House of Lords
Parliament

Crossbencher and former Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood speaks against the amendment seeking to protect children's rights, as outlined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

He argues that, for children in the UK, "the right to be heard is not a contentious right".

"I don't want to rain on anybody's parade," he goes on to say, but "if [children are] being ignored now, when the Charter is available, what is to be lost?"

House of Commons
Parliament

Jacob Rees-Mogg says press freedom is sometimes "exercised in a way that does not always provide hagiographies for us".

"That is the flotsam and jetsam of political life," the Conservative MP argues, telling MPs they are "not sufficiently of the snowflake generation that we should mind about that".

"One of the tactics of dictatorial regimes is punitive damages" so they can provide "the illusion of free speech", he adds.

Mr Rees-Mogg asks what would have happened if Section 40 had existed in 1997 when the Daily Mail published its front page, external accusing five suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case of murder and challenging them to sue.

Attacking Max Mosley and press regulator Impress, he argues that any MP who votes in favour of keeping the Lords amendments will be "voting to support Max Mosley and his abhorrent views and his money".

House of Commons
Parliament

Labour MP John Grogan notes that his party has had difficult relations with the press since the Zinoviev Letter in 1924.

However, he is not convinced by the prospect of "punitive damages" being levied on publishers.

"How would it look on Russia Today?" he asks, if small publications were "pushed into bankruptcy".

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine says the broadcast media in the UK is regulated and "newspapers are not free of regulation" either.

Newspapers have to abide by the law of libel and the criminal code, she argues, adding that it is essential that "all publications abide by data protection regulations".

Defending the proposal to have a royal charter on press regulation, Ms Jardine argues that previous press regulators have failed and it is time for "self-regulation with statutory underpinning".

She supports the Lords amendments calling for Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act to be brought into force and for Leveson part two to go ahead.

House of Commons
Parliament

Darren Jones, Labour MP for Bristol North West, says he does not understand how "a government with any heart can decide with such haste" not to proceed with the second part of the Leveson Inquiry.

The first part, looking at the culture and practices of the press and relations between politicians, press and the police, took place in 2011 and 2012.

The proposed second part was due to examine relations between journalists and the police.

Mr Jones says many victims of press intrusion had called for the inquiry and calls the government decision to axe it "heartless... If politically expedient".

House of Lords
Parliament

Image source, HoL

Peers resume debate on the EU Withdrawal Bill, external, with Labour's Baroness Massey of Darwen introducing an amendment placing limits on the UK's withdrawal from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Charter would be preserved "in so far as the Charter is necessary to protect the rights of children and young people as provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights".

She says she's "disturbed" by the decision to disapply the Charter and argues "very little" has been said about how Brexit will affect children.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

SNP home affairs spokeswoman Joanna Cherry also criticises the "immigration exemption", under which immigration date held by the Home Office is exempt from data disclosure requirements.

"This is the information on which claims and legal challenges are often based," Ms Cherry says.

If both sides in a legal case do not have the same information, proceedings could be compromised, she argues.

House of Commons
Parliament

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott wrote an article , externalfor The Guardian criticising the bill for the following principal reasons:

• The state could implement a system that “automatically adjudicates” on the rights of the individual
• Immigration status is currently exempt from any data protection. This could mean agencies can share this information and pass it to the Home Office for action.

House of Commons
Parliament

The main points of the bill, which applies to the whole of the UK, are:

• To meet the Conservatives' manifesto commitments to give people new rights to “require major social media platforms to delete information held about them at the age of 18” and to “bring forward a new data protection law”
• To ensure that the data protection framework is suitable for the new digital age
• To allow police and judicial authorities to continue to exchange information quickly and easily with international partners in the fight against terrorism and other serious crimes
• To implement the General Data Protection Regulation and the new Directive which applies to law enforcement data processing, meeting UK obligations while it remains an EU member state
• Helping to put in place arrangements to maintain the ability to share data with other EU member states and internationally after the UK leaves the EU.

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP RIchard Drax opposes the Lords amendments to the bill, including the call to enforce Section 40.

The former journalist recalls the situation following the Leveson Inquiry and then-PM David Cameron's announcement that he wanted to introduce a royal charter to establish a tougher press regulator.

"I've always been very concerned when parties on all sides of the House agree on something, because something normally is dramatically wrong," Mr Drax argues.

He says he was one of only 15 MPs to vote against the royal charter because they thought it introduced an element of "state control" of the press.

"Phone hacking is illegal... as some journalists have found, they go to jail if it's done," Mr Drax continues, warning against "bad law, made on the back of a few people who were terribly, terribly wrong".

The South Dorset MP claims that he has been the subject of some inaccurate press reporting but adds: "I can live with that, because I want a free press."

House of Lords
Parliament

Image source, HoL

The Lib Dem leader in the Lords, Lord Newby, accuses the government of "contortions to try to achieve a position which is slightly worse than the one we were in before".

