Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. The points that he made apply almost entirely to Amendments 91, 92 and 94, which relate to later parts of the Bill, including particularly the phraseology “solely” and in Amendment 94 “solely” or “partially”.

I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, decided to retable her amendments. What she said can be summed up as, “Human rights, so human decision”. Human beings will ensure transparency and accountability in a way that machines simply do not. The Minister smiled when the noble Baroness said that she was not sure whether she was clear on the last occasion. I rather wish that I could ask her to give us the reassurances and concessions that that smile might have indicated, but I do not know.

These issues are extremely important. I was thinking about them over the weekend and, although it sounds patronising, the Government are entirely correct to ensure that human rights are engaged in these subjects. Given how central human rights are, they cannot be thought of as an occasional peripheral, particularly not as regards law enforcement and security issues. I have come full circle to thinking that the protection of human rights should be spelled out at the start of the Bill, which would take us back to our debate on Monday about an introductory clause covering the protection of a subject where the right is not absolute because of the criteria of necessity and proportionality. I think that that should be made clear in the Bill and it would put what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve in her amendments in the right context. I support her in this.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have Amendment 37 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this group. The focus of our amendment is to tease out from the Dispatch Box a sense of what is meant by “meaningful” in the context of the discussions we have already had about how organisations might disclose details of algorithms used in profiling and data-driven decision systems, to meet the obligation in the GDPR to provide meaningful information about what has been going on in that space. It will be difficult to do this because “meaningful” can involve many words and obligations and is, I think, a slightly slippery concept. It will probably exercise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in its imprecision—but do not blame us, mate; it is the GDPR, which we are not allowed to discuss. However, I think that the Minister can help us here by providing a bit more information.

We have suggested that a way of dealing with this would be to look at how the information is used and make it a requirement that it should,

“be sufficient to enable the data subject to assess whether the profiling will be beneficial or harmful to their interests”.

That may not be sufficiently strict legal language but, if it is an important distinction, it would help to get us to the point at which the Minister might say that she will bring back improved wording in an amendment at Third Reading.

The real issue which is not discussed here is the question of whether we can access the algorithms themselves. The problem, and the reason for the solution to that problem lying in terms of the test of how it works in practice, is that it is not sufficient just to have simple information about the actual mathematics of the algorithm because that in itself would not give us enough information. What we need, for those in a particular part of the population cohort, is knowledge of the consequences of being in one category or another and how that is weighed up by those carrying out the processing. This covers all the ways in which decisions are made on credit, on our purchases and how we are advertised to. It is happening now, so the sooner we can get the information, the better. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments when she comes to respond.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I stumbled on the omission of Members of this House during debate in Committee, when I asked what I thought was an innocent question. I was asked to appear on the BBC’s “Question Time” after the list of Peers of which I was one was announced but before I actually arrived here. It was a fairly difficult occasion, which I remembered when I was thinking about this issue at lunchtime today. When I referred, during the discussion, to Members of Parliament, Nicholas Ridley said, “You are a Member of Parliament”. We are all Members of Parliament. We happen to be Members of the House of Lords; those who are normally called MPs are Members of the House of Commons. I regard myself as being in a representative position, even though I am not elected.

I disagree with one comment of the noble and learned Lord, which was about the amount of casework that I do. I am so conscious of the problems of getting it wrong, particularly in the area of immigration, that I try not to do that work. However, it is notable how the number of requests to Peers to intervene in individual cases has grown over the last few years. I suppose that reflects the fact that MPs are taking on more and more of what a few years ago one might have called social work. There are not the same demarcation lines as perhaps there used to be.

The casework, among other things, informs our general response to policy issues and specific proposals put before us, so we cannot exclude ourselves from all this. Ten days or so ago, in response to a request to pursue a particular case, I made the point that the individual should approach her own MP. The answer came back, through an intermediary, “She’s an asylum seeker. She doesn’t have an MP. We’re looking for anyone who can help”.

In Committee, questions on this issue were asked round the House. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, took up the point after I had asked a question. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pursuing this matter. I hope that the Minister will accept his suggestion that this should be considered further between now and Third Reading, and that it should be dealt with at this end. I hope that the Minister will this evening assure us that it will remain on the agenda and that we can return to it at the next stage of the Bill in this House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we do not need to think very hard about this issue in terms of providing evidence that might be helpful to Ministers given that at Oral Questions today, at which I think the Minister and the noble Baroness were present, a case was raised by a Peer on our side of the House, in a Question to the DWP Minister, which verged on picking up a particular case. It was very useful in terms of making a broader political point. Are we saying that that will not be possible in future, as it raises significant questions? Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, irrespective of whether we have been an MP or a Member of the other House, we receive letters and emails almost daily offering individual data and information which, if we used it, would, I think, fall into the category mentioned by the noble and learned Lord.

