Assisted Dying

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will make a bit more progress.

In setting out this view, I am mindful of the stern instruction we all received last week from the National Secular Society, which wrote:

“Dire warnings about the coercion of disabled, elderly, sick or the depressed can mask true motivations for opposing a change in the law…disguising religion objections as secular concerns, rather than seeking ways to mitigate potential risks of legalising assisted dying, opponents can exaggerate the risks, weaponising them to spread fear.”

The National Secular Society will probably regard me as one of the guilty parties here, but I do not think the concerns I am expressing are apparent only to religious people. Disabled people’s organisations have been very clear—in the interests of all the people they represent, and certainly not on any religious grounds—that legalising assisted dying would be a deeply damaging change. I think they are right.

[Matt Hancock]

I have heard that argument made a couple of times, and I respect the associations involved, but how would the right hon. Member reflect on the fact that, according to polls, 86% of people living with a disability are in favour of a change? That figure is greater than in the population as a whole, so I do not understand the point he is making.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have not seen the polls that the right hon. Member refers to, but I think it is the case that all the major organisations representing disabled people in the UK oppose this change in the interests of their members.

There are good and compassionate arguments—we have heard a number of them—in favour of the change that the petition calls for. I do not agree with those arguments, but let us be clear that they are not the only arguments for the change. In some minds, they are clearly not the decisive arguments either. As we have been told, in some countries where the change has been made, it is explicitly about saving the health service money.

My party introduced the national health service, which is our proudest achievement. It needs to be adequately funded. The fact that it is not being adequately funded at the moment must not become an excuse for giving up and accepting that painful deaths are unavoidable. Instead, as all right hon. and hon. Members have agreed so far in the debate, we need to invest in palliative care, where there have been big advances and where there could be many more, and to ensure that adequate care is provided to everybody who needs it.

I agree with the organisation Care Not Killing that we want

“a funded policy for comprehensive hospice, community and hospital specialist palliative care services across the country with a duty placed on NHS trusts to ensure these services are made available to all who need them.”

I visited my local children’s hospice on Saturday—we have heard from a number of Members who have made such visits—and it had a fête to raise funds, because it is struggling for cash. In my view, it should not have to do that.

“In Place of Fear” was how Nye Bevan summed up what had been achieved in founding the NHS. Let us not give up now and decide that we can no longer afford the relief from fear that he rightly promised.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about not limiting the rights of the free press. He might be aware of amendments that were made in the other place on exactly that issue and that are supported by a number of Members of this House, including, notably, some who are also supported by Max Mosley. I think that we should remove those two provisions. The ability of our press properly to scrutinise is important and should not be undermined in the ways proposed, but I will come to that in more detail later.

The right to be forgotten is an important element of making sure that data is held appropriately and when there are legitimate grounds. The Bill also allows for data portability—a person’s right to transfer their data from one provider to another.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State is describing, the Bill puts into UK law the EU’s general data protection regulation, which is the right thing to do. I am confident that he would agree that we need to ensure that our data protection rules stay in line with the EU regulation as things develop. Does it trouble him that we will have less influence over the future content of the EU’s rules once we have left it?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree that this is a strong set of data protection standards. We intend to stay aligned with the EU standards, not least because they are extraterritorial, which means that anyone wanting to do any business or transactions with EU citizens would have to follow them anyway. There is therefore a very strong case for alignment in this area. Indeed, we have set out that we want the Information Commissioner to remain engaged with the future development of technical standards because we expect the GDPR effectively to become a standard that is increasingly followed around the world by companies that want to engage with the EU, and because we believe that high data protection standards go hand in hand with the capability to innovate and provide for customers. The Prime Minister was, of course, clear about the detail on Friday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who gave an excellent speech a few minutes ago, I will focus my remarks on the data protection aspects of the Bill. The Minister will have seen the press report this morning on research carried out by the Federation of Small Businesses showing that fewer than one in 10 small businesses is fully prepared for the obligations that this legislation imposes on them, and just under one in five has not yet heard of the GDPR. These obligations all take effect at the end of May—in less than three months’ time—so whatever the merits of this Bill, there is clearly a huge amount of work to be done in drawing the attention of those affected to what it means.

Ministers have made some changes to the Bill during its passage through the other place since we last discussed it in this Chamber on 12 October. In that debate, I and others made the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) made earlier—that leaving article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights outside UK law poses a serious threat to our achieving a data adequacy determination from the European Commission in future. I therefore welcome the addition of what is now clause 2, which partly addresses that. However, I do not think it goes far enough, so I will be supporting my hon. Friend’s proposal that article 8 should be added to our statute book. Lord Stevenson tabled an amendment in the other place that said:

“The protection of personal data may not be lawfully restricted or limited unless such restrictions and limitations are consistent with the principle of proportionality.”

