Draft Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham.

As Members will be aware, the UK’s departure from the European Union provided us with an opportunity to amend, remove and replace unsuitable retained EU law. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which was passed earlier this year, set out that certain EU-derived laws, principles, rights and regulations should cease to apply in the UK by the end of 2023.

The Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation, known as UK GDPR, require that the Government, the Information Commissioner and other organisations using personal data to consider people’s “fundamental rights and freedoms” in certain situations. For example, such rights and freedoms must be considered by data controllers when relying on the “legitimate interests” lawful ground for processing under article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, and by Ministers when considering whether to create new permissions in relation to the use of people’s sensitive data.

Before EU exit, those were taken to be rights under the EU charter of fundamental rights. Following the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, they have been those fundamental rights retained by section 4 of the Act. Given that section 4 is set to be repealed at the end of 2023, it is important for us to take action through this draft statutory instrument to substitute the reference to it. Failing to do so would lead to ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of references to “fundamental rights and freedoms” in the data protection legislation. The lack of clarity could pose significant difficulties for organisations using the data protection legislation, resulting in inconsistent outcomes and legal uncertainty.

That is why, through the draft regulations, the Government are clarifying that “fundamental rights and freedoms” refer to rights under the European convention on human rights, known as the ECHR, which has been given further effect in UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998. By doing that, the Government are ensuring that there is a clear, legally meaningful definition to rely on. That will provide consistency and certainty for organisations that are subject to data protection legislation, as well as continued protection of people’s rights.

The draft regulations are made under powers in the REUL Act, which allow Departments to revoke or replace references to EU-derived law. However, it is important to note that the regulations themselves do not remove any EU law rights; it is the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the REUL Act that do that. The regulations are simply designed to replace references to EU law that would otherwise become meaningless at the end of the year.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm what happens if we have left the ECHR by the end of the year? Do we have to make up our own definition, or is that not going to happen after all?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend raises a wholly theoretical proposition. Should it ever occur, we will probably have to define our own version back in Committee. For the moment, however, we are members of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act applies, and it is the rights as defined in that Act to which we will now refer.

Subject to the approval of the Committee here gathered, the draft regulations will ensure clarity for organisations. From the end of 2023, they will provide ongoing protection for people’s rights when their personal data is processed by replacing a redundant definition of fundamental rights with a new one based on rights protected by domestic law in the UK. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Derby County Football Club

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the debate.

If someone had told me 30 years ago, when I watched Notts County cruelly deprived of a championship play-off place by a late own goal at the old Baseball Ground, that I would have some role to play in trying to save the club, I might have expressed some doubt, but it is at this sort of time that the football family comes together. The only reason we have rivalries is because our rivals stay in existence; no one wants to see any club go out of business, least of all a club with the size and history of Derby County.

If I knew 20 years ago, when I watched my team, Notts County, spend three seasons in administration, that we would still have situations where owners could recklessly gamble the future of a club by overspending, in the hope of promotions that do not turn up, and that the club then ends up in a lengthy, expensive administration with preferred bidders who turn out not to have the money they said they had and those deals never quite complete, and we end up with millions of pounds still owed to HMRC, I would not have believed that we would not have found a way of fixing those problems. However, here we are again, with the same situation of a club effectively allowed to overspend, despite financial fair play rules being introduced in the meantime, and somehow racking up tens of millions of pounds of debt to HMRC when the Football League had procedures in place that meant if it did not pay one month’s pay-as-you-earn or one quarter’s VAT, it would receive a transfer ban so that debts could not be racked up to that size. That was to prevent that sort of situation.

I know that covid was one of the excuses, but somehow we have all of those situations still in play. That does not suggest that the financial regulation of football is anywhere near where we want it to be. We want that regulation so that we do not risk losing clubs in this situation because they have been allowed to recklessly overspend in an attempt to get a promotion to the promised lands and fortunes of the premier league, thinking, “Well, somebody else will pick up the bill at the end of the day.”

What thoughts does the Minister have on how we can further strengthen the rules that were meant to be in place to stop this, so that, finally, we can say that it cannot happen again. We could actually get the real-time monitoring in place. We could get advance approval of a budget. We could get advance approval of decisions. Perhaps we could say something like, “If you want to sign a player on ridiculously high wages, you must put the money in the club to pay the transfer fee and those wages in advance before the Football League will sign off the transfer”, so that the money is there to pay those wages all the way through to the end of the contract, and we do not find out, halfway through, that they cannot afford those players’ wages after all.