At the weekend, I had the privilege of seeing the RSC perform the “Imperium” plays, adapted from the books of Robert Harris. These deal with a well-known orator, Cicero. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that he recommends to his clients—at one stage, he gives a tutorial to fellow citizens of Rome who intend to seek high office—that it is always helpful, and always catches the attention of an audience, if you give the specifics of an individual case and rise from that to the general. So if there is a possibility of placing a constraint on the ability of Members of this House to raise cases in an effort to improve the quality of life for citizens to whom we owe a duty of care and responsibility, that must be wrong. I hope that the Minister will take this away and work with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to bring something forward at Third Reading.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this group of amendments is about data protection principles. Our Amendments 129G and 129H would add transparency to the requirements of lawfulness and fairness for processing. Here, the directive is again being reflected, but why, since transparency is a requirement in the case of the intelligence services? I confess that I found this counterintuitive. I might have expected the services to have an argument against transparency because of the very nature of what they do, but not so law enforcement—at least, not so much.

Amendment 129J enables me to ask, as I did at Second Reading, why some activities are “strictly necessary” and others merely “necessary”. This arises in several places and this is the first example, although for good measure my Amendment 133ZJ seeks to add “strictly” to another of these—I am not sure that it was my best choice, but there you go. The point is that “strictly” calls into question just how necessary something that does not attract the term is. This may be an example of adopting language used in other legislation and directives without it having been considered in the context of UK legislation.

The Minister used the example of our seeking in the first group of amendments on these parts to change a term used in current legislation. I take that point, because it opens up a question as to whether there is any distinction. The point I am making about terminology is not a million miles away from that.

Amendment 130A concerns the scope for the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 8 by regulations. That schedule sets out the conditions for “sensitive processing”—in other words, when that processing is permitted. Should the Secretary of State be able to add circumstances when it is permitted, or to vary the schedule, omitting items from the schedule by regulations would fulfil the objective of protecting the data subject. That is very different from “adding” or “varying”.

Amendment 133ZB deals with another instance of different legislative styles. In Clause 34(1), the law enforcement purpose must be “legitimate”—an interesting term when applied to law enforcement. I suggest as an alternative “authorised by law”, a term used later in the clause, in order to probe this. In not very technical language “legitimate” suggests something wider than legal. It has elements of logic and justification and might import the notion of balance. The term comes from not only the GDPR but the 1995 directive—so there is a history to this—and there are many examples of the accepted meaning of “legitimate” in EU law. However, I am concerned about how we interpret the term and apply it in the UK. Looking to the future, what will happen when we are cut adrift from the European Court of Justice? Presumably we will have to rely on the development of case law in the UK and the different UK jurisdictions. It is worth thinking about how this may be dealt with as we go forward.

On Amendment 133ZD, under Clause 36(3) a clear distinction needs to be made “where relevant”—the amendment would delete this—as far as possible between data relating to different categories of data subject. I do not see what “where relevant” means in this context. It begs the question of whether or not something is relevant and whether the provision is applicable.

Amendment 133ZE applies to Clause 36(4), which deals what must be done—or, rather, not done—with inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date data, which must not be “transmitted or made available”. That is the phrase used and my amendment probes the question of why the term “disclosed” is not used. There is a definition of “processing” in Clause 2, which includes,

“disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available”.

In other words, “disclosed” would cover everything.

Amendment 133ZK relates to Clause 40, which deals with the controller having an appropriate policy document. Under that clause, the controller must make the document available to the Information Commissioner. Is it not a public document? Should it not be published? The amendment proposes that it should be. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have a number of amendments in this group which fit very well with what has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I hope she will take it from that that we support broadly where she is coming from and hope to extend it slightly in a couple of areas.

Amendment 130—which is a DPRRC recommendation —affects Schedule 8. This was touched on in earlier groups and I will not delay the Committee by repeating the points now. They will be covered in the Minister’s response, which we confidently expect to be that this is under consideration, that a further air travel bulletin will be emerging shortly and that we should not worry too much about it at this stage. However, I am prepared to argue for it if necessary, and if the noble Lord challenges me I will do so.