That is an important additional protection that ought to be in the Bill. I hope that we will be able to debate that amendment in Committee.

There is some confusion in the Government about all this. The Secretary of State set out how important it is that we keep our UK data regulation aligned with the regulation in the European Union because of the importance to the UK economy of personal data transfers between the UK and the EU. He is absolutely right about that. However, in recent months, the Foreign Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have suggested from time to time that it would be a good thing if the UK could deviate from EU rules on data protection. Last July, for example, the International Trade Secretary said in the United States—I am quoting from a report in the Financial Times—that the UK was more in line with US calls for information to be allowed to flow freely across borders while Germany and other EU countries insist on localisation. He was getting a bit confused about two different things, but he is clearly suggesting in that remark, as in others, that it could be a good thing for the UK to deviate from EU data protection rules. In fact—the Secretary of State is absolutely right about this—it would be a disaster for the UK to deviate from EU data protection regulation, because if the EU were to judge our data protection rules to be inadequate, a large chunk of the UK economy would immediately be without any lawful basis. That could affect exactly the kind of innovative company to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge drew attention—a games company with players all over Europe who, as a part of playing the game, need to be able to send personal data between their country and the European Union.

[Matt Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman has made this point in these debates several times, and I want to reassure him on the Government’s precise position. I stated this in my remarks, not speaking from notes, but let me read to him what the Prime Minister said in her speech on Friday:

“we will be seeking more than just an adequacy arrangement and want to see an appropriate ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office. This will ensure UK businesses are effectively represented under the EU’s new ‘one stop shop’ mechanism for resolving data protection disputes.”

So there you have it.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I welcome that commitment on the part of the Prime Minister.

The problem is, however, that the International Trade Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have been saying different. That led to techUK, the industry body, writing to the International Trade Secretary last month to highlight the dangers. This was reported by that reliable publication, The Daily Telegraph, on 19 February, with the headline: “Tech industry warns Ministers not to drop EU security laws”. The report began:

“The British tech industry has issued a stark warning to leading Brexiteer ministers that diverging from EU data protection standards after Brexit will ‘undermine’ the UK’s status as Europe’s leading tech hub.”

The Secretary of State is absolutely right not to have gone down the same road as his right hon. Friends, and I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said about all this on Friday. However, there is clearly a problem in the Cabinet. I gather that after sending that letter, techUK received a reassuring response from the Department, and then a few days later a non-executive director at the Department for International Trade was quoted as saying, “Complying with EU standards on data is not the only solution.” But the truth is that for a large part of the UK economy, it is the only solution. We need to be absolutely clear about this. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is clear about it. Of course, that is why he is bringing this Bill before us and why he has altered it in line with what a number of us said in October.

[Matt Hancock]

I hate to take the wind out of the right hon. Gentleman’s sails, but it was unusual to receive that letter from techUK, because rarely as a Minister have I been lobbied so strongly in support of my own position.

[Stephen Timms]

I am glad that the Secretary of State has been lobbied in support of his own position, but he needs to watch his back against Ministers who lack the clarity that he has expressed—particularly the International Trade Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, who continue to say that there is merit in divergence. There is no merit in divergence at all. Significant numbers of tech start-ups are already going to Berlin rather than basing themselves in the UK because of the uncertainty about this issue. The more uncertainty there is, fanned by some members of the Cabinet, the greater the economic damage to the UK.

This is a very clear example of the situation we are going to find ourselves in more and more when we have left the European Union. It will be asserted that because of our economic interests, in this case, we should comply with rules drawn up by the European Union—in this case, the general data protection regulation—but we will no longer have a vote about what those rules should be. We will become a rule-taker. I welcome the commitment that the Prime Minister has made to a place for the UK’s Information Commissioner on the European data protection board. That will be helpful. It means that we will at least get a voice in these discussions when the rules are being drawn up—but we will not get a vote. We will be less influential in EU data protection laws than we have been as members of the European Union. We need to recognise that our influence, including over laws that we are going to have to implement ourselves, will be less in future than it has been up to now.

I would very much welcome the Minister telling us—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made this point as well—how, in future, we are going to make adequacy determinations about other countries’ data protection laws. Are we going to adopt the EU list and say that those 12 countries are adequate and others are not, or are we going to have our own processes? How is it going to be done?

