Royal Family granted new right of secrecy
Independent: Special exemptions to be written into Freedom of Information Act
While I can understand a politically neutral Monarchy should enjoy the same rights to privacy enjoyed by private individuals in relation to private family matters, the latest reform to FOI, which may have been influenced by Prince Charles’ desire to keep his letters to Ministers secret according to The Independent, I can see no justification for exemption in relation to the more public duties and affairs of the Monarch – particularly if they are funded through the public purse.
The Independent reports…
Ian Davidson, a former member of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), told The Independent: “I’m astonished that the Government should find time to seek to cover up royal finances. When I was on the PAC what we wanted was more disclosure not less.
“Every time we examined royal finances we found extravagance and indulgence as well as abuse of expenses by junior royals.
A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said that the change to the law was necessary because the Freedom of Information Act had failed to protect the constitutional position of the monarch and the heir to the throne. He explained that the sovereign has the right and duty to be consulted, to encourage and warn the government, and by extension, the heir to the throne had the constitutional right and duty to prepare himself for the role of King.
“This constitutional position relies on confidentiality, so that all such correspondence remains confidential,” he said.
But he said that change would also mean that correspondence not covered by the absolute exemption would be made public 10 years earlier than under the current disclosure rules.
The Palace’s position was backed by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, research professor at King’s College London.
He told The Independent: “The essence of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family remain politically neutral.
The right to privacy is to some extent protected by law under Human Rights legislation and The Data Protection Act. Nadine Dorries MP in her blog yesterday may well have overstepped the mark… but has she broken the law?
It’s been a tricksy day at the office today – best explained via the email to my members and statements to the press. I do understand that as an MP I am not really entitled to any privacy, however, I am concerned that any story is reported accurately and therefore, I have blogged the press statements issued today…..
Ms Dorries then goes on to reveal very private information about matters unconnected with her duties as an MP.
Andrew Sharpe, a partner at Charles Russell, writes in CRITique:our commercial law blog:
Domestic purposes abuse?
“…Having decided that the publication of a third party’s medical condition, if it is without explicit consent, is unlawful, raises the question of the consequences. We will deal with this in our next post….”
Nadine Dorries Press Statement: enforcement and remedy
“In our previous post we reviewed in the context of yesterday’s personal statement to the press by Nadine Dorries MP, whether the publication of a person’s medical condition on a website could be unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). If our view that there has been a breach of the DPA is supported, what are the potential consequences for Nadine Dorries MP and what remedies are available to her partner’s wife (“W”), under the DPA?
Firstly, breach of a data protection principle is not of itself a criminal offence. Nothing Nadine Dorries has done appears to be within the scope of any of the criminal offences under the DPA. The disclosures she made in her blog are even within the scope of her notification properly made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (“notification” is the accurate term for the registration of a data controller’s processing purposes required under section 17 of the DPA). So any enforcement action taken by the Information Commissioner against the MP will not include prosecution at this stage.
Nadine Dorries could still be prosecuted if she fails to comply with an enforcement notice made by the Information Commissioner, but as the nature of any enforcement notice would be an order by the Information Commissioner not to breach the relevant data protection principle again, this is unlikely…..
…… This leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that W may have no direct DPA remedy herself, and must rely on the Information Commissioner to take action to give her some redress for the distress she may have suffered as a result of details of her alcoholism being published in breach of the DPA. However, the development of a right to privacy under cases such as Max Mosely v News of the World [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) or Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22 show that a privacy remedy made be available as a result of judicial intervention where no statutory remedy under the DPA is provided.”
Read the remainder of the blog post
An extraordinary situation and well worth examining by reading Andrew Sharpe’s blog post. Damned if you do…damned if you don’t? Was that Nadine Dorries MP’s view and position? An awkward one.
What a toothless piece of legislation the DPA is! It took 10 years to draft by the UK parliamentary draftsmen, presumably so that only the most diluted expression of the European Data Protection Directive would be incorporated into UK law.