The government amendments have not yet been introduced. However, in anticipation, we welcome them. They take out one or two of the points I will be making later. Once they have been introduced and looked at we will be able to rely on them. They cover a particular gap in the Bill in terms of the need to rely on a function conferred on a person by rule of law as well as simply by an enactment.

Amendment 133ZA is a probing amendment to quite an important clause that we would like to see retained. The reason for putting down the amendment in this form is to probe further into what is going on here. The terms of Clause 39 apply only,

“in relation to the processing of personal data for a law enforcement purpose”,

and would be conferred by rule of law as well. It repeats other areas that cover,

“archiving purposes in the public interest … scientific or historical research purposes, or … statistical purposes”.

I am not clear why these are linked to law enforcement purposes. Why would archiving be necessary for such a purpose? Perhaps the Minister can respond on that particular point. It is a narrow one, but I should like to know the answer.

Clause 33(5) deals with processing without the consent of the data subject, of which this is a part, and makes the point that it is permissible only for the purposes listed in Schedule 8. However, Clause 33(6) permits amendment to this derogation, so purposes could be added or indeed lost. There is of course a wide research exception in Schedule 8 with no specific safeguards. So it is important to understand why the framing of this is so open-ended, and I would be grateful for a response.

When we check the GDPR, the antecedent impulse for this is present in the wording of article 4(3). That goes on to say that the processing has to be subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects, yet we do not see these in either Clause 33 or Clause 39—or indeed at any point in between. Why is that? Is there a reason why it should not be part of the processing conditions? If so, can we have an example of why that would be necessary?

Amendment 133ZC relates to quite an important area, which is a derogation to allow personal data to be processed for different law enforcement purposes other than when it is initially processed, as long as it is a lawful purpose and is proportionate and necessary. That is quite open-ended, so it would be helpful if in his response the Minister could speculate a little about where the boundaries there exist. We have no objection to the provision in principle, but it is important to ensure that the scope is not so impossibly broad that anything can be hung on one particular issue. If that was coming forward, I am sure that it would be possible to do that. The scope seems to be too broad to be considered proportionate—which, as I said, is what the directive requires.

Amendment 133ZE builds on Amendment 133ZD to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already spoken. This is about what happens to data that is found to be inaccurate and the requirement that it should not be disclosed for any law enforcement purpose. This is a slightly different wording and I am looking for confirmation that the Government do not see a difference in the two possibilities. The original requirement was that data should not be “transmitted or made available” if it is inaccurate, but this would say that it should not be “disclosed”, which is an active rather than a passive expression of that—but is it different? The amendment tries to broaden the provision so that reasonable steps are taken to make sure that data is not made available for any purpose, which I think would be a more satisfactory approach.

I turn to Amendment 133ZG. I think I am right in saying that the GDPR envisages that inaccurate personal data should be corrected or deleted at the initiative of the controller, but that provision does not appear in the Bill. I wonder whether there is an explanation for that. If there is not, who will be responsible for correcting data that is found to be inaccurate or needs to be corrected or deleted?

Finally in this group, Amendment 133ZH relates to Clause 37, which requires that personal data should be kept for no longer than necessary. To comply with this principle, the data controller should establish time limits for erasure or for a periodic review. The current drafting seems to suggest that all that is required to be done by controllers is that from time to time they should review their procedures; it does not say that they have to do it. Perhaps the Minister could respond on this point. Surely what we want here is a clear requirement for both reviews and action. You can review the data, but if it is no longer required and should be deleted, there should be an appropriate follow-up. Time limits are not enough: you do it within the time limits but then you have to follow up. We do not think it currently makes sense. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am very grateful for the late intelligence that came across on the point about withdrawal. The issue was not that there is not sufficient power in the Bill—there is, we accept that—but just that there seems to be an unfortunate separation between the need periodically to review the length of time for which the data is held and the fact that, when a decision has been arrived at, the data is no longer required. There seems to be no prod to remove the data that should be removed. I understand the point made earlier by the Minister that some data, although wrong, should be kept, but that was not the point I was making. However, I think we can deal with this outside the Chamber.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, without wanting to appear ungrateful, I am very troubled by some of what we have heard about the incorporation of language used in the law enforcement directive and in the modernised 108. Simply to reflect that language, incorporate it into our primary legislation and cause confusion thereby does not seem to be a very good way to proceed. My questions about the difference between “strictly necessary” and “necessary” illustrate this well. To be told that “necessary” is a lower threshold than “strictly necessary”—which is certainly how I would read it—calls into question how necessary something which is necessary really is.