Perhaps such ideas should be in place to ensure that clubs have the money before they embark on ridiculously extravagant transfer operations or the situation we saw with Derby County. Otherwise, we will have all of these warm words and will slightly tweak a regulator, or get a new one, but fundamentally there will always be this temptation, and supporters will always want it—“Oh, if only we could just sign a striker in January, we could get in the play-offs this year and get promoted.” They then end up spending £25,000 a week on wages for a four-year contract that they cannot really afford because of the £100 million bonus. The temptation will always be there.

As a football fan, I want the dream that some very rich person will come and buy my football club and get me four promotions straight to the premier league, and that we can be in the champions league. That dream has worked for Man City, Newcastle, Chelsea, and for Blackburn a few years ago. We all want that dream, I suppose, so we do not want to stop any chance of somebody coming along and putting loads of money in. However, we must ensure that it is done in a sustainable way, and that it is that person’s money at risk, not the future of the football club. I would urge the Minister to focus on that, and on how we can get the regulations working, whoever the regulator is.

I am afraid that these situations will never be easy, because we have the cold, hard reality of insolvency law coming into play with the emotion of football, and those two things will never work in that situation. If we are being frank, the mess that Derby County was left in would have sent any ordinary business into bankruptcy. The only reason football clubs survive is the loyalty, history, tradition and community links that they have. Derby was unviable as a business, given the amount of debt it had racked up, which was almost more than its underlying value. That is why we must get this right.

Perhaps one other lesson we have learned from this process is that we do not want litigation getting into sporting competitions. We have had the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims against Derby, and the rumours that Burnley or Leeds were going to take legal action against Everton because of its overspending. We want to know who has won the title or been relegated on the last day of the season, not four years later at the end of a court process.

I urge the Minister to look urgently at ensuring that, whoever the football regulators are, they have the real-time monitoring enforcement of the rules in place and can take quick decisions. When these issues come around, they should be resolved quickly, not several seasons later, issuing a points deduction that means not that Wycombe stays up, but some team three seasons later, which was not even in the league at that time or was in relegation trouble. It is completely unfair for those sanctions to come in years and years later. As we saw with Derby, the point deductions that got it relegated this season were for offences that were seasons and seasons before. It makes a mockery of the integrity of sporting competition if we cannot get the financial aspects of these rules right, and not only to protect clubs but to ensure that we have an actual competition with a fair result at the end of the season.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

If I may say so respectfully, the hon. Member’s comments about the sports Minister at the beginning of his question were rather unfair: he was in a Bill Committee, taking primary legislation through Parliament, and has now arrived on the Front Bench, having completed that important task. That was an extremely unfair remark.

On the other football clubs, legal proceedings are currently pending, but I think a pragmatic solution should be found. I know the sports Minister has been in touch with the English Football League about finding a pragmatic solution. There were similar issues with Crystal Palace 11 years ago—I think it was to do with Lloyds Bank—and a pragmatic solution was found; I expect the same pragmatism to be displayed in this situation.

Finally, the fan-led review touched on some of the issues in respect of debts. When that review is implemented, it will address the issues that the hon. Member raised.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pity we cannot have a substitution of the Minister now that the sports Minister has turned up—that might be allowed on the football pitch, but it is not here.

I know the Minister is a keen football fan; does he, like me, remember how close Middlesbrough came to going out of business until Steve Gibson saved the club a few decades ago? Would it not be ironic if Steve Gibson’s claim, which many of us think is probably a stretch, was what now pushed Derby County over the edge? Will the Minister urge Middlesbrough and Wycombe, in the spirit of football solidary that fans are showing, not to press their claims and to let new owners be found? Does he agree that the Government may need to act because we cannot have, in our elite professional leagues, one club suing another because it does not like the outcome of the season? That is no way to have a sports competition with integrity. If we are going to have legal cases to decide things after the fact, we will not know what the final title decider would have been until the years go by.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There are obviously legal proceedings ongoing, but I think it would serve everybody’s interests—the interests of football more generally, as well as those of Derby County in particular—if those involved show pragmatism and help a proud and long-standing club to survive. As I said a few moments ago, when Crystal Palace was in a similar situation, the bank concerned did show pragmatism, and I call on all those involved, including other clubs, to show the same kind of pragmatism.

Gambling and Lotteries

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

May I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and the Minister, Nigel Huddleston, for their kind words about the late Maria Fyfe? She was a popular Member, who was well respected in all parts of the House and remained active in her local party after leaving this place. She will be missed by her family and all who knew her in Parliament and beyond. One of the best features of this place is how hon. Members appreciate and acknowledge the qualities and achievements of their predecessors, irrespective and regardless of party.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

I hope the review will recognise the important role that high street gambling venues play in employing local people, and the Minister will recognise that it would be rather strange if the review had the damaging impact of moving gamblers from the relatively safe, supervised gambling premises on the high streets into the unregulated, unsupervised online world. I hope the review will look to bolster gambling on the high street, rather than on the internet.

