My Lords, that provokes me to add something. I am not entirely clear whether we are talking about something that is too narrow within the GDPR, or whether it is a lack of a suitably wide derogation on the part of the Government as part of the Bill. For all the reasons that the two noble Lords have mentioned, it seems extraordinary that the beneficial activities that they are discussing are not included as exemptions, whether explicitly or implicitly. It may be that the Minister can give us greater comfort on that, but I am not clear what is giving rise to the problems. As we heard in earlier groupings, I am a fan of having something more explicit, if anything, in the Bill, which is particular perhaps to medical research and other forms of research in that sort of area. But it is not clear whether that is going to be permissible under the GDPR or whether the Government can actually derogate from it in those circumstances.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clement-Jones
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 October 2017.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Data Protection Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
785 c1258 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-04-16 11:02:53 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-30/17103022000125
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-30/17103022000125
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-30/17103022000125