Georgia L Gilholy is a journalist.
The Government has long since admitted to having relentlessly “monitored” journalists, everyday Joes, and even its own parliamentarians for the non-crime of daring to criticise their response to Covid-19.
Several years on since the height of Coronavirus, it is clear that many overzealous state mandates that vowed to reduce harm, inflicted more of it than good. Yet Westminster’s impulse to ramp up surveillance on a politically exhausted populace is not punished, but instead further indulged.
On Tuesday evening, the Government inserted a clause into the Data Protection & Digital Information Bill with little fanfare, despite its huge potential implications. If passed, these amendments would force banks to monitor all bank accounts.
But, surely, all banks do this anyway? Oh, and is this not only about welfare recipients anyhow?
I wish to use this column to warn you against such naivety.
Critics argue that the proposed law represents an unprecedented level of financial intrusion by the state, particularly for marginalised groups such as people with disabilities, and carers, who are disproportionately more likely to use the welfare system.
Aside from these specific concerns, these clauses are antithetical to the English common law tradition that one is free until the law forbids you, echoing the civil law presumption-once alien to English justice- that one is free only if the law explicitly says so. This should be enough to oppose them.
Under current rules, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can only request bank account holders’ transaction details on a case-by-case basis if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. The proposed powers would allow the DWP to access the personal data of welfare recipients by requiring the third party served with a notice – such as a bank or building society – to conduct mass monitoring without suspicion of fraudulent activity. The new laws would force banks to process the data of all bank account holders and run automated surveillance scanning for benefits recipients.
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, attempted to insert a recommittal motion that would force the Bill to be scrutinised at the committee stage, but his colleagues apparently did not agree. The clauses will now go to the Lords for further consideration.
The new law would grant the DWP the authority to access the personal data of welfare recipients through mass monitoring, even without any suspicion of fraudulent activity.
Section 3(a) states that this includes anyone “linked” to the receipt of a benefit. Although Section 2(6) seems to imply that “linked” means the same person claiming said benefit, the term remains vaguely defined, encompassing not only the benefit recipient but also others such as ex-partners, cohabitants, children, or landlords.
Moreover, the lack of specificity in the amendment allows for a broad range of information to be requested, potentially revealing sensitive details about individuals, including their personal preferences and lifestyle choices.
A Government spokesperson told one publication that the clause intends to target “benefit fraudsters who are intent on ripping off the public purse”, while Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mel Stride claims the powers “will be used proportionately”, but can we assume this will be the case?
Does anyone really trust the Government to only penalise people who have genuinely committed a criminal offence if this mass monitoring commences? The amendment’s reliance on automated decision-making processes is suspect, as is the lack of legally binding assurances that no automatic decisions will be made based on data alone.
How could we forget the Post Office scandal, in which hundreds of workers for the state-owned network were plunged into over two decades of legal troubles after a computer accounting system falsely implicated them in theft from their workplace. A public inquiry into the matter remains ongoing? Or the Scottish Council set to receive a bumper £2.1 million back from HMRC after being taxed incorrectly for 16 years? The many small business owners who complain that their livelihoods are being “suffocated” via “scattergun” tax probes?
According to the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, banks will have to process the data of all bank account holders and run automated surveillance scanning for benefits recipients in order to comply with these fresh diktats. This level of intrusion and monitoring affecting millions of people is highly likely to result in serious mistakes and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. They also warn that these penalties could cripple small, local firms with limited capacity to respond to such requests.
It does not help the Government’s case that it has seemingly done little to publicly explain this huge legal change which could result in an unprecedented assault on financial privacy, with the biggest implications, as usual, for those on the lowest rungs of the income ladder.
If the Government does not back down on these plans, they will once again confirm their determination to treat ordinary citizens as if they were guilty unless proven otherwise, to the detriment of our constitution.