Points of Order
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Whether it is incompetence or discourtesy, one knows not, but I think that most people would be interested to know, because of course it could happen to the constituent of any Member. The Minister is poised ready like a panther to pounce, and it would be a pity to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. Let’s hear the fella.
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister responsible for this policy area, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and see what we could do to ensure that he gets the appropriate response to his constituents’ concerns.
Mr Speaker
Ordinarily I find that if one is sufficiently persistent and demonstrates by one’s behaviour—entirely lawfully, I hasten to add—that there is no question of one’s going away, an institution will, in the end, tend to think that it is best to respond. I have had some modest experience of these matters in the past when seeking to secure a refund for a very elderly constituent in relation, I think, to a satellite dish. In the first instance, the company thought it proper simply to ignore my representations, but I made approaches with notable and perhaps spectacular regularity, as a consequence of which, in the end—this was probably 15 years ago—my constituent was able to seek redress. I never secured anything remotely approximating an apology from the company, but in a sense that mattered not. My constituent got his refund, and I rather doubt that the company would have tried to play the same game, at any rate in relation to any of my constituents, again. If I was able to succeed, I am confident that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), with due persistence, will also be able to do so.
Leaving the EU: Data Protection
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Minister said “something akin” to an adequacy deal. Will he explain what that might mean?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. Our future relationship with the EU will be bespoke. We want to make sure that the flow of data is unhindered, so we effectively seek an adequacy deal, but that is currently scheduled to be negotiated as part of the future relationship. Whether it is enacted through the formal EU mechanism of an adequacy deal or as part of the negotiation is, in a sense, immaterial. What matters is the unhindered free flow of data between the two regimes.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
No one would dispute the worthiness of the Minister’s intentions, but the UK will none the less cease to be a member of the EU’s safe data zone following Brexit, which will make it more difficult for banks and other businesses to transfer data between the two jurisdictions. Will the Minister give some reassurance to businesses that are having to make decisions between now and Christmas and into the first quarter of the new year that we will secure the transitional arrangements that businesses need and thereby give them certainty that they will be able to continue to operate as they do now, not only when a deal on our future relationship is signed, but in the crucial transitional period?
Matt Hancock
That is our objective, but I have one difference with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He said that our leaving the EU will make things more difficult, but that is not necessarily so, because we seek a relationship that, in terms of the unhindered flow of data, is as high quality as the one we have now. We of course need to secure that as part of the negotiations, and we need to secure it as part of the transitional arrangements as well. Indeed, as we set out in a paper published in August, we are looking at an enhanced mechanism that is not just the normal adequacy deal that other third countries have, but one that enables continued technical engagement between the Information Commissioner and European bodies to ensure that our technical capabilities can continue to inform the future development of data protection standards inside the EU. I did not simply say that we seek an adequacy deal full stop, because we are looking into having a deal that not only reflects a normal third-country adequacy deal, but goes further and ensures that we have a stronger technical relationship between our regulator, the Information Commissioner and the European regulators.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The UK has more than 10% of data flows, more than three quarters of which are with the EU, and more than 40% of the data centres in Europe are in the UK, so does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of European businesses to secure data adequacy—or data adequacy within a new free trade agreement—as well as in the interests of British businesses?
Matt Hancock
I agree wholeheartedly and strongly with my hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, having just arrived in the House from the European Parliament, where she was a rapporteur on some of the key committees that made a number of the important decisions in this policy area. She is absolutely right. The unhindered flow of data will take place between two regimes that are harmonised, because we are bringing into UK law the GDPR, which is obviously European legislation. It is in the strong interests of the UK and the EU to ensure the unhindered free flow of data after Brexit.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Minister for so generously giving way. I just wanted to press him on the point that he made about the engagement that will happen at a technical level. In practice, does that mean that our standards will be maintained in tandem with those in the EU, and that therefore there will be no difference between the two?
Matt Hancock
What it means is that the arrangements are harmonised right now. Should the Data Protection Bill become an Act, as I sincerely hope it will—it does have cross-party support—our existing arrangements at the point of exit will be harmonised. What happens after that will depend on the negotiation of our future relationship, with the UK being sovereign. The point is to ensure that the technical details are informed by high-quality UK technical considerations and the capability of the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is, of course, subject to negotiation. We set that out as something we wanted to consider when we published the paper in the summer, but, as the right hon. Gentleman may have heard, we are not yet on to negotiating our future relationship, although we are looking forward to that happening.
During the summer, we published the future partnership paper, which sets out how we ensure the continued protection and uninterrupted exchange of personal data between the EU and the UK. The purpose of setting that out was to offer stability and confidence to businesses, public authorities, charities and individuals. My message to business in particular is very clear. We understand how important this matter is. We know that it is in the strong self-interest of the UK and the EU to get a good deal that involves the unhindered free flow of data. The new partnership should protect the privacy of individuals and respect the UK’s sovereignty, including the UK’s ability to protect the security of its citizens and to maintain and develop its position as a leader in data protection. Ensuring that we protect privacy while also allowing for the innovative use of big data so that the UK can be a world leader in artificial intelligence are the joint goals of the Data Protection Bill.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
On the point about what the general data protection regulation provides as an opportunity, does the Minister recognise that it will actually be implemented through a statutory instrument under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? Does he agree that we should therefore have a debate in the House on that SI when we get the opportunity?
Matt Hancock
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), will have heard that point—this is a bit like a return to business questions from earlier. Parliamentary procedure is a matter for that Bill, but the hon. Gentleman has made his case. It is very important that the element of the GDPR that is directly applicable and therefore not in the Data Protection Bill is brought into UK law. However, we have designed the Bill so that that can slot directly in, meaning that once we leave, the UK should have a fully consistent, full-spectrum data protection regime under our legislation.
The new relationship should also not impose unnecessary additional costs on businesses and must be based on the objective consideration of evidence. Furthermore, because many of these issues are technical, we will continue to seek ongoing regulatory co-operation between the EU and the UK on current and future data protection issues. By doing that, we will build on the opportunity of a partnership between global leaders on data protection and continue to protect the privacy of individuals. As the paper that we published in the summer reiterates, it is important that we provide clarity and certainty for businesses and individuals as soon as possible, so that data flows are not disrupted when the UK leaves the EU. In addition, this is part of a wider global debate about the flow of data, because it is also incredibly important that we get right our data relationship with the United States, Japan and others.
Tom Brake
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I am sure that he is aware that the people of Gibraltar are concerned about the impact of the disruption of data flows. Gibraltar holds many data servers, and people there are very concerned that there might be longer-term impacts on their businesses. Can the Minister say anything about that?
Matt Hancock
Gibraltar is, and will continue to be, part of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union leads on issues relating to Gibraltar. He will have heard those concerns and will be able to respond to them in detail. In a sense, all this shows why it is so important to get this agreement right.
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.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
First, let me apologise for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) who has recently joined our team and would normally be speaking on these matters. He is currently fulfilling a prior obligation to speak at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. It is nice to have him on our team as we served together in the Cabinet Office in government, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), and we all look forward to serving in government again very soon in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
If I may, I will just correct the Minister, who inadvertently misinformed the House. Of course, Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom. It is an overseas territory. It is technically part of the European Union, although it is obviously excluded from the customs union and the common agricultural policy.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Of course, Gibraltar is part of the UK family. I should have been clearer about that, but I am glad that we have cleared that up.
Kevin Brennan
As ever, the Minister is modest enough to accept when he makes a mistake and correct the record.
There are few debates that are more important than those concerning trade, especially in the context of the decision of the UK to exit the European Union with all the impact that that could have on the UK economy. As the Minister quite rightly said, in the 21st century there is nothing much more important to trade than data. As we have heard, 43% of EU tech companies are based in the United Kingdom and three quarters of the UK’s cross-border data flows are with other European Union countries. These data flows are essential for UK trade. Approximately half of all trade in services is enabled by digital technologies and the associated data flows.
Effective modern data protection laws that set down strong rights and protections are vital if the public are to have any trust in the use of personal information within the digital economy, the delivery of public services and the fight against crime. Ensuring that the public can trust that their data is handled safely, whether in the public or private sector, is important for us all. We need to get the Data Protection Bill right—as the Minister pointed out, the Bill has been introduced in the other place and is there as we speak—to implement the new European Union rules on data protection contained in the general data protection regulation. If we do not get it right, people will not benefit to the fullest extent from the new digital services that are coming online all the time. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased that the Opposition welcome the Bill. We deeply regret that the Government opposed our previous attempts to strengthen data protection at the time of the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017, just a few short months ago, but better late than never. In scrutinising the Data Protection Bill, we will ensure that it is not too little, too late.