I echo the concerns expressed by a number of Members about the threats to our future data adequacy determination that come from the immigration exemption and the national security exemption. Those were not well defended by Ministers in the debates in the other place, and the justification for them is not clear. As others have said, they leave us open to criticisms of our data protection regulations that could threaten our future adequacy determinations. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to those concerns in particular.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that continuing improvement must be seen. While the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games set a new standard, we have to make sure that these standards keep advancing, and I hope to see that at the 2022 Commonwealth games.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on publishing the Government’s assessment of the effect on the public purse of a reduction in the maximum fixed-odds betting stake.

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

I have held discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the issue of gambling. The Government’s consultation on the gambling review closed on 23 January and we are considering the responses.

[Stephen Timms]

Vile machines are cynically clustered by shameless and irresponsible conglomerates in the poorest communities, where they destroy hard-working families. They are a magnet for crime, and they launder the proceeds of crime. Tawdry and soulless high street outlets drive decent shops away and repel family shoppers. Will the Secretary of State now call time on this racket, with its £1.5 billion a year welfare burden, and cut the maximum stake to £2?

[Matt Hancock]

I know that the issue of fixed odds betting terminals raises strong emotions in the House and around the country, and it is very important that we approach it properly. Especially coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who is widely respected across the House and was a member of the Government when the expansion of FOBTs happened, that is a telling statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

This week, we published the response to the consultation, which was incredibly warmly received. We will remove over 100 measures in the very outdated legislation on commercial radio to free up commercial radio stations to support their communities and to deliver for their audiences in the best way they see fit.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T6. On the Minister’s current consultation on reducing the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals, will she place in the Library the Treasury’s estimate of the fiscal impact of each of the four options being consulted on?

Leaving the EU: Data Protection

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Exiting the European Union and Data Protection.

The digital revolution through which we are living is bringing about the fastest pace of change that any generation has ever seen. With advances in technology accelerating, it is likely that this current pace of change will be the slowest that any of us will experience probably for the rest of our lives. This vast change brings with it big opportunities. We have opportunities to communicate, innovate and organise in ways that were simply inconceivable just a few short decades ago. It also brings with it challenges: to harness the technology for good; to mitigate harm; and to make sure that everyone can benefit.

Underpinning this revolution is the fact that the cost of storing and transmitting data has collapsed faster than at any time since the invention of the printing press, and perhaps at any point in history. The new technology then cut the cost of storing information from the cost of a handwritten manuscript to the cost of print, and the revolution now has cut the cost from that of print to the almost infinitesimally small cost of data storage. Data is therefore the fuel of this new digital economy, and getting the rules on data right is mission-critical for strength in the future.

As well as being fuel for change, data is a massive stimulant for our economic growth, jobs creation and innovation. The UK has Europe’s largest and most dynamic digital economy, attracting approximately £28 billion in technology investment since 2011. The UK also has the largest internet economy of all G20 countries, emphasising the fact that data is rapidly transforming our lives, and creating exciting and innovative opportunities right across the world. The impact is, of course, much broader than just in the tech industry itself. Data underpins social interactions: a Skype call to a family member on the other side of the world; our cultural collaboration, as performances are broadcast across borders; and almost every other part of economic activity, and almost all trade. The importance of the digital economy as a catalyst for job creation and innovation continues to increase exponentially, so it is vital that data is kept secure. Our approach to data protection as we leave the EU is straightforward: we wish to ensure the unhindered free flow of data between countries, if that data is held securely and privacy is respected.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I very much agree with the points that the Minister is making and the ambition he is setting out. Will he commit to securing an adequacy agreement from the EU, so that the free flow of personal data, which he rightly says is important, can continue?

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s extensive understanding of these issues, not only from his time as a Minister but since. His understanding is so good that he has correctly anticipated the next page of my speech. That is exactly what we are seeking, because it is strongly in the mutual interests of the UK and the rest of the EU that such an arrangement is put in place.

Having just set out my punchline, perhaps I can describe the build-up to it. The goal is for data to be unhindered when security and privacy are respected. It must be unhindered, so that trade and communication can be effective and so that we can innovate in the use of information, including through advanced techniques such as machine learning and artificial intelligence. But data can be unhindered only where it is appropriate for it to go—with data held securely and privacy respected—which means where there are high standards of cyber-security and data protection.

On cyber-security, the 2017 British Chambers of Commerce digital economy survey reveals that at least one in five UK firms were subject to a cyber-attack in 2016, with larger firms more likely to be hit. As more and more citizens, and the wider economy, rely so heavily on digital technology, it is vital to keep data safe from cyber-attack. On the other side of the coin from strong cyber-security is strong data protection. The UK has been a world leader in data protection for a long time, combining privacy with support for dynamic data-driven innovation. We are determined to ensure that, after our exit from the EU, the UK remains a global leader, promoting both the flow of data internationally and high standards of data protection.

