DATA SECURITY: GOVT'S TRACK RECORD

Further to my previous post, I've been doing a little research. It would seem that (some of) the various legislative changes to the data protection/security regime that Richard Thomas is currently calling for have in fact already been before Parliament.

Back in March of this year in the House of Lords various amendments were debated in the context of the Serious Crime Bill aiming to strengthen the hand of the ICO vis a vis data protection/security. In fact, on 30th April and again on 9th May Baroness Anelay (now Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords but Home Office spokesman at the time) moved specific amendments (relevant debates available here and here) to ensure that the information commissioner would have the right to carry out assessments of data processing on his own volition. And, on 18th and 25th June respectively, Baroness Noakes (Opposition Treasury spokesman) and Earl Northesk initiated debates (here and here) on a similar provision on the face of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill.

In both cases, the Government rejected the amendments pretty much out-of-hand, although (it being the House of Lords) with some small measure of elegance. No surprise there then! Now, I'm not saying that, had they been accepted, the HMRC fiasco wouldn't have happened - though it might have made it less likely. Rather it is illustrative of the culture of complacency and indifference with which government thinking about and policy development of the needs of data security and protection is infected.

In passing I can't resist a barbed dig at the Lib Dems about this. Rationally this whole issue should be their natural territory but, in parliamentary and legislative terms, they give the impression of being completely unsighted about it. Instead - and happily - the Conservatives are making all the running on it with the 'yellow perils' being merely followers. It does beg the question as to what the Lib Dems are actually for if they can't be bothered to prosecute those matters that should be dearest to their hearts and underlying political philosophy. So, reckoning that the Conservatives in the House of Lords have a bee in their collective bonnets about this, is there a realistic prospect that they might introduce a PMB in the near future?

NO2ID CAMPAIGN

The ever-reliable John Lettice at The Register reports that those excellent folk at NO2ID (website here) are calling in the donations offered as part of its 2005 'refuse' pledge (relevant details here). I urge everyone and anyone to contemplate lending this very worthwhile campaign their support

The NO2ID introductory editorial has it spot on:

"In 2005 a still-popular Labour government was re-elected against an "unelectable" opposition. One manifesto commitment, sold on that occasion as immigration control, was a National Identity Register. Policy makers thought it was a pretty good idea. The public scarcely noticed.

"But when they are summoned to an official interview about who they are and where they live - they'll notice."

And, as they say: "Now the government seems to have started work on the [ID Cards] scheme in earnest" with no doubt the tabling of a welter of statutory instruments to give effect to their plans now imminent.

John Lettice's article makes the wholly valid point that, in respect of these items of secondary legislation:

"... little or no debate takes place, and many of them are barely noticed. "They come before Parliament on a wet Wednesday," says Herbert. "Or they're even tabled over a recess, so that at the end of the recess three men and a dog vote them through" and virtually nobody notices."

That said - and I'm trying to be constructive and helpful here - a very useful and effective vehicle does exist for legitimate objections to be raised in the shape of the "House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments" (homepage here). In fact, in recent times it has been instrumental in giving expression to justified concerns over a wide range of issues arising out of statutory instruments (as with Super Casinos here, HIPS (Home Information Packs) here and here, and the National Children's Database here). In fact, so far as the first of these is concerned, the relevant statutory instrument was debated on the floor of the House (here + subsequent pages), following which the Lords voted the measure down. Corresponding debates (without being taken to a vote) took place on the other two issues (here and here respectively) with all three being informed by the overtly trenchant (to varying degrees) criticisms of the Merits Committee. In effect, while not perfect, its existence does guarantee some degree of scrutiny of these insidious bits of legislation, provided of course appropriate representations are made to it.

So I hope NO2ID are up-to-speed about this and are actively considering using the Committee as a conduit to permit pledgees to make their views known about any nasties that the Government might drop in our laps. I'm sure they are!