(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab):...I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful
clarification. Let me phrase the question differently, with
different examples. The Home Office and many police forces are
outsourcing many of their activities, some of which are bound to
involve data collected by global organisations such as G4S. Is
she reassuring us that any and all data collected and processed
for law enforcement activities will be held within the boundaries
of the United Kingdom and therefore subject to easy
implementation of clause 67?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department (Victoria Atkins): The controller will be a
law enforcement agency, to which part 3 will apply. I note that
clause 200 provides details of the Bill’s territorial application
should a processor be located overseas, but under part 3 it will
be law enforcement agencies that are involved.
: Where G4S, for
example, is employed to help with deportations, the Minister is
therefore reassuring us that the data controller would never be
G4S. However, if there were an activity that was clearly a law
enforcement activity, such as voluntary removal, would the data
controller always be in Britain and therefore subject to clause
67, even where private sector partners are used? The Minister may
outsource the contract, but we want to ensure that she does not
outsource the role of data controller so that a law enforcement
activity here can have a data controller abroad.
: I appreciate the sentiment behind the
amendment. If the Home Office outsources processing to an
overseas company, any enforcement action would be taken against
the Home Office as the controller. The right hon. Gentleman has
raised the example of G4S in the immigration context, so I will
reflect on that overnight and write to him to ensure that the
answer I have provided also covers that situation...
To read the complete debate, CLICK
HERE