For more than a generation, the Data Protection Act 1998 has been regarded as the gold standard in the world. That Act, which was based on European rules set out in 1995, was the result of a piece of work that started under the then Conservative Government, with the legislation enacted by the subsequent Labour Government. That demonstrates the cross-party approach that has been taken to data protection in the UK. Technology marches on, however. It is almost 20 years since the 1998 Act, but the legislation needs to be kept up to date in this changing world. The Data Protection Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place earlier this week, will modernise data protection legislation, giving citizens more rights over their data while allowing businesses to use modern data management techniques. It offers greater transparency and accountability, thus giving people more reassurance about how their personal data is used by businesses and organisations. Increased accountability and public confidence in how data is used can enhance the digital economy for the benefit of all.

To return to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Bill will prepare Britain for Brexit. It will extend the EU’s general data protection regulation—GDPR—and bring into UK law the law enforcement directive. It will extend the principles of GDPR into many areas of our domestic law, which will help to ensure that we prepare the UK for the future after we have left the EU. The implementation of the Bill will ensure that we preserve the concepts of the Data Protection Act that have served us so well. We will aim to ensure that the transition for businesses, individuals and charities is as smooth as possible, while complying with the GDPR and the law enforcement directive in full. That means we will be as well placed as possible to achieve the unhindered flow of data with the EU through something akin to the adequacy deal mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. That is strongly in the interests of both sides in the negotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am glad that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to do so.

A strong relationship on data is beneficial to citizens as it will reassure them that their personal data is subject to robust protection. Maintaining the flow is also important. Once we have left the EU, we will continue to play a leading global role in the development and promotion of appropriate data protection standards with trading partners right around the world.

[Stephen Timms]

I am glad that the Minister is committed to seeking this adequacy agreement. Does he recognise that one step that will make that a bit harder—perhaps significantly harder—is the fact that under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights will no longer be part of UK law? That creates uncertainty about how our data protection law will work. Appeal decisions frequently refer to the actual article, which is part of UK law at the moment. Will he therefore support amendment 151 to the Bill, which would oblige the Government to put back into law the clear assertion that everyone has a right that their personal data is protected?

[Matt Hancock]

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise that. I understand his amendment and the reason behind it, which is to ensure that what we are trying to achieve is achieved. However, the removal of the charter from UK law should not affect the substantive rights of individuals when their data is processed, because the charter is not the source of the rights contained within it. The charter was intended only to catalogue rights that already exist in EU law. As he knows, there is not a charter of fundamental rights in the same way in UK law, and it is not necessary. Although I agree with the purpose and intent of what he is trying to achieve, which is to make it as likely as possible that we achieve the adequacy deal and the high-quality arrangements that we are seeking, the amendment is not necessary because of the nature of the charter.

I hope that I have managed to answer Members’ questions. Although I look forward to the debate, I think that we can see strong cross-party agreement on the importance of a high-quality data relationship with the EU once we have left, on ensuring that that works for citizens, businesses and individuals, and on ensuring that we can build on that relationship, which underpins so much in our modern economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and will pick up on one or two of his points.

David Cameron has a great deal to answer for. To win support from his party’s right wing for his leadership bid in 2005, he promised during the leadership campaign to withdraw Conservative MEPs from the European People’s party, the main centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, and he delivered on that commitment after the European elections in 2009. By pushing his MEPs to the fringes in the European Parliament, he significantly reduced British influence there and more widely in the EU’s structures, which meant that Britain did not get its way in Europe on an increasing number of issues, by contrast with previous Governments, both Labour and Conservative. The referendum result—the decision to leave the EU—was the inevitable outcome of that spiral of loss of influence, kicked off by his commitment in 2005.

One way to look at the referendum is as a choice between sovereignty and prosperity. In the referendum, the country chose sovereignty, and of course that was a wholly honourable choice to make, but we need to be honest now about the resulting loss of prosperity. Leaving the EU, if it is seen through in the way envisaged now, will make us poorer. Ministers need to stop pretending otherwise, for their own sakes, as well as for the sake of the country, because once the reality becomes clear, the punishment inflicted on the Conservative party will be all the greater if people have not been told what is ahead.

An official in Germany put it to me like this a few months ago: “If you want the benefits of the single market, you have to obey the rules of the single market.” Ministers continue to tell us that we can have the benefits but no longer obey the rules, but that will not be the outcome of these negotiations. It could not possibly be because, if it was by some fluke the outcome, Germany and lots of other Parliaments in the EU would surely vote it down when asked to decide on the deal.

