 |
 |
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 The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Unless expressly authorised in writing, disclosure, copying, distribution and retention, in part or in whole, of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. Wokingham District Council cannot guarantee that any files attached to this e-mail are free from viruses or any other program code that may be harmful to your computer, and, as such, is not liable for any damage that may be caused as a result. Please delete this e-mail if it is not intended for you. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%