Peers warn on privacy protection

Whitehall departments must take greater care in considering how their policies affect individual privacy, a committee of peers has said.

The Lords constitution committee also urged Parliament to undertake greater scrutiny of the impact of the state upon traditional liberties and freedoms.

And there should be greater executive and legislative restraint from all public bodies, said the peers.

"Before introducing any new surveillance measure, the government should endeavour to establish its likely effect on public trust and the consequences for public compliance," said Friday's report.

"This task could be undertaken by an independent review body or non-governmental organisation, possibly in conjunction with the Information Commissioner's Office."

The peers also said the ICO should be able to undertake compulsory investigations of private companies, as well as public sector bodies.

And Whitehall was warned that it was not doing enough to consider the full implications of policies.

"We regret that the government has often failed to consult the information commissioner at an early stage of policy development with privacy implications," said the committee.

"We recommend that the government instructs departments to consult the information commissioner at the earliest stages of policy development and that the government should set out in the explanatory notes to bills how and when it consulted the information commissioner, and with what result.

There was also a call for law enforcement authorities to "improve the transparency of consent procedures and forms in respect of the national DNA database" and for improved oversight of all CCTV schemes.

Further criticism was aimed at the use of surveillance powers by councils investigating issues such as inaccurate school applications by parents.

"We recommend that the government consultation on proposed changes to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should consider whether local authorities, rather than the police, are the appropriate bodies to exercise such powers," said the report.

"If it is concluded that they are the appropriate bodies, we believe that such powers should only be available for the investigation of serious criminal offences which would attract a custodial sentence of at least two years.

"We recommend that the government takes steps to ensure that these powers are only exercised where strictly necessary, and in an appropriate and proportionate manner."

And the peers recommended consideration of "a system of judicial oversight for surveillance carried out by public authorities", with individuals who have been the subject of surveillance being informed afterwards if no action is taken.

Parliament should create a joint committee of MPs and peers to examine the surveillance and data powers of the state, added the report, with the ability to draw upon outside research.