The judgment in Pepper v. Hart (1992) means that clarification
about the intentions of Parliament expressed in an Act can be
found in the statements of the Bill's sponsors during Parliamentary
debate.
A Court "may make reference to Parliamentary material, such as
Hansard, where legislation is;
ambiguous or obscure.
the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a
minister or other promoter of the Bill together with such other
Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such
statements and their effect; and
the statements relied upon are clear".
So we can indeed look to the government's intent.
However...
See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/datap4.htm
************************************************
"2.11 The Government has considered the way forward in the light
of these considerations. It has also had regard to the provisions
likely to be made in other EU Member States. It has concluded
that the right approach is to apply the Directive to those non-
automated records which are structured by reference to individuals
or criteria relating to individuals, and which allow easy access to
the personal data they contain.
2.12 This approach would cover card indexes, microfiches and
similar collections from which personal data are capable of being
readily extracted. It would also include files about named
individuals in which each item has an internal structure conforming
to some common system. An example might be a file with the
subject's name or another unique personal identifier on the cover,
and containing one or more pro-formas.
2.13 This leaves those files about named individuals whose
contents are not structured by reference to information about those
individuals. An example might be a file with the subject's name on
the cover and containing a variety of papers in date order with no
simple, systematic means of readily identifying specific personal
data. Such files would not be caught by the definition. Recital 27
makes this clear. It says "... files or sets of files as well as their
cover pages which are not structured according to specific criteria,
shall under no circumstances fall within the scope of this
Directive". However, there may be circumstances in which some of
the personal data on the file are capable of being readily identified
and retrieved. For example a document containing personal data of
a particular kind could have been flagged on successive files in a
series. In this case the personal data on the flagged documents
could be caught, although the rest of the files might not."
************************************************
I would suggest that any appropriate office filing system for a
subject such as the Access Fund would have to fall within the
above stated criteria for a 'relevant filing system' (in part due to the
structured nature of the form itself). Indeed, if I was a University
administrator, I would be concerned if it did not, not least for the
purposes of audit.
> >Will not access depend upon whether, or not, the forms are kept in a
> "relevant filing system", Section 1.
>
> Whilst the Act was going through parliament it was said that a file holding
> papers in date order with no means of readily identifying specific
> information except by looking at every document would not be a "relevant
> filing system".
Andrew Charlesworth
Senior Lecturer in IT law
Director, Information Law and Technology Unit
University of Hull Law School
Hull, UK, HU6 7RX
Voice: 01482 466387 Fax: 01482 466388
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|