DOCSLIB.ORG

Government Response to Justice Select Committee's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Government Response to Justice Select Committee's Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals January 2013 Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty January 2013 Cm 8530 £6.25 © Crown copyright 2013 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected] or 020 3334 5408. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and on our website at www.justice.gov.uk ISBN: 9780101853026 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2533713 01/13 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals Contents The approach to reforming the current data protection framework 3 The draft Regulation 5 Arguments for and against a Regulation 5 Impact assessment 6 Impact on the Information Commissioner’s Office 7 General comments on the draft Regulation 7 The “right to be forgotten” 7 Subject access rights 8 Obligation to appoint Data Protection Officers 8 Sanctions 9 Concerns raised by specific groups 9 The Committee’s opinion – Regulation 11 The draft Directive 14 The Committee’s opinion – Directive 17 1 Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals 2 Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals The approach to reforming the current data protection framework We are concerned that the approach taken by the European Commission, introducing two instruments, will lead to a division of the UK law, set out in the Data Protection Act. We believe that this could cause confusion, both for data subjects, and for organisations within the criminal justice system in particular, as they will have to consider which law applies in their given circumstance. We are also concerned that this twin-track approach might also lead to inconsistencies in application, both due to differing provisions in the instruments and over time, due to court decisions under each instrument. If this is still to be the approach, we recommend that there is consistency between the two instruments from the outset, to mitigate the future divergence in their application. Furthermore, the UK Government and the Information Commissioner’s Office will be required to work effectively together in order to produce and disseminate effective guidance so that data subjects know their rights and organisations know their responsibilities under each law. (Paragraph 13) The UK Government’s position with regard to the proposed Regulation is that it should be re-cast as a Directive. With regard to the proposed Directive covering processing in the area of police and judicial co-operation, the Government does not believe that the case for replacing and repealing the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA has been convincingly made. If the proposed Regulation were to be changed to a Directive and the proposal for a Directive were to be taken forward, then there would be two Directives, one for the general data protection framework and one for processing in the area of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. An advantage of this approach would be that the two Directives could then be implemented in a single piece of domestic legislation to help avoid confusion and support consistency where necessary. With regard to the Committee’s call for consistency between the two instruments, the Government believes that, as far as it is possible, there should be parallels between the two instruments. It is however important that the different contexts in which the instruments have been proposed are considered: the draft Regulation has been proposed for general data processing, whereas the draft Directive applies in the field of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The use of data in the areas covered by each instrument is very different and there is a need for greater flexibility in the field of police and judicial co-operation due to the operational requirements in this area and, where necessary, this should be reflected in the two instruments. Recital 10 of the draft Directive refers to Declaration 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial co-operation in criminal 3 Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals matters and police co-operation,1 which acknowledged that specific rules may be needed for the protection of personal data in this field. The Government notes the Committee’s call for it to work with the ICO to disseminate effective guidance. We would expect the ICO to provide relevant guidance following the adoption of the instruments. 1 Declaration 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, annexed to the final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Lisbon Treaty. 4 Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals The draft Regulation Arguments for and against a Regulation Bringing EU data protection legislation up-to-date is necessary and could provide benefits to both individuals and businesses. Many of these benefits are only attainable if there is effective harmonisation of laws across Member States, and therefore we can understand why the European Commission decided that a Regulation was the correct instrument to achieve their objective. However, by setting out prescriptive rules there is no flexibility to adjust to individual circumstances. We believe that the Regulation should focus on stipulating those elements that it is essential to harmonise to achieve the Commission’s objective, such as the consistency mechanism and the establishment of the European Data Protection Board. Member States’ data protection authorities should be entrusted to handle factors associated with compliance, such as the level of fees or when it should be informed about a data protection impact assessment, whilst also being a source of guidance. Consistency of approach should then be delegated to the European Data Protection Board. (Paragraph 30) The Government’s position that the proposed Regulation should be re-cast as a Directive would allow for harmonisation in the areas where it is advantageous and flexibility for Member States where it is required. The European Commission’s Impact Assessment acknowledges that harmonisation could be achieved through the use of a Directive.2 For example there could be harmonisation of: the fundamental principles found within the proposals; the rights that data subjects enjoy; and the rules relating to independent supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Board. The Government also supports the principle of the consistency mechanism. We believe that the data protection framework should protect the civil liberties of individuals. This means putting rules in place that ensure that the processing of personal data is fair, secure, and that data should be retained for no longer than is necessary. EU data protection legislation must secure