← Back to House of Commons Debates
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill - Motion to re-commit the Bill to Public Bill Committee
29 November 2023
Lead MP
Chris Bryant
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Science & Technology
Other Contributors: 28
At a Glance
Chris Bryant raised concerns about data protection and digital information bill - motion to re-commit the bill to public bill committee in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I move that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill be re-committed to a Public Bill Committee due to significant issues with the amendments tabled by the Government. The amendments, introduced 190 days after the Committee stage ended, are extensive and cover major changes in policy, potentially undermining public rights and expanding ministerial powers. Proper scrutiny is impossible given the short notice and volume of new material.
Maldon
The Bill, having been thoroughly scrutinised in Committee, needs to proceed to Report stage. The amendments tabled by the Government are largely technical and important for updating UK data laws effectively. Some address new aspects but do not detract from proper scrutiny.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Expressed concerns over potential red tape from deviation in EU data adequacy standards, requested assurance that there would be no material difference for businesses.
Dawn Butler
Lab
Brent East
Asked the Minister to confirm that digital identity checks will not be mandatory in certain services.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Inquired about potential amendments related to data availability for researchers, particularly concerning online safety research.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Asked about negotiations on Interpol red notices and their abuse by the Russian state, inquired if pensions are included under scrutiny powers proposed for fraud prevention.
Raised concerns over potential misuse of underground asset data by bad actors, highlighting security risks.
Asked about alignment with Scottish legislation regarding referendums and definitions such as 'permitted participant'.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Sought clarification on the extent of protections for families involved in cases like Breck Bednar's, suggesting further scrutiny is necessary.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Questioned if proposed changes would allow government access to pensioners' bank accounts for fraud detection purposes.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Called for careful restrictions on surveillance powers aimed at preventing state pensions fraud, proposed further discussions in the Lords to refine these provisions.
John Penrose
Con
Weston-super-Mare
John Penrose intervened to clarify points regarding Government new clause 27, particularly concerning interface bodies and their applicability to data standards under smart data. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that any standards developed are interoperable across sectors, highlighting the economic benefits of common standards.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Welcomes ICO amendments but criticises technical complexity of digital verification. Supports smart data provisions but calls for a phased approach. Condemns proposed changes to subject access requests, arguing they undermine transparency and privacy rights. Raises concerns about lack of parliamentary scrutiny in high-risk processing and automated decision-making clauses.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Proposes new clause to ensure non-digital verification options are available for identity services. Addresses concerns about data security, privacy issues stemming from government surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden, and the potential exclusion of those who cannot or do not want to use digital methods.
Patrick Grady
SNP
Glasgow North
Grady criticises the Government for introducing excessive new rules and regulations in a rush, suggesting it undermines parliamentary sovereignty. He raises concerns about lack of proper scrutiny and meaningful oversight on proposed powers. He mentions specific amendments aiming to remove clauses that may weaken data protection, erode privacy rights, and allow the Home Secretary broad discretion over intelligence services' access to personal data without adequate safeguards or judicial review.
Carol Monaghan
SNP
Glasgow North West
Intervened briefly to echo concerns about proposed sweeping amendments that will require claimants' bank account details to be shared as a matter of course, impacting many people adversely.
Marcus Fysh
Con
Mid Dorset and North Poole
Mr. Fysh opposes amendments that would give Ministers extensive powers to recategorise data sharing with third parties, arguing it risks being influenced by powerful tech firms' interests. He suggests existing principles used for Verify online identity service should guide the trust framework's implementation within DVS and warns against broad approaches to direct marketing which can leak personal data. Proposes safeguards around deregistration from verification systems and advocates excluding decentralised zero-knowledge proof systems from potential regulation.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Mr. Timms raises concerns about the broad and intrusive nature of the proposed power, highlighting that it extends beyond traditional fraud investigation powers by allowing inspections without suspicion of fraud. He mentions significant opposition from Citizens Advice and the Child Poverty Action Group regarding privacy rights and the lack of justification for such measures.
Karl Turner
Lab
Kingston upon Hull East
Mr. Turner interjected to mention that a production order can already be used in cases of suspected fraud, questioning why new powers are needed without suspicion.
Jane Hunt
Con
Leicestershire North West
The Data Protection Act imposes excessive administrative burdens on police forces, costing millions annually and tying up valuable resources. New clause 1 would allow the free flow of data between police and CPS before charging decisions are made, saving time and money while maintaining necessary redaction standards post-charge.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
The Labour party supports Kate Osborne's amendment 11. Chris Bryant emphasises the importance of retaining checks on police processing of personal data to prevent misconduct, including inappropriate sharing of HIV status.
John Penrose
Con
Wotton
Mr Penrose emphasised the importance of interoperable data standards and a clear timeline for implementing smart data in various sectors. He cited cross-party support and industry backing, including from key figures in open banking, to argue that this would enable innovation across multiple industries.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Mr Bryant agreed with Mr Penrose, noting that additional steps such as mandating standards for smart metres might be necessary. He highlighted the lack of clear plans provided thus far and expressed hope for more detailed guidance from the Government.
Robin Millar
Con
Delyn
Mr Robin Millar argues that standardised health data empowers patients, strengthens care through better professional decision-making, and enhances devolution. He cites discrepancies in healthcare metrics across UK nations and calls for legislative action to ensure comparable data.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Mr Bryant interjected that the Minister's position would effectively allow for the Information Commissioner to produce a list of high-risk processing activities, which the Government disagreed with.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Mr Timms questioned the necessity of powers to examine bank accounts of state pension claimants for fraud detection, given that current levels of fraud are extremely low.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Asked for silence during the debate to ensure smooth procedures and requested attention from Members, Clerk, and Minister.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.