text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Data Protection Bill - Exemptions etc from the GDPR
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  @ MP voted aye
  @ MP voted no
  
  [Division description in progress]
  The majority of MPs voted
  
  MPs were considering the Data Protection Bill[1].
  
  The amendment rejected in this vote was:
  
  :Amendment 15, page 141, line 17, leave out paragraph 4.
  
  Had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted Schedule 2 of the Bill[2]. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 was titled: ''Modification of section 142 (information notices: restrictions)'' and stated:
  
  :4
  :(1)  Section 142 has effect as if subsections (1) and (9) were omitted.
  :(2)  In that sectionâ
  :(a) subsections (3)(b) and (4)(b) have effect as if for âthe data protection  legislationâ  there  were  substituted  â[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG the eIDAS Regulation] or the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/696/contents/made EITSET Regulations]â;
  :(b)subsection  (7)(a)  has  effect  as if  for  âthis  Actâ  there  were
  substituted âsection 143 or paragraph 15 of Schedule 15â;
  :(c) subsection  (8)  has  effect  as  if  for  âthis  Act  (other  than  an offence   under   section   143)â   there   were   substituted âparagraph 15 of Schedule 15â.
  
  
  
  Clause 141 of the Bill (intended to become Section 141 of the Act) began:
  
  :(1) The Commissioner may, by written notice (an âinformation noticeâ)â
  :(a) require  a  controller  or  processor  to  provide  the  Commissioner  with information   that   the   Commissioner reasonably   requires   for   the purposes of carrying out the Commissionerâs 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 (intended to become Section 142 of the Act) set out restrictions relating to such "information notices". Subsection (1), which the rejected amendment sought to dis-apply, related to assessing that information was being used for the "special purposes" of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary purposes; subsection (9) makes clear that representative of a controller or processor based outside of the UK is not required to provide information which would incriminate the controller or processor.[3]
  
  Section 143 relates to "False statements made in response to an information notice" and Paragraph 15 of Schedule 15 provides for offences for obstructing, failing to assist, making a false statement, or recklessly making a statement, in connection with warrants for entry and inspection by the Information Commissioner in connection with non-compliance.
  
  Subsection (8) began:
  
  :An  oral  or  written  statement  provided by a person in response to an
  information  notice  may  not  be  used  in  evidence  against  that  person  on  a prosecution for an offence under this Act (other than an offence under section 143) unless...
  
  The rejected amendment would have limited the use of such statements in evidence to cases considering offences of obstructing etc. the Information Commissioner's execution of warrants. 
  
  ==
  
  
  * [1] [https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/dataprotection.html Parliament's webpage on the Data Protection Bill]
  * [2] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0190/18190.pdf Data Protection Bill as at the time of the vote (no HTML version enabling a direct link to Schedule 2 available)]
  * [3] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0153/en/153en06.htm Explanatory notes to the Data Protection Bill]
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  