Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their call for views
and evidence for the Review of Representative Action Provisions,
Section 189 Data Protection Act 2018, published on 27 August
2020, what plans they have to reflect the views of the children
consulted as part of the Review in changes to the Data Protection
Act 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport ()
My Lords, DCMS officials consulted children directly as part of
the call for views. Children who responded pointed to a lack of
awareness about how to complain to the ICO or take action against
a data controller when things go wrong. That is why we have
committed to work with the ICO and other interested parties to
raise awareness about the redress mechanisms available to all
data subjects, including children. Our focus is on improving the
operation of current law, rather than making legislative changes.
(CB) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. However, the other
thing that children said in the Government’s own review was that
96% of them thought that charities should be able to represent
them—and that they had a “lack of support” and
“had not heard of the ICO.”
As the noble Baroness said, they also lacked awareness of how
companies such as advertisers might use their personal data—so
they may not even know that they have a problem. As such, I
challenge the noble Baroness to say that only a handful people
can successfully understand and challenge data protection law.
The other thing is that the Government’s reasoning was that
children now benefit from the protections of the age-appropriate
design code, so I ask the noble Baroness, as Minister for Youth
Policy and DCMS: how do the Government reconcile wilfully
ignoring the views of children—in favour of the business
interests of the tech sector—with their duties under Article 12
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is that views
must be heard in “matters affecting the child”? Are we to
understand from this that—
(Con)
My Lords, could the noble Baroness curtail her question? It is
time for the Minister to reply.
(CB) [V]
I beg your pardon. Is it the Government’s position to adopt
protections for children and then block meaningful routes of
redress?
The Lord Speaker ()
It is very important that those people asking supplementary
questions keep them to a sensible time—otherwise, it simply
knocks out other speakers lower down the list.
(Con)
I reject the noble Baroness’s suggestion that the Government are
blocking off meaningful means of redress. Our current data
protection laws already offer strong protections to people,
including children and other vulnerable groups, and we will
continue to assist them in exercising their rights. Through the
review, we sought, and have listened to, the views of children
and their parents, and we are working with the Information
Commissioner’s Office to raise awareness of the redress
mechanisms available to them. Finally, civil society groups can
still make complaints on behalf of children, as the noble
Baroness suggests.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is very hard to square the two strands that the
Minister is dwelling on: that children were in favour of more
legislation to help them challenge the issues concerned with
their data, but also that there was not a strong enough case for
introducing legislation. Given that the consequence of that
decision, as has been said, is more children suffering from
identity theft, online grooming, data profiling and
microtargeting, can the Minister help us by explaining what would
have been a strong enough case?
(Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, we considered the views of children
and business, but the real issue here is less what would be a
strong enough case and more whether the existing law is
adequate—which we believe it is—and whether it needs to be
implemented in a way that allows all data subjects to seek
redress more easily, which it does; that is what we are working
on.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a
pressing need for much greater levels of awareness and
understanding? Furthermore, does would she agree that it is
crucial that we enable our young people, and indeed all people,
to be financially, digitally and—crucially—data literate and
aware?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and that is why we focused,
and will publish later this year, our media literacy strategy.
This was absolutely underlined by the responses from parents.
(Con) [V]
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of just how time-consuming it
is for a young person to go through a complaint under the ICO
rules, which is something I personally have done and have helped
children with? Does she not consider it worth making it very
clear to children that the civil society organisations
representing them can do the bulk of the work, without constantly
having to refer back to the child?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a fair point about the complexity in this
area, but the ICO has been very clear that it will investigate
companies that do not comply with the GDPR concerns reported to
it—and that it will accept referrals and complaints from civil
society organisations, which can play an important role.
(CB)
My Lords, as a family judge, I regularly talked to children, some
of them very young, about what they wanted to happen to them at
the end of the proceedings. May I urge the Minister really and
seriously to listen to children—because they very often have
something extremely valuable to say?
(Con)
I entirely concur with the noble Baroness.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I read the government response to the call for
evidence, it struck me that it is as important, if not more so,
to take account of and reflect on adequate protections and to
ensure that they are in place for young people, who evidently
have a distinct lack of knowledge and awareness about, for
example, how an advertiser might use their personal data. If the
noble Baroness agrees with me on that point, what thought have
she and her department given to delivering that extra protection
by non-legislative means? If she has any examples to share, I am
sure the House would welcome them.
(Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, particularly in relation
to adtech. As he will be aware, the ICO has recently reopened its
investigation into it, which it had to pause last year because of
Covid-19 constraints. If it is to be effective, our media
literacy strategy needs to cover all these points, including
giving children and their parents an understanding of how their
data is used.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, among millions of disadvantaged parents and children,
awareness of data protection and online harms in general is very
fragmented. Could the Minister assure the House that the children
consulted came from all sorts of backgrounds to give a broader
picture? Does she agree that we cannot leave it to parents and
teachers to manage the complexity of data protection—particularly
in the context of online harms and safeguarding children from
grooming and sexual exploitation—without government leadership
with structural safety legislation?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right that it is important that we always
talk to a wide range of children, which we always seek to do. She
is also right that the responsibility to sort this out should not
fall to the child or parents; really, we need this to be
addressed much earlier on, which is one of the reasons that, in
addition to the age-appropriate design code, the Government are
developing a one-stop shop to give companies practical guidance
about keeping children safer online.
(Con)
[V]
My Lords, can the Minister comment on what steps the Government
will take to stop organisations’ growing use of “legitimate
interest” to get around cookie refusals? What will HMG now do to
help improve knowledge of data protection rights and the
Information Commissioner’s Office among young people? It is clear
from this review that they are, in the main, not aware of what is
done with their personal data or that they can complain to the
ICO.
(Con)
My noble friend is right; as other noble Lords have noted, this
is a challenging area for young people in relation to making
complaints. She asked specifically about “legitimate interest”,
and I will write to her on that.
(Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—2021, seek children’s views. They were rejected
because they were asking whether children’s voluntary sector
organisations should represent them in presenting those views. I
understand that this was rejected because there was a lack of
evidence; could the Minister explain this?
(Con)
I apologise; I did not hear the first part of the noble
Baroness’s question because it was cut off, so I will respond in
writing.