Then, on top of the almost complete absence of meaningful penalties for those who breach the Act, the Court of Appeal in Durant v FSA, further diluted the Act by placing a very narrow definition on what constittutes personal data. This effectively restricts the right of data subjects to access the data held about them. This somwhat eccentric interpretation of the definition was done in the name of competitveness so that a business friendly data protection environment was affirmed.
The invocation of the DPA in the Nadine Dorries case would appear to be rather ridiculous, and surely an example of extending the scope of an act outside its original intentions. I come across the DPA in a professional context in that I work in IT where we do handle very large volumes of persona data, including the most sensitive kinds. However, that is strictly in the scope of organisational, commercial and state processing of data, which is what the DPA was originally intended to deal with.
As it is, there were lots of areas where the DPA is something of a sledgehammer – the keeping of records for the local Bridge Club etc. However, when I read the Andrew Sharpe blog (and the European judgement it referred to), I was absolutely staggered by the implied scope. It essentially said that any electronic publication of Sensitive Personal Data by an individual or organisation without explicit consent of the data subject would be illegal under the DPA. (There seems to be some form of implied consent if your deliberate actions made this public).
It should be noted that the definition of SPD includes legal proceedings and court judgements. Companies are only allowed to retain and process such data where it is required for valid business purposes (e.g. credit checking agencies and County Court Judgements). If we take this to the limit, then electronic publication of sentence-expired criminal convictions would be illegal under the DPA (as it is in Germany).
Reading the Daily Mail story, it was an exclusive, and I’ve not idea if this the unhappy subject of the story was paid for it, approached the paper or vice-versa. I don’t know if she agreed to the publication of the story reluctantly or whether what she reveals would have been the same if her estranged husband or daughter had not made a statement. However, it’s clear that this is what triggered the whole episode.
This would appear to be is a rather mundane and sad personal story of which there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of examples which are of interest to only those directly involved. It’s only when we come into the area of public figures that the press takes any notice.
Personally I think this waving around of the DPA is a nonsense. The reaction of Nadine Dorries may be considered undignified, or unpleasant by some, but she’d clearly prefer the whole thing was not in the realm of the press anyway.
Keep the DPA for what it was intended to address. That’s the protection of private data from abuse by commercial, organisational and state interests. If we are to extend the DPA into something that censors the expression of personal circumstances, then we are on a slippery slope. If somebody wants a privacy law over what the media (or individuals) can, or cannot publish in the first place, then can we have an explicit law on this please? At least then there can be some proper expression of intention of parliament’s intentions.
sure dorries was put in an unenviable position, but what possible reason could she have to bang on about some poor bloody woman’s alcoholism? it can only be to justify herself and her decision to start seeing this bloke. i couldn’t give a toss about who she does or doesn’t sleep with whether they are married to someone else or not. that is entirely private and personal information about her i don’t want or need (and not just because the thought of her makes me slightly queasy). but the reason she has done this is surely all about her own insecurity – live with it, woman. and err wasn’t she getting all booty about libel previously?
of course the likelihood, given that it is on her blog, is that it is pure fiction. by her own admission, she makes most of it up. she really is an unattractive woman. even without those shiny blouses she affects.
Dorries made a statement because she’d been pre-warned the Daily Mail were going to run with the story;she did NOT mention the wife’s alcoholism in that statement. John Butler made a statement of his own, as did the daughter of John Butler, referring to the wife’s/mother’s alcoholism. If John Butler and his daughter (the daughter’s statement is fascinating) want to make statement’s that’s THEIR choice. So, why, exactly, is Dorries a target again?
I’m no Dorries fan, but it’s like watching a pack of ravening hounds as she’s pursued with an unhealthy interest. Some folk really need to get out more.
SimplyWondered
What the feck have her blouses got to do with anything? If it was a bloke, would you mention his shirts? Thought not!
Freedom Of Information special clauses for the British Monarchy will only result in the Public view that Charles, Heir to the Throne, is not fit to take that position or responsibility and conspiracy theorists will have a field day.
