Consultation on DCMS proposals on weakening GDPR protection of our data

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) proposes to ‘reform’ the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), which are EU-wide, to a new, UK data regulatory framework, the UK GDPR.

See Open Rights for more details.

See also the Open Rights group statement of September 2021:

WHY ON EARTH IS THE GOVERNMENT MUCKING ABOUT WITH OUR PRIVACY LAWS?

Thursday evening, the UK Government published their long-awaited proposal for a new UK data protection regime. The new framework is the peak of a journey Open Rights Group has followed closely, starting from the National Data Strategy and down to the TIGRR report and the Digital Regulation Plan.

We will thoroughly analyse and react to Government consultation, but there is already enough that confirms our worst fears. Behind the fig leaf of ‘tougher penalties and fines for nuisance calls and text messages’, the UK Government has put forward a deregulating approach that would enable data uses based on commercial viability, with little regard of the externalities and resulting harms for UK residents. The UK Government will also try to game the EU adequacy system and allow international transfers of EU data to third countries with lower data protection standards, in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage against EU Member States.

This proposal marks a quite fundamental departure from the principles, enshrined in the data protection frameworks of the European Union and the Council of Europe, that innovation and the use of personal data should be centred on human rights and designed to serve mankind. If implemented, it is also likely to undermine the already weak UK adequacy decision — an outcome that would harm local businesses and damage UK aspirations to become an international standard-setter in this field”.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) published a 146 page consultation document on its proposals, with a closing date of November 19th 2021. The proposals had almost no publicity, so it is likely that very few people participated in the ‘consultation’.

However, Anna Pollert, secretary of South Warwickshire Keep our NHS Public, sent an email in response to the consultation on November 16th, which was acknowledged by the DCMS.

It is published here:

Dear DCMS,

I do not have time to complete the extremely long formal consultation document on revising the GDPR. It is far too long for the majority of the population and so is not really a viable public consultation. I see no efforts on your part to publicise the plans to engage citizens.
I wish to make a marker here on my objections:

At present, the GDPR protects individuals from harmful or discriminatory uses of their data. It does so by imposing a duty on organisations to use our data in a legal, transparent, and fair way.

The DCMS proposal, instead, frames human dignity as an obstacle in the way of innovation. Organisations are given leeway to harm and discriminate under the guise of “unleashing the power of data across the economy”.

It will allow organisations to re-use personal data for commercial use, particularly by broadening the definition of ‘research’ to include market research for commercial purposes. This allows for the commercialisation of our health data. 

The proposals to liberalise the further use of data for reasons of “substantial public interest” begs the question of what “public interest” means. It would give the Government unprecedented power to apprehend records and data being stored by public or private organisations and look for “suspect” activities. Migrants are likely to be incredibly affected by such a regime, as they routinely hand over bank statements, utility bills and other documents to prove their right to work, to reside, or to rent in the UK.

The GDPR empowers individuals to know if and how an organisation is using their data, for what reason, as well as to delete, correct, or object to the use of this data.

The DCMS proposal, instead, treats our rights to know, choose and complain about how their data is used as an annoyance to get rid of. In particular, the proposal to charge for obtaining our data is a fundamental affront to our civil rights.

There is a great deal more to say, but, like most of the population, I do not have the time to spend hours on a 146 page document.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Anna Pollert

UNISON fights new subco plan at South Warwickshire Foundation Trust and George Eliot Hospital

The Lowdown November 15th 2021

Many campaigners remember the privatisation of Hinchingbrooke Hospital.  It was claimed far and wide as the answer to turning around a hospital which had posed problems for years.

But after awards were handed out the truth emerged.  The whole sage was a total failure, and the many claims were bogus. The whole exercise was rigged and better NHS solutions were not properly considered.

But when the privatisation model was still being pushed, George Eliot Hospital in Nuneaton also tried to go down that route.

Despite confronting a dishonest and intransigent management, the trade unions and campaigners once more won the day, and the whole deal fell through; other solutions were found. You would have thought someone would learn – but no.

As the peak of the pandemic appeared to recede, management at George Eliot along with partners in South Warwickshire were back on the privatisation/outsourcing bandwagon in April this year, this time trying to hive off IT staff into a “wholly-owned subsidiary”.

Yet again we have management trying to transfer staff out of the NHS into some dodgy subco so the Trust can get tax advantages.  Many thought we had seen the end of that saga too.  Much-vaunted schemes at Bradford and Frimley were both successfully resisted by the trade unions despite massive pressures from NHS management.

Yet again we have management refusing to abide by their legal duties under the NHS Constitution.  They refuse to consult over plans or to have any meaningful discussions over what exactly the problem is that having a subco will solve.  The decision is made, and staff are then ‘consulted’ only over the details of the transfers.

With such an appalling approach by management the subco plans have now had to be confronted by industrial action.  Staff resent being told they will be better off outside the NHS, that they are no longer part of the team – not like doctors or nurses.

IT staff at George Eliot Hospital and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust (SWFT) in Warwick have staged a 2-day strike against plans to transfer them on December 1 against their will and without consultation to Innovate Healthcare Services, a new private subsidiary company set up by the trusts.

George Eliot and SWFT share a chief Executive, Glen Burley, who somehow also manages to hold the CEO job at Wye Valley NHS Trust – and is making no concessions as he pushed forward with the project, claiming that the new wholly owned subsidiary would provide “protection from external providers” and somehow “keep staff within the NHS family.”

However even a Warwick Tory councillor has warned that SWFT is being unfair to those staff who have ‘proudly and loyally’ worked for the health service for years, and this could lead to ‘privatisation of part of the NHS by the backdoor’.

Mr Burley also claims that “Throughout all stages of this process we have worked closely with Union representatives to address their concerns and we are having on-going conversations regarding arrangements with them post transfer.”

UNISON regional organiser Mike Wilson refutes this, insisting that the only offer to negotiate has been on the TUPE transfer of staff out of the NHS, not on the issue of whether or not the company should be set up.

“Like many of their colleagues in healthcare, these staff actively chose to work for the NHS to serve the public. And they’ve done so through the toughest of times during the past few months of the pandemic.

“Now their employers have turned round to say they don’t want them and are forcing them to become a kind of private contractor.”

One staff member told the Coventry Telegraph: “We started work in the NHS, and want to continue this. People are just so disappointed, we are not being listened to. We do not want to work for this private company – we want to stay in the NHS, we are proud to be in the NHS.”

Further action is planned on November 23 and 24.