individuals’ privacy without placing constraints on businesses practices that harm innovation and growth. For 2 European Commission, Working Document. Impact Assessment: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) and Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data. Pg 46 5 Government response to Justice Select Committee’s opinion on the European Union Data Protection framework proposals example, the proposed Regulation places prescriptive obligations upon data controllers as to how they will comply with the proposed Regulation, such as completing data protection impact assessments and hiring data protection officers. This is a ‘one size fits all’ approach which does not allow data controllers (from small online retailers to multinational Internet companies) to adopt their own practices in order to ensure compliance with the legislation. The European Commission’s proposal should focus on regulating outcomes, not processes. Impact assessment We call on the European Commission to work with the UK Government, the governments of other Member States, and other stakeholders, and to pool resources, expertise and information, so that a full assessment of the impact of the proposals can be produced. (Paragraph 37) The Government published its own Impact Assessment on the proposals on Thursday 22 November 2012. While the assessment focused on the impact of the proposals on the UK economy, it also provided an assessment of the Commission’s Impact Assessment, including an explanation as to why the Government believes the administrative saving of €2.3 billion per annum estimated by the Commission is a significant over-estimate. The Government’s Impact Assessment recognises that while there are benefits from the proposed Regulation, such as a reduction in legal fragmentation, these benefits are outweighed by the costs of additional administrative and compliance measures that the draft Regulation introduces.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scotland: Toward a New Settlement? in This Issue
    | THE CONSTITUTION UNIT NEWSLETTER | ISSUE 38 | JANUARY 2008 | MONITOR SCOTLAND: TOWARD A NEW SETTLEMENT? IN THIS ISSUE The constitutional debate in Scotland in the SNP White Paper) with ideas on reconciling continues apace. In the last Monitor we more devolution with a renewal of the UK BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS 2 reported on the SNP Government’s White union (which mark out a very different agenda). Paper Choosing Scotland’s Future – Especially notable were her ideas on risk-sharing A National Conversation. This set out options through fiscal solidarity across the UK, and those for Scotland’s constitutional future, ranging on guaranteeing rights of ‘social citizenship’ PARTY FUNDING REFORM 2 from further-reaching devolution to the SNP’s across the UK. Emphasising social rights across own preference of independence. jurisdictions suggests a concern to build common purposes – or, put another way, limits to policy EU REFORM TREATY 3 Beyond their commitment to ignore the SNP’s variation – to which risk-sharing and solidarity can ‘national conversation’, the other main parties be put to work in a UK-wide framework. in Scotland were generally silent on Scotland’s PARLIAMENT 3 constitutional options until a speech by the new This is a bold agenda. For it to work much would Labour leader in Scotland, Wendy Alexander, at depend on a willingness in Westminster and the University of Edinburgh on St Andrew’s Day, Whitehall to think creatively about rebalancing DEVOLUTION 5 30 November. This set out a unionist perspective the union. If devolution is to have a stronger on constitutional change; unlike the SNP White UK-wide context, then the devolved institutions Paper, independence was not an option.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scrutiny of Human Rights in New Zealand: Summary Report
    Parliamentary Scrutiny of Human Rights in New Zealand: Summary Report SUMMARY REPORT Prof. Judy McGregor and Prof. Margaret Wilson AUT UNIVERSITY | UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE NEW ZEALAND LAW FOUNDATION Table of Contents Parliamentary scrutiny of human rights in New Zealand: Summary report. ............................ 2 Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 2 Policy formation ..................................................................................................................... 3 Preparation of Legislation ...................................................................................................... 5 Parliamentary Process ........................................................................................................... 8 Recommendations: .............................................................................................................. 12 Select Committee Scrutiny................................................................................................... 12 A Parliamentary Code of Conduct? ...................................................................................... 24 Parliamentary scrutiny of international human rights treaty body reports ........................ 26 New Zealand Human Rights Commission (NZHRC) ............................................................. 28 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Future Oversight of Administrative Justice: the Proposed Abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Future oversight of administrative justice: the proposed abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council Twenty First Report of Session 2010–12 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 February 2012 HC 1621 Published on 8 March 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Michael Dugher MP (Labour, Barnsley East) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) Priti Patel MP (Conservative, Witham) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) The following member was also a member of the Committee during the inquiry: Nick de Bois MP (Conservative, Enfield North) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scrutiny of Human Rights in New Zealand (Report)
    PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN NEW ZEALAND: GLASS HALF FULL? Prof. Judy McGregor and Prof. Margaret Wilson AUT UNIVERSITY | UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE NEW ZEALAND LAW FOUNDATION Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 Recent Scholarship ..................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 22 Select committee controversy ................................................................................................. 28 Rights-infringing legislation. .................................................................................................... 32 Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. ... 45 Domestic Violence-Victims’ Protection Bill ............................................................................. 60 The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill ................................................................................ 75 Parliamentary scrutiny of human rights in New Zealand: Summary report. .......................... 89 1 Introduction This research is a focused project on one aspect of the parliamentary process. It provides a contextualised account of select committees and their scrutiny of human rights with a particular