So far, the Government have talked the talk about their commitment to unhindered, uninterrupted data flows post-Brexit, but the Data Protection Bill does not really set out fully how they plan to deliver on that promise. Even if the Bill succeeds in bringing UK law into line with the EU’s data protection framework by the deadline of 25 May 2018, it does not necessarily mean that the Bill provides for the future. On leaving the EU, the Government will need to satisfy the European Commission that the UK’s data protection framework provides an “adequate level of protection”. The Government and the Minister today seem to be saying that achieving a positive adequacy decision will be easy, but it might not be as easy as the Minister indicated.
Under article 45 of the general data protection regulation, the European Commission is required to consider a number of issues including, among other things, existing surveillance practices. As Lord Stevenson said in the other place on Tuesday, several commentators have indicated that the current activities of British intelligence services could
“jeopardise a positive adequacy decision”
since data protection rules
“do not offer an equivalent standard of protection to that available in the rest of the EU.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2017; Vol. 785, c. 129.]
Lord Stevenson asked the Government how they might square this circle, but unfortunately received no answer. I understand we will have the intense and unusual pleasure of a second contribution from the Minister in this debate—I foreshadow that by indicating to the House that I will also seek permission to respond on behalf of the Opposition in a similar fashion—so perhaps he could answer that question during his closing remarks.
The Government seem to have lost sight of the need to ensure continuity during the transition period and beyond. They must have measures in place to reassure all those businesses that have taken advantage of the UK as the gateway to Europe that they will pass the adequacy test and ensure that stability and certainty. Given that we need a new data protection regime for sharing data across the channel and the Irish sea, we may as well get this new regime right for consumers as well as businesses. At a time of increasing concern about the misuse of personal data by certain companies, is not there a need for a far more stringent regulatory structure than that contained in the Data Protection Bill?
Colleagues in the other place have already remarked that the tech giants that dominate the digital economy and the market for data have, for too long, got away with portraying themselves as purely neutral platforms. They are not, as each of their business models—not to mention their share value—is predicated on the data flows that they generate and monetise. It has become a cliché, but in a very real sense data is the new oil in the economy.
We should also speak about children in the context of data protection. The Minister did not mention this part of the Government’s plans in his remarks, but I hope he refers to it when he sums up. Children and young people are at the leading edge of the online world, with 75% of 10 to 12-year-olds and 96% of 13 to 18-year-olds using social media sites, with Facebook ranked at the top. Sadly, this has resulted in children and teens being treated as data assets by business, with their personal data stolen and sold without informed consent on a regular basis. That cannot be right. The Data Protection Bill represents an opportunity to right this wrong, but the current drafting of the Bill does not give us much cause for hope in that area.
The Government have chosen to derogate from the general data protection regulation, as the Minister mentioned, by setting the minimum age for a child consenting to the processing of personal data at 13 years of age, rather than 16. Why have they chosen to derogate in that fashion? As John Carr, a member of the executive board of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which was set up under the last Labour Government, has noted, perhaps the age of 13 was chosen because when Ireland—where the big social media companies are based—decided on 13 years of age, the UK’s decision was all but irrelevant. Does the Minister agree with that? If that is not the case, what is his explanation for why the Government chose to make this derogation? They claimed in their statement of intent published in August:
“Child online safety is one of the top priorities for this government”.
If so, 16 would have been a better age, as Sonia Livingstone, professor of social psychology in the department of media and communications at the London School of Economics, has argued.
Some people might argue that a lower minimum age is good for younger people’s participation in the digital world, but evidence from the regulator, Ofcom, shows quite clearly that fewer than half of 12 to 15-year-olds can identify an online-sponsored result, let alone understand how companies exploit their personal data. If the Government insist on staying the course with regard to this derogation, they must at the very least guarantee to the House today that they will ensure a significant increase in media education and digital literacy among young people. I hope that the Minister will refer to that in his response. This returns us to the responsibilities of social media and other online businesses.
While we may debate where the minimum age of consent should be fixed, the fact that the Bill does not place any requirements on these companies to prevent under-age access to their services is a glaring oversight, especially from a Government who claim that child online safety is one of their top priorities. The Leader of the House so memorably described Jane Austen in this Chamber not so long ago as
“one of our greatest living authors”—[Official Report, 20 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 1004.]
To paraphrase Jane Austen, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the Government are making a complete Horlicks of the article 50 negotiations, as we saw again just this morning. At least, they have now taken up our policy.
Matt Hancock
Just on a point of English language, it is clearly not a truth universally acknowledged, because I do not acknowledge it.
Kevin Brennan
Well, at least the Minister did not claim that Jane Austen was our greatest living author—I will give him credit for that.
I give the Minister and the Government credit for taking up our policy of having a transitional period with regard to Brexit to give themselves a little more time. The price of getting data protection wrong would obviously be enormous, because so many companies rely on transmitting data across the single market.
For many years, we have talked of the four freedoms—the free movement of goods, services, capital and people—but there is a fifth freedom, because, in reality, we have created one of the world’s leading regimes for data transfer, which has allowed our tech companies to grow, flourish and prosper. It would be a disaster if any division, dithering or incompetence around the Brexit negotiations now imperilled that achievement.
The Government have set themselves a very tight schedule for passing the Bill into law before the end of April 2018. As I have indicated, the Opposition will support the main principles of the Bill, but there is a great deal of work still to be done, with several areas needing to be scrutinised, and the Government need to be prepared to amend the Bill to rectify some of the inadequacies I have indicated during my remarks.
All of us in this place owe it to the public, and especially to children, to get this legislation right. We cannot afford to fail just because of the dysfunctionality at the heart of the Government, and I hope the Minister will not be complacent on that score.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
At the start of this week, the Prime Minister told the United Kingdom to be prepared for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. The warning was clear and unambiguous that with gridlocked negotiations a no-deal Brexit was becoming increasingly likely. Of course, the effects of a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic. The consequences for our economy, our trade and our EU citizens are obvious, and they have been well documented. Less obvious, and among the multitude of hugely important issues that rarely make the headlines, is the impact on data protection of the UK leaving the European without a deal.
Data protection has been described by The Economist and others as:
“The world’s most valuable resource”.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) described data as “the new oil”. Currently, the UK Government define data protection as the controls on how personal information is used by organisations, businesses or the Government. Everyone responsible for using data has to follow strict rules, and they must make sure that the information is used fairly and lawfully. Information that is held on individuals can include their name, address, credit history, employment history, salary details and even internet browsing history. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would wish some, if not all, that information to remain as secure as possible. Robust and strict data protection is therefore absolutely essential to avoid any improper use of that information, whether for online fraud or identity theft, and to keep it from falling into the hands of people or organisations with which we would rather not share it.
Data protection may not be something that we think about every day—indeed, it may not even cross our minds from one year to the next—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is not the case for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). Whether we think about data protection on a daily basis or not, its importance is not diminished. That is why it is absolutely vital that the level of data protection we currently enjoy as EU citizens is guaranteed on day one of Brexit, so that businesses and individuals can continue to rely on existing data flows. It is no exaggeration to say that millions of jobs across Europe rely on data protection and data processing to a greater or lesser extent.
As the Minister acknowledged, the security we receive from our data protection legislation already has a distinctly European flavour, originating as it does from the 1995 EU data protection directive, which was adopted into UK law in the Data Protection Act 1998. Since then, the way in which we create, collate, access and use data has changed enormously, as has the amount of data we create as individuals and as a society. In recognition of that, in 2016 the EU introduced a new legislative framework for data protection: the general data protection regulation, of which we have heard so much, and the police and criminal justice directive. Both those pieces of legislation form the basis of the Data Protection Bill that is in Committee in the other place. The regulations will apply in member states from 2018, and EU member states are required to transpose the directive into national law by the same date.
The Scottish National party agreed with the Minister when he said in February that the GDPR was a “good piece of legislation”. We were pleased that it was included in the Queen’s Speech and that the Government made it clear that our current data protection framework would be amended and made compatible, so that we can adopt the new regulations. We very much welcome the Government’s move to implement the GDPR, giving people more power and control over their own data.