He asks: "Is it worth it?"

"The future is bright," Baroness Evans insists, drawing some laughter from peers.

Answering, an earlier point from Baroness Smith, she says the government will discuss with the EU how it can seek associate membership of certain agencies.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

SNP spokesman Brendan O'Hara says a transparent and accountable data protection regime is essential.

However, he says that the SNP has "serious concerns" about aspects of the bill and, like Labour, will seek amendments.

The party's concerns include "the immigration exemption", which could prevent people from accessing immigration data held on them by the Home Office.

Another concern is "Section 40 as it applies to Scotland", Mr O'Hara adds.

House of Lords
Parliament

Image source, HoL

Shadow leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon welcomes Theresa May's acknowledgement that Brexit will be a complicated process and that we will lose market access.

"This is a far cry from being told we will have the exact same benefits" as before Brexit, she says, and the statement recognises the "harsh reality" of the situation the UK is in.

However, she adds, there remains an "inherent contradiction" in the government's position on Northern Ireland, in that it is seeking no hard border and no customs union.

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP Bill Wiggin makes an impassioned speech in support of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act,, external which would make it easier for individuals to sue newspapers.

Section 40 could make a newspaper liable for the costs of legal action against it, even if the case fails, if it they have not joined an "approved regulator".

It has its origins in the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry but has been fiercely resisted by newspapers, many of whom have joined the Independent Press Standards Organisation, external (IPSO) rather than "approved" regulator Impress, external.

Section 40 has not yet been brought into force but last year, peers backed amendments to the Data Protection Bill calling for Section 40 to be enforced.

The government has announced that it will try to repeal it but Mr Wiggin goes against his party's front bench, telling MPs: "Section 40 is not only desirable, it is necessary."

House of Lords
Parliament

Lords Leader Baroness Evans of Bowes Park is repeating a statement, made earlier in the Commons by Theresa May, on her government's approach to Brexit.

She said she was confident of a deal while accepting the UK could not expect the same market access in some areas.

She set out that while the UK was leaving the single market and customs union, she envisaged continued close co-operation in many areas after the UK leaves the EU - including remaining a member of medicines, aviation and chemicals agencies.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Shadow culture secretary Tom Watson opens for the opposition, announcing "at the risk of emptying the chamber early this evening" that Labour will not be opposing the bill at second reading.

However, that does not mean the opposition accepts the bill as it stands, he adds, indicating that Labour will be "pressing" for amendments as the bill progresses.

Mr Watson says anything that increases "friction" in transferring information across borders after the UK leaves the EU could hinder law enforcement.

He also says he wants to do more to ensure "children are properly protected" by the bill.

And Mr Watson expresses concern that powers given to ministers by the EU Withdrawal Bill include making regulations on data protection - and calls for "fundamental" protections to be enshrined in the Data Protection Bill.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

From the "right to be forgotten" to the "right to be remembered correctly", as Labour MP Chris Bryant puts it.

He criticises a "blanket ban" on publishing some information on national security grounds, including about people who are long dead.

Matt Hancock says the bill does not change data protection arrangements "at all" but adds that the bill concerns "the release of live data" rather than records.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

MPs raise the "right to be forgotten" - the right of someone to ask search engines to remove links to historical information about them which may be harmful to their reputation.

Conservative backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg has a concern, citing the case of privacy campaigner Max Mosley, who, the Daily Mail has reported, published a racist by-election leaflet in 1961.

The leaflet, backing a candidate for his father Sir Oswald Mosley's Union Movement, was found by the Daily Mail in archives in Manchester, external.

Mr Mosley said he didn't recall the leaflet and he was not a racist.

Mr Rees-Mogg says legislation should contain "nothing which limits the right of a free press".

You can read more about the right to be forgotten here.

House of Commons
Parliament

Matt Hancock now opens the Commons' first full debate on the Data Protection Bill, which has already been debated in the House of Lords.

The bill is intended to fulfil a 2017 Conservative Party manifesto pledge to “repeal and replace the UK’s existing data protection laws to keep them up to date for the digital age”.

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Mr Hancock says the bill will give people "more power and control over their online lives".

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, PA

Lib Dem MP Layla Moran and Labour MP Chris Bryant both raise points of order referring back to Culture Secretary Matt Hancock's statement to the House on 1 March, in which he said the government will not implement the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.

Both suggest Mr Hancock gave the "impression" that Sir Brian Leveson agreed with him, whereas Mr Bryant describes Sir Brian's reaction as one of "incandescent fury".

Mr Hancock is in the chamber for the start of debate on the Data Protection Bill and, responding to Ms Moran, says he "very clearly and very carefully" set out both his and Sir Brian's views.

In a letter to Mr Hancock and Home Secretary Amber Rudd on 23 January, Sir Brian rejected press claims he had no enthusiasm for chairing part two of his inquiry.