Comments on: Times coverage of hearing

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:58:29 +0000

In which case I haven’t read the ruling closely enough.

But the Tribunal has based its decision in part on the fact that the addresses are already (notionally) in the public domain. The ruling requires the Commons authorities to supply the home addresses (with certain exeptions for security reasons) to anybody who asks for them. Journalism is in any case one of the “special purposes” which is exempt from most of the DPA under s. 32. How is anybody who obtains the addresses under FoI and publishes them contravening the DPA?

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:21:42 +0000

Nope, the Tribunal ruled that the home addresses *are* personal data (see para. 51), but their disclosure in this case complies with s.40, because it’s within the scope of condition 6 in Schedule 2 to the DPA (“necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed”).

Any subsequent use of the data would also have to comply with condition 6 – it wouldn’t automatically be deemed to be compliant.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:17:33 +0000

But once the information has been disclosed under FoI, the person to whom it has been disclosed is not bound by the DPA in respect of that data. The Tribunal has effectivele ruled that the MPs’ home addresses are *not* “personal data” within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. If they were, then they would clearly be exempt from disclosure under s. 40 of the FoIA.

In any case, since the Commons is now going to disclose the information, we can wait and see how long it takes to get onto the Internet.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:02:38 +0000

That’s not quite how the DPA and FoI inter-relate, and this point “Once the Commons has disclosed the addresses under the Act, anybody who has the information can do whatever he or she likes with it” is simply not the case, as one example of processing personal data (e.g., replying to an FoI request) is not the same as another example (e.g., a burglar alarm company turning the MPs’ addresses into a mailing list).

All this is by-the-by anyway, as both the Tribunal and the High Court left open the possibility of MPs withholding their home addresses (a) if there were specific security or other personal concerns, or (b) if the Commons administration came up with its own system of checking the veracity of claims for particular addresses, so that there would be no legitimate interest in making these public available.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:15:19 +0000

But the Data Protection Act does not apply to date acquired under an FoI disclosure. The FoIA provides that personal data is exempt from disclosure, which was part of the basis of the Commons’ appeal over the addresses. Once the Commons has disclosed the addresses under the Act, anybody who has the information can do whatever he or she likes with it. And if it is established in principle that the Commons has to provide the information, then anybody can write and request a full list of addresses for every MP. It will only be a matter of time before this information is indeed plastered all over the internet.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:02:57 +0000

Publishing an MP’s home address to one person (even a journalist) as part of the response to an FoI request does not automatically mean that it will be plastered all over the internet. As Heather will no doubt confirm, copyright, data protection and other restrictions apply to FoI responses, so you can’t simply do whatever you like with them.

Is Ben Leapman really going to put all the addresses on the Telegraph website when he gets them, without the Telegraph’s own lawyers having a wobble about the Data Protection Act? Doubt it.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:16:42 +0000

“Clearly the risk of MPs being attacked at their homes is exaggerated. I cannot think of a single instance where this has happened over the last twenty years or so.”

Perhaps that’s because their home addresses are pretty difficult to come by.

You can find an MP’s address by looking on the electoral roll, assuming you know which constituency they are registered in (and they’re not all registered in their own). It is also published on various official electoral documents, which are in circulation for a few weeks every 4-5 years. In other words, it is technically in the public domain, but pretty difficult to get hold of. If you don’t believe me, have a go at seeing how easy it is to find the genuine home address of any random backbench MP.

MPs are vulnerable to attack from random nutters (Nigel Jones, whose assistant was killed), people with a political grudge (various missile-throwers at public meetings, etc) and terrorists. Mostly, it is their comparative anonymity which protects them from getting hassled or attacked when they are out and about in public. Making their home addresses freely available on the Internet can only increase that vulnerability. It would be perfectly possible to hold MPs to account adequately without publishing their precise home addresses, for example, by disclosing in which Parliamentary constituency the property in question is.

By: Ian Gow

Ian Gow — Sun, 18 May 2008 15:33:23 +0000

Clearly the risk of MPs being attacked at their homes is exaggerated. I cannot think of a single instance where this has happened over the last twenty years or so. They are simply using the security excuse to protect themselves from scrutiny.

By: Ben Bamber

Ben Bamber — Sun, 18 May 2008 08:31:16 +0000

But Ninja, with that approach they would not just have their ’snouts in the trough’, they would take the trough home! I believe there should be a National Campaign wherebye all of us start demanding expenditure details and ‘family employment’ details from them. It’s just a matter of using the FOI act, and then contacting your local / national paper. In fact, hopefully Heather will suggest a way of forming a National Society or something! Think of the publicity, and our Lords and Masters would have to comply with the requests because its the law!