In normal circumstances, I believe that that piece of legislation would be relatively uncontentious. However, as it has done and I believe it will continue to do, Brexit makes the subject of data protection hugely problematic. If we are to leave the EU in March 2019, what is the future for our newly agreed and freshly implemented cross-border, pan-European arrangement with our EU partners? What will be the consequences for businesses and individuals if the UK suddenly finds itself on the outside without a deal to continue the free flow of data not just with the European Union, but with the safe nations with which the EU has secured a reciprocal deal? At a stroke, could the United Kingdom lose its right to exchange data with the United States, a nation on which the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade seems to be pinning so much hope for our future trade?
We are in an era in which geographical boundaries for data do not exist. Today, as probably every speaker in this debate has said, almost half the large EU digital companies are based in the UK, and a remarkable 75% of cross-border data flow out of the UK is with EU countries. We also have significant data flow with the United States, which occurs because we enjoy access to the EU’s privacy shield agreement. There is no such thing as sovereignty where data is concerned. Currently, we are a signed-up member of an international network committed to safeguarding data. In this global economy, the unfettered free flow of data across international boundaries safely and without delay, cost or detriment is absolutely essential, not just for individuals and businesses but for agencies that need to work across international boundaries. We have heard about many of those agencies today, and they deal with matters such as crime prevention, disease control and national and international security.
For the UK to be able to take full advantage of the continued free flow of data with the rest of the European Union post Brexit, the most straightforward route would be for the EU to issue an adequacy decision. An adequacy decision, as we have heard, is given to a third country—a country that is outside the EU and the EEA—to allow it to operate securely and freely within the framework of the GDPR. It can be given to countries that meet the required standard of data protection, a criterion that currently applies to the United Kingdom. The problem is, however, that an adequacy decision is designed for third countries, and the UK is not—yet—a third country. Indeed, it will not be one until the end of the Brexit process. There is no existing legal mechanism to enable the EU to award an adequacy decision to a country in advance of its leaving the EU. As the leading data protection lawyer, Rosemary Jay, said, the EU has to go through a legislative process, and it is simply not in the EU’s gift to do this in an informal way. I cannot comprehend what the Minister meant when he said that he sought “something akin to” an adequacy deal.
Matt Hancock
The negotiation of the EU’s future relationship with the UK is not some sort of informal approach; it is a very formal set of talks. We hope that it will lead to a good deal, which we hope will include this area. That is exactly what I meant.
Brendan O'Hara
I thank the Minister for his point, but I stress again what Rosemary Jay said: the Commission has to go through a legislative process, and it is not within the EU’s gift to do this in an informal way. There could be a further complication in the UK’s achievement of an adequacy decision. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West said, ahead of granting an adequacy decision the European Commission is obliged to consider a variety of issues, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights and legislation on national security, public security and criminal law.
That being so, there is a very strong suggestion that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 may jeopardise the ability of the UK to receive a positive adequacy decision. The Investigatory Powers Act has already been accused of violating EU fundamental rights. Eduardo Ustaran, the internationally recognised expert on data protection law, has said:
“What the U.K. needs to do is convince the Commission—and perhaps one day the European Court of Justice—that the Investigatory Powers Act is compatible with fundamental rights. That’s a tall order”.
While the Government are understandably desperate to secure an adequacy decision, the harsh reality is that a lengthy and challenging legal process may have to be undertaken before that happens.
I fear the Government are in denial about this. Indeed, when questioned by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee back in February about what would happen on the day after Brexit if we do not have an adequacy decision in place, the Minister said:
“we seek unhindered data flows but we want that to happen in an uninterrupted way—that is to say, on the morning on which we have left the European Union, it is very important that our data rules work, so that there is an uninterrupted system in place”.
He is absolutely right—I could not agree more—but that did not answer the question about what happens if we do not have such an adequacy decision in place on the day we leave.
Just yesterday, at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I asked the Secretary of State a very similar question about the need to have an adequacy decision in place when the UK leaves the EU. Her answer was that she was
“very hopeful of getting that deal”.
I am sure she is and I wish her well, but at the moment there is no deal in place. The longer negotiations are at a stalemate, while we continue without the legal mechanism to get a third country deal, and, given the issues in relation to the Investigatory Powers Act, securing the agreement the UK needs and absolutely desires is becoming less and less likely.
Another potentially huge problem arises if we do not secure an adequacy decision by the day on which we leave the European Union, because not only will we be outside the EU and isolated from the other 27 member states, but we will also be outside the EU-USA privacy shield agreement. The consequences of that happening may be unthinkable for UK businesses and individuals, but it is absolutely incumbent on the Government to think the unthinkable and to be adequately prepared for it. Putting all their eggs in the one basket of hoping to secure a negotiated adequacy decision is a very high stakes game, so I again ask Ministers: where is the plan B should there not be an adequacy decision? What assessment has been made of the UK not having such a decision in place on the morning on which we leave the European Union, and when will Members of the House be able to see that plan B and that assessment?
Nobody wants such a situation to arise—we want a deal to be struck—but even if the Government’s faith is rewarded and we do secure an adequacy decision, the UK faces another problem. As the GDPR evolves over time, as it surely will, the UK, to maintain its membership, will be required to amend its data protection law to keep in line with European law. The EU charter of fundamental rights and freedoms is now central to EU data protection law, and the charter is interpreted by the European Court of Justice, yet clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill quite clearly states that EU courts will cease to bind UK courts and tribunals following withdrawal. I suspect that if the UK does manage to secure an adequacy decision, to keep it, it will have to fall into line with the European Union Court of Justice.
As I said at the start, we welcome the Bill as a move to ensure that people have more control over their own data and to bring the legislation into line with the huge technological advances since the 1998 Act. We welcome the commitment to implementing the GDPR and to the UK remaining fully involved in protecting EU citizens’ data post-Brexit. We question, and we will continue to question, the Government on how they can take this forward when an adequacy decision is not guaranteed and while there are still unresolved issues about the Investigatory Powers Act, at the same time as they are seeking to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Of course, it does not have to be this way. The best, easiest and most straightforward way to ensure that there are no disruptions to data flows between the UK and the EU after Brexit is for the United Kingdom to remain a full member of the single market. The agony and the fear for millions of businesses and individuals of being cut off from both Europe and America if we do not secure an adequacy decision could be avoided by our staying in the single market. Why put people and businesses through this?
After all, no one in any of the nations of the United Kingdom voted to leave the single market. In fact, two of the four nations of the United Kingdom voted to remain in the European Union. We are in this situation because of the Conservative party’s extreme interpretation of Brexit, and that is why we are now actually having to prepare ourselves for what, hitherto, was unimaginable—a no-deal Brexit, with the catastrophic consequences that it will inevitably have for our society and our economy.
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.
Darren Jones
I agree with that sentiment. Dare I say it, but very few Government Members are present? Although my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said this may be an anorak issue, it is in fact crucial to our economy, our new civil liberties and the type of country we want to live in. We should be having such a debate, and I again restate our request that we should do so in this House not only on the Data Protection Bill, but on the GDPR statutory instrument.
I am looking forward to the Data Protection Bill and I am excited about the Committee stage, but I will take this opportunity to address some of the strategic issues that many Members have mentioned: first, the basis of data protection law in the European charter of fundamental rights, on which I will not revisit the arguments already made but will, I hope, add something interesting and new to the debate; secondly, the incoherence between the necessity to mirror EU law and the Government’s illogical policy approach on Brexit; and lastly, the rights and protections of children.
First, as we have heard in this debate, the Government have made it clear that the European charter of fundamental rights will be revoked under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Minister said that the GDPR in effect says the same thing, but article 8 of the charter, which underpins the GDPR, is referenced in article 45 of the GDPR. If the GDPR is referencing out to statutory, fundamental rights and we take that anchor away, we must replace it elsewhere. I will therefore support the amendment to the Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, to ensure that that happens.
Matt Hancock
I am sorry to intervene, but I have already explained that because European jurisprudence is being brought into UK law, references to the charter in existing case law will be brought into UK law, which satisfies the hon. Gentleman’s demand.
Darren Jones
With respect to the Minister, I am not persuaded that that will be agreed by the European Commission. Of course ECJ jurisprudence will be Supreme Court jurisprudence in this country and will be referenced by judges in that Court, but without a statutory anchor ensuring that the fundamental right is, in their view, in favour of the consumer and the data subject, we risk divergence on the application of the rules.