    [Show full text]
  • The Lord Chief Justice's Report 2020
    The Lord Chief Justice’s Report 2020 The Lord Chief Justice’s Report 2020 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3/ or email [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.judiciary.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Published by Judicial Office 11th floor Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL www.judiciary.uk The Lord Chief Justice’s Report 2020 Contents Introduction by the Lord Chief Justice 5 1. The COVID-19 pandemic and the response of the judiciary 7 2. Leading a modern judiciary 9 Leadership of the judiciary 9 Career conversations and appraisal 9 Welfare 10 Training 10 3. Appointments and Diversity 12 Appointments 12 Diversity 12 4. Courts and Tribunals Modernisation 14 Judicial Library and Information Service 15 5. External engagement 16 Working with government and parliament 16 The legal profession 16 Schools 17 Social media 17 6. Judicial Data Protection Panel 18 7. Criminal Justice 19 Court of Appeal Criminal Division 19 Crown Courts 20 Magistrates 21 The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee 21 Sentencing Council 22 The Court Martial 22 8. Civil Justice 23 Court of Appeal Civil Division 23 High Court Civil 23 County Court 25 3 The Lord Chief Justice’s Report 2020 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Pay for Chairs of Committees Final Report May 2016
    Pay for Chairs of Committees Final report May 2016 PAY FOR CHAIRS OF COMMITTEES FINAL REPORT MAY 2016 Contents Foreword by the Board of IPSA .................................................................................................. 2 1. Our consultation ................................................................................................................ 3 2. Responses to the consultation and IPSA’s position ........................................................... 4 Chairs of Select Committees .................................................................................... 4 Members of the Panel of Chairs ............................................................................... 7 Future adjustments to salary ................................................................................. 12 3. Implementation ............................................................................................................... 14 Annex A – Determination on the Additional Salary for Specified Committee Chairs ............. 15 Annex B – Salaries for Members of the Panel of Chairs since introduction ........................... 17 Annex C – Salaries for Chairs of Select Committees since introduction ................................. 18 Foreword by the Board of IPSA IPSA has a statutory obligation to conduct a review of MPs’ pay and pensions in the first year of each Parliament. This includes a statutory obligation to review the additional salaries that are paid to Chairs of Select Committees, and to Members of the Panel
    [Show full text]
  • Namibia - Programme on Legislative Scrutiny Report Summary 8 - 11 November 2017
    NAMIBIA - PROGRAMME ON LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY REPORT SUMMARY 8 - 11 NOVEMBER 2017 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW The programme on legislative scrutiny, as part of CPA UK’s Parliamentary Partnership Programme (PPP) with the National Assembly, was delivered in Windhoek between 8 and 10 November 2017. The three day training programme, involving both parliamentary staff and the Members of National Assembly, provided an opportunity for both delegates and participants to share their best parliamentary practices, discuss critical challenges they face to undertake their work effectively, and explore efficient ways to improve legislative scrutiny. AIM & OBJECTIVES Day one allowed participants to highlight key challenges they face in their work which include: Aim. To strengthen the capacity • Lack of research support leading to poor reporting quality of the Parliament of Namibia • Unfamiliarity with international reporting formats to undertake its functions • Absence of proper training to write succinct reports effectively and efficiently, in • Absence of a parliamentary service commission particular, legislative scrutiny. • Parliamentary staff are civil servants and accountable to the government as opposed to parliament Objectives. In the context of the Westminster Model and through Day two and three examined legislative scrutiny. Participants highlighted the following issues: a programme of meetings briefings, plenary sessions and • A shortage of legislative drafters interactive discussions, the • Inadequate legislative business timetable programme will deliver the • Less adherence to Standing Orders following objectives: • Most of the bills are considered in the whole House as opposed to standing committee • Objective 1. To improve the technical capabilities of Participants discussed ways to create good legislation. Participants agreed that legislation parliamentarians to conduct should be clear, coherent, accessible, and effective; legislative drafters and ministers should effective legislative scrutiny consider these characteristics at the time of drafting new legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir William Cash MP Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA
    Karen Bradley MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 2Asdfasdf Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF www.gov.uk/home -office Sir William Cash MP Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA Re: Explanatory Memorandum on Commission staff working document SWD (2014) 166 Final I write in response to your Committee’s comments on the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum on Commission staff working document: Revised preliminary list of the former third pillar acquis. The Home Secretary has also asked me to reply on her behalf to your letter of 9 July in which you raise a number of similar points. The Treaty sets out that all former Third Pillar measures will cease to apply to the UK on 1 December except where the United Kingdom decides to rejoin, or where an amendment to a measure has removed it from the scope of the opt-out and submitted the amended measure to the full powers of the Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) earlier. A full updated list of measures that the Government considers to be subject to the opt-out is included at Annex A to this letter. This updated list will also be made available on the Government’s website. This list includes information on the measures that have been amended or replaced by post-Lisbon measures and indicates whether the Government has opted into these under the UK’s post-Lisbon opt-in arrangements. This list may be subject to further changes ahead of 1 December 2014 and, as requested, if further changes do occur, I will ensure that Parliament is fully informed of these.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Select Committee Activity and Proposals for New Committee Activity