We will have to come back to this—it may be something that we can discuss outside the Chamber before Report. I wonder whether I should threaten to unleash my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill—that might be enough to lead us to a resolution, but I have not consulted him yet. However, I am troubled, because we are in danger of doing a disservice to the application of these important provisions. For the moment, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we debated automated decision-making under Part 2 on Monday. Clause 48 provides for automated decision-making in the case of law enforcement. No doubt we will return to the issues raised on Monday in this connection, but for now, Clause 48(1) provides that a “qualifying significant decision” must be,

“required or authorised by law”.

This is perhaps a slightly frivolous probe, but may a controller take a decision that is not required or authorised by law? If it is not authorised, how is the data subject protected?

Amendment 135 refers to not engaging the rights of the data subject under the Human Rights Act. Again, we had a debate on this on Monday and it is a subject to which we may return. I simply ask: does the Minister have anything to add to what her noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde had to say then? He told us that human rights are always engaged—indeed they are—and that the amendment therefore did not really work but that there are, as he said in col. 1871, “appropriate safeguards”. Are the Government satisfied that the balance between processing and protection is the right one? As I say, I am sure we will come back to this issue.

Amendment 135A is to Clause 48(2), which deals with decisions based solely on automated processing. Article 11 of the directive, which I believe is the basis for this, provides for automated processing, including profiling. Profiling is a defined term, so I merely want to check that there is no significance in omitting the reference to it. I doubt there is but the language is reproduced exactly elsewhere, so this is a simple check.

Clause 48(2)(a) provides that notification of a decision must be given “as soon as … practicable”. Amendment 135B would limit this to a maximum of 72 hours. I do not want to describe what is in the Bill as open-ended but I think the Minister would accept that it is less certain than it could be, which is a pity as the requirement under this clause to notify the right to ask for reconsideration is important. I note that at another point close to this, the data subject has an exact limit of 21 days. That may not be practicable for the data subject but perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that means within 21 days of actual receipt, not 21 days of delivery, as the means of serving that notification.

Amendment 136A would insert a new provision. We have been considering some form of independent oversight of automated decision-making. That would not be quite right because we have the commissioner, who is independent, but the amendment proposes more assistance and advice in this connection and the publication of reports on the subject.

Amendment 137 proposes a new clause. We debated a more elaborate amendment on the right to information about decisions based on algorithmic profiling on Monday. The proposed new clause would allow the data subject to obtain an understanding of the reasoning underlying the processes, when the results of it are applied to him. The wording might seem familiar to noble Lords, which would show that they have read on in the Bill. The amendment would reproduce in the law enforcement part a right that is included in Clause 96 in Part 4, which deals with the intelligence services. If they can do it, why not law enforcement? I was quite surprised that they could do it and were expected to provide the underlying reasoning, but that is a good thing. I am not arguing that this would be a silver bullet for all the issues around algorithms but it would be significant. Perhaps it would be courteous and appropriate to say I understand that as regards the intelligence services exemptions, the UK is proposing one of the most advanced explanation rights in the world—tick.

Amendment 144 raises the human rights point again, in the context of the intelligence services’ automated decision-making. Amendments 145 and 146 are to ask the Government to justify decisions based solely on automated processing which significantly affects the data subject when it relates to a contract. Clause 94(2)(c) refers to,

“considering whether to enter into a contract with the data subject”,

and,

“with a view to entering into … a contract”,

with them. There must be a fine distinction between those two provisions but they are dealt with differently. These are all in Part 4, on the intelligence services. Finally, Amendment 146A is to ask whether the commissioner should have a role in the process, because there is a bit more scope for people doing their own thing in this part of the Bill than under Part 3. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I support the amendments that have just been moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We should perhaps have signed up to them but I do not think we had the time to do so. However, they all bear on important issues that need to be addressed and I look forward to hearing the responses from the Minister.

Our amendments in this group are also about automated processing but they attach to a slightly different arrangement. In Clause 92, on page 52, the right of access provisions are largely copied from earlier parts of the Bill and are extensive. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we appreciate that. The Government have moved a long way to try to reassure everyone that the intelligence services, as well as the defence services, are trying to operate in a manner that could be taken almost directly from the GDPR. While this may be gold-plating, it is a good way of making progress. Having said that, halfway down page 52 are two things that our amendments address. In Amendment 142C, we suggest that there should be a,

“right to object to automated-decision making”,

within automatic processing, because at the end of Clause 92(2) all the other rights are there but the one present in other parts of the Bill on the right to object is not. I wonder why it has been missed out. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that.

