look at the best way to combat bad practice that affects particular vulnerable groups and is being practised by people who should not do it, this must be in our armoury. We will certainly come back to this—but in the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 184 withdrawn.