Rowntree Report on Database State

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has today published its report ‘The Database State’. The report purports to amount to the most comprehensive map of central government databases yet created. In total 46 databases across the major government departments were considered in the report, including, for example, the national DNA database, the national pupil database, the NHS detailed care record system and the automatic number-plate recognition system. In summary, the report concluded that:

  • a quarter of the 46 databases reviewed were ‘almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law; that they should be scrapped or substantially redesigned’ (including, for example, the Contactpoint index of all children in England and the national DNA database – on the latter database, see further the January 2009 post on the Marper case);
  • ‘more than half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge’ (including, for example, the NHS Summary Care Record and the National Pupil Database);
  • fewer than 15% were ‘effective, proportionate and necessary with a proper legal basis for any privacy instrusions’;
  • Britain was generally out of line with other developed countries as a result of its comparably greater tendancy to centralise and share records on sensitive matters like healthcare and social services; that ‘the benefits claimed for data sharing are often illusory’.

Along with the House of Lords Report on the Surveillance Society published in February 2009 (see further the February 2009 post on the Lords Report), this report is likely to increase pressure on the Government to reexamine a raft of policies on data collection, management and storage.

https://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf

Executive Summary:

https://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

Links and resources

On the left hand side of this page you will see a list of links.  The first link is to a collection of information law resources on 11KBW’s main website.  There are conference papers and other materials written by members of chambers;  in particular there is an 80 page practical guide to the Environmental Information Regulations, written by Anya Proops.   In discussions of FOI, we find that the EIR tend to be unduly neglected;  Anya’s guide is a contribution to redressing the balance.

You will also find links to online resources maintained by a wide range of organisations and individuals:  Government departments, regulators (both in the UK and overseas), academic institutions, legal practitioners, campaigners and bloggers.   If you think that there is anything that we should add, please email me on Timothy.Pitt-Payne@11kbw.com .  Needless to say, we don’t take responsibility for the information or opinions posted on any of these external sites.

Many thanks to all those who have provided feedback and encouragement following our launch last week.  Particular thanks to Delia Venables for the speed with which she added us to her comprehensive listing of online legal resources in the UK and Ireland.

OGC publishes Gateway Reviews

Following a decision of the Information Tribunal issued on 19th February, the OGC has published two Gateway Reviews into the ID cards scheme.

The OGC announcement is here (with a link to the documents themselves). The Information Tribunal decision is here, on the Tribunal’s website. This case was previously the subject of a High Court appeal (from an earlier Tribunal decision).

Welcome to Panopticon

Welcome to “Panopticon”, a new blog about Information Law maintained by members of 11KBW’s Information Law Practice Group.  We opened our doors to the public on 18th March (you will see some earlier posts, below, created while the blog was still under development).

Information law is about the right to know, and the right to keep private – and it is also about the ever-shifting boundary between those rights.  It encompasses areas such as data protection, freedom of information, the protection of private information under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, breach of confidence, and the regulation of surveillance.  It is a fascinating and fast-moving area of the law, and is directly relevant to contemporary debates about open government, the “database state” and the “surveillance society”.  For a more detailed explanation, click on the link at the top of the page  (“What is Information Law?”).

A word about our title.  The Panopticon was Jeremy Bentham’s proposed new model prison, in which constant surveillance would be a tool for moral regeneration (see here for details and illustrations).  It has become an enduring metaphor in debates about the benefits and the dangers of systematic information-gathering.  The title has a secondary meaning:  this site is our own “Panopticon”, in which we try to keep an overview of developments in this area and to share them with our readers.

We hope you will find the blog interesting and informative.  You may also be interested to explore 11KBW’s main website:  this includes a wide range of conference papers and other materials about information law.

We don’t have a facility to post comments on individual posts, but please feel free to provide feedback by emailing Claire Halas:   Claire.Halas@11kbw.com

Revising FOIA?

Tucked away in Jack Straw’s House of Commons statement (24th February 2009) about the veto on disclosure of the Iraq War Cabinet minutes is the following intriguing passage:

Shortly after he became Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a high-level inquiry into the 30-year rule under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail. That report, published last month, proposed a reduction from 30 to 15 years of the time after which Cabinet minutes and other papers would automatically be released. I have already told the House that the Government favour a substantial reduction in the 30-year limit. In that context, the report also recommended that we consider protection under the Act for certain categories of information.

The reference to the Dacre Report relates to the following section in chapter 8 of the Report:

8.7 As we noted in Chapter Five, there are genuine concerns among some ministers and civil servants about the early release of particularly sensitive types of papers … Given that we are recommending a substantial reduction to the 30 year rule, we believe that the government may wish to look again at the exemptions set out in the FoI Act.

8.8 We therefore recommend that, in parallel with the adoption of a 15 year rule, the government, in consultation with interested parties, may wish to consider whether there is a case for enhanced protection of such categories of information.

So what may be under consideration is a change along the following lines.  The 30 year rule would be replaced by a 15 year rule; and at the same time some categories of information that are at present covered by a qualified exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would become subject to absolute exemption.  Possible candidates for this treatment might be Cabinet minutes, or some forms of policy advice in central Government.  A change of this nature might not even need primary legislation; an attempt could be made to implement the change by making an order under section 7(3) of the Freedom of Information Act.  This was the technique that was used in the recent (abandoned) attempt to amend FOIA in relation to MPs expenses:  see https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7839281.stm

I would make two brief comments.  One is that the Dacre proposals in relation to the 30 year rule envisage that the change to a 15 year rule would be made over a long transitional period, coming fully into effect by 2025.  Presumably any change in the FOIA exemptions would not be subject to any corresponding transition.  A second is that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) could not be amended in the same way, since they implement a European Directive.  So if the FOIA exemptions are tightened, expect a great deal more argument about whether particular requests fall within FOIA or EIR.

For Jack Straw’s statement see:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090224/debtext/90224-0004.htm#09022444000162

For the Dacre Report see:

https://www2.nationalarchives.gov.uk/30yrr/30-year-rule-report.pdf