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many gambling entities take their responsibilities for safe gambling incredibly seriously and do a very good job. It is important, therefore, that we strike the right balance between enabling people to gamble safely and protecting those who are at risk. There is nothing wrong with legitimate gambling that is well regulated and enacted in accordance with minimising harm.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I am quite sure that many millions of Scots will look forward to a party celebrating Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee more than to a celebration of such narrow nationalism.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

I, too, welcome today’s announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree with the importance of ensuring that these celebrations truly are nationwide in every community? Could he help to arrange, perhaps via the national lottery, for some small grants to be made available to community groups so that they can organise events on those important days?

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we will be working with the national lottery, and we will be looking at ways in which we can seed and support such celebrations in every part of the country—the four nations and all parts of England.

Draft Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The Government are a passionate supporter of radio, whether it is from the BBC, the commercial sector or the growing community radio sector. Today, we are debating a new approach that will open up digital radio to the smaller commercial and community stations.

Radio is a very popular medium. The latest industry figures from RAJAR—Radio Joint Audience Research—indicate that more than 89% of UK adults, or almost 49 million people, still listen to radio each week. Although radio’s popularity has been stable over recent years, radio is changing, and listeners’ habits are changing too. Audience listening figures published by RAJAR a few months ago highlight the continued strong take-up of digital radio, which now accounts for 56.4% of all radio listening. A key driver has been the installation of digital radio in new cars. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, 93% of all new cars sold now have digital radio receivers as standard, up from less than 5% a decade ago, and more than a third of in-car listening is now on digital radio.

The radio and automotive industries expect the long-term shift to digital to continue. It has important implications for approximately 300 small community and commercial radio stations that are currently broadcasting on FM and AM frequencies but not on digital radio, owing to insufficient capacity available on the mainly county-sized local radio multiplexes, especially those serving urban areas. The costs of carriage on those local radio multiplexes can also be too high for some small local stations, while the coverage area that they provide may be too large for small stations in comparison with their own core FM/AM transmission areas.

Small stations recognise the risk that they will lose prominence with local audiences as digital radio becomes increasingly the default mode of listening, so they have lobbied strongly for an affordable route to broadcast via terrestrial digital radio. To address the issue and provide small stations with a viable route to broadcast on a digital platform, we supported the development of a brand-new approach to digital radio transmission, known as small-scale digital audio broadcasting.

Small-scale DAB is digital radio. It uses advancements in software and new transmission techniques to provide a flexible and cheap approach to digital transmission that performs well in localised geographical areas. With funding provided by my Department, Ofcom successfully tested the viability of small-scale DAB technology in 10 technical trials in various locations around the country. However, the temporary licensing arrangements used for those trials was not appropriate for the long-term licensing of small-scale radio multiplexes.

The existing legislative framework set out in part II of the Broadcasting Act 1996 places a number of burdens on radio multiplex operators that are not necessary or appropriate for small-scale radio multiplex services. Crucially, it does not allow Ofcom to reserve capacity for the community radio stations or enforce restrictions on ownership, both of which are essential if smaller stations are to be on a fair playing field.

To address the issue, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport supported the private Member’s Bill successfully taken through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), which received cross-party support. That legislation, the Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017, amended the Communications Act 2003 to provide a power to modify through secondary legislation the rules for radio multiplex licensing set out in part II of the Broadcasting Act. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his skill and energy in getting that legislation through the House.

Following that, we consulted the radio industry early last year on detailed proposals for a new, lighter-touch licensing framework and received 87 responses. We published our response to those responses last October. Overall, there was strong support for the proposals, but there were representations on whether we had got the balance right between protecting the legitimate interests of the community radio sector and allowing the commercial sector some involvement. We have reflected those points in drawing up the framework and have worked closely with Ofcom during the preparation.

The order seeks to protect the interests of community radio and small commercial stations, while ensuring that only the minimum necessary burdens are placed on organisations that want to operate a small-scale radio multiplex service. The order exercises powers under new section 258A of the 2003 Act to introduce a lighter-touch framework for licensing small-scale radio multiplex services. It also uses the pre-existing power under section 262 of the 2003 Act to provide for the creation of community digital sound programme services, known as C-DSPs.

The issue that attracted the most attention during the consultation was focused on who could hold a small-scale radio multiplex licence and the proposed limits to the number of those licences that could be held by one player. The Community Media Association wanted strict rules that limited licences just to not-for-profit entities and limited them to holding a single licence. However, we were concerned that that approach would exclude many of the existing operators of the successful small-scale trials. We think it important to have a mixed economy —for commercial entities to be involved and apply their skills and investment to develop small-scale DAB. None the less, we recognise that restrictions on ownership are necessary to avoid a potential concentration of ownership —that would undermine the ability of community radio—and to promote diversity of ownership of small-scale radio multiplex services. The provisions in the order seek to strike the right balance between those aims.

