On 8 April last year, the European court of justice ruled that an EU directive relating to the privacy of electronic communications was invalid. This created a dilemma for the Westminster government because a law made under the authority of EU directives was due for renewal.
What the Westminster government chose to do was wait three months, then in July bring forward emergency legislation that not only renewed the existing laws in this area, but extended the government’s surveillance powers. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 passed swiftly, received minimum scrutiny in parliament, and coincided with a more newsworthy cabinet reshuffle.
The British Association of Social Workers recently joined the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bar Council and the National Union of Journalists to issue a statement of concern about the legislation.
Support and protection, not surveillance
Some critics who believe social workers play their part in surveillance may wonder why we have professional concerns about its role in the state. There is a myth to be dispelled; the fact is that social work is not about surveillance.
We support. We protect. Our mandate for support is consent; happily, much of what social workers do is because people want our services. Our mandate for protection is the high legal thresholds that allow us to intervene compulsorily in cases of serious concern. But we do not have, and do not want, a third mandate for surveillance of the population as a whole, not least because it helps explain why we can’t always prevent every tragedy that occurs.
Trust matters
Alongside other professionals, a relationship of trust matters to social workers. Our professional code of ethics requires us to “respect the principles of confidentiality that apply to our relationships and ensure that confidential information is divulged only with the consent of the person using social work services or the informant. Exceptions to this may only be justified on the basis of a greater ethical requirement, such as evidence of serious risk or the preservation of life.” Our duty to ensure that confidential information is kept as such means we must speak out about legislation that threatens the professional relationship of trust and confidence.
However, alongside the other Professionals for Information Privacy, we have expressed particular concern for our members. Social workers, it seems, may themselves be the subject of surveillance. Sadly, from time to time, our members will need to address bad practice, and often will want to do so in confidence. I realise there is whistle-blowing legislation, but that often does not give our members the necessary confidence.
After all, the legislation only exists in recognition of the problem that too often we want to shoot the messenger instead of address the message. If we talk to journalists – partners in the same coalition – we both want to know the state isn’t intercepting our communications. We know that unlawful surveillance by employers takes place. Only last month Caerphilly council was criticised by the information commissioner for surveillance of a sick employee.
Returning to the European court’s judgment, it ruled that “the wide-ranging and particularly serious interference of the directive with the fundamental rights at issue is not sufficiently circumscribed to ensure that that interference is actually limited to what is strictly necessary”. When the EU talks about fundamental rights, many of those rights are what we better know as human rights. Human rights are the concern of social workers across every continent, central to social work’s definition and purpose. We are committed to ensuring that interference not only with this human right, but with all human rights, is limited to what is strictly necessary.
Why not join our social care community? Becoming a member of the Guardian Social Care Network means you get sent weekly email updates on policy and best practice in the sector, as well as exclusive offers. You can sign up – for free – online here.
