HL Deb 10 July 1998 vol 591 cc1478-80

3 Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 47.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. In dealing with that amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 102.

The purpose of Amendments Nos. 3 and 102 is to delete Clause 1(5) and (6) and the associated reference to the definition of "transfer" in the index of defined expressions in Clause 65. Clause 1(5) and (6) was included in the Bill with the intention that it might clarify the somewhat opaque provisions relating to the international movement of personal data in Articles 4 and 25 of the directive.

The wording of Clause 1(6) in the Bill, as introduced, gave rise to a certain amount of confusion. We therefore introduced an amendment in another place designed to clarify its effect.

Not for the first time, after listening carefully to further representations made, we concluded that there was still a measure of confusion about the purpose and effect of Clause 1(5) and (6). Since their sole purpose was to clarify, that was rather unsatisfactory. We could not see a useful way in which the necessary clarity could be achieved by further amendment and we thought that the best thing would be just to delete them.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 make a small change to Clause 5 to bring it into closer conformity with the data protection directive, providing that, where processing to which the Bill applies is done by a controller established outside the United Kingdom but using equipment in the UK, the controller must appoint a representative in the UK. The directive requires provision of this kind. These amendments remedy that relatively small deficiency in the Bill.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, I have not taken part previously in proceedings on this Bill. I wonder, looking at Clause 5, what is meant by the word "established", what effect it will have and the condition that it indicates. We find the same word used in Amendment No. 5. That is why it seems to me to be in order to raise the matter. It is a very vague word. It could mean "residing" or someone who has an office in the United Kingdom but moves about the world. What is the word intended to mean in the context of this Bill?

Lord Avebury

My Lords, before the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, perhaps I may also ask a question. What is the situation regarding the dissemination of information via the world-wide web? A case has recently come to my attention where information relating to the sexual orientation and religious beliefs of an individual was placed on a website. The service provider was approached by the individual and asked to take the information off the web. He did so in circumstances where, I understand, the interpretation of Section 1 of the Defamation Act was not clear as applying to service providers. He was afraid that litigation against him might ensue as the publisher of that material. If we disregard that and the application of this clause to service providers, is there not an additional danger that where those operating websites place information in relation to an individual on a page it becomes available to anyone in any country and would seem to be caught by this part of the Bill? Would the Minister care to say anything for the benefit of service providers about their obligations under this Bill where those who use service providers for their web pages disclose such information? Would they be liable to any action in the courts? Will not that place even further restrictions on what the service providers are prepared to allow, thus inhibiting freedom of expression on the web?

Lord William of Mostyn

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will provide me with the details of the case that troubles him, I undertake to write to him on the specific questions that he has raised. I am happy to address the general problem. I can deal with it shortly now or in correspondence with the noble Lord, which I undertake to place in the Library. I should have thought that it may be more fruitful to place such correspondence in the Library once I have considered the full details, if the noble Lord does not mind giving them to me in writing.

In reference to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, "established" in this Bill has the same meaning as in Community law generally.

Lord Renton

My Lords, there is a reference to it in Clause 5(2), which rather elaborately includes various situations, but it did not seem to me to be complete which is why I raised the matter. However, I take note of what the noble Lord says and will follow it up.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

11.15 a.m.