I want to mention the right of collective address. Under the GDPR, bodies can campaign and bring actions against data controllers in the interests of consumers and data subjects as a whole. This works very well in other areas of the law in this country, such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Under that Act, Which?, as a private enforcer against unfair terms, can act on behalf of consumers. For some reason, the Government have decided not to adopt such an approach in the Data Protection Bill. I look to the Minister in his closing remarks to explain why he does not think organisations should be able to bring actions for collective redress on behalf of data subjects. Many data subjects may not be able to enforce their own rights as individuals but rely on such organisations to act in their interests.
On fundamental rights more broadly, I am still confused. I hope that the Minister will provide clarification in this final debate of the week by showing how, although we must maintain fundamental rights, we are also removing them. It is much like being in the single market and leaving it, much like being in Europe but not being in Europe, and much like protecting fundamental rights and not protecting them. What is the answer? The Data Protection Bill seeks to ensure transparency and accountability, and in the light of that theme, I hope the Minister will respond on fundamental rights.
Secondly, if we are successful in seeking an adequacy agreement, it is then for us to maintain equivalence as part of that developing area of EU law, as other Members have said. That will require the UK to adopt the decisions of the newly created European Data Protection Board, which is subject to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Yet the Government insist that we can be both in and out, which is ludicrous, as I have said. They also say that we can be in it without being subject to the rules, but we know that that is a fallacy. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government’s policy is to get an adequacy agreement either this year or next year, only for it to be revoked in a few years’ time because we do not want to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ? We must be subject to its jurisdiction if we are to maintain adequacy, but we will be forever on the cliff edge of being concerned that adequacy will be removed—as it was from the United States of America by the European Commission—and that is the risk our businesses, our consumers, our charities and others fear.
Lastly, I wish to address the rights and protections of children. I will return to this topic in detail on Second Reading. It is a great disappointment that the European Union has backtracked and pulled back slightly on this issue, so that instead of having a harmonised rule saying that children deserve extra protections—especially in the context of understanding how their use of online products and services means giving over personal data, how that personal data is profiled and how advertising is targeted on children—the European Union decided to provide member states with a range of ages to choose from, from 13 to 16.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, the UK opted for the age of 13 as the minimum GDPR requirement. I think that is the wrong decision and, according to polls by YouGov, 80% of parents agree with me. However, I encourage us to be intelligent about the way we regulate to support children. It is obvious that if we put in these frameworks children may find ways to use the systems anyway. No doubt there are a number of children under the age of 12 and 13 using social media sites today. We must make sure that the regulation is—dare I say?—with the kids. It needs to make sense and it needs to work properly. I look forward to having that debate and no doubt a shared aim.
As we prepare for the arrival of the Data Protection Bill, this is the first glimpse of a major piece of proposed legislation that highlights the enormous challenges with implementing Brexit. It is not just an issue of primary law for many of the issues we have talked about today; it is about clear rules and about compliance by those subjected to it. On clear rules, I refer to comments made by the Baroness Lane-Fox on Second Reading in the other place, when she pulled out a particularly entertaining section the Data Protection Bill, which reads:
“Chapter 2 of this Part applies for the purposes of the applied GDPR as it applies for the purposes of the GDPR… In this Chapter, ‘the applied Chapter 2’ means Chapter 2 of this Part as applied by this Chapter”.
Other than that sounding like something out of the “Yes Minister” comedy series, it says to me, as a former lawyer, expense. People will be concerned—quite frankly, charities and other groups will be terrified—about getting this wrong. They will have to endure huge compliance costs in trying to implement what should be clear rules into their business.
Following on from what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said—she is not in her place—on compliance and guidance from the ICO, I stress this point with the Minister: many businesses want to do the right thing. They wait on guidance from the ICO and others to tell them what the law means and how they will seek to enforce that law. However, much guidance has either been delayed or is not yet with us. The guidance that has been provided is not, in many cases, sufficiently clear either. We must support the ICO properly to ensure it can provide that service, and we must make sure that people know how to comply with the law.
The UK is, as we have heard, one of the world’s leading digital economies. Bristol is one of the largest digital economies outside of London, and we lead the way on these issues in the world. We have the opportunity to set the tone in becoming a global hub for the world’s digital economy based not only on trust, accountability and security, but on business innovation and leadership. I look forward to helping the Government in this House to get that right.
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.
Darren Jones
The Minister says that the guidance should come out early, but it is already too late in respect of direct applicability of the general data protection regulation for many businesses, which may need to carry out major systems changes if guidance says something that they are not expecting based on interpretation of the article. Will he say to the ICO that, where guidance is late and that makes it harder for organisations to make those changes, there will be some leeway when it comes to enforcement?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman speaks like a true lawyer. The hon. Member for Cardiff West said that the hon. Gentleman had been outed as a lawyer during this debate—my goodness, he outs himself as a lawyer from the first moment he strikes his posture in this Chamber. He is obviously a lawyer and that latest point only proves it further. The ICO has already said that, and it is well worth reading the Information Commissioner’s Cambridge speech from a couple of months ago, which set out that reassurance. The hon. Gentleman asked about timing and complained about there not being an agreement already. We want to get on and discuss the future relationship, and the Government have made that clear; it is the European side that is blocking progressing on to the future relationship. I hope that we can get on and discuss it forthwith.
Wera Hobhouse
As I have said, we have been in Brussels and heard time and again from different sides that it is up to the UK Government to break that deadlock. There are two issues where they are free to break it; this is particularly the case on the money issue, but Government Members do not want to face that, because even a penny to pay in compensation or in the divorce bill will not be good enough. That is why we are in deadlock and we cannot move on.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is wrong about that. She is also wrong to have said that there is no certainty about the future UK data protection arrangements, because there is and we are putting it into law: it will be the GDPR, plus the Data Protection Bill, which is before the other House. Although she was completely wrong, I am grateful for her intervention.
This has been a very productive debate and I am grateful for the largely very well-informed and detailed discussion, all of which has been good natured. I look forward to continuing this over the months ahead. There is a shared mission in this House to have a high-quality data agreement with the European Union to make sure we have high-quality data protection and the free flow of data. I hope I have given assurances about the actions we are taking to deliver that and to support the digital economy, through Brexit and beyond.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Exiting the European Union and Data Protection.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
4. What progress her Department has made on establishing a public service broadcasting contestable fund.
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
As part of the BBC charter review, the first part of which took place under my right hon. Friend’s wise leadership, the Government committed to establish a pilot for a new contestable fund. The Government’s consultation closed earlier this year, and we will publish the response and the next steps in due course.
Mr Whittingdale
While I recognise the BBC’s huge contribution to public service broadcasting, does the Minister agree that some TV genres are underserved and that a public service broadcasting contestable fund could increase competition and innovation? Will he confirm that the Government intend to go ahead with a pilot in due course?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I agree with everything my right hon. Friend said, and I can confirm that that pilot will be going ahead.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I love the BBC, even though Sarah Sands, the new editor of the “Today” programme, and Nick Robinson seem to be destroying that programme at the moment. I therefore start with a prejudice, but when I look at the sort of deals that have always been favoured by Conservative Members who want to privatise by the back door, I see MediaCom, Singapore and the black hand of international companies such as the Murdoch empire.
Matt Hancock
I normally think the hon. Gentleman is sensible, but today he seems to have avoided that. The contestable fund is about ensuring that we have a great diversity of success in broadcasting in our nation. As for the “Today” programme, I thought Nick Robinson’s broadcasts from Silicon Valley yesterday were superb. They were all about the interesting changes that are going on in the world and the economy due to artificial intelligence and digital. I thought that was another excellent direction for the BBC to be taking.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
T4. Many businesses in Wealden are forced by BT to depend on slow, unreliable broadband, and they get appalling service if they are ever unlucky enough to have to contact the company. Can the Minister update the House on progress to improve rural broadband, especially in Wealden?
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
Yes, I can. More than 90% of homes and businesses in Wealden now have access to superfast broadband, and 16,000 homes and businesses get that because of the Government’s support for the roll-out. We recognise that that leaves just under 10% without it, which can be incredibly frustrating, so we are bringing in a universal service obligation. At the weekend, we announced a further amount of just over £600 million for the roll-out of superfast broadband to make this country fit for the modern age.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
T2. Scottish politics can be rather tribal, but yesterday Scottish politics united in support of Paisley’s bid to become the UK City of Culture in 2021. Paisley’s bid is now Scotland’s bid. The final stage of the competition is looming, and a win for Paisley would create a bigger legacy than a win for anywhere else. Will the Minister join us in supporting Paisley 2021?
