Tag: Election

Information Governance: The Future

So now we have a Labour Government, what can we expect vis a vis information governance?

Data Protection

Before the snap election was announced, most information professionals were getting ready to implement the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill which was making its way through the House of Lords and was set to be passed in July. The Bill would have amended the UK GDPR to make it, according to the Government, “a tailored, business-friendly British system of data protection.” The election put an end to the Bill which failed to make it through Parliamentary “wash up” stage.

The Labour Party had nothing to say on this topic in its manifesto, apart from a pledge to “improve data sharing across services, with a single unique identifier, to better support children and families.” It also said it intends to create a “National Data Library” to bring together existing research programmes and “help deliver data-driven public services”.

It is still likely that some Data Protection law reform will be undertaken by the new Government. Some of the less controversial aspects of the Bill, such as making it easier to use personal data for research and re organisation of the ICO, could return.
But we are not going to see wholesale reform in the first few years, especially as the Government will not want to jeopardise the UK’s EU adequacy status which is due for renewal by June 2025.Thankfully the introduction of digital ID cards have also been ruled out, after Tony Blair suggested they could help control immigration.

AI Regulation

The rapid advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), and their potential to impact on people’s rights and freedoms, has led to calls for better regulation. The Labour manifesto contains pledges to support the development of AI. It says Labour will ensure their “industrial strategy supports the development of the AI sector and removes planning barriers to new datacentres.” There is also a pledge to regulate AI but only in some cases:

“Labour will ensure the safe development and use of AI models by introducing binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI models and by banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.”

But there is no real detail about what AI regulation will look like under Labour.
Perhaps the party will take the lead from the TUC ,which produced an AI Bill in April, or the EU which recently passed the EU AI Act.

Online Safety

The Labour manifesto states that the party will “build on” on the Online Safety Act, “bringing forward provisions as quickly as possible, and explore further measures to keep everyone safe online, particularly when using social media”. Labour also intends to give coroners “more powers to access information held by technology companies after a child’s death” and to create a “Regulatory Innovation Office” which will help existing regulators “update regulation, speed up approval timelines and co-ordinate issues that span existing boundaries”.

Freedom of Information

Freedom of Information laws are always popular with opposition parties who wish to critically assess government policies or discover uncomfortable truths (at least for the Government) about their implementation. But in government such laws are often seen as an inconvenience (just ask Tony Blair). None of the parties made any specific mention of FOI in their manifestos. This is surprising; the Labour Party has been arguing for many years that private contractors delivering public services should be subject to FOI laws. Perhaps they will look again at strengthening FOI. 

This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming  GDPR Update  workshop.

What does the Liberal Democrat Manifesto say about AI and Data Protection?

This morning the Liberal Democrats launched their 2024 General Election Manifesto. The 116-page document includes pledges to recruit 8,000 more GPs, give unpaid carers a right to paid carers’ leave from work, and introduce free personal care in England. But what are their plans for AI regulation and DP reform (we hear some of you ask)?

Here are our some quotes which answer the above questions (and we must admit it is our first reading of the manifesto):

AI Regulation

Create a clear, workable and well-resourced cross-sectoral regulatory framework for artificial intelligence that:   

  • Promotes innovation while creating certainty for AI users, developers and investors.
  • Establishes transparency and accountability for AI systems in the public sector.
  • Ensures the use of personal data and AI is unbiased, transparent and accurate, and respects the privacy of innocent people
  • Negotiate the UK’s participation in the Trade and Technology Council with the US and the EU, so we can play a leading role in global AI regulation, and work with international partners in agreeing common standards for AI risk and impact assessment, testing, monitoring and audit.

Surveillance and Human Rights

  • Introducing a Digital Bill of Rights to protect everyone’s rights online, including the rights to privacy, free expression, and participation without being subjected to harassment and abuse. 
  • Ending the bulk collection of communications data and internet connection records.
  • Introducing a legally binding regulatory framework for all forms of biometric surveillance.

Data Sharing

Establish a firewall to prevent public agencies from sharing personal information with the Home Office for the purposes of immigration enforcement and repeal the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act.

Surprisingly, the manifesto does not address Freedom of Information reform or even extension. It does say: “all Ministers’ instant-messaging conversations involving government business must be placed on the departmental record”

The Conservative Party will publish its manifesto on Tuesday and Labour will do so on Thursday. Still no news from Count Binface about his plans!

This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming  GDPR Update  workshop. 

Manifesto Week: What will the parties say about DP and AI?

The UK’s two main political parties are set to publish their election manifestos this week. Information governance professionals will be keen to find out what the parties’ plans are in relation to the current hot IG topics including data protection reform, AI regulation and data sharing.

The Conservative Party will publish its manifesto on Tuesday. Penny Mordaunt said in a BBC television debate on Friday:

“You have already heard some announcements and you’ll see more in our manifesto next week. We have got to cut people’s taxes and we have got to alleviate burdens on business.” 

That’s all fine but what IG professionals will want to know is, will the Government bring back the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill which fell in the House of Lords after not making “wash up”. Could they propose to combine the Bill with AI regulation, having previously opted for a non statutory approach on the latter? We will know better on Tuesday. 

The Labour manifesto is due to be published on Thursday. Whilst it is still being finalised, clues about what IG proposals it may contain can be found in the National Policy Forum document which the party says is “set to shape the next Labour manifesto”. It states, amongst other things, that Labour will:

  • Ensure our world-class researchers and businesses have the data and computing infrastructure they need to compete internationally

  • Harness data for the public good and introduce robust regulation that opens up data while enshrining consumer rights

  • Maintain Britain’s data adequacy status meaning our data protection rules are deemed equivalent to those in the EU

  • Make it easier for public services to adopt innovative technologies by removing barriers to data-sharing and smart procurement.

  • Use new capabilities in data analysis and AI to deliver better public services and improve people’s quality of life, and ensure society is fairly rewarded for the data it generates, built on frameworks and institutions that build public trust and uphold the privacy and security rights of UK citizens, including in the workplace

  • Ensure we have cyber resilience and security against rogue states and other hostile actors

  • Harness technology for public good, ensuring the UK is the best place in the world for safe and responsible technology, building the world’s most competent regulatory environment for AI and automation and supporting a thriving and effective AI and automation assurance ecosystem

  • Ensure that the regulatory environment appropriately and proportionally mitigates the potential harms that AI could cause by taking a principles-based approach to tech and AI

  • Explore whether the companies developing the underlying ‘foundation models’ that power specific AI tools and applications should also be subject to regulation

  • Act quickly to set the standards for safe and responsible AI

  • Ensure that workers have new rights, protections and access to training to keep pace with the changing nature of work and technological advancement

The Liberal Democrats are launching their manifesto today. If you can’t wait till later, their Fair Deal for voters offers some insights on what might be included. We are still waiting for Count Binface to publish his manifesto; we could see a repeat of his London Mayoral Manifesto which promised, amongst other things, to bring back Ceefax to all households within the M25!

This and other data protection developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming  GDPR Update  workshop. 

Pre General Election FOI Requests 

In the run up to the UK General Election, councils and other public authorities can expect an increase in FOI requests. Political parties and their supporters, as well as the media, will use FOI to attempt to unearth information which may prove that that “the plan is working”, “the country needs change” or simply to score political points. 

Whenever an election is called, ministers, civil servants and local government officials are restricted in terms of what they can say and do to ensure that they do not influence the election whilst carrying out their official duties. The pre-election period of sensitivity occurs in the weeks leading up to an election or referendum. In the past it was known as ‘purdah’.

Local authorities have to follow the statutory guidance (at all times) in the form of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity (England). 
Similar codes operate in Scotland and Wales. Guidance for civil servants says the rules apply once Parliament is official dissolved.

In the light of the above rules, it is easy to think that politically motivated FOI requests should be treated differently during this period or may be even not answered at all to avoid influencing electors. This is not so. In the words of the House of Commons Library Research Briefing, Pre-election period of sensitivity:

“Requests for factual information or freedom of information requests should be dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”

There is no ICO guidance on FOI requests during an election period, but the ICO has issued a Decision Notice (in 2018) which makes the position clear. York Council was asked in an FOI request for information about unpaid business rate accounts. The Council refused the request, citing the exemption in Section 44 – Prohibitions on disclosure, saying disclosing the information “could affect public support for a particular party”, and suggesting the requester make the same request after the election. The ICO ruled that the prohibition on publication of politically sensitive information, in the Local Government Code, relates to material that is published by, or on behalf of, a local authority; information disclosed under FOI is not covered by this prohibition. The fact that the requester, in this case, was an active member of a political party, and the information related to an ongoing campaign around
non-domestic rates, was not relevant according to the ICO.

The Scottish Information Commissioner‘s guidance states that FOISA requests to public bodies in the run-up to an election, still have to be responded to promptly and within the statutory time period; responses should not be delayed due to an election.

Our FOI Exemptions workshop is ideal for FOI Officers who want to develop their knowledge of the exemptions and sharpen their Refusal Notice writing skills.

A General Election! But what about the Data Protection Bill Mr Sunak?

So Rishi Sunak is finally calling a General Election!

We know what you’re thinking! What will happen to the the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill which was due to enter the Report stage in the House of Lords on 10th June? 

We must admit we had to Google that one! To quote the Institute for Government:

“There are normally several days between an election being called and parliament being dissolved. During this period, parliament will continue until it is either dissolved or prorogued (and then dissolved) – whichever comes first. This period is known as ‘wash-up’.

Any parliamentary business not completed by the end of ‘wash-up’ will fall. This means any bills that have not already received Royal Assent will not enter into law and cannot be continued into the next parliament. This leads to a rush to rapidly pass legislation through parliament to get it onto the statute book, normally requiring cooperation between parties to agree which bills they will support through this expedited legislative process.

The length of ‘wash-up’ is decided by the prime minister and can vary. Since 1992, the longest wash-up period was in 2017, when parliament sat for a further seven days after the election was called.”

So, it could be that the Bill is passed during “wash-up” if the political parties agree; although they may have other Bills to pass as a priority.

If it does not pass during wash up, the next government could pick up the Bill (or a likely a new version), although it would have to start the full Parliamentary process again. Given the Labour Party did not propose substantial amendments to the current Bill, this is a possibility (assuming they win of course); though when this will happen is uncertain. DPOs will look forward to reading the parties’ General Election manifestos! 

At the moment it seems that readers who have purchased the Act Now UK GDPR Handbook, will not need to buy a new version!

A Conservative Majority Government with Michael Gove as Justice Secretary! What now for Freedom of Information?

canstockphoto16242260

So now we have Conservative majority government, contrary to the pollsters’ predicted. I know what you are thinking; what now for Freedom of Information?

Unlike Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives did not mention FOI in their election manifesto choosing to talk about transparency instead:

“Transparency has also been at the heart of our approach to government. Over the last five years, we have been open about government spending, provided access to taxpayer-funded research, pursued open data and helped establish the Open Government Partnership. We will continue to be the most transparent government in the world.”

The Conservatives have always been keener on pro active publication of information than FOI. In July 2012, in a speech at the Policy Exchange, Francis Maude said:

“I’d like to make Freedom of Information redundant, by pushing out so much [open] data that people won’t have to ask for it.”

We could see more requirements on local authorities to publish information. Last October, an updated version of the Local Government Transparency Code was published. This requires councils (as well as, amongst others, National Park Authorities, Fire and Waste Authorities and Integrated Transport Authorities) to proactively publish certain categories information (in Part 2 of the code) whilst also recommending that they go beyond the minimum (in part 3 of the code). It could be that Part 2 of the code (the mandatory publication requirements) is extended to include more categories of information. There is also a Transparency Code for Smaller Authorities published in December last year, which could similarly be extended.

Could the Tories make an assault on FOI now that there is no coalition partner to hold them back? David Cameron has, in the past, expressed his irritation with FOI. In March 2012, giving evidence to a Select Committee, he said that FOI was “furring up the arteries” of government. More recently, speaking to the Times newspaper, he said:

“I wish we’d spent more time in opposition thinking about how to declutter government. What I call the buggeration factor, of consulting and consultations and health and safety and judicial review and FOI [the Freedom of Information Act] … Just generally, if you want to do something, build a road, start a new college, launch a programme to encourage people to build more houses – it takes a bloody long time.”

Until yesterday there were no post election clues about the fate of FOI. And then came the appointment of Michael Gove as Justice Secretary; the head of the government department that is responsible for, among other things, Freedom of Information. To say that Gove is no fan of FOI is like saying George Galloway does not like losing elections. This is the same Michael Gove who, a few years ago, was at the wrong end of an Information Commissioner Decision Notice. This related to his time as Education Secretary when he and his officials had routinely used personal email accounts to discuss official, often controversial, Department business. Apparently this was done in the belief that such emails would not be disclosable pursuant to an FOI request.

At present Gove has more pressing matters to deal with. Scrapping the Human Rights Act seems to be the Tories’ top priority. But when he does get round to FOI, it is very likely that the FOI Fees Regulations will be amended to make it easier to refuse requests for information on costs grounds. In July 2012, the Justice Select Committee published its Report into Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Government published its official response in December 2012. The Committee recommended that consideration be given to reducing the amount of time an authority need take in searching for and compiling information:

“We would suggest something in the region of two hours, taking the limit to 16 hours rather than 18, but anticipate the Government would want to carry out further work on how this would affect the number of requests rejected.”

The Government, in its response, said that it doubts that much will be achieved through the reduction of the costs limit. It was though in favour of allowing additional factors to be taken into account in deciding whether the 18 hour limit has been reached:

“The Government does not share the assessment of the Committee that it is unfeasible to develop an objective and fair methodology for calculating the cost limit which includes further time spent dealing with information in response to a request. As such, the Government is minded to explore options for providing that time taken to consider and redact information can be included in reaching the cost limit.”

So whilst the Committee rejected the suggestion that reading, consideration and redaction time should also be taken into account when deciding whether the 18 hour limit has been reached, it could be that the Fees Regulations are amended to allow this.

At present the costs of different FOI requests can be aggregated only where the requests relate to the same or similar information. The Government may change this to make it even easier to aggregate costs. At paragraph 19 of its response, it stated:

“We will also look at addressing where one person or group of people’s use of FOIA to make unrelated requests to the same public authority is so frequent that it becomes inappropriately or disproportionately burdensome.”

Fees could also be introduced for FOI tribunal appeals. The Committee never considered the issue but the Government (at paragraph 24 of its response) indicated that it was considering the idea:

“…the Government is keen explore the potential for users to contribute more towards the costs of tribunals. Fees are already charged in some jurisdictions (for example, in the Immigration and Asylum tribunal) and we will examine the scope for extending this approach to other types of tribunal, including the Information tribunal.”

One thing is for certain. The Police Federation will be made subject to FOI. In a speech in May 2014 the Home Secretary, Theresa May, said that the Police Federation needs to be more accountable to the public. In March this year she announced that there was no time to amend FOI to add it to the list of public authorities but she also published a draft clause “that demonstrates how that change could be made in legislation, with the intention this would be fulfilled in the next Parliament.”

Interesting times ahead for FOI officers.

No time to attend our FOI Update workshops? Try our live FOI webinars. One hour of interactive learning for only £39 plus vat.