I'm not convinced there is much difference in practice.
1995 Article 5 already links the conditions for processing to the concept of lawfulness in Article 6, and the conditions in Art 7 are at least part of those conditions. Bottom line is there are three requirements: fairness, lawfulness (which includes but is not limited to compliance with the conditions), and minimum compliance with the Art 7 (and 8) conditions. Drafting could have kept these separate but since P1 says "and" it really makes no difference.
Turning it around, if you do have an Article 7 (Sched 2) ground it still matters whether the processing is fair or unfair. E.g. court orders a disclosure - condition 3 bites but as a DC I am only relieved of the duty of fair processing if to do so would be inconsistent with the disclosure. If not inconsistent and I do not tell subject, if practicable, I am in breach of DPA requirements. Sched 1 part II still mandatory if the non-disclosure provisions exemption doesn't apply.
As to FPN and the basis of processing clearly GDPR is much clearer, but 1995 recital 38, if fully and transparently implemented, does almost the same thing in my view.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