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Sun, 18 May 2008 06:43:57 +0000

Re: FallenNinja’s comment.

I used to believe that they (MPs) were ‘untouchable’ by the law, no matter what they did! Not any more!

Greater transparency will lead to greater accountability and , with a bit of luck, the slamming of cell doors behind those MPs who have ‘diverted’
your taxes and mine, without any reference to the taxpayer, into their own pockets …… or the pockets of their families…… ex wives….. etc etc.

By: Clare

Clare — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:02:58 +0000

Never mind disclosing where these MPs live, it is an absolute disgrace that taxpayers have been paying for these second home allowances for MPs, which, at a later date they can sell at a huge profit. Its an even bigger disgrace and a huge admission of guilt that the MPs tried to prevent the extent of the expenses becoming public knowledge. Why have we never looked in to this before? Well done Heather – the average person in the street is getting very, very sick of the takers in this country and we’re right behind you.

By: FallenNinja

FallenNinja — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:12:25 +0000

Truly, what has actually been accomplished here? Greater transparency, I doubt it, more accountability, nope. These guys are expert in spin, deflection and misdirection, do you not think that they will simply find different ways of fiddling their expenses? This ruling has no value at all.

Total waste of taxpayers money when there are really much bigger fish to fry.

By: Ben Bamber

Ben Bamber — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:45:04 +0000

Yes, I would – it is nothing more than is obtainable from the electoral roll anyway!
How does the Govt put it? Let me see, “Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear!”

Well done Heather, please keep up the good work!

By: gordon taylor

gordon taylor — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:40:08 +0000

Taxpayers have paid for MP`s second homes. When sold the money should be returned back to the Taxpayer, not pocketed by the MPs which is what happens at present. In addition they should have to re-pay legal expenses used in trying to conceal the facts.

By: Liam

Liam — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:01:08 +0000

Doh, we pay for MPs’ houses, we don’t pay for Heather’s. Therein is the major difference.

By: Bob Katsamas

Bob Katsamas — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:00:40 +0000

Typing error perhaps? The judges must have dismissed Parliament’s attempts as “wholy UNreasonable”

By: John Swainson

John Swainson — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:57:08 +0000

This is a milestone judgement on the path to an open, more transparent and, hopefully, less corrupt political system.
As many others have commented elsewhere politicians are servants of the public who elect them and, as such, must be
fully accountable to those who elect and pay them. Moreover the greater the transparency and consequential probity and
integrity we require of the politicians we elect to manage the nation’s affairs on our behalf the better the example we set
of the standards we expect from people in business too.

With respect to the comment by ‘oc’ on the matter of publicising MP’s addresses, as the judgement makes clear, when an MP
stands for election they have to disclose their address. It is right that the electorate should know where their
representative resides, not least because this can help to expose when elected representatives may have an interest that
conflicts with the exprseeed interest of their electorate.

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Sat, 17 May 2008 08:11:09 +0000

As a tax paying citizen, I want to know EXACTLY where the revenue from MY taxes are being spent.
Scams involving the misappropriation of tax revenue by MPs as part of their remuneration package have been shown to be
more than infrequent. Has anyone checked that the vast sums ‘claimed’ (apparently as some self appointed right) by
our political servants are actually spent following the approved guidelines, inadequate as they are!)

By: pounce

pounce — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:12:29 +0000

OC writes;
“I think that whilst asking for details of expenses is acceptable, it is disgraceful to ask Members of Parliament to publicise their home addresses. Would you be willing to post yours up?”

Have a look at what the 14 MPs are fighting against.
“The Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, today lost a high court battle to prevent the disclosure of the details of second-home expenses claimed by 14 prominent MPs.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/16/houseofcommons

Sometimes it helps to know the full story before you berate others.

By: David Newton

David Newton — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:29:05 +0000

“I think that whilst asking for details of expenses is acceptable, it is disgraceful to ask Members of Parliament to publicise their home addresses. Would you be willing to post yours up?”

You obviously have not read the ruling. That argument has been considered and dismissed. Many, many, many people are willing to publicise their home addresses. Anyone who appears in the phone book is willing for example. As the ruling states there are also many cases of statute requiring disclosure of home addresses in publicly accessible registers.