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
We simply must take steps to protect online users, particularly through education about online responsibility. How will the Government’s Data Protection Bill, which I welcome, benefit people in terms of the data held about them? I am thinking in particular of the use of children’s data and consent.
Matt Hancock
The Data Protection Bill, which we published in the other place today, is about giving citizens more power over their data while ensuring that data can be used innovatively and effectively. It also introduces new powers to protect minors and to allow people to request the deletion of their data on social media sites at the age of 18, ensuring that they are more in control of their online data.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome the inclusion of “Digital” in the Department’s title. However, despite that bold and innovative step, the availability of superfast broadband in Orkney and Shetland remains disappointingly low. I suspect that the roots of the problem lie in how the contract was tendered under the Broadband Delivery UK system, so will the Minister work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the mistakes in that process are learned?
Matt Hancock
I am also delighted that “Digital” has been added to the Department’s title. The Scottish Government have been the slowest of all the different organisations around the country to contract the broadband that we so desperately need. That is why Scotland is behind. We are offering technical support, but they are behind every English county and behind both the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Government, and they need to get a move on.
BBC Transparency
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am so sorry to have kept you away from the debate on the withdrawal from the European Union—a subject that I know is very close to your heart.
I would like to thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this important and over-subscribed debate about transparency in and of the BBC. He gave a number of examples of concerns with the BBC, many of which relate to specific accusations within BBC Northern Ireland. I am sure that the BBC has heard his concerns loud and clear; he was certainly transparent about his frustration. I understand that the BBC has offered to meet him, and I encourage him to take up that offer, but I also encourage the BBC to respond in substance to his concerns.
As many Members have said, the BBC is one of our most treasured institutions. I declare no financial interest, but I do declare that I love the BBC and think it is a very important British institution. It is an engine for creativity and growth, and I am proud of its role here and around the world.
The BBC receives £4 billion of public funding every year through the TV licence fee, which is a tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, the BBC, as a public service broadcaster funded by the public, must be as open and transparent as possible. The public rightly expect the BBC to be scrutinised effectively and to know how it spends our money—and I say “our” not as a Minister, but as a licence fee payer.
I strongly support the transparency that has been brought to the BBC through the charter settlement. It will improve the BBC and bring it into line with other public services, other parts of Government and, indeed, our politics, which has got radically more transparent in recent years. Improving efficiency and transparency was central to the charter review, and we have insisted on a whole series of changes in the charter to address these issues.
I agree with those who said we were right to introduce that transparency. Alongside it was effective, modern governance. It will be the responsibility of the new BBC board to deliver further transparency and greater efficiencies across overheads, including what needs to be done to lower the pay bill, where appropriate. The National Audit Office has become the BBC’s financial auditor for the very first time, as it is for the rest of the public sector. It will be able to do value-for-money studies on the BBC’s commercial subsidiaries, which return profits to the BBC, thereby generating public money. Of course, Ofcom is now independently regulating the BBC. A point that was brought up and has strong cross-party agreement is that it is important that an independent regulator regulates the BBC.
I was surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan), and by the Labour Front Bench’s opposition to seeing more diversity and distinctiveness at the BBC: we have had complaints by the Labour party about our calls for more diversity in the BBC. Of course I have a view on the level of diversity in the BBC, and I just wish the Labour party would join in. Where I do agree is that the BBC needs to look at pay across the piece, at all levels. I had much more sympathy with the point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the powers to insist on transparency for the BBC in other areas of diversity.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I think the Minister might have inadvertently misled the House by saying that the Labour Front Bench, during the course of the debate, had opposed levels of diversity within the BBC.
Matt Hancock
I did not say that it did so during the debate. It did when the deputy leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, wrote to us attacking our insistence on more diversity at the BBC. Maybe the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) needs to have a word with his colleague and try to bring him into line. We are in favour of more diversity. At the moment, the Labour party is not, and I suggest it does something about that.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
That was a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) satisfied?
Matt Hancock
I think the hon. Gentleman needs to go and sort that out with his colleague. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made—
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Bone.
Matt Hancock
I said West Bromwich because when I got to the end of saying it, I could not remember which I was referring to, but I was indeed referring to West Bromwich East.
Anyway, Ofcom has powers to insist that the BBC be transparent, and the charter gives Ofcom specific powers to consider the distinctiveness of music output on Radio 1 and Radio 2—not just the number of plays, but the size of the playlist and whether it is a peak or off-peak time. I suggest that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston takes his point, which has a lot of merit, up with Ofcom, because it has those powers; the Government do not, for the reasons discussed during the debate.
The Government also require the BBC to disclose details on staff and talent where salaries are over £150,000. That was the meat of the debate today. The latest pay disclosure really shines a light on some practices that have been going on for a long time in the BBC, and not least on the gender pay gap, as discussed. I am very proud that we have introduced mandatory gender pay gap reporting for organisations with more than 250 employees, because that will help the organisations. I have an awful lot of sympathy with the statement put out by BBC women yesterday, which said:
“The Director General must be in no doubt about how serious an issue equal and fair pay is for women across the organisation. The BBC should be the standard-bearer for this.”
That is incredibly important. In fact, I think that on issues of diversity and gender equality, we should hold the BBC to a higher standard, if anything, than other organisations, because it literally reflects the nation and broadcasts to the nation.
All of us who cherish and support the BBC must strive to make it more transparent and hold it to account. That does not weaken the organisation; it improves an organisation, because where there is a problem, sunlight is the best disinfectant. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) asked powerfully what further will happen on transparency. Mandatory gender pay gap reporting for the BBC, as well as for other organisations, is due by April next year, and we expect the BBC to take action to close that gap, which it says is 10%.
Of course, it is not just about the gender pay gap. As my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton Deane and for Clacton (Giles Watling) said, it is about the level of pay. It is also about equal opportunities—people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are under-represented among the BBC’s top earners—and transparency on social mobility, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston set out.
The BBC should be leading the way. I welcome the director-general’s commitment to closing the gender pay gap by 2020. I was pleased to hear yesterday about his plans for an independent equal pay audit of all BBC staff in the UK and a separate report on the gender pay gap. I look forward to seeing those reports in the coming months and expect to see an improvement on the gender pay gap and diversity in the next set of BBC accounts.
Transparency is the order of the day in this debate, so I am delighted that we heard of the music talent on the Labour Front Bench. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is regarded by viewers of the Dave channel as top talent, and maybe one day we will see his name in the transparency returns. I agree with him on the importance of impartiality at the BBC and with his robust defence of the BBC against the accusations from some Scottish National party Members. I conclude today’s debate by thanking all Members for their lively contributions. I am sure that the BBC will be listening, and I am sure also that we will return to these important topics many times.
Telecommunications Council
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
The EU Council of Ministers’ Telecommunications Council took place in Luxembourg on 9 June 2017. Due to the timing of the general election, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Katrina Williams, represented the UK at this Council. As is procedure, this statement sets out a formal record of that meeting.
The first item was a progress report and policy debate on the following two legislative instruments:
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast); and
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications.
The Council adopted a general approach on the regulation on cross-border parcel delivery services. There was a qualified majority in favour.
The last main agenda item was the ePrivacy regulation, on which there was a progress report. There was no substantive debate on this item.
These items were followed by information points on: the roaming regulation; internet connectivity in local communities (known as ‘WiFi4EU’); the Digital Single Market Strategy; cybersecurity; and the Commission’s EU Digital progress report.
Finally, the Estonian delegation informed the Council of its priorities for the Estonian presidency, beginning on 1 July 2017.
[HCWS63]
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council took place in Brussels on 22 and 23 May 2017. A separate written statement is being tabled by the Department for Education concerning the Education Council. The Minister for Digital represented the UK at the culture section of Council and Katrina Williams, the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK at the youth and the sport sections of the Council. As is procedure, this statement sets out a record of that meeting.
Youth
There were two items adopted at the Youth Council. The first pertained to draft conclusions on the role of youth work, which the UK supported, and the second which pertained to EU youth strategy, which again the UK supported. In addition there was a resolution on the structured dialogue with young people, which the UK adopted. Furthermore, the Commission pointed to the publication on 30 May of the proposed European Solidarity Corps regulation (a priority of President Juncker) which is designed to broaden the narrow focus of helping young people find employment through volunteer placements. In the policy debate on building Europe’s future, Ministers highlighted the need to deepen involvement of young people through effective dialogue and via long-term commitment to funding Erasmus Plus. Finally, there was information from the incoming Estonian presidency, which stated that it would focus its work programme on “smart youth work” via digital means.
