Data Protection Bill — Inquiry, Reviews and Regulation — Media Organisations — Journalism — 15 May 2018 at 15:21

Zac Goldsmith MP, Richmond Park voted not to hold an inquiry into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations, but instead to require the Information Commissioner to review the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism every five years.

The majority of MPs voted not to hold an inquiry into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations, but instead to require the Information Commissioner to review the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism every five years. The majority of of MPs were also voting to provide the Information Commissioner with powers to require information about data processing for the "special" journalistic, academic, artistic or literary purposes in connection with the carrying out of the review. The majority of MPs were also voting in favour of a report by a "Secretary of State or an appropriate person" every three years on the effectiveness of the media’s dispute resolution procedures.

MPs were considering the Data Protection Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House
  • disagrees to Lords Amendment No. 62B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 62 but proposes amendments (za) to (a) to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) inserted by Commons Amendment No. 109 and amendments (c) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

The rejected Lords amendment 62B[2] began

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • “Data protection breaches by national news publishers
  • (1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations.
  • ...

Commons amendment 109[2] began:

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • “Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism
  • (1) The Commissioner must—
  • (a) review the extent to which the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism complied with the data protection legislation during the review period,
  • (b) prepare a report of the review, and
  • (c) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
  • ...

Commons amendment 62 stated:

  • Leave out Clause 142

Clause 141, which was left out of the Bill[4], began:

  • (1) The Commissioner may, by written notice (an “information notice”)—
  • (a) require a controller or processor to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s functions under the data protection legislation, or
  • (b) require any person to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of determining whether the processing of personal data is carried out by an individual in the course of a purely personal or household activity.

Clause 142 of the Bill[4] set out restrictions relating to such "information notices" where information was being used for the "special purposes" of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary purposes.

The reference in the motion to "amendments (za) to (a) to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism)" appear to relate to amendments 62BZA to 62BA and 62BC (the latter sought to introduce the clause mentioned).

Amendment 62BZA sought to amend commons amendment 109 to broaden the scope of the review to include not just compliance with data protection legislation but also with "good practice in the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism".

Amendment 62BZB sought to add clarity to the text.

Amendment 62BZC sought to require the report in question to be produced every five years and to define "good practice in the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism" with reference to a section of the Bill titled: "Data protection and journalism code".

Amendment 62BZD set out a timescale of 12 months after the reviews start for the delivery of future five-yearly reports to a Secretary of State.

Amendment 62BA sought to add a new Schedule to the Bill titled: Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism making further provisions in relation to the review. The proposed schedule[3] provided for powers for the Information Commissioner to obtain information required to carry out the review.

Amendment 62BC sought to introduce a new clause titled: Effectiveness of the media’s dispute resolution procedures which began:

  • (1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of each review period, lay before Parliament a report produced by the Secretary of State or an appropriate person on—
  • (a) the use of relevant alternative dispute resolution procedures, during that period, in cases involving a failure, or alleged failure, by a relevant media organisation to comply with the data protection legislation, and
  • (b) the effectiveness of those procedures in such cases.

==

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con292 (+2 tell) 3093.7%
DUP9 0090.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab0 234 (+2 tell)090.1%
LDem0 11091.7%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 350100.0%
Total:301 289092.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Crispin BluntReigateConno
Kenneth ClarkeRushcliffeCon (front bench)no
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive