MPs condemn ‘outrageous’ data sharing plans
By Laura Miller
Plans to allow people’s confidential details to be shared across public and private agencies around the world have been attacked by MPs in the Commons.
The Lib Dems and Tories have promised to oppose the “draconian” proposals to upend current data protection laws, as well as government plans to hold secret inquests.
Jack Straw defended proposals in the coroners and justice bill for “responsible” data sharing to reduce stress for bereaved families, who currently have to speak to different agencies “many times over” when a relative died.
But for that to happen, the current proposal of ministerial information sharing orders would overrule fundamental principle of data protection restrictions – that information must only be used for the specific purpose it was collected.
The “amazingly broad” proposals on data sharing were “outrageous” enough to reject the bill on its own, Lib Dem justice spokesperson David Howarth told Commons MPs.
The plans were not limited to public bodies, he said, but people’s information could be shared across private companies in any country, increasing the risk of information being lost.
Jack Straw tried to allay MPs concerns by arguing stringent safeguards would be put in place for the orders, which would only be made when it was “in the public interest and proportionate to the impact it may have on the person affected”.
But many MPs remained unconvinced that the need for the plans balanced out against the shift in attitudes towards privacy.
“What the government is proposing is to drive a coach and horses through the duty of confidentiality that the state owes to individuals,” shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said.
The move represents a “seismic change in the relationship between the state and the citizen” and said it had “enormous” implications for civil liberties, he added.
Among other measures in the bill is one to allow some inquests in England and Wales to be held without juries.
Mr Straw said inquests would only be held in private in “very extreme” cases where if information got out there would be a “grave risk of death of individuals”.
But Mr Grieve said the plans “completely undermine” the point of an inquest and Mr Howarth said juries were needed in their traditional role as “a check” on state power.
Several Labour backbenchers also criticised the plans during the debate – Chris Mullin questioned whether police might have used it to prevent a public interest inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes – shot dead after being mistaken for a terrorist by officers
