Children’s Private Information: Data Protection Law

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Baroness Barran

Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I apologise; I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Earl with the detail on that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, in her response to my noble friend, the Minister did not answer the key question. She told us the criteria that the department used for its use of data, but this was clearly the use of data to make money. Is that appropriate for a government department in respect of records that relate to children?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

To be absolutely clear and for the avoidance of doubt, the department was not making money out of this. It was a previously legitimate user of the department’s data which changed its business model and breached its contract with the department to sell the data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My understanding is that we relied on an existing advisory service at the time of the data breach and that those functions have now been brought in house. We have a dedicated data protection officer, who sets policy for the whole department.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness expand on this third-party provider who changed their business model? How many contracts does that third party have with government in respect of other aspects of data?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My understanding is that that third-party provider is no longer trading.

Public Representatives: Online Abuse

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Baroness Barran

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I hope that I can reassure the right reverend Prelate. We are absolutely clear that Ofcom, in its role as the regulator here, will be properly resourced. We are also clear that the approach in the Bill provides absolutely clarity, if it did not exist already, for social media companies and others on the expectations for how they enforce their terms and conditions, that there will be clear mechanisms for user redress and that there will be very significant enforcement powers.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is not just about MPs, of course. When I was a council leader—admittedly, before social media—receiving abuse and violent threats was common. One individual pursued me in the street and in the supermarket, as well as by phone, with abuse directed at family members and work colleagues, and by pinning up defamatory notices around the locality. He ended up in prison for unrelated violence. He would have relished being able to disseminate his abuse via social media. Of course, social media companies must be much more proactive in dealing with this—I hope that the online safety Bill will help with that—but does the Minister agree that the policing resources available are inadequate for the scale of the problem of dealing with fixated individuals before they escalate to violence? The Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigation team does a wonderful job, but where is its equivalent for local government?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government aim to make sure that people can operate in the public sphere safely at all levels, as the noble Lord rightly highlights. We expect the Bill to make a great difference to that when it becomes law. It is clear that, when the police use their existing powers, particularly under the Investigatory Powers Act, they are successful in identifying anonymous users online in particular.

Digital Identification Protocol

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Baroness Barran

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend that this is a prize worth prioritising—although I cannot comment on the specific McKinsey data. On his question about areas for pilots, we are working with a number of sectors and are eager to look into pilots in healthcare, tourism, housing, conveyancing and insurance—but all of this is of course subject to spending review outcomes.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]]

It is increasingly important for all of us as citizens to be able to simply and securely verify our identity to others and, likewise, that we can always have confidence that the person with whom we are engaged in a transaction is who they say they are. Yet there have been 11 wasted years since the Government scrapped the previous proposals for a secure identity system. Why has there been that waste of time? Can the Minister assure us, the public, that our personal identity data will be secure and not exploited for profit by these new private sector solutions?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I cannot comment on the delay to which the noble Lord refers. What I can say is that we are working at pace and have made considerable progress since our response to the call for evidence in September. As he is aware—the clue is in the name—a fundamental of the “trust framework” is that citizens can trust how their digital ID will be used.

Children: Exposure to Harmful Content

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Baroness Barran

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran [V]]

The noble Baroness is right to point out both the benefits for children of being online, through education, entertainment and communication with their friends, but also the risks. We remain committed to bringing forward the online harms legislation in this Session, and I hope she will be pleased to hear that the laying of the age-appropriate design code, in which she was closely involved, is imminent.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the figures in the BBFC survey are shocking but not a surprise. Millions of pounds were spent so that effective age verification could be delivered, and it was ready to be introduced. Then, on 16 October, the Government abruptly abandoned Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which would have prevented children accessing unsuitable and harmful content. It is all very well talking about the online harms legislation, but it has been delayed and it is still ages away from implementation. Why were the Government so intent on waiting, when age verification was ready to start? Does the Minister agree that the facts clearly demonstrate that the Government have contributed directly to these shocking figures?

[Baroness Barran [V]]

I cannot agree with the noble Lord’s last remarks. The Government have worked very hard on the guidance that has been published, the funding we have made available to organisations supporting vulnerable people, and the work we have been doing with the sector. As I have already said, we believe that the way to protect children from accessing harmful online content is through the legislation that we will bring forward later this Session, but a number of other elements are also being brought forward, including our media literacy strategy and the safety by design framework.

SS “Richard Montgomery”

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Baroness Barran

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

There are two answers to that question. Historically, a number of these bombs were shipped unfused, but the records are not available to know whether they were fused or not. In everything we have done, we have made the most cautious assumptions. The other modelling that has been done involved testing similar explosives to see what state they would be in, but that has not been done on the explosives on board the vessel.

The Government take their responsibility for the wreck extremely seriously. As part of our legal duty under Section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, we have designated a prohibited area around the wreck, and it is an offence to enter this area without the written permission of the Secretary of State. The last known unauthorised incursion into the area was by a paddle-boarder, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, in 2015.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

If that was the most recent case—if it were, that would perhaps be reassuring—how quickly were the authorities able to get to the paddle-boarder and remove him?

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Baroness Barran

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first few words of my noble friend’s introductory remarks on this amendment. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said because I wonder whether the wording in the government amendment is as precise as it is intended to be. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute—I refer to my interests in terms of trading standards—says that a correct definition, if you mean just weights and measures authorities, would be,

“a local weights and measures authority”,

in Great Britain,

“within the meaning set out in section 69 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985”.

The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland may enforce within its area, rather than simply talking in those terms. I wonder whether a broader definition would not make sense, given that in many local authorities now the trading standards function, which is so diminished, is often spread with other responsibilities. That may be something the Government want to take away and look at to make sure that what they are trying to achieve meets the obligation.

The second point about whether this should be made a duty is important as well. People I know very well in the Chartered Trading Standards Institute try to get this both ways: they complain constantly about all the statutory duties placed on local authorities, and therefore the inability of local authorities to take them seriously, but they also say, “Here is something which ought to be a statutory duty”. The psychological effect of making it clear that the Government wish to place a responsibility on local authorities to pursue their role in this matter would be extremely helpful and valuable. If the Government were to find some way of making the resources available, so that, rather than just placing the duty, they could also ensure that local authorities had the wherewithal to take effective action, that would be extremely helpful.

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are directed at a common end—namely, to support the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Bill by local authorities. Amendment 59 introduces a legal duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation in relation to the sale and delivery of bladed articles and corrosive substances.

Local authorities in England and Wales already regulate the sale of bladed articles using general powers in Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Under that section, where a local authority considers it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of its area, it may prosecute, defend or appear in legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in its own name.

There is no reason why local authorities could not use the general powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to enforce the provisions in the Bill in relation to the sale of corrosive products. It is also possible for the legislation in relation to sales of bladed articles and corrosive products to be enforced by the police. Consistent with these existing powers, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to impose a duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation in relation to the sale of bladed articles and corrosive products.

That is not to say that local authorities’ enforcement powers in this area cannot be strengthened. This leads me to Amendment 60, which seeks to extend the application of the investigative powers provided for in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These powers enable local authorities to: require information from sellers; observe the carrying on of business; enter premises without warrant; inspect products; test equipment; require the production of documents; or seize and detain goods.