Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Patrick Grady

Report stage
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

It is difficult to know where to start. The Minister described this as a Brexit opportunities Bill. Of course, Brexit was supposed to be about this place taking back control. It was to be the triumph of parliamentary sovereignty over faceless Brussels bureaucrats, the end of red tape and regulations, and the beginning of a glorious new era of freedom unencumbered by all those complicated European Union rules and requirements that did silly things like keeping people safe and protecting their human rights.

Yet here we are with 200 pages of new rules and regulations and a further 160 pages of amendments. This time last week, the amendment paper was 10 pages long; today it is 15 times that and there is barely any time for any kind of proper scrutiny. Is this what Brexit was for: to hand the Government yet more sweeping powers to regulate and legislate without any meaningful oversight in this place? To create additional burdens on businesses and public services, just for the sake of being different from the European Union? The answer to those questions is probably yes.

I will speak briefly to the SNP amendments, but I will also consider some of the most concerning Government propositions being shoehorned in at the last minute in the hope that no one will notice. How else are we supposed to treat Government new schedule 1? The Minister is trying to present it as benign, or even helpful, as if it had been the Government’s intention all along to grant the DWP powers to go snooping around in people’s bank accounts, but if it has been so long in coming, as he said, why is it being added to the Bill only now? Why was it not in the original draft, or even brought to Committee, where there could at least have been detailed scrutiny or the opportunity to table further amendments?

Of course there should be action to tackle benefit fraud—we all agree on that—but the DWP already has powers, under section 109B of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to issue a notice to banks to share bank account information provided that they have reasonable grounds to believe that an identified, particular person has committed, or intends to commit, a benefit offence. In other words, where there is suspicion of fraud, the DWP can undertake checks on a claimant’s account. Incidentally, there should also be action to tackle tax evasion and tax fraud. The Government evidently do not require from the Bill any new powers in that area, so we can only assume that they are satisfied that they have all the powers they need and that everything possible is being done to ensure that everybody pays the tax that they owe.

The powers in new schedule 1 go much further than the powers that the DWP already has. By their own admission, the Government will allow the DWP to carry out—proactively, regularly, at scale and on a speculative basis—checks on the bank accounts and finances of claimants. The new schedule provides little in the way of safeguards or reassurances for people who may be subject to such checks. The Secretary of State said that

“only a minimum amount of data will be accessed and only in instances which show a potential risk of fraud and error”.

In that case, why is the power needed at all, given that the Government already have the power to investigate where there is suspicion of fraud? And how can only “a minimum amount” of data be accessed when the Government say in the same breath that they want to be able to carry out those checks proactively and at scale.

[Carol Monaghan]

My hon. Friend probably shares my concern that we are moving into a new era in which the bank account details of people claiming with the DWP must be shared as a matter of course. That is the only reason I can see for such sweeping amendments, which will impact on so many people.

[Patrick Grady]

There is a huge risk. It is clear that the Government’s starting point is very often to avoid giving people the social security and welfare support that they might need to live a dignified life. We know that the approach in Scotland is incredibly different.

That is the thing: as with so much of this Bill, there is a good chance that minority groups or people with protected characteristics will find themselves most at risk of those checks and of coming under the proactive suspicion of the DWP. As we said when moving the committal motion, we have not had time to seek properly to interrogate that point. In his attempts to answer interventions, the Minister kind of demonstrated why scrutiny has been so inadequate. At the same time, the Government’s own Back Benchers, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) and others, are tabling quite thoughtful amendments—that is never a great sign for a Government. The Government should not be afraid of the kinds of safeguards and protections that they are proposing.

The SNP amendments look to remove the most dangerous and damaging aspects of the Bill—or, at the very least, to amend them slightly. Our new clause 44 and amendment 229 would have the effect of transferring the powers of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That should not be all that controversial. Professor William Webster, a director of the Centre for Research into Information, Surveillance and Privacy, has warned that the Bill, as it stands, does not provide adequate mechanisms for the governance and oversight of surveillance cameras. The amendment would ensure that oversight is retained, the use of CCTV continues to be regulated, and public confidence in such technologies is strengthened, not eroded. CCTV is becoming more pervasive in the modern world—not least with the rise of video doorbells and similar devices that people can use in their own personal circumstances—so it is concerning that the Government are seeking to weaken rather than strengthen protections in that area.

The SNP’s amendment 222 would leave out clause 8, and our amendment 223 would leave out clause 10, removing the Government’s attempts to crack down on subject access requests. The effect of those clauses might, in the Government’s mind, remove red tape from businesses and other data-controlling organisations, but it would do so at the cost of individuals’ access to their own personal data. That is typified by the creation of a new and worryingly vague criterion of “vexatious or excessive” as grounds to refuse a subject access request. Although that might make life easier for data controllers, it will ultimately place restrictions on data subjects’ ability to access what is, we must remember, their data. There have been attempts—not just throughout Committee stage, but even today from the Opposition—to clarify exactly the thresholds for “vexatious and excessive” requests. The Government have been unable to answer, so those clauses should not be allowed to stand.

Amendment 224 also seeks to leave out clause 12, expressing the concerns of many stakeholders about the expansion in scope of automated decision making, alongside an erosion of existing protections against automated decision making. The Ada Lovelace Institute states that:

“Against an already-poor landscape of redress and accountability in cases of AI harms, the Bill’s changes will further erode the safeguards provided by underlying regulation.”

There is already significant and public concern about AI and its increasingly pervasive impact.