This week, we have at least had some recognition of that reality from the Prime Minister. She has announced that in the transition period from April 2019 we will continue to obey the rules. The writ of the European Court of Justice and the free movement of people will continue into the transition period. As far as I could understand it, the announcement in her statement on Monday seemed to be that we would stay in the single market and the customs union, other than in name. I presume that this is a face-saving device to avoid the embarrassment of a clear U-turn. It would be much better to be honest and commit to staying in the single market and the customs union during the transition period at least, as argued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister’s announcement does at least hold out the prospect of delaying the damage to our prosperity for a couple of years, but we need to recognise that that will not avoid the damage to our prosperity altogether.

The challenge is perfectly illustrated by the subject that we are debating this afternoon, and I welcome the fact that the Government have given us the opportunity to have this debate. Mr Speaker characterised my interest in a different area of policy earlier this week with the phrase, “some would say anorakish”. How much more that applies to the area of policy that we are debating this afternoon. The Minister was absolutely right in his opening remarks to underline just how important this policy area is for our prosperity. It underpins the wellbeing of the economy. Indeed, there is growing evidence that one of the reasons why we have failed on productivity growth in the UK in the past few years by contrast with other countries is that the internal management of companies in the UK has been digitised to a lesser extent than elsewhere. If we are to make progress on that—it is vital for our prosperity that we do—then data communications will be even more important in the future than they have been in the past.

I very much enjoyed and appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who chairs the Select Committee on Justice. He underlined, quite apart from the economic considerations, how vital it is for our security and safety that we can continue to communicate personal data with other European Union countries.

The Minister was right to make the point at the outset that our data protection laws in the UK originated with an EU directive in which the UK was very influential. The Conservative Government who negotiated that directive had a powerful voice at that time. Sadly, as I explained earlier, more recent Conservative-led Governments have had a much less powerful voice.

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the British MEPs had a strong influence on the GDPR as it was developed in Europe. One of the reasons the GDPR is a good piece of legislation that we can happily bring into UK law is because of that influence. We had that influence after we had left the EPP, so perhaps he will withdraw his earlier comments. As for this argument about lack of influence, the chair of the justice committee in the European Parliament is a British Labour MEP, so is he saying that the lack of influence that he describes is because of the Labour party?

[Stephen Timms]

No, certainly not. I am delighted that my Labour colleagues in the European Parliament have retained their place in the Socialist group and therefore their influence. The problem for Britain has been that, by leaving the EPP, Conservative MEPs have had much less influence. I am not saying that they have not had any influence—that is not at all the point I am making—but they have had a great deal less. Therefore, the British Government have been much less able to get their way in Brussels than previous Conservative and Labour Governments, and that is what inexorably led to the referendum result.

The key foundation stone for data protection regulation in Britain has been article 8 of the European charter of fundamental rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.”

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—the Minister and I had an exchange about this earlier in the debate—removes the charter of fundamental rights from UK law, so article 8 will no longer apply. The Select Committee on Exiting the European Union took evidence on that point from lawyers yesterday. Sir Stephen Laws, former first parliamentary counsel, argued that the removal of article 8 was a good thing because nobody can quite know exactly what it really means, so that we end up with judges deciding in appeal cases, which makes the law uncertain. He made a very reasonable case. Far better, he said, for Parliament to decide the detailed law and regulations, so that everyone knows where they stand.

However, Dr Charlotte O’Brien of York Law School pointed out that in practice, judges deciding points of data protection law in Britain often refer explicitly to article 8. A reading of their judgments suggests that article 8 frequently sways the decisions that they reach, so it is likely that its removal will mean that their future judgments will be different from those that they have made up until now. We can have an interesting debate about which arrangement is better, and, as I have said, I think that Sir Stephen Laws made a perfectly good case. Our problem, however, is that we have to achieve a declaration from the European Commission that UK data protection law is adequate. That is crucial for the future of our economy.

[Matt Hancock]

A point that I hope will reassure the right hon. Gentleman is that EU jurisprudence will be brought into UK law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, although EU jurisdiction will no longer continue.

[Stephen Timms]

The proposal is that article 8 will not be there any more. The problem is this: where in the European acquis, which is being brought into UK law, is the clear statement that everyone has the right to have their personal data protected? It is not there, and if it is not there, it will be significantly harder for the European Union to recognise that UK data protection law is adequate.

[Matt Hancock]

This is an incredibly important point, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. The right is there: it is in the GDPR, which will be brought into UK law through the Bill.

