Roger
The first point I would make is that it is not a criminal offence to breach
the Principles, an Enforcement Notice (EN) is all that can be applied. If
the EN is not complied with, that can lead to a criminal action.
Secondly, the Returning Officer (and ERO for that matter) is a creature of
statute, if they disclose data as required by the law - i.e. to candidates,
other people who purchase the register, etc - they need not fear the DPA as
their actions are exempt, AND they have no obligation to inform the
recipients of their legal duties - otherwise they'd be telling the likes of
credit reference firms how to suck eggs.
In terms of advising candidates and any other recipients of the Electoral
Register of their legal obligations that would be a matter for the council to
decide. The RO and ERO should not worry because the disclosure cannot be
reckless, even if the candidate is not registered, because the disclosure is
required by law.
If you do intend to advise the recipients of their legal obligations and
liabilities you will need to ask:
1) whether they are data controllers in their own right or acting as agents
of a political party (independents may be data controllers);
2) was the data fairly obtained? I would say yes in the first instance,
because the Representation of the Peoples Act makes it so;
3) is data added during a canvas fairly obtained, adequate, relevant, not
excessive, kept for no longer than necessary, appropriately secure, etc.?
That will depend on the individual circumstances and if they are acting on
behalf of their political party it would be up to that party to instruct them
on what can and cannot be done with the information.
Regards
Ian Buckland
MD
Keep IT Legal Ltd
Please Note: The information contained in this document does not replace or
negate the need for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
essential that you do not rely upon any advice given without contacting your
solicitor. If you need further explanation of any points raised please
contact Keep I.T. Legal Ltd at the address below:
55 Curbar Curve
Inkersall, Chesterfield
Derbyshire S43 3HP
(Reg 3822335)
Tel: 01246 473999
Fax: 01246 470742
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Roger wrote:
<<Subj: Candidates for Elections and Responsibilities of the Returning
Officer?
Date: 24/05/2000 11:58:49 GMT Daylight Time
From: [log in to unmask] (Roger Glover)
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask] (Roger Glover)
To: [log in to unmask] ([log in to unmask])
Would group members like to comment and inform me if they agree or disagree
with my arguements below or whether I have missed vital information from
other legislation. I just feel that I am probably wrong but cannot think of
exactly why, maybe I have delevoped the" data protection blindness" in that
all I ever see is problems and not the common sense solutions. PS the
document is reasonably lengthy.
Data Protection Advice Query for Electoral Returning Officer.
The Representation of the Peoples Act states that every candidate in an
election is entitled to a copy of the relevant parts of the Electoral Roll
for that election.
This information is provided for the purpose of "Canvassing Political
Support Amongst the Electorate".
There is no data protection issue in providing this information, being
statute driven.
The Election Candidate having accepted the list of information is now a Data
Controller in the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 simply by the fact
that he is holding a paper list of that part of the Electoral roll. ( The
candidate is now controlling how( ie the manner) and for what purposes that
information is used). The expectation has to be that it will be used for
what is was provided for.
Question ?? Should there be a clause restricting what purposes the
candidates can use the information for?
Question?? Should this clause be a condition the candidate agrees to
before being accepted as a candidate in the election??
The traditional view is that the candidate will now use that list to conduct
their campaign by visiting some of the constituents. This is usually
organised from the paper copy.
The campaign may consist of personal visits , addressed correspondence
mailshots etc..
Provided the information is not input into any "means of automatic
processing" there is no compulsion on the candidate to "Notify" for the
processing ( holding) with the Data Protection Commissioner.
However, the Data Protection Act still requires the Candidate to comply with
the Eight Principles.
Failure to do so is a criminal offence.
The candidate , or his helpers, in a traditional view of canvassing will
visit constituents and solicit their support in the election. This support
(or not) is usually recorded on a list of names and addresses or directly
on a copied version of the Electoral roll.
What has been recorded is the political voting intention of that
constituent. I consider this information ie which way you are going to vote
to be Sensitive Personal data as defined in Section 2(b) of the 98 Act.
As sensitive personal data at least one criteria of schedule 2 and one of
schedule 3 must apply for the processing to be lawful.
Schedule 2.
I would infer that clause 6 or 5(a) could be cited as the criteria. Clause
1 would be better but I guess that not all constituents would provide that
consent as their names have been added to the electoral roll under threat of
a large fine if they do not.
Schedule 3.
I am finding it difficult to find a relevant clause for schedule 3 other
than clause 1 l( data subject consent). My examination of the other clauses
of schedule 3 conclude with these thoughts....
Clause 2.... Does the Representaion of the Peoples Act confer a right for
candidates to record sensitive personal data? I do not consider it so... it
confers the right for them to know which people will be included in the
poll.
Clause 3.... Vital interests of the data subject..... an election vote could
hardly be described as that...there may be compulsion for people to register
but the compulsion does extend to having to vote.
Clause 4.... My understanding is that at an election the voters are
electing an individual ( ie one of the candidates) their vote is not for
the Political party. In any case if that were so ,what would the position
be for the Independent Candidate that had no party machine behind them.
Don't forget clause 4 pararaphs (a) to (d) all have to be met ie they are
ANDED not Ored.
Clause 5.... Being made public by deliberate steps.... Would not apply. One
or two constituents might but not the entire electoral roll.
Clause 6 legal proceedings....does not apply.
Clause 7 Necessary function..... does not apply.
Clause 8... medical purpose......does not apply.
Clause 9.... Monitoring of equality.... Does not apply.
Clause 10 Order of the Secretary of State..... I know of none.
So after considering all of this , if voting intentions are to be recorded
the only clause that would legitimise that processing in my view is
obtaining the data subject's consent......informed positive consent.
In conclusion, I am brought to the view that to comply strictly with good
practice as expounded by the Act and as no candidate would wish to have
their use of the electoral roll challenged during a election period ,
therefore they all must....
1 be registered for Canvassing of Political Support amongst the
Electorate
2 obtain the informed positive consent of the data subject before
recording any political view, opinion or intention on the electoral roll or
any other referenced list.
For the Returning Officer, provided my argument is correct, these concerns
arise...
1 What advice should be given when an application to be a candidate in
an election is received?
2 Should the Returning Officers actually check that any candidate is
Registered before disclosing/releasing personal data to be used in an
illegal processing of information?
OR does the Representation of the Peoples Act provide the
basis for election candidates to completely ignore the data rights of
individuals ( Human Rights ) and for Returning Officers to issue personal
data in circumstances where they know the data protection laws will be
broken.
Finally consider the chaos and confusion amongst the electorate if claims
and counter claims of mal practice are bandied around during the next
election. The Dobson fiasco did nothing to enhance the reputationof our
electioneering process.
The requirement for Candidates to hold a data protection notification is
evident if the information is input to a computer and further processed to
aid the canvassing and to record those constituents a candidate has
identified that would maximise their vote if mobilised to the poll. (The
basis of the process as I understand it.)
I am aware this all sounds rather silly and the our national Election
process shouldn't be placed in this type of embarrassing position where the
legislation surrounding can be interpreted to make all candidates, using
what I understand to be the age old standard practices, to be potentially
committing criminal offences.
I hope you are able to point out where my facts or logic are not correct.
Roger Glover.
24 /May 2000
Election-candidates.doc>>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|