Culture
The Council held a minute’s silence to commemorate the victims of the Manchester bombing, with all Ministers expressing their condolences to the UK, and many noting that the attack had taken place at a cultural event.
The main item at the Council was the audiovisual media services directive. The presidency explained why it believed its compromise text to be well balanced and it was made clear that a general approach would be sought at this Council. The UK was firm that the weakening of the country of origin principle remained the main outstanding concern. There was an initial attempt to find a qualified majority with which to support the file, however this failed. As a result, amendments were made to the text on the issues of scope and jurisdiction criteria, and a general approach was agreed, without the support of the UK. This matter will now proceed to trilogue.
In addition, the draft Council conclusions on an EU strategic approach to international cultural relations was also adopted, with the agreement of the UK.
Sport
The Council adopted two conclusions, one regarding Council conclusions on sport as a platform for social inclusion through volunteering, and the other regarding the EU work plan for sport. The UK agreed with the adoption of both sets of conclusions. In addition, there was feedback from the World Anti-Doping Agency meeting in Montreal and France presented on their candidacy to host the 2024 Olympic games. There was also a discussion on social inclusion in sport with a presentation from the Premier League. The UK underlined its work to promote inclusion through social media campaigns and major events such as the Paralympics.
[HCWS61]
Catfishing and Social Media
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate. I know that this is an important issue for her and for her constituent, Mr Peacock. I am glad that she has brought it to the attention of the House, and I welcome the opportunity both to raise awareness of the problem and, as she has done, to set out clearly the legal position and what might be done about it.
The UK is a world leader in the fight against online abuse, exploitation and harmful content. We take the approach of working in partnership with the technology industry, using legislation where necessary, and we also work with groups across society to ensure that behaviour that would not be tolerated offline cannot thrive online. That is the principle that underpins the internet safety strategy, which is part of the wider digital charter that the hon. Lady mentioned. I listened to her contribution, and I will endeavour to address all the points that she raised in my response.
I will start by saying that I agree with her about the vital need to balance freedom and responsibility online, so that we can enjoy all the benefits of the internet but try to mitigate the harms and harmful practices that the internet has allowed to come about.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Like the Minister, I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for an absolutely superb exposition not only of her constituent’s case but of the wider situation.
Members listening to and participating in this debate would like the Minister to address a couple of points. First, there is no excuse whatsoever for people taking someone else’s identity online. Such behaviour is reprehensible and creates two potential victims. The hon. Member for Stockport outlined how the law has proved to be absolutely deficient so far in this area. I am not one for jumping to legal remedy, but the lack of legal redress for her constituent is obvious, and the Government need to look at that situation carefully and sympathetically.
Matt Hancock
That is an important point, and I will come on to it later.
The internet brings benefits, but also the new challenges that we are considering. The central point is that fraud, whether it is committed online or offline, can cause serious damage, and fraud includes identity theft. Victims can suffer both financial and emotional harm, and we know that fraudsters not only make money but exploit social relationships. Both those things need to be taken seriously.
The Fraud Act 2006 already includes offences that would apply to anyone who assumes a false or non-existent identity to commit fraud. In particular, section 2 sets out the crime of fraud by false representation, which would cover a person pretending to be someone else for the purposes of making a gain for himself or another. That obviously applies in the online world, too. The use of a false identity for fraudulent purposes is a crime, but identify theft in and of itself is not a criminal offence, which speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) raised about taking someone else’s identity. That is the situation as we find it.
Perhaps I should go through some of the things the Government are considering to try to address the problem. First, there is the question of raising awareness of identity fraud. Identity fraud and wider cyber-crime are important issues. We need to ensure that people understand the safer behaviours they can use online. The hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the UK Safer Internet Centre and Get Safe Online, which provide advice on relationship scams and online dating issues. Get Safe Online is an independent organisation funded by industry and Government to ensure that there is a place to go for high-quality advice. Often even basic research, such as checking social media sites or using search facilities, can help in checking whether a person is actually who they say they are.
We expect websites, including social media companies, to respond quickly to reports of harmful content and abusive behaviour on their networks. That includes having easy-to-use reporting tools and robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported, including the suspension or termination of the accounts of those who do not comply with acceptable use policies. As the hon. Lady said, social media companies are taking some action using people and artificial intelligence, but it is clearly not solving the whole problem.
We have taken action to tackle online harms through legislation where necessary, including in relation to cyber-stalking, harassment and perpetrators using grossly offensive, obscene or menacing behaviour. We have introduced a new law making the fast-growing incidence of revenge porn a specific criminal offence, which is what the hon. Lady is seeking. The most relevant legislation is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which contains the offence of sending material, including electronic communications, to another person that is false and known or believed to be false by the sender, with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient or any other person to whom it is intended to be communicated. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 made changes to that offence, and to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The changes were aimed at ensuring that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished. Where there is emotional abuse, it might be captured under the domestic abuse offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. That is the legal position.
The Crown Prosecution Service has revised its guidelines on social media to incorporate new and emerging crimes being committed online. Advice was added to the guidelines about the use of false online profiles and websites with false and damaging information. For example, it may be a criminal offence if a profile is created under the name of the victim with fake information uploaded that, if believed, could damage their reputation and humiliate them. Whether the CPS prosecutes any offence will depend on it meeting the evidential and public interest tests in the “Code for Crown Prosecutors”.
The Digital Economy Act 2017 requires us to publish a code of practice for social media companies. We have not yet published it, but we are required to, so we are working on it. The code of practice will include guidance on arrangements for notification by users; the process for dealing with notifications; terms and conditions in relation to those arrangements and processes; and the giving of information to the public about the action providers take against harmful behaviour. We will be consulting on that shortly.
The hon. Lady said that no one is seeking to end anonymity. It is interesting that on some social media sites anonymity is not allowed or made very difficult, but that is not true across the board. For instance, we welcome Facebook’s real name policy, which requires all its users to provide their real and full name when signing up. Claiming to be another person, creating a false presence or creating multiple profiles goes against Facebook’s terms and conditions, but that is not the case for all social media sites. Policing such things is incredibly important, but there is collaboration between social media sites and dating sites to link up online presences. For example, Tinder allows users to link their accounts with other forms of social media, such as Facebook or Instagram. That can help, and we welcome such things, but it is not necessarily for Government to tell social networks how their facilities should work. The very nature of social networks is that they are designed for people to share information, but all social networks are expected to act responsibly to protect the privacy of users. Getting the balance right between freedom and safety online is a key part of the internet safety strategy and the digital charter.
Mr Lord
I have been listening carefully to the Minister’s remarks. A minute or so ago, I think he said that if the victim—in other words, the person whose identity has been stolen—has reputational damage, that is potentially a criminal offence. I cannot think of anything worse than that damage. In this case, it was proven that this man’s identity was taken and that multiple women—perhaps many women—were contacted and asked for graphic and sexual images of themselves.
Matt Hancock
As I said, the CPS guidance in this area has been updated, because technology moves fast and the CPS has to update its guidance and interpretation of the law from time to time. My hon. Friend is exactly right in what he said and in reporting what I said, which will be in Hansard, but I said it as a conditional—such activity could be a criminal offence, because it depends on potential prosecutions. It is not for this place to determine guilt or innocence; it is for this place to determine what the law should be.
The guidance was updated fairly recently, and we need to see the impact of that, but my hon. Friend should rest assured that we put in place the internet safety strategy to look broadly at the impact of the internet and ensure that we protect the freedom, innovations and magnificent improvements that it brings to many areas of life, while doing that in a safe way that protects people from harm. Freedom exists within a framework of protecting others from harm, hence why the internet safety strategy will look into all these issues. Since I am responsible for that strategy and have heard the debate today and looked into the case in preparing for the debate, I will ensure that the issue of catfishing is considered.
There have been movements in this area, and I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Stockport and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking to ensure that the victims of catfishing, who can suffer both financial and emotional harm, have their voices properly heard. They need a strong response to ensure that the law is properly and appropriately up to date to deal with the challenges that the internet has brought in this area and in this case. We have to learn the lessons. I hope that I have provided assurance that we take harm caused online extremely seriously, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to find the solution.