In Amendment 143B, we also wish to challenge why the fee has to be paid for this. The Government have tried hard to make an equality of approach right the way across but fees suddenly appear here, in a way which seems rather strange. It cannot be that the information services of Her Majesty’s Government are so starved of cash that they have to charge money to get their services completed for those who just want reasonable information, which should specifically be made available. It seems a double bind to have a situation where these rights and obligations are tantalisingly included in the Bill, but are then removed from reasonable access because of the costs that might be charged. I know that the Secretary of State would have to do it by regulations, which would be subject to further scrutiny, but perhaps this could be looked at again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, under Clause 59, the controller must record certain information, including, according to subsection (2)(g),

“where applicable, details of the use of profiling”.

The purpose of Amendment 137B is to ask whether, if profiling is used, this is not applicable. My amendment would delete the words, but the Minister will understand that I am probing.

I am afraid this is quite a big group of amendments. Clause 62 provides for data protection impact assessments when there is a “high risk” to “rights and freedoms”. In assessing the risk, the controller,

“must take into account the nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing”.

Amendment 137C would insert a reference to,

“new technologies, mechanisms and procedures”,

picking up wording which is in articles 27 and 28 of the law enforcement directive.

Clause 63 requires consultation with the commissioner where there is a “high risk” to “rights and freedoms”. Article 28(3) of the directive allows for the “supervisory authority”—the commissioner, in our case—to,

“establish a list of the processing operations which are to be subject to prior consultation”.

Amendment 137D would allow the commissioner to “specify other conditions” where consultation is required. I am not sure I would defend the approach of having regulations under a negative resolution. The amendment was tabled following a certain amount of toing and froing—aka consultation with me—because my original amendment did not quite work, or at any rate I was not clear enough about it. I was not at Westminster at the time and I think I did not take in properly over the phone what was being proposed. I am sure the Minister will not take me too much to task for that, but focus instead on the nub of this.

Under Clause 63, the commissioner is required to give advice to the controller and the processor when she thinks that the intended processing would infringe Part 3. Amendment 137E set outs what advice would be included “to mitigate the risk” and would be a reminder of the commissioner’s powers in the event of non-compliance. The amendment builds on rather fuller provisions in article 28 of the directive, which provides for the use of powers.

Amendment 137F would amend Clause 64, which deals with the security of processing and refers to,

“appropriate measures … to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks”.

The amendment proposes what “appropriate measures” might be, in particular whether cost is a criterion. Article 29(1) seems to envisage this—are we envisaging it in the Bill?

As for Amendment 137G, there is a duty in Clause 66 to inform the data subject when there is a breach, but not when the controller has implemented protection measures. In seeking to change “has” to “had” implemented, I just seek confirmation that the measures in question were applied before the breach. One might read the clause as meaning that, subsequently, steps had been taken and protection measures implemented. That will be good for the future, but would not address the specific breach.

On Amendment 137H, Clause 66(7) gives a wide exemption, setting out the reasons for restricting the provision of information to a data subject. I assume from the words “so long as necessary” that, once a specific security threat has passed or a court case is over, the right to that information would revive. Can the Minister confirm this? Again, I am not sure what the role of the commissioner would be here.

On Amendment 137J, Clause 69 sets out the tasks of the data protection officer. Chapter 5 of this part deals with transfers to third countries. By requiring the updating of controllers on the development of standards of third countries, my amendment suggests that the data protection officer should keep on top of international issues.

Amendment 137K is an amendment to Clause 71 in Chapter 5, on the principles for the transfer of data to a third country or international organisation. It would insert an explicit requirement that the rights of the data subject be protected. Article 44 provides:

“All provisions in this Chapter shall be applied in order to ensure that the level of protection of natural persons guaranteed by this Regulation is not undermined”.


That is broad and overarching. My amendment probes how that protection is covered: is it in the detail of the subsequent clauses? It is spelled out in the article; does that imply that the clauses might not always properly provide protection if we do not spell it out in the same way, given the reflections that the Bill provides?