[Stephen Timms]

The problem is that it is not. There is no clear assertion anywhere in UK law—other than, at present, in article 8—that everyone has the right to have their personal data protected. As I have said, and as was said in the Select Committee yesterday, judges, when making judgments on these matters in appeal cases, often refer to the wording of that article to reach their conclusions.

There is a perfectly good case for arguing that it is better not to have these slightly vague declarations, because the law is clearer if it is all spelt out in legislation that has gone through Parliament, but our problem is that that is not how the matter is looked at in Brussels. Over the next year and a half or so, the Minister has to persuade people in Brussels that our data protection is adequate, and if we no longer have a clear statement in UK law that everyone’s personal data is protected, that task will be a good deal harder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply for the Government to this excellent debate. I shall try to answer the points made, unconventional as that might seem.

The subject of the debate could not be more important. The digital revolution is one of the biggest things happening to this country and the world. Indeed, I think the digital revolution as a whole is bigger than Brexit. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) thought this would be an anorak-like debate, but hoped it would not. Well, I think we could liken the debate to an anorak because in some circumstances anoraks are incredibly important. The debate may have been detailed and technical in parts, but it is vital to get these things right for our country’s future.

As others have said, what a pleasure it was to hear the fine maiden speech by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). He even introduced a word that I had never heard—camoufleurs. What a description! He spoke well of his new constituency, especially the design industry, and the gaming industry that is so important there. He spoke of history and the future. As the Minister for the gaming industry and for VR and AR, I am thrilled to hear that he will continue to champion them; I look forward to engaging with him often.

I was delighted to hear that Leamington is the happiest place to live. Funnily enough, I thought that was Suffolk. I give the hon. Gentleman a gentle warning about hostages to fortune: he very gently and elegantly took the credit for Leamington’s being the happiest place in the country, so now we all know where to look if it all goes wrong.

I almost called the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), my hon. Friend because we have spent so much time together in Committee in the past. I look forward to doing so again in future. I was surprised to learn two new things about him. I am astonished that he has university-age children; he looks as though he has barely left university himself. And he says he is delighted that the former Member for Warwick and Leamington, Chris White, is no longer in the House because he is a double. He can imagine how I felt when Mike Hancock was defeated!

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked some serious and important questions. First, he raised the question of parental consent at the age of 13. There is flexibility in the GDPR legislation to set the age of parental consent at any age between 13 and 16. In the UK that age is effectively 12 at the moment—although it is not set in the same way—which means that we are raising the age. We of course recognise the fundamental role that the internet plays in the lives of teenagers, and we agree that it is vital to educate children, not only on the positives of the internet—coding has been in the curriculum for three or four years—but on the risks. The internet safety strategy published yesterday stated that we will do more to educate children about safety, but online platforms also give children educational and social resource, and the rules need to be realistic if they are to work. We do not want to introduce an unworkable rule.

This is a balanced judgment, but I believe we were right when we chose the age of 13. It was suggested that we did so because the Irish Government decided on 13, but the point about GDPR is that what matters is whose data it is, so it is not a question of the dataset in which the data is stored; it is a question of how old the child is.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West, and several other hon. Members, asked about the adequacy of our national security legislation. We are already compliant with EU law on data protection, with the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017, and we will be after exit. We are confident that that legislation should not present a significant obstacle to negotiations, not least because we have one of the most robust oversight frameworks in the world, and we brought in judicial oversight as part of the move from the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who argued that how data rules relate to finance is a huge issue to be tackled. He is absolutely right, and we do have regular discussions with the financial sector. None of us should forget his point that it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU to get things right. We will help to ensure that Gibraltar has market access to the UK, which my hon. Friend cares about. That may require a degree of regulatory equivalence, and he knows that those discussions are ongoing. Our intention to maintain the data relationship for law enforcement purposes is clear, which is why we are putting the law enforcement directive into UK law as part of the Data Protection Bill. We want to continue to have a strong partnership with the EU. There is no legal barrier to the EU establishing an international agreement giving third countries access to SIS II and the European Criminal Records Information System. We are exploring a full range of options, but much of the detail will obviously be down to the negotiations.

I am delighted that the Scottish National Party supports our approach, and I am grateful for the support of both the Scottish Government and the SNP Members here. When the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said that what I had said previously was absolutely right, I started to worry a little—we do not usually hear that, from the SNP Benches—but he then asked specifically about a no-deal scenario. In the annex to the paper we published in the summer, we outlined other ways to ensure the flow of data, and we do consider all options. There are alternative means of legal transfer of data, but we fully expect a good deal. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the same point, but he stressed that this is about not just the future EU-UK relationship, but the UK’s relationships all around the world and our ability to get strong trading relationships underpinned by data that is protected with good cyber-security.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) argued powerfully that data protection must be based on trust—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) made a similar point—and mentioned the advantage of future flexibility in a position in which Britain can lead across the world. He mentioned our history on that topic and the computer Manchester 1, which my mother worked on, and Stirling’s growing digital economy. He asked us to raise our eyes to the horizon and ensure that we get this right across the world.

Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling asked about the EU-US privacy shield and post-Brexit data flows. We of course want to maintain the current protections for UK citizens under the privacy shield after exit. We want to ensure that data flows between the UK and third countries with EU adequacy decisions, like the US, can continue on the same basis. That is part and parcel of what we are trying to achieve.

The hon. Member for Cambridge also asked about dialogue with the EU on the future partnerships paper, and that is ongoing. For example, the Secretary of State for Justice is at the Justice and Home Affairs Council this week and will be speaking about that paper, setting out in particular the argument that we are approaching Brexit from a point of harmonisation. Keeping the Data Protection Bill harmonised with the GDPR will be critical as we take the Bill through both Houses, and I am glad for the Opposition’s support in maintaining that position.

The right hon. Member for East Ham made a characteristically excellent speech. I hope he is not on the Bill Committee, and I mean that as a compliment. However, he was wrong about the loss of influence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who was in the European Parliament at the time, pointed out just how influential both Labour and Conservative British MEPs were in ensuring that we got a good piece of GDPR legislation.

I want to make it absolutely clear that our goal is an agreement that builds on the existing model of adequacy. We are seeking an arrangement at least as strong as adequacy—stronger, in fact. There was a bit of debate about whether how I put things in my opening speech implied that we were moving off adequacy. We are not. I say again that we are seeking an arrangement at least as strong as adequacy—stronger, in fact—as part of the negotiation.

[Stephen Timms]

Does the Minister recognise that the absence of article 8 will make his goal harder to achieve? He said that we can look elsewhere in the body of European law, and it is all terribly vague and badly defined. The problem is that that will not convince the Commission—and it is the Commission that he has to convince about adequacy.

[Matt Hancock]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on this point, which no doubt we will debate during the passage of the Bill. We know of no other jurisdiction with an adequacy deal that has been required to put the charter into law. Such a requirement has not been imposed anywhere else, so there is no reason for it in this case. The charter is a summary of laws present elsewhere and we are bringing the jurisprudence into UK law. Our goals are the same; in a sense, the question is a legal one. The fact that such a requirement has not existed in any other adequacy arrangements implies that the issue should not be problem for us, not least because of our strong legal basis for bringing GDPR into UK law.

On mail and direct marketing by post, I should like to correct the right hon. Gentleman slightly. Data controllers will need a legal basis for this under GDPR, but article 6 sets out a number of potential legal bases, not only consent. That does not change the reality on the ground from the current data protection arrangements. I hope that I have provided adequate reassurance.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) raised article 8, as did others. I am clear about the strength of the assurance that I have given and I hope that Opposition Members accept it. When private businesses consider their future arrangements, I hope that Members on both sides will make clear our determination to get a deal that is as good as adequacy, if not better. We want people to continue to do business and thrive here in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, whom I have mentioned a couple of times, made a powerful and informed speech. Of course we think that the passenger data transfer is important; the referendum does not change how important it is. The EU already has third country arrangements in place with others, so we see no reason why the issue cannot be fixed. I am also sure that Chelmsford is a happy place to live; I wonder whether that is down to my hon. Friend or her ebullient predecessor.

I also agree with my hon. Friend that we must be vigilant and not gold-plate the Data Protection Bill through Information Commissioner’s Office guidance. No doubt we will discuss that during the passage of the Bill. I have regular conversations with the ICO about exactly that issue. We want guidance to come out early. In some cases, the ICO is having to wait for guidance from the Commission and that causes the delay—it is not the fault of the Information Commissioner. But we do want guidance to be in clear, simple language, not gold-plated, and to come out as early as is reasonably practicable. I thank the Information Commissioner and all her team for her excellent work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The tech sector’s No. 1 Brexit concern is that, when we leave, it will become unlawful to send personal data from Europe to UK firms unless the European Commission has declared our data protection arrangements to be adequate. What steps are being taken to secure that declaration in time?