Question put and agreed to.
Digital Economy Act Commencement
Matt Hancock Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
In April this year, Her Majesty the Queen gave Royal Assent to the Digital Economy Act 2017. The Act introduced measures to help consumers access broadband, build digital infrastructure, protect children from online pornography and enable better public services using digital technologies.
A number of important provisions in the Act have already come into force. These include powers on broadband USO, switching, automatic compensation and information powers to help consumers accessing electronic communications services, protection for citizens from nuisance calls and others.
I can today inform the House that the Government have made the first commencement regulations to bring into force a considerable number of other sections of the Act.
We have taken steps to implement the new age verification requirement for online pornography as part of our continuing work to make the internet safer. The new scheme is complex and will not be fully in place until April 2018, but today we are bringing into force powers to designate the regulator and powers to allow guidance to be issued.
We are also bringing into force measures to improve digital connectivity across the UK, starting the implementation of the new electronic communications code to assist operators to develop new infrastructure, putting in place planning reforms and giving powers to allow Ofcom to make better use of radio spectrum to improve mobile connectivity.
We have also started the process of implementing the measures in the Act that allow the Government to make better use of data. Powers to allow HMRC to share non-identifying information in the public interest will come into force and help deliver more effective and efficient public services. We will also bring into force the information sharing arrangement with the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office to help those who have suffered personal injury as a result of employment to trace liability insurance policies. New provisions to enable public authorities to share information with the UK Statistics Authority will also commence.
Finally, to help consumers better manage their bills, we will commence powers to require mobile operators to offer bill limits to all their customers. To allow operators time to adapt their systems and processes, I am today announcing that the requirement will come into force from October 2018.
Commencing these provisions marks another significant milestone towards implementing the Digital Economy Act 2017 and delivering our digital strategy.
[HCWS51]
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill
Matt Hancock ExcerptsMonday 10th July 2017
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Act 2018 View all Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Everyone in the House knows the importance of being connected, whether through traditional means or, increasingly, through digital connections. Whether the issue is the next generation of broadband technology, better mobile phone coverage or preparing for the next generation of 5G, the Bill is all about improved connectivity. Whether we are talking about fixed networks in the ground or the next generation of mobile and wireless connectivity, what people care about is how well connected they are—good download and upload speeds, reliability, latency, and how quickly they get reconnected when there is a problem. It is a problem that we can all identify with, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say what a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair for the first time from the Dispatch Box, Dame Rosie?
Our task is to prepare for a world of considerably greater demand for digital connectivity. Just as Moore’s law states that the cost of computing halves each year, Nielsen’s law has seen the doubling of data demands every two years. World-class connectivity is important for people to function in the modern world, whether at work or at play. It will continue to transform our public services and bring efficiencies there, too, and it is important for all sectors in our economy. The challenge is always to stay a step ahead of need. We need the digital infrastructure that can support that, providing ubiquitous coverage so that no one is left out, and sufficient capacity to ensure that data can flow at volume and with speed and reliability to meet the demands of modern life.
All these connections rely on Britain laying more fibre-optic cable. Whether fibre all the way to the premise—to each home and business—or the fibre that underpins the mobile network, all modern connectivity runs off fibre. Around five years ago, the nation took a strategic decision to roll out high-speed broadband based largely on a part-fibre, part-copper network. Superfast broadband delivered in that way is today available to 93% of UK homes and businesses. We rank first among the big European states for superfast connections, and we are on track to reach 95% by the end of this year.
In mentioning that, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)? He did so much—he never lets me forget how much—to deliver the first-rate, high-quality superfast broadband connectivity to homes and businesses around the country that now allows us to say that 93% of people have access to, but do not necessarily take up, superfast broadband.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being so quick to take an intervention. May I suggest that he is being a little Panglossian and positive in his approach? As constituency MPs, we receive quite a number of complaints, and yet the grin on his face suggests quite the opposite.
Matt Hancock
That was me talking about what we have done so far—just wait until I talk about what we need to do in the future. I strongly agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do much more, which is what the bulk of my speech is all about. Indeed, it is what the Bill is all about. If she holds the view she espouses, I look forward to her marching through the Division Lobby later in support.
Precisely on the point raised by the hon. Lady, of course 7% of premises do not yet have access to superfast connections, so we are introducing the new broadband universal service obligation so that, by 2020, everyone has access to a minimum level of service. That will provide a vital safety net and ensure that nobody is left behind as the country takes these strides towards better connectivity.
Yet even this is not enough. Demand marches on. People’s needs and expectations have risen further, and will continue to rise. Yes, we need to celebrate what we have done so far, but we must also deliver deeper connectivity, now and in the future, to support a competitive market and to ensure that we get this infrastructure in the ground. We must work now to deliver the next generation of technologies, 5G and fibre over the decades ahead. This Bill is part of a suite of actions we are taking to boost Britain’s fibre. We will break down barriers to better broadband for business and get quicker connectivity for consumers.
First, in the Digital Economy Act 2017 we reformed the electronic communications code, which regulates agreements between people who provide sites and the digital communication operators. That new code will make it easier for electronic communications infrastructure to be deployed, maintained and upgraded. We are currently finalising the regulations needed to support the new code, which we plan to commence later this year when the work has been completed.
Secondly, with the separation of Openreach from BT we will see a more competitive market, with an Openreach that serves all customers well, rather than just focusing on BT. That decision has been largely welcomed by BT’s competitors and is the result of intense negotiations between Ofcom and BT. It is the right outcome and will ensure that Openreach delivers not just for its customers but for the whole country.
Thirdly, we are supporting the fibre roll-out through a £400 million digital infrastructure investment fund to help competitors in the market to reach scale and to deliver. The fund will improve access to commercial finance for alternative developers for full fibre infrastructure, helping them to accelerate roll-out plans and compete with the larger players.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will that assist those areas, of which there seem to be a great number in my constituency, where one part of, say, a market town or a small village has had its box upgraded by BT but users who are a few yards further away from the box, requiring longer reaches of copper wire, cannot get a decent service?
Matt Hancock
It may well help, but the universal service obligation is the thing that will really help those people, because it means everybody will have a right to a high-speed broadband connection. Some of those connections will be delivered by the next-generation full fibre connectivity and some of them by the existing technology, but our whole package of measures to deliver better broadband and quicker connectivity will ensure that we reach those people who, frustratingly, can be just a few yards further away from a box—or, indeed, who see the fibre go down in the road in front of their premises—but who do not have a connection.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, which is essential for moving the country forward and making our businesses as strong as possible, but even in the centre of Taunton Deane and the county town of Taunton there are areas where people still cannot get fast broadband. Will the Minister tell them how quickly they might be able to take advantage of this new service?
Matt Hancock
The universal service obligation is in law to ensure that everybody can access the service by 2020, but that is an end date, a deadline. As I said earlier, we have now reached 93% of premises. Crucially, that is 93% of premises having access to broadband—they still have to take it up. In fact, everybody who takes up the service in a subsidised area puts more money into the pot so that we can give more people access to superfast broadband.
Just 42% of the country had superfast broadband in 2010, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage took up the reins of delivering it, but now 93% have access to it. We are on track to get to 95% at the end of the year, and then 100% of premises will have access to high-speed broadband by 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) can see, we are rolling that out. Crucially, that is delivering today’s technology—it delivers the needs of an average household today—but we also need to make sure we are ahead of the curve on the next generation of technology.
The idea of the digital investment fund is that it supports the commercial finance of alternative developers so we get more players into the market, rather than just having BT and Virgin, the two big players. The Government’s investment will be at least matched on the same terms by private sector investments so we expect it to capitalise more private investment and bring more than £1 billion of investment overall into full-fibre broadband, getting the really high speeds that some people need and want now, but many, many more will need and want in the future as these demands increase.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I want to refer back to the Minister’s remarks on the universal service obligation, which of course he is right to hail as a revolution in provision. The USO will be subject to a cost cap, so I wonder whether he will tell us when our constituents are likely to know what that cap is going to be and therefore whether he will be burnishing his credentials as a hero of rural Britain or not.