On Amendments 137L and 137M, authorisation under Clause 71(1)(b) from another member state from which the data originated is not required if the transfer is necessary for the prevention of a threat to the essential interests of a member state and authorisation cannot be obtained in good time. The amendments probe whether “essential interests” are more than law enforcement purposes—the first condition for transfer. Will the interests be clear? Is there a confusing element of subjectivity here? The person who wants the data might see things quite differently from the person who is being asked to transfer it. It is open to us to provide higher safeguards, which is what I am working towards. “Obtaining in good time” perhaps suggests a slightly more relaxed attitude than the subject matter should demand. I would substitute a reference to urgency.

On Amendment 137N—noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am on the last of our amendments in this group—there can be a transfer on the basis of special circumstances under Clause 74. I welcome the fact that, in some cases, the controller can refuse a transfer because fundamental rights and freedoms override the public interest in the transfer. Presumably, the controller’s determination must be reasonable. This seems to give some discretion to the commissioner; I wonder whether the commissioner might give guidance rather than leaving it entirely up to the controller. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have one amendment in this group, and I will speak to it. It affects what appears to be a lacuna—if that is not too technical a term for Hansard—in relation to the storage and retention of data collected by local police forces under the automatic number plate recognition system. Each local police force has an ANPR system. There are thousands of cameras, which we are all too aware of. Anyone who drives past one and has a picture of their number plate taken has a momentary shudder in case they are doing something wrong. When you add them all together, it is one of the biggest surveillance systems in the world—probably the world’s biggest non-military system—and it is growing every day. At the moment, there are probably about 1 billion shots of people cars in circulation. It is of course personal data, as it tracks people’s journeys, or can be read to do so.

There are two problems. First, the ANPR system has grown and grown but does not have proper governance or structure. Attention needs to be paid to that. This is not the Bill for that, but the noble Baroness might wish to take that point back with her. Secondly, an FOI request revealed in 2015 that the police had no systematic retention or disposal policy; they simply just kept the data because it might come in useful at some time. I do not think that works under the Data Protection Act 1998 and does not seem appropriate, given the way the Bill is framed.

In case there is any doubt whether those systems fall within the scope of the Act or whether there should be a change of policy, we have tabled the amendment to probe what is going on. There has been a recent change—I hope that the noble Baroness will update us about it—and several billion deletions, but there is still a question about the appropriate retention system. Our amendment is an attempt to move forward on that issue.

The problem is that the ANPR is not covered anywhere in statute. Despite the fact that it is very large, it is simply run. The Home Office does not see it as an espionage system—that is fair enough—so it is not covered in the Investigatory Powers Act. There is a case, however, for using the Bill to get this issue back into scope. The proposal here is simple. These particular words need not be used, but I hope the noble Baroness will accept that something should be done. We propose that the approach should be in accordance with the arrangements currently adopted in surveillance systems elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I can be very brief. We had intended to withdraw Amendment 142A in this group but, unfortunately, we could not do so in time so I will not speak to it. To complete the icing on the cake, I have already spoken, rather stupidly, to Amendment 142D, and therefore I do not need to repeat myself. I simply await the noble Baroness’s response on it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I cannot be quite so quick but I will be fairly quick. Amendment 142B concerns Clause 91(3), which states:

“The controller is not required … to give a data subject information that the data subject already has”.


When I read that, I wondered how the controller would know that the data subject had the information. Therefore, my alternative wording would refer to information which the,

“controller has previously provided to the data subject”.

There can therefore be no doubt about that.

Amendment 143A concerns Clause 92, which deals with a right of access within a time limit of a month of the relevant day, as that is defined, or a longer period specified in regulations. What is anticipated here? Why is there the possibility of an extension? This cannot, I believe, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as that would be completely impracticable and, I think, improper. Is it to see whether experience shows that it is a struggle to provide information within a month, and therefore a time limit of more than a month would benefit the controller, which at the same time would be likely to disbenefit the data subject, given the importance of the information? I hope the Minister can explain why this slightly curious power for the Secretary of State is included in the Bill.

Amendment 146B concerns Clause 97, which deals with the right to object to processing. I might have misunderstood this but I believe that the controller is obliged to comply only if he needs to be informed of the location of data. I do not know whether I have that right, so Amendment 146B proposes the wording,

“if its location is known to the data subject”,

so that the amendment flows through in terms of language, if not in sense. The second limb of Clause 97(2), whereby the data subject is told that the controller needs to know this, suggests this. That enables me to make the point that this puts quite a heavy burden on the data subject.