As part of the consultation, and following further discussions with the Competition and Markets Authority and Radiocentre, we have made a number of changes to the original proposals to strengthen the protections for community radio. The order ensures that the spectrum capacity reserved for community radio on a small-scale radio multiplex is a firm reservation. In other words, it must be maintained for use by community digital radio stations—C-DSP licence holders. The order requires Ofcom to place a condition in the licence that requires a small-scale radio multiplex licence holder to publish information about the carriage fees charged. Finally, the order requires Ofcom, when awarding a small-scale radio multiplex licence, to consider the extent of involvement of community radio in a particular application.

In addition to those measures, the order sets out the detailed framework that will allow Ofcom to license small-scale radio multiplex services.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I look forward to hearing the excellent Amber Sound if it gets to move on to DAB in the future. Can the Minister confirm that the restrictions on ownership will apply not just at the start of a licence but throughout, so that if someone tried to consolidate and produce some sort of national or regional network via the back door, that would invalidate their licences and those would be freed up again for community radio stations, so that we do not end up with what has happened on the FM or existing networks when what we thought were regional stations had become a national one by the back door?

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very valid point. A duty will be placed on Ofcom to ensure that what he fears cannot come about. There is quite a complex array of conditions. For example, no station can own more than 20% of the entire number of licences that are issued under the new format. I think that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the various measures that we have in place to ensure that a concentration of ownership and a national channel by the back door do not come about. I will go through a few of those restrictions and conditions.

We will require Ofcom to reserve capacity on small-scale radio multiplexes for community digital radio stations. A minimum of three slots must be available, with a variable upper limit set by Ofcom based on its assessment of local need. We will create a new community digital sound programme category of licence for community stations broadcasting on digital; C-DSP licensees will need to commit to the same social value requirements that apply to existing community stations.

We will restrict the total number of small-scale radio multiplex licences that one company can hold at any time; I hope that that allays my hon. Friend’s concerns. We will also place restrictions on the number of small-scale radio multiplex licences that existing national operators can be involved with, and require them to exercise their involvement in consortium with other partners.

We will give Ofcom the flexibility to determine the size of small-scale multiplexes, but with a policy target to set a maximum based on 40% of the population served by any overlapping local radio multiplex. If there is no overlapping multiplex, the draft order sets a limit of 7,500 sq km.

The draft order contains a small but important provision in relation to community radio licensing. Community radio has been a major success, with more than 280 services on air. The licence terms for the first stations launched in 2005 are due to expire in 2020. We want community stations to continue to focus on what they are doing well—serving their local communities—rather than be concerned about the renewal of licences at a time when they will need to think about digital radio carriage on new small-scale multiplexes. The order will therefore allow for a further extension of analogue community radio licences for a fourth five-year term, bringing the maximum total up to 20 years. That will avoid the need for Ofcom to re-advertise the first wave of community radio licences, which it would have needed to do later this year.

We believe that small-scale DAB has the potential to revolutionise community radio in the UK, and radio overall. The draft order will facilitate a more appropriate structure of licensing and will provide an opportunity for the 300 existing community radio stations—such as Black Country Radio, which is owned by a community interest company in my constituency of Stourbridge—and for small commercial radio stations, as well as for new entrants. The extensive technical trials have demonstrated that small-scale DAB provides a low-cost and viable option for smaller stations to broadcast on a terrestrial digital platform. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

4. What support he is providing to the CPS to tackle economic crime.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

6. What support he is providing to the CPS to tackle economic crime.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

Tackling economic crime requires a sophisticated multi-agency and cross-Government response. The Crown Prosecution Service is a vital part of that response. It prosecutes some of the more serious and complex cases, recovering a huge amount of ill-gotten gains. The Government are committed to tackling economic crime. We are introducing a programme of reforms to bring forward shortly, in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) will know, the National Economic Crime Centre.

[The Attorney General]

Unexplained wealth orders are a particularly valuable part of the armoury of the law enforcement agencies against corruption and bribery. They are a novel tool. The Government and the law enforcement agencies are looking at the correct and appropriate cases in which to use them. I am not aware of whether there has yet been any estimate of what might be realised by their use, but I expect that considerable numbers of them will be used over the coming months. An exercise is being undertaken to scope the first few to be started.

[Nigel Mills]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on the impact of the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements in tackling cases of economic crime, and particularly corruption and bribery?