    HOUSE OF LORDS Liaison Committee 1st Report of 2012–13 Review of select committee activity and proposals for new committee activity Report Ordered to be printed 4 March 2013 and published 13 March 2013 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.00 HL Paper 135 The Liaison Committee The Liaison Committee advises the House on the resources required for select committee work and allocates resources between select committees; reviews the select committee work of the House; considers requests for ad hoc committees and reports to the House with recommendations; ensures effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and considers the availability of Lords to serve on committees. Current Membership The Members of the Liaison Committee are: Lord Alderdice Baroness Browning Lord Campbell-Savours Baroness Corston Lord Fellowes Lord Hill of Oareford Lord Laming Lord McNally Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Lord Sewel (Chairman) Viscount Ullswater Declaration of Interests A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg01.htm General Information General information about the House of Lords and its Committees is on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/ Committee Staff The current staff of the Committee are Philippa Tudor (Clerk) and Helena Ali (Committee Assistant). Contacts for the Liaison Committee All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Liaison Committee, House of Lords, London
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Parliamentary Union
    Const. Parl. Inf. 64th year (2014), n°208 INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION Aims The Inter-Parliamentary Union, whose international Statute is outlined in a Headquarters Agreement drawn up with the Swiss federal authorities, is the only world-wide organisation of Parliaments. The aim of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is to promote personal contacts between members of all Parliaments and to unite them in common action to secure and maintain the full participation of their respective States in the firm establishment and development of representative institutions and in the advancement of the work of international peace and cooperation, particularly by supporting the objectives of the United Nations. In pursuance of this objective, the Union makes known its views on all international problems suitable for settlement by parliamentary action and puts forward suggestions for the development of parliamentary assemblies so as to improve the working of those institutions and increase their prestige. Membership of the Union Please refer to IPU site (http://www.ipu.org). Structure The organs of the Union are: 1. The Inter-Parliamentary Conference, which meets twice a year; 2. The Inter-Parliamentary Council, composed of two members of each affiliated Group; 3. The Executive Committee, composed of twelve members elected by the Conference, as well as of the Council President acting as ex officio President; 4. Secretariat of the Union, which is the international secretariat of the Organisation, the headquarters being located at: Inter-Parliamentary Union 5, chemin du Pommier Case postale 330 CH-1218 Le Grand Saconnex Genève (Suisse) Official Publication The Union’s official organ is the Inter-Parliamentary Bulletin, which appears quarterly in both English and French.
    [Show full text]
  • Disability Rights in the UK
    Disability rights in the UK UK Independent Mechanism Updated submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in advance of the public examination of the UK’s implementation of the UN CRPD July 2017 Disability rights in the UK: UK Independent Mechanism updated submission to the CRPD Committee Contents Introduction ................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary ....................................................................................... 6 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 9 Disability rights in the UK: UK Independent Mechanism updated submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ahead of the public examination of the UK’s implementation of the UN CRPD ........................................................................................... 33 1. Enhancing the status of the CRPD in domestic law and policy (Articles 3, 4) – List of Issues questions 1 and 27 ........................................................ 33 2. Equality and non-discrimination (Article 5) – List of Issues question 2 ... 35 3. Awareness-raising (Article 8) – List of Issues question 5 ....................... 38 4. Accessibility (Articles 9, 21, 30) – List of Issues questions 6, 17 and 25 38 5. Independent and adequate standard of living and social protection (Articles 19, 20, 26, 28) – List of Issues questions 4, 14, 16, 22, 23, 30 ..... 42 6. Employment (Article
    [Show full text]
  • Crown Dependencies: Developments Since 2010
    House of Commons Justice Committee Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010 Tenth Report of Session 2013–14 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 December 2013 HC 726 Published on 16 January 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Justice Committee The Justice Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Ministry of Justice and its associated public bodies (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General’s Office, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers). All publications of the Committee (including press notices and further details can be found on the Committees webpages at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee. Current membership Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair) Steve Brine (Conservative, Winchester) Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham) Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch) Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North) Nick de Bois (Conservative, Enfield North) Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford) Rt Hon Elfyn
    [Show full text]