Amendment 148A concerns Clause 101. I, of course, support the requirement that the controller should implement measures to minimise the risks to rights and freedoms. However, I question the term “minimise”. The Bill is generally demanding in regard to this protection, so to root the requirement in the detail of the Bill the amendment would add,

“in accordance with this Act”.

As regards the test of whether a personal data breach seriously interferes with rights, I suggest this is not as high a threshold as that required by the term “significantly” proposed in Amendment 148B.

Following the noble Lord’s co-piloting analogy, I now say, “Over and out”.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee and we want to probe further whether the Government have moved in their thinking. We welcome the Government’s move through Clause 123 to allow licensing authorities the ability to set fees locally on the basis of full cost recovery. Operating the licence system since 2005 has cost council tax payers over £100 million more than they anticipated due to the current, centrally set fee structure, which does not allow licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges. Given the economic climate, there is a real imperative to allow cost-neutral fees to be set as soon as possible. However, as we discussed last time, there is a drafting error within Clause 123, which would mean two-tier authorities not being able fully to recover all the costs associated with licensing. This was debated in Committee. When the Minister replied, he acknowledged that, as drafted, the Bill would exclude the relevant costs of trading standards and social services departments and that, even though they were discharging duties under the Licensing Act, they would not be able to recover them. He concluded by saying:

“I see sense in the intention of [the amendment] and, if I may, I shall reflect on it further”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 911.]

The purpose of the amendment is to press the Government for their response on this issue. I hope that they have some good news for us.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I support the amendment. I reacted rather to the suggestion that what is a marginal cost is therefore almost irrelevant in the case of the authorities affected. I, too, look forward to hearing the outcome of the reflection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite and I would have heard if there had been a discussion. I put that rather gently but firmly.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

There was, I think, a hint of menace in what the noble Baroness was saying. She was leaning forward slightly, and it was well judged to deliver that blow.

The LGA has indeed been concerned about this issue and has circulated documents widely which address the issue and make the main points that I repeated in the discussions earlier. It has also made it clear that it is very concerned about this matter. Although the Minister said that it was a marginal cost, every pound is important to local government. It is unfortunate that the Government have said that the cost of the bureaucracy of this might outweigh its benefits when those who are responsible for delivering it say that they want it to happen.

The Government are hiding under the question of bureaucracy. They promised a very important principle—that there would be a full cost recovery basis for licensing. They have gone so far down the line but they are not prepared to go the further stage. This is a disappointing result and we would like to test the opinion of the House.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendments 241DA, 241H, 241J, 241K, 241N, 241R and 241S in this group. There is a concern that the late-night levy will not be used very much because of the bureaucracy and costs involved in the scheme, and because only a few local authorities have enough late-night venues to make it worth them running the scheme. We wait to see but, again, my concern is about central prescription.

I understand that the Government regard the levy as a tax and so say that it must be prescribed centrally. I wonder whether that is a bit circular. Can you be a bit circular? You either are or you are not—perhaps it is elliptical. If a local authority had discretion regarding the amount of the levy to reflect the costs, would that make it a charge rather than a tax? Therefore, to mix my metaphors, I am not sure which is egg and which is chicken in all this, but I firmly believe that the levy should be locally determined on the basis of full cost recovery.

I asked the Local Government Association about the costs associated with late-night operation, and your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the list includes things such as street cleansing, taxi marshals and clearing up in the widest way after the large amount of activity late at night.

The consultation with local authorities on the regulations that relate to all this will be very important but there is a big cost. Because of that, I have transposed the 70:30 split so that in my amendment 70 per cent goes to local authorities to deal with things such as community safety initiatives, regulatory costs and other matters which I have already mentioned. After all, although I know that the police, too, could do with lots more money, they are already funded for areas of high-priority policing. The LGA has commented to me that police commissioners will be attracted to the idea of acquiring 70 per cent of the levy and may place significant pressure on their local authority to bring in the scheme. However, how the police’s 70 per cent should be spent or, perhaps more importantly, where, is not specified. The money could be raised in one area of the police force but used in another.