Matt Hancock
I know when to take a compliment as a threat. The truth is that this all depends on the technology. It may cost an awful lot to dig a trench and get a piece of fibre all the way to some places a long way from the existing network. However, new technologies are coming on stream, especially fixed wireless technologies, where a signal is beamed from one place to another. As a last resort, there are satellite technologies, which are good but not as reliable, that mean everyone can get connected. The aim is to get decent broadband speeds to every premises that wants them, making sure that as much of that as is feasibly possible is covered by a fixed network, but using technologies to get to the hardest to reach.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that 100% of properties will have access to this by 2020, but will he confirm what speeds they will have access to? At the moment, there is a range of 2 megabits per second for the universal service and 24 megabits per second and more for the superfast service. What range of speeds is he talking about when he refers to 100%?
Matt Hancock
We have said 10 megabits per second as a minimum, and that is Ofcom’s analysis of the needs of the average household today; this is about making sure there is a service everybody can use. As we ask people to pay their taxes, get their passports or do their rural payments service applications online, it is a perfectly reasonable request back to us in government that people should have a decent level of broadband. If people want the really tip-top level, they may have to pay more for it, and that is not unreasonable either. We are saying that there must be a decent level of high-speed broadband. At the moment, we have said 10 megabits per second as a minimum, but we have also said that that has to be reviewed in an upwards direction in due course.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I speak as someone whose constituency is one big roadworks, where a company called Gigaclear delivers fibre to premises, which is welcomed by people in even quite remote communities.
Will the Minister help us with concerns we might have about his discussions with the Valuation Office Agency, which, in my experience, seems not to understand the way the world is? At the click of a VOA bureaucrat’s mouse, the finances of a local unitary authority such as West Berkshire Council can be radically altered in terms of how networks are business rated.
Matt Hancock
I can tell my right hon. Friend two things. The first is that we are committed to a business rates review to look at these sorts of things for fibre currently in the ground; I am sure the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who are here on the Bench, will have heard what he has said.
The second thing is that at the heart of this Bill is making sure that new fibre that goes into the ground will have no such rates at all for the next five years, which is why we are here legislating today; we are making sure that companies such as the one he mentioned can get on and deliver this fibre, digging it in the ground as efficiently and cheaply as is reasonably possible, and we reduce the tax on that.
The fourth reason why fibre is important is for implementing our 5G strategy, including exploring commercial options to improve mobile coverage on our roads and rail networks, because we want mobile phone coverage where people live, work and travel. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that UK regulations on spectrum and infrastructure are 5G ready. We are working across Government with the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government to make sure that we get right the rules on putting the infrastructure in place. We are also supporting 5G pilots, the first of which we will roll out next year, making Britain a global leader in 5G. All 5G roll-out is supported by fibre—there cannot be a 5G mast without the fibre that connects it to the network.
Fifthly, our £200 million local full-fibre networks programme is about supporting local bodies to stimulate the market for fibre connectivity in their areas. Fibre cannot be delivered by some sort of entirely nationalised, top-down, taxpayer-funded system; it has to be done in collaboration with the private sector. The local full-fibre networks programme is being delivered in support of local bodies to encourage the market to provide more fibre connectivity. For example, public sector anchor tenancies will bring together public sector broadband demand in an area to create an anchor customer, thereby making sure that investors know there is enough revenue to reduce the risk of building a new network. Such networks will connect directly into public sector buildings such as schools and hospitals. At the same time, they will improve connectivity for those who work in our vital public services and bring fibre closer to more homes and businesses, allowing them to be connected, too. The first wave of projects will begin later in the year. This is a great example of the public and private sectors working together to improve connectivity for all.
Sixthly, our business broadband fibre connection vouchers are incredibly exciting for people like me who are frustrated at the poor quality of broadband being delivered to businesses. In the previous Parliament, we had a really effective voucher scheme for superfast broadband for businesses. The new vouchers will be trialled by the end of the year and will be for full-fibre connections for businesses. The scheme will be rolled out more widely in 2018 to help businesses to get the best fibre broadband, because we know that so many jobs and so much business growth depends on it.
The Bill takes a further step. Business rates are an important source of revenue for local services, but have long been cited as a barrier to investment by the telecoms sector. There has been consternation—as articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—at how the rates have been calculated. There was a perception of a disparity or lack of fairness between the rates paid by some operators, such as BT and Virgin Media, and smaller alternative networks such as CityFibre and Gigaclear. The rating methodology is of course a matter for the independent VOA, which has been working on this issue with the sector, but it is complex work and we do not have a moment to waste.
We recognise the urgent need to go the extra mile, so in last year’s autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a 100% rate relief for all new fibre networks for five years from April 2017, with any relief backdated to that date. We will fund and fuel a full-fibre future, and we have introduced this Bill early in the Parliament to bring forward the legislative changes required to make that happen. The Bill will introduce new rules into each provision for business rates to allow us to vary the rates bill for telecommunication infrastructure, which will be set so that no rates are paid on new fibre for five years from the April just gone.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does the Minister think the five-year period for business rates relief will be sufficient to incentivise the market players to get on and roll out fibre broadband? Will he try to ensure that as they do that we get coverage throughout the country and they do not just start in the easy-to-reach areas first?
Matt Hancock
First, there is no doubt that the five-year business rates holiday shows that we are reducing the cost of getting fibre into the ground. Secondly, it is time limited, so my message to alternative providers, as well as the big players, is to get on with it and make use of the relief while it is available. Thirdly, it gives us time for the business rates review and the VOA to look at the complexities over a reasonable period and come forward with a long-term, sustainable scheme. Sixthly—fourthly? I cannot remember which point I was up to, but I am sure that Hansard will make this bit sound really eloquent. I have completely lost my train of thought!
The final thing I was going to say is that the five-year business rates holiday will also give us the opportunity to decide, towards its end, whether five years has been long enough and whether we want to extend it. The fact that it is a five-year period demonstrates that providers should get on with it. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) that it will be no shorter than five years, and I am grateful for her intervention because it allowed me to get completely confused with my own points.
In total, our efforts are part of measures worth £1.1 billion to support the market-led roll-out of fibre broadband and ensure that we are at the front of the 5G queue. There is still a lot more work to be done, and we will consult shortly on the technical details of implementation. The relief will reduce the costs of deployment, thereby incentivising the market to deliver where it otherwise would not have. I hope that, in the spirit of cross-party collaboration, the Bill will get the support of Government and Opposition Members, as it will benefit people right across the United Kingdom. We want to see a country in which people are better connected and everyone can get online and reach their full potential, and to make sure that nobody is left behind. The Bill provides a step on that journey, and I commend it to the House.
Andrew Gwynne
No, I have given way once to the hon. Lady, I will not do so again.
There is a further omission in this Bill—the exclusion of any real and meaningful legislative commitments on growing rural broadband. I am worried that there appears to be absolutely no mention in the body of the Bill or the explanatory notes of growing and expanding the UK’s superfast broadband in our rural areas, although the Minister touched on it and I think there is some consensus about its desirability.
Let me give a short anecdote. Last year, I was privileged to be in a delegation to Zambia for the Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly. In the middle of Africa, in the middle of nowhere, on a visit to a health scheme near the Zambezi river, I received an almost-perfect 4G connection to my mobile phone. There are parts of my constituency where I do not get such a perfect 4G connection. We need to look at our internet connections, broadband connections and mobile telephone connections in this country so that we have the very best to support business, consumers and individuals.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, many families living in rural areas struggle to get anything close to fast broadband, let alone 5G, which is what we are discussing today. Many others struggle to get anything above 2 megabits per second, making most average use of day-to-day internet functions incredibly frustrating. The impact on rural businesses is steep, with the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs warning before the 2015 general election that rural communities are being overlooked for potential investment by businesses looking to expand and develop because certain regions have very poor digital connectivity. The then Chair of the Committee, the former Member for Thirsk and Malton, said:
“There is a risk in the current approach that improving service for those who already have it will leave even further behind those who have little or none.”
Rather than taking responsibility for this ever-growing chasm in our technology and identifying specific areas that desperately need investment, the Government have chosen to rely solely on the market to encourage improvements in any given area.
Matt Hancock
That is not the case. The Digital Economy Act 2017, which was the last Bill passed in the previous Parliament, gives us the power to require a universal service obligation so as to get high-speed broadband to everybody.
Andrew Gwynne
Well—[Interruption.] Exactly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton says, the Minister should share that with his Back Benchers. In all parts of the House, there is growing dissatisfaction with some rural broadband connectivity, its impact not just on consumers but on businesses, and the slow pace of improvement. It is clear that the Government ought perhaps to use their powers to ensure that those improvements happen, because it is a massive frustration for those communities and businesses—I see him nodding his head in agreement.