LibDem MP Tom Brake is in a spot of bother over his use of personal data from a medical petition for party political use. He effectively gave the data away to another organisation without the signatories' permission (from his MP's office in which capacity he received the data to his local LibDem HQ who sent out the letter with 'Labour can't win here' etc festooned across the letterhead). He then asks the people to join his Facebook Group. Result - slap on the wrist from the ICO. More from his LOCAL PAPER.
Yesterday I reported on Glenda Jackson's use of the Communications Allowance for party political material. One or two Conservative MPs have also been hauled before the Commons authorities for similar misdemeanours.
So I am not making a party political point with this, but I do have to ask this. Why is it so difficult to draft rules which our elected representatives can understand and abide by?
22 comments:
Our modern sales-oriented business culture associates success with an ability to get the job done and to make a deal. There is no respect for knowledge or experience, and rules are meant to be bent or broken.
As MPs are the ultimate salespeople - they have sold themselves to the electorate in order to achieve professional success - it is no wonder that the have no respect for rules. Or even an understanding of why rules should apply to them.
Iain - you know there's only one reason; they don't care about rules. They don't take time to read statutes and assume they know. It's just lazy at best and pathetic at worst (well, in some cases criminal). Doesn't bode well for other aspects of their job which can't be scrutinized as easily.
You're right, it isn't party political - perhaps they should run tutorials or training courses - for an MP to be taken out like this must hurt them more than us - personally I think it's quite amusing how incompetent they are.
This was probably done by his campaign staff [who may have had no training or experience in these matters] without his knowledge or consent. At least he has taken the blame and not tried to duck out of it.
The 'slap on the wrist' link works OK but the 'LOCAL PAPER' one returns an error message.
Nothing to do with the fact that most MPs are lawyers ?
These pirhanas thrive from interpreting and challenging rules, so in their interests they have to be written in non-clear terms, otherwise no income can be derived.
Lawyers should be made to declare an interest (as a species) in any law-making they take part in.
Charles I or II banned all lawyers from parliament - a move I would heartily endorse for today.
Alan Douglas
Commercial market research organisations actually abide by a strict code of practice set by The Market Research Society (see www.mrs.org.uk). So I don't think the problem is "business culture". More likely it's "politicians' arrogance"
You really should make clear that he didn't organise the petition, that is important. The Data protection Act allows you to disclose that kind of information to whoever you want so long as it is within legitimate use of what iot was collect for in the first place. So the Dr who collected the signatories was within the law to disclose to the MP. If the MP had collected the names, he would more than likley have been within the law to pass it to Lib Dem HQ. The fact that he didn't is what means what he did was wrong.
That's nopt articulated very well,. but you get the idea.
The local newspaper article reports Tom Brake as saying, "I will be seeking an urgent meeting with the Information Commissioner to clarify whether this is new guidance or a new interpretation of existing guidance."
As a Member of Parliament he would be familiar with the January 2005 guidance for MPs which says:-
2.2.2. A constituent who complains to his or her Member about a neighbour does not want his/her details
used for any purpose other than that stated in his or her letter. It is unlikely to be lawful to use this
information for other purposes, eg political canvassing or campaigning. Stick to the issue at hand and
you cannot go wrong.
GOOD PRACTICE TIP: Ensure that any information you obtain, hold, use or pass on is relevant to the
specific issue for which you obtained it, and that issue only. Effectively, this means ‘pigeon holing’
constituents’ information and not using that information for any other purposes. It is important that
information from constituency casework is not used for political campaigning without the permission
of the person concerned.
As a Home Affairs spokesman for the Lib Dems, he was wheeled out only last week to comment on the latest loss of data by the Government saying, "We need to see a massive change in the way people treat data, its not just worth the computer or the memory stick, its worth so much more than that."
In a seat where he has a slim majority of just over 1000, I believe that he knows exactly how much data is worth.
Iain, if you aren't making a party political point about this, then why do you not name and shame the Conservative MPs as well?
These two have come up in the last two days. I know one or two Tory MPs have fallen foul of these rules but I can't remember who they were. You should feel free to enlighten us, if you like.
It's not the rules its the MP's. One of the misfortunes of elections is that it is not a rigourous process for choosing MP's. It may be gruelling for the candidates, but as a selection method it doesn't sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to go with the most popular candidate who is there on election day.
@alan douglas: "most MPs are lawyers"?
So over 323 MPs are practising lawyers or have legal training? I'd love to see you substantiate that one.
Iain, you should do an audit of Tory MPs and their websites. I can't believe how many of them are breaking the rules of the Communications Allowance by promotiing one party above another etc etc.
'Why is it so difficult to draft rules which our elected representatives can understand and abide by?"
No, no. no!
The question should be this:
"Why is it so difficult for MPs to obey rules that are actually quite simple?"
The rules say that this allowance may not be used for party political purposes which to most of us mortals seems straightforward enough to me.
If MPs, who are supposed to be attuned more than most of us to what is and what is not 'party political' cannot work this out for themselves, then one wonders if they are in the right job.
The answer however, is that, some of them know full well what they are doing and do not give a tinker's cuss for the rules. This was always going to be abused and, whilst doubtless some Tories will be found to be offenders, the majority are going to be Labour MPs who got this through precisely so that they could use it to counter the supposed advantage of Ashcroft money (forgetting the many Labour MPs who are 'sponsored' by The Brothers, of course).
One hopes that this allowance will be an early casualty of a positively Cromwellian sweep of the Augean Stables of MPs expenses and allowances.
Surprising way of framing the debate, Iain.
If it were MPs from just one or two parties, your headline would doubtless have been "why do [Lab/LibDem] MPs have such difficulty with the rules?"
Since Tories are involved, your take appears to be "why are the rules so difficult to understand?"
They aren't difficult to understand, and there is a wealth of impartial advice available to MPs on their operation, should they wish to take it.
Windsor Tripehound said...
"Commercial market research organisations actually abide by a strict code of practice set by The Market Research Society"
Only those who are members of the MRS. Most of them aren't.
Only 20% of MPs are lawyers. 38% are in in business (directors, executives, etc). LINK
They understand alright, its just the personal rewards of keeping in parliament over ride any decency thye might have.
By the way I have a survey from my local Fib Dems offering a prize if I return it. Of course what they don't tell any of their victims is they'll use the info they give to mercilessly hit them with spam and a targeted manifesto just for them ( no longer does the Lib Dem story change every street, but now every household ).
Anonymous said...
Only those who are members of the MRS. Most of them aren't.
To be pedantic, it is people who are members of the MRS, not companies. Having said that, I'd be surprised if there are any serious MR companies which do not have senior staff who are members of the MRS.
Iain
"Why is it so difficult to draft rules which our elected representatives can understand and abide by?"
Two entirely different questions:
a) Do they understand? - likely Yes.
b) Why do they not abide by the rules? - because of their outrageous greed and mendacity.
Next?
Without commenting on any specific situation, it risks being somewhat disingenuous to distinguish between (i) new guidance; and (ii) a new interpretation of existing guidance. All first year law students should know that the law is never set in stone, is always subject to intelligent interpretation and application to the facts of an instant case. A reading list for undergraduate Jurisprudence might be helpful.
Rules are intended for the common people, dear boy. We MPs are too important to bother about them.
because they are arrogant so-and-so's who think the rules don't apply to them. and they hire staff who dream of working in the west wing, rather than actually dotting the i's and crossing the t's. or who are too scared to tell their boss what he or she can't do.
Post a Comment