Amendment 241D reflects the concern of my noble friend in his amendment that local authority areas are not homogenous. If this new power is to be brought in it would be sensible for it to be focused and directed. Amendment 241H would take out the prescription of the amount of the levy. It is fair enough for it to be calculated by way of the formula, which is what Clause 129(1)(b) provides, but not the amount—Clause 129(1)(a) refers to that. I mentioned the 30:70 split which is referred to in Amendment 241N. Amendments 241R and 241S are about prescription and Amendment 241K is a proposed new clauseto provide a power for each licensing authority toset the levy for the reasons to which I have already alluded.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we seem to be running into a little more difficulty with this group of amendments in terms of what the Bill is trying to achieve, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although, you can see where this idea has come from in the sense of the additional costs and other burdens on those with responsibilities in licensing areas, it seems to be a rather overbureaucratic approach. The overlap with the EMRO is not clear to understand—that point has already been made by other noble Lords. The reason why some aspects of this form of imposition are centrally determined and run by the Home Office and some are left to local areas is not at all clear. There is a problem about the scale and extent to which in any authority it would be sufficiently worth while for the licensing authority to introduce a local levy of this type. The case has yet to be made for a late-night levy.

Alongside that runs the argument that businesses already contribute to the community through their business rates. A proportion of revenue from business rates goes to fund local police and fire services—indeed all services—that will be drawn on in the sense that the Bill addresses this point. It seems to us that the late-night levy unfairly penalises responsible retailers by applying a levy to all licence holders and not just those who are trading irresponsibly. Funds raised in out-of-town centre premises will finance additional policing and other measures targeted at the late-night disorder in town centres because that is where it happens. Is it really fair for a village shopkeeper to pay for reducing disorder that they could not possibly have caused?

Businesses that sell alcohol and put on live music contribute to the community through their licence fees. Licence fees for selling alcohol and for regulated entertainment reflect the costs to the licensing authority of administration and enforcement of the licence. The point has been argued before and we think that it is fair. The proposed late-night levy would be a third tax—an additional cost and a stealth tax on the ability to operate at odd times of the day and night. It would affect small music venues that operate past midnight with entirely disproportionate consequences.

I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the CBI said recently that the late-night levy proposal contradicts the Government’s ambition for the creative industries to provide a key pillar of growth in the economic recovery and seems to be undoing some of the Government’s good work in supporting small live music venues.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this takes us to the clause on fees and non-payment. I shall speak also to Amendments 240XB, 240XC, 240XD, 240XE and 240XG. These amendments are anti central prescription and pro local discretion. In many places, the Bill seems not only very prescriptive but unnecessarily prescriptive. For instance, it mandates the issuing of a receipt in a specific format in a set timescale. Is that really necessary? The word “nanny” was used, and rightly denied, but at this point, it would be an appropriate accusation. Other fee-paying regimes work out how to deal with these peripheral matters. We have a lot of legislation. This alone is a big Bill, but did it need to contain all this? At the most, it could be a matter for guidance, although I do not think that that should be required either. The Government are seeking to reduce regulatory burdens. This seems to be adding to them.

I shall be very brief on the detail of the amendments. Amendment 240Z would take out the provision for written acknowledgement of receipt of the fee—I cannot believe that that will not be done because people paying money require receipts—and the time periods to which I referred. Amendments 240XC and 240XD increase the grace period. Again, is this prescription absolutely necessary? The grace period is 21 days in the Bill, but I have suggested eight weeks. It is fairly obvious that I oppose my noble friend’s amendment in this group, Amendment 240XH. That follows from what I have just said. I support Amendment 241ZB, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will speak. I am very glad that the Local Government Association spotted what, coming up to Wimbledon, I can perhaps describe as an unforced error in the legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said and support her amendments. The provisions in the Bill are very detailed and our amendments, taken together, are an attempt to try to tidy up some of that and to reflect on the regulatory burden that is being imposed.

I shall speak to Amendment 241ZB, which has been mentioned. Someone spotted what appears to be a simple error: at present, it does not look as though the costs incurred by some parts of the licensing system can be recovered, particularly in two-tier areas. As is well known, when a licensing application is made, copies of the licence are sent to those parts of the council classified as responsible authorities under the Licensing Act. In unitary authorities, including London boroughs, metropolitan councils and Welsh councils, all those bodies exist within the same council, which is also the licensing authority. Therefore, the costs would be recoverable under Clause 122 as presently drafted. However, in two-tier areas, the licensing authority sits within the district council, whereas social services and trading standards sit at the county level. As a result, in two-tier areas, the costs incurred by social services and trading standards would not be recoverable should the clause remain unchanged. Our amendment is therefore imperative to ensure that all costs are recoverable, regardless of the local government structure in the area, thus fulfilling the commendable approach which has been taken in the Bill to allow full cost recovery through licence fees.