[Matt Hancock]

This is a very important point. It is vital to make sure that we have an unhindered flow of data between the UK and the EU, and indeed other trading partners around the world such as the US. We are implementing the general data protection regulation in full, to make sure that we can have that unhindered flow of data.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

We are introducing the universal service obligation to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to benefit from high-quality superfast broadband when that is possible, and fast broadband when necessary. Broadband is no longer merely a “nice to have”; it is vital to participation in modern society, and we want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to acquire it.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

As many Conservative Members accept, it was a terrible mistake to hand over all the superfast broadband funding to one company, and communities throughout the country are suffering as a result. Will the Minister make a fresh start, and recognise the key role of competition in driving the adoption of superfast broadband?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T6. Work programme providers say that their participants can hardly ever get on to an apprenticeship, and that surely cannot be right. It may partly explain why the Work programme has been so disappointing. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to open up apprenticeships to unemployed people?

[Matthew Hancock]

A huge proportion of apprenticeships are undertaken by people who were previously unemployed. Of course, every apprenticeship is a job, and in order to get a job someone needs to have an employer willing to take them on. There are many other schemes, such as the traineeships, that Work programme providers work with in order to prepare people for getting a job. Ultimately, an apprenticeship is a job and is therefore a successful outcome for a Work programme person.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I do agree. I have already heard of the work that my hon. Friend has been doing in supporting Truro and Penwith college and Cornwall college. Improving our nation’s skills is vital for our economic prospects, but learning has intrinsic value in its own right. Henry Ford said:

“Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at 20 or 80. Anyone who keeps learning stays young”,

so I hope that I have discovered the secret of eternal youth.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Community learning flourished under the previous Government and is at risk under this one. In warmly welcoming the new Minister to his role and congratulating him, may I ask him to look at my recent letter to his predecessor about LymeNet community learning centre in Lyme Regis, which was set up in 1999? I saw its great work on visiting the Axminster Methodist church job club over the summer. Rural areas cannot afford the loss of community learning that is now on the cards.

[Matthew Hancock]

I look forward to reading that letter, but I would say this: the budget for community learning has been protected in difficult fiscal times, and that shows the Government’s intentions in this area.

Finance Bill

Debate between Stephen Timms and Matt Hancock

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

No, we were successful in maintaining a competitive business tax system in the UK. It is true, of course, that if a company goes to Ireland, it will pay a much lower rate of corporation than it would in the UK, but that rate of corporation tax in Ireland is lower than in any G7 country. Our commitment was to keep the UK’s corporation tax rate the lowest in the G7, and that is what we successfully did. It was important that we did so.

There is debate about whether the £40 billion figure is correct. I believe that HMRC did a serious and careful analysis. I also think there should be more discussion with people such as Richard Murphy. I believe his figure for the tax gap on corporation tax was about £12 billion—not vastly more than the £9 billion or so in the HMRC figure. Richard Murphy also makes the point that there is uncertainty—perhaps more uncertainty—about that figure than some of the others that he estimates. Continuing discussion between people such as the tax justice campaign and HMRC is important so that we make these figures as accurate as possible. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm that it is his intention regularly to update the analysis that has been published, to be frank and robust in publication and to discuss the issues with the tax justice campaign, which takes a different view, and the TUC, which has also taken a close interest. Ultimately, it is in everyone’s interest to have the best possible information available. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has just admitted that since 1997, in respect of avoidance or evasion of corporation tax, the tax gap was reduced by only £3 billion. Does he not agree, then, that it is wrong to go around the country telling people that the entire deficit could be dealt with if we just got to grips with this one issue? It is, of course, important to get to grips with it, but it will not on its own resolve the deficit. Is it not wrong to tell people that it could?

[Stephen Timms]

I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman into thinking that the figure was reduced by only £3 billion as result of the previous Government’s efforts. I did not say that at all. I would be happy to go through in more detail the efforts of the previous Government on this issue, but the crucial initiative was the disclosure regime, which we introduced in 2004 to great howls of protest, yet it has undoubtedly saved many billions in tax that would otherwise not have been collected. The total figure is certainly a great deal more than £3 billion. As to whether addressing this problem could be the sole solution to the problem of the deficit, however, I agree that it could not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman may have misheard my earlier comment. Can he be surprised about the Chancellor’s comments when page 101 of the Red Book states that the bank levy raises £2.5 billion and the corporation tax cut in 2013-14 will cost £700 million? It is therefore no surprise that the bank levy raises more than the cut in corporation tax to the banks. That is precisely the point that I made earlier.

[Stephen Timms]

I am not sure about the figure of £700 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not telling us that the reduction in corporation tax will decrease that tax take by £700 million. That is incorrect—perhaps he was citing a partial figure. However, that is why we need a report. I would genuinely like to know the impact specifically on the banking sector of a four percentage point reduction—it was not long ago that the banks accounted for a quarter of all the corporation tax receipts that the Exchequer collected—compared with the £2 billion cost of the levy.