Clause 12 fails to offer adequate protections against automated decision making. An individual may grant consent for the processing of their data—indeed, they might have no choice but to do so—but that does not mean that they will fully understand or appreciates how that data will be processed or, importantly, how decisions will be made. At the very least, the Government should accept our amendment 225, which would require the controller to inform the data subject when an automated decision has been taken in relation to the data subject. I suspect, however, that that is unlikely—just as it is unlikely that the Government will accept Labour amendments 2 and 5, which we are happy to support—so I hope the House will have a chance to express its view on clause 12 as a whole later on.

The SNP’s amendments 226, 227 and 228 would have the effect of removing clauses 26, 27 and 28 respectively. Those clauses give the Home Secretary significant new powers to authorise the police to access personal data, and a power to issue a “national security” certificate telling the police that they do not need to comply with many important data protection laws and rules that they would otherwise have to obey, which would essentially give police immunity should they use personal data in a way that would otherwise be illegal—and they would no longer need to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We have heard no explanation from the Government for why they think that the police should be allowed to break the law and operate under a cover of darkness.

The Bill will also expand what counts as an “intelligence service” for the purposes of data protection law. Again, that would be at the Home Secretary’s discretion, with a power to issue a designation notice allowing law enforcement bodies to take advantage of the more relaxed rules in the Data Protection Act 2018—otherwise designed for the intelligence agencies—whenever they are collaborating with the security services. The Government might argue that that creates a simplified legal framework, but in reality it will hand massive amounts of people’s personal information to the police, including the private communications of people in the UK and information about their health histories, political beliefs, religious beliefs and private lives.

Neither the amended approach to national security certificates nor the new designation notice regime would be reviewable by the courts, and given that there is no duty to report to Parliament, Parliament might never find out how and when the powers have been used. If the Home Secretary said that the police needed to use those increased powers in relation to national security, his word would be final. That includes the power to handle sensitive data in ways that would otherwise, under current legislation, be criminal.

The Home Secretary is responsible for both approving and reviewing designation notices. Only a person who is directly affected by such a notice will be able to challenge it, yet the Home Secretary would have the power to keep the notice secret, meaning that those affected would not even know about it and could not possibly challenge it. Those are expansive broadenings not just of the powers of the secretary of state, but of the police and security services. The Government have not offered any meaningful reassurance about how those powers will be applied or what oversight will exist, which is why our amendments propose scrapping those clauses entirely.

There remain other concerns about many aspects of the Bill. The British Medical Association and the National AIDS Trust have both raised questions about patients’ and workers’ right to privacy. The BMA calls the Bill

“a departure from the existing high standards of data protection for health data”.

We welcome the amendments to that area, particularly amendment 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), which we will be happy to support should it be selected for a vote.

I am afraid that I have to echo the concerns expressed by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), about new clause 45, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). That clause perhaps has laudable aims, but it is the view of the Scottish National party that it is not for this place to legislate in that way, certainly not without consultation and ideally not without consent from the devolved authorities. We look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Aberconwy make his case, but I do not think we are in a position to support his new clause at this time.

Petitions

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Patrick Grady

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Since 2015, at least once every year to 18 months, a bank has closed in Glasgow North. Although the closure in today’s petition is just over the boundary in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), it serves a wide area across Partick, the west end and beyond. Its closure is another nail in the coffin of high streets and community shopping and services. It is another example of banks making claims about footfall and usage that simply do not seem to match the experience of anyone who visits or uses the branch. Banks of all brands must do better. We need imagination and commitment to communities so that the most disadvantaged are not further penalised by lack of access to basic services.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Glasgow North,

Declares that proposed closure of the Partick branch of the TSB bank in Glasgow will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and TSB Bank to take in account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002612]

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The closure of three TSB branches in my constituency will be devastating for local constituents and for businesses. Both Partick and Anniesland serve vast areas, but owing to good public transport links, they can be accessed by those whose local branches have already closed. In Drumchapel, an area with high digital exclusion and poor transport connectivity, the TSB is the only bank for miles around and there are regularly queues out the door.

The petition states:

To the House of Commons

The petition of residents of Glasgow North West,

Declares that proposed closure of the Anniesland, Drumchapel and Partick branches of the TSB bank in Glasgow will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and TSB Bank to take in account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002613]

Commonwealth in 2020

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Patrick Grady

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

We are hearing from members of the armed forces and the Royal British Legion that these people have been recruited because we are not meeting our own recruitment targets here in the UK. We are going out to these countries and actively recruiting: promising the earth and then delivering very little for their families. It really is not how we should be operating.

[Patrick Grady]

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend speaks with some experience on these matters. The mismatch between rhetoric and reality is a bit of a theme on a number of issues in this debate, particularly the final one that I want to touch on. Again, this will not be a surprise to the Minister, because we have exchanged words on it in Westminster Hall on many occasions.

The issue is, of course, the UK’s role in the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Mauritius, which claims sovereignty and whose sovereignty has in fact been recognised by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, is a fellow member of the Commonwealth. Where is global Britain in all of this? Mauritius has had to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. The UN resolution stated that the United Kingdom should surrender the British Indian Ocean Territory unconditionally, and the deadline for that was breached in November 2019. Where is global Britain in all that? Where is the respect for the partnership of the Commonwealth of Nations?

Scottish Affairs Committee

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Patrick Grady

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Perhaps the non-Scottish members proposed for the Committee have a particular interest in the affairs of Scotland. Is he aware of any particular interest that they have expressed over the past few years of Parliament?

[Patrick Grady]

Perhaps they have. Looking back at the history of the Committee’s membership, it is not completely unusual for the Conservative party in particular to have to populate its spaces on the Committee with Members from outwith Scotland, and we mean absolutely no disrespect to any of those Members from outwith Scotland who have chosen to put their names forward. We are not objecting in any way to any of the individual Members who are being appointed. We are objecting to the proportions—the way in which the numbers have been divvied up—and the fact that the Conservative Government are helping themselves, in a sense.