Lib Dems oppose Data Sharing bill

This week saw the beginning of the debate on Part 8 of the Coroners and Justice Bill about the sharing of personal data.

Liberal Democrats are greatly concerned by these proposals and will be actively opposing them as the Bill passes through Parliament. In the first parliamentary debate on the Bill, on Monday 26th January, Lib Dem Shadow Justice Secretary David Howarth said the proposals were "outrageous and should be withdrawn. They alone justify rejecting this bill."

The government claims that the proposals are needed to reduce the bureaucracy encountered by vulnerable and disadvantaged people in navigating the system, and that the proposed data sharing orders are intended to apply only to data sharing between public bodies. Regardless of whether this policy intention is genuine, that is not what the Bill says.

The Bill as it currently stands would enable ministers to allow data sharing between any person and any other person regardless of what almost any other Act of Parliament says, including the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act . Data sharing orders could modify any enactment and confer powers on any person. And all this can be done in furtherance of any relevant policy objective - a catch-all if ever there was one. There seems to be nothing to stop the government of the day interpreting this to mean whatever suits them at the time, whether it be ID cards, a DNA database, or something even more nefarious. This is even more worrying in light of the increasing evidence that central government is incapable of keeping our personal data safe; every few weeks seems to bring more news of lost data.

The government also claims that these extraordinarily broad-ranging powers are protected from abuse by the safeguards proposed in the Bill: data sharing orders would have to be approved by Parliament after a report from the Information Commissioner had been laid before both Houses. But it is clear to anyone familiar with the workings of Parliament that this does not guarantee either proper scrutiny of an order or, in practice, an effective safeguard against abusive orders being approved. This is not good enough.

These proposals are also indicative of a wider onslaught on our privacy and civil liberties under this government. Unlike the Conservatives, who abstained on the Bill, Liberal Democrat MPs have opposed these proposals from the very start. Please be assured that we will continue to do so vociferously in the coming weeks.