The Bishop of Oxford received the following written answer on 17th October 2023:
The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked His Majesty’s Government:
On 4th September 2023, the Bishop of St Albans asked a question on the safety and security of NHS data systems during a discussion on recent reports from the Electoral Commission regarding a data breach:
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, the stakes are very high when these data breaches take place, because they erode public confidence in allowing organisations to collect and use our private data. I am thinking in particular of the NHS, and its great reliance on data; if it can analyse and collect information, this could be of huge help in solving medical problems and curing diseases. To prevent these things in future, what is being done to ensure that the NHS computer system cannot be hacked and that people can have real confidence in it being allowed to collect their data?
Continue reading “Bishop of St Albans asks about safeguards against data breaches”
The Bishop of Gloucester received the following written answers on 4th September 2023:
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the pilot, launched in March 2021, with 15 magistrates’ courts, involving the Ministry of Justice, HMCTS and the probation service, of an alternative delivery model to increase the number of cases receiving pre-sentence reports.
Continue reading “Bishop of Gloucester asks about data collection in criminal justice”On 14th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill in Committee. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of an amendment tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool and in the name of the Bishop of London and other peers. The amendment “would prevent immigration data being shared for the purposes of section 2(1) about a victim or witness of crime who reports an offence. This is to ensure victims are able to approach the authorities for assistance without fear of removal under section 2(1) as a result of that contact or resultant data sharing with immigration enforcement.”
The Bishop of Durham also spoke to his amendment 139B during the same speech, an amendment which “would give the Secretary of State a statutory duty to implement all ‘recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in relation to immigration detention’ centres within six months, strengthening the independent external monitoring role of the chief inspector.”
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 139A, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of London has added her name, and then I will turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I remind the Committee of my interests as laid out regarding RAMP and Reset.
As we have heard, Amendment 139A would prevent data about a victim of or a witness to a crime being automatically shared for the purpose of immigration enforcement. My right reverend friend the Bishop of London sponsored a similar amendment during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, and this issue remains hugely important.
Imkaan reports that more than 90% of abused women with insecure immigration status had their abusers use the threat of their removal from the UK to dissuade them from reporting their abuse. It is deeply disturbing that any person would be deterred from reporting a crime that they have been subjected to or have witnessed because they believe that their data will be passed on to immigration officials for the purposes of immigration control. This is especially pertinent for a domestic abuse victim, a modern slavery victim, someone who has been trafficked or someone who has been subject to violence.
Continue reading “Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendment in the name of the Bishop of London to protect victims of trafficking, and tables amendment on conditions in immigration detention centres”
The Bishop of St Albans received the following written answer on 8th February 2023:
The Lord Bishop of St Albans asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any security threat posed by the collection of biometric data by direct-to-consumer DNA testing ancestry companies.
Lord Murray of Blidworth: The Home Office has made no such assessment.
On 7th March 2022, the House of Lords debated the Health and Care Bill in its report stage. Votes were held on amendments in which Bishops took part.
On 8th December 2021, the House of Lords debated the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in its first day of the report stage. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of amendments to ensure data protection regulations are maintained when data is shared under the bill:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests in policing ethics and my work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as set out in the register. I trust that those interests assure your Lordships that I am a strong supporter of effective policing, not its adversary.
As an occasional statistician, I am also well aware of the power and utility of data. Good data, including on the risks of serious violence, can provide the evidence that allows the limited resources of our police forces to be directed to the particular challenges faced in different contexts and localities. Perhaps it is because I trained not as a lawyer but as a mathematician that I hold firmly to the maxim that, before one can begin to find the right solution, one has to have clearly defined the problem. I am not sure that these clauses, as presently drafted, fully pass that test.
Continue reading “Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Bishop of Manchester supports amendments on data protection”On 8th December 2021, the House of Lords debated Commons Amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Votes were held on further amendments to the bill, in which a Bishop took part:
On 27th October 2021, during a committee debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Bishop of Bristol spoke in support of an amendment tabled by Lord Rosser which would seek to remove immigration officers from lists of people authorised to carry out data extraction from personal devices:
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, some common themes are emerging. I rise in support of Amendment 107, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to which I have added my name, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The inclusion in this Bill of immigration officers among those authorised to undertake digital extractions strikes me as extremely troubling, particularly in the absence of significantly more detail on the safeguards, including the meaning of “agreement” and the specificity of the data sought, and the relevant training and expertise of these officers. Voluntary provision and agreement to extract data must surely rely on a level of informed consent. If it is not, then “voluntary” and “agreement” are just empty words.
Continue reading “Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill: Bishop of Bristol supports amendment to limit data extraction powers of immigration officers”
The Bishop of London received the following written answer on 26th April 2021:
The Lord Bishop of London asked Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the breakdown by (1) protected characteristic, and (2) socio-economic background, of the patients who choose to opt out of surgery following the waiting list validation process.
Lord Bethell (Con, DHSC): No formal assessment has been made. Data on protected characteristics and socio-economic background is not collected centrally.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.