The JCHR, a Parliamentary Committee which considers draft legislation in the light of its compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights legislation, is concerned that there is insufficient detail in the Bill to be able to determine whether or not it will infringe on the right to privacy.
The plans for a national children's database form part of the proposed Children Act, which is currently working its way through Parliament.
Under the Act, a national database will be set up to allow the exchange of information between agencies, including the NHS and Social Services. The database will allocate a unique ID number to each child in the UK and will contain such details as a child's:
In their most recent report, published last week, the JCHR recognised both the need to protect children from abuse, and the obligation placed on States to take action to protect children where it knows, or should have known, that such abuse was taking place.
This, said the JCHR, may require the sharing of information about a child – but must be balanced against the child's right to privacy, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Committee was therefore "concerned about the lack of detail contained on the face of the Bill and the breadth of the regulation-making powers being conferred on the Secretary of State in a context involving serious interferences with" the right to privacy.
The Committee continued:
"The Government's explanation for not dealing with the details of the proposed databases in [the bill] is that it needs to retain flexibility to develop the databases in light of the experiences of the current pilot projects being carried out and technical advice which has been commissioned but not yet delivered."
This means, said the Committee, that "Parliament is being asked to authorise in advance a major interference with Article 8 rights without the evidence demonstrating its necessity being available."
Furthermore, said the Committee, under the Government's current plans much of the detail, including privacy safeguards, will be added later by a type of legislation that will not be subjected to the detailed scrutiny of the Committee or, indeed, Parliament.
The Committee also expressed doubt whether a database was needed to cover all children, as opposed to simply those who had been identified as at risk.
"We are concerned," it said, that "if the justification for information-sharing about children is that it is always proportionate where the purpose is to identify children who need child welfare services, there is no meaningful content left to a child's Article 8 right to privacy and confidentiality in their personal information."
Dr Chris Pounder, editor of Data Protection and Privacy Practice, a newsletter published by Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, commented:
"In many respect the Select Joint Committee on Human Rights are repeating the same criticisms expressed in relation to the ID Card database. For instance, where the Home Affairs Select Committee said that the purposes behind the ID Card scheme were vague and that it was 'unacceptable' to use secondary legislation to define important details of ID Card proposals, in the context of the Children Bill the JCHR is saying that it can't judge the Article 8 issues (respect for private life) because there is insufficient details in the primary legislation."
Dr. Pounder continued:
"As with the ID Card database, the data sharing provision of the Children Bill effectively describes an exemption from many Data Protection Principles. The fact that it is the Secretary of State who determines the purposes, disclosures, database content, retention criteria and security in legislation effectively removes the protection afforded by the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh principles".