Memorandum by G M Walkley



I would like to open my evidence with an indication of the ways in which the relationship between those in authority and the general public have altered in recent years. It was an accepted principle that the members of parliament and councils, in this country, were elected to serve the people and not to be the masters thereof. That our Civil Liberties along with our Human Rights and the Presumption of Innocence were paramount. All the principles upon which our Nation was built are being eroded by ever increasing intrusion by surveillance and data collection.

1. One has only to look at the enormous amount of data and surveillance that currently takes place or is proposed to see a marked change in the balance between the citizen and the state.

1.1. In the field of Education we have to supply data on pupils for E-Profiles, National Register of Gifted & Talented Learners and the National Pupil Database. Fingerprinting of students is accepted in a number of schools.

1.2. Home Office Initiatives on Young People include collecting data via Connexions, On Track and Positive Futures. Youth Inclusion Programme Management Information System hold data about children involved in YIPs and Junior YIPs. Reducing Youth Offending Generic National Solution is being positioned as having wider use in the "Every Child Matters" agenda. (RYOGENS system can record children of any age with the youngest known being just nine months.)

1.3. It seems to have become accepted practice that any young person can be approached for consent on data collection and sharing providing they considered by the agency to be "Gillick Competent".

1.4. The police are allowed to take DNA samples, and hold that person's profile on the Police National Computer, regardless of whether they are charged or cautioned. At the last count some 1.1 million innocent individuals, out of a total of over three million profiles were held on NDNAD. Familial searching is now routinely used to identify potential relatives of the person who left a crime scene sample.

1.5. The Government proposes to collect all the nation's medical records onto a central NHS database. This proposal is to be carried out without obtaining the consent of the individual patient, which both the BMA and the majority of GP's oppose.

1.6. The National Identity Register currently being introduced together with ID cards passed through Parliament on the basis that it would be voluntary, however being linked to the issue of a passport it is only voluntary if I elect not to travel abroad.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of measures which effect the daily life of all citizens, merely an indication of how the balance has changed. We are now in a society which is monitored from the cradle to the grave. Certainly it is my opinion that all those forms of surveillance that have been listed together with the vast numbers of CCTV cameras have the greatest impact on the balance between the State and citizens.

2. To my mind there are few forms of surveillance and data collection that can be considered as proper. However I would support measures to protect abuse of children, DNA profiling of convicted criminals and the use of familial searching in serious criminal investigations, eg cases of murder and rape. However when this familial searching is proposed application to the judiciary should be made or legislation enacted to detail under what circumstances this may take place. The executive claim that administrative, security or service benefits of such activities are necessary cannot outweigh concerns about constitutional propriety and whether they are proportionate.

3. The collection of data and the surveillance carried out by public and private bodies transgress a citizens civil liberties and their right to privacy. As I stated in my opening remarks this is a matter of principle. The principle is that you are a sovereign citizen and you do not live by "government permission". A government is (or should be) the servant of the people, not its master. Privacy and freedom are yours by right and we only give governments permission to curtail these freedoms in very limited and important circumstances. It is not a proper function of government to engage in blanket surveillance of law-abiding citizens; or to instigate systems of compulsory identification; or to open a file on each citizen; or to criminalise citizens who refuse to comply.

4. The impact of surveillance and data collection has I believe a considerable negative effect on the general public with an increase in the mistrust of those in government together with alarm over how all this information will be used. We are continually hearing of cases where the security of these activities are breached. Only recently a new system for Junior Doctors, since abandoned, was hacked into and personal details revealed. Another example is the sale of used personal computers by Southend Council, which did not have the hard drive wiped by their agents, and details of a thousand children at risk became public. Certain details of the rich and famous will not be recorded on the National Pupil Register, with the Secretary of State, Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP, maintaining "These decisions will be based on the level of the threat posed if their information becomes more widely available". This is the strongest indicator yet that the Government have no faith in the security of the systems.

5. Should the recent debate in the House of Commons over the effect of the Freedom of Information Act on MPs be a guide, the Data Protection Act 1998 offers little protection in safeguarding constitutional rights. Individuals have a wide range of rights under the Data Protection Act, including access, compensation and the prevention of processing, however these rights are limited. In addition to the many areas that are exempt, there are also special exemptions that apply to personal information relating to health, education and social services. The report by the Information Commissioner was succinct in stating that "the main problem is that the regulation of surveillance, including privacy and data protection, has not kept pace with the advance of surveillance technologies, practices and purposes".

6. There is a great need for additional constitutional protection for rights and privacy of the citizens of our country. I do believe that a fundamental change is required over the need to collect the personal data and the use of surveillance. At this juncture the perception is that all the measures are designed to control the citizens and are not of any benefit to the well-being of the nation. More stringent questions have to be asked as to the nature and purpose of these intrusions in our lives, are they relevant or not. The only protection that one can have in these circumstances is to stop further advances in the areas of surveillance and data collection and indeed roll them back.

In conclusion much of the data collection and surveillance that is currently carried out causes me great concern as does the prospect of the increase in this area in the coming months and years. I have to ask why this is being collected, what benefits do we enjoy from this, how will the information be used, what safeguards are in place to protect my privacy, are my human rights compromised? It may well be that these processes are benign at this time, however will this change in the future? I can find no reason to commend these information systems and on the contrary am alarmed at the ease with which security is breached. There is a very real need to have a citizens right to privacy, civil liberties and human rights protected in the most effective manner, be that enshrined in law or in a written constitution.

7 June 2007