In regards to Law making, The Monarchy should not have special consideration, nor should it become a secret society. No one, nor any institution should be above the Law.
Like wise the UK Government should not be amending the Freedom Of Information Act for the sole purpose of benefitting the Monarchy. Both institutions are funded by Citizens of the United Kingdom.
As for the MP mentioned, (similar to the Monarchy requesting a change to the Freedom of Information Act for its own protection), she has shown a total lack of respect and regard for anyone but herself. A selfish action, executed without shame.
Pam writes: “John Butler made a statement of his own, as did the daughter of John Butler, referring to the wife’s/mother’s alcoholism. If John Butler and his daughter (the daughter’s statement is fascinating) want to make statement’s that’s THEIR choice. So, why, exactly, is Dorries a target again?”
Because she chose to publish those statements on her website and link to it on Twitter. She may not have written the words, but she chose to make them – very- public.
An interesting item was in the media recently about how the coalition intends to put in place new funding arrangements for the Royals which will probably make them even richer. It was buried away in the budget statement:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_17_10.htm
Interesting that while ‘simplywondered’, ‘Miriam Said’ and ‘Ed’ are happy (nay, keen!) to condemn Dorries for publishing, none of them criticise John Butler and his daughter for writing; without which Dorries couldn’t have published.
At least be honest about your motivation, which seems to be nothing more then a visceral dislike of her, resulting in an eagerness to judge and condemn *anything* she does.
She wouldn’t be my choice of MP, or friend even, but that does not lead me to join the ravening hounds just waiting for something to pounce on, I’d like to think I’m more balanced than that.
DPA breach? I’ll be *astonished* if that goes any further.
What the feck have her blouses got to do with anything? If it was a bloke, would you mention his shirts?
yep.
see ed’s comment above on the target thing. i don’t regard her as a target – in the unlikely event of your bothering to read what i wrote pam you would see that as well as disliking her blouses i reckon she can sleep with whoever she wants without my having the right to know about it. when she publishes the allegation that her current squeeze’s ex is an alcoholic, people are bound to start taking an interest and some of us will get sniffy. i’d be delighted if dorries would keep her big trap shut, but she does seem addicted to shoehorning herself into the public gaze; it may shock her but there are some of us who could happily live without hearing anything about her. maybe i do need to get out more; dorries strikes me as someone who needs to get out less.
and yes i am very happy to go on the record as disliking her (in a ‘not met her but really not liking the public profile/things she says’ sort of way). as for criticising anything she does, if that were true, you’d think i would have got at her about the relationship – kinda comes under ‘anything’, doesn’t it?
and while i wouldn’t be astonished if she were prosecuted (because things have almost stopped astonishing me), on what little i know about the matter and the law in this area, i can’t believe it would be in any way in the public interest.
Nadine Dorries has, in the past, laid herself open to criticism on twitter for some of her robust remarks. I do not, however, like witch hunts. parody, satire, a bit of rough debate – must be within the rough and tumble of political life. It is all a question of degree.
I would be surprised if this gets to prosecution – but Nadine Dorries is an MP and it is fair to raise issues as Andrew Sharpe has done on this public statement.
I do, also, believe that MPs are entitled to a private life so long, as with any public figure, their private life does not impact on their judgement and/or ability to carry ot the work they are elected / contracted to do.
Simplywondered
Dorries only raised it because the Mail had the story and she wanted to comment before they published – hardly ‘shoehorning herself into the public gaze’, more the press not allowing her to have a private life. If I was her I would have got in first, too.
I think Andrew Sharpe went a little beyond raising issues in my view.
In response to Pam Nash.
I do not condem nor judge the mentioned MP for everything she does. Similarily, I do not condem or judge the Monarchy on every thing it does, nor the UK Government.
I do not condem or judge everything you do, nor everything that you post a response to.
Please read others comments carefully before replying in a polite manner without condeming or judging everything others comment about.
We are all entitled to a private life, our views and a freedom of speech.