Source: http://docplayer.net/24523-Public-sector-data-sharing-guidance-on-the-law.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 22:43:38
Document Index: 630549221

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'ARTY 01037', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Public Sector Data Sharing: Guidance on the Law - PDF
Download "Public Sector Data Sharing: Guidance on the Law"
1 Public Sector Data Sharing: Guidance on the Law Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - Overview of existing legal framework Section 3 - Power to share data Section 4 - The Data Protection Act 1998 Section 5 - The Human Rights Act 1998 Section 6 - Common law and statutory restrictions on the disclosure of data Section 7 - Practical and other issues2 Section 1 - Introduction This document is intended to be a general guide and to offer key information on relevant legal issues on data sharing to lawyers and to other interested professionals working in the public sector (including those working for local authorities). We hope it will increase understanding of the existing legal framework 1 which governs public bodies rights to share personal data and their responsibilities when doing so. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice on particular issues. Any public body contemplating data sharing should seek its own legal advice. Purpose of this Guidance This guidance seeks to clarify the legal circumstances in which the data sharing powers of public bodies can be exercised. Effective data sharing can assist in meeting policy objectives and lead to improved services delivery. For example, many local authorities would like to use names and addresses held on council tax databases for other purposes such as debt recovery and the verification of entitlement to benefits and concessions. However, there is evidence to suggest that legal uncertainty over what is, and what is not, permissible may be inhibiting data sharing by local authorities. Similarly, some government departments decide not to pursue new data sharing initiatives because of doubts over what their legal powers allow them to do. This guidance also seeks to explore the legal landscape governing the use of data sharing powers, and to help bring about a consistency of approach within the public sector, by facilitating lawful data sharing and good practice amongst the public sector. Scope of this Guidance Although this guidance is not intended to and indeed, cannot address the detail of every circumstance of public sector data sharing, it is appropriate to mention here two specific areas about which particular concerns have arisen: 1 The guidance is written with reference to the law of England and Wales and the statutory provisions that apply in those jurisdictions. However, certain key statutes (such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998) apply equally to Scotland. 23 1) The disclosures of health information for non-health purposes. The level of sensitivity about such information, on the part of both individual data subjects and health professionals, means that the sharing of such data may be particularly problematic. If public bodies, other than those in the health sector, are considering whether access to health information may be useful for their purposes, they should bear this caveat in mind. Helpful guidance on the confidentiality of health data can be found in the NHS publication Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice 2) Sharing of personal data for statistical purposes. If the data to be shared is fully anonymised, then it will be less likely for problems should arise, though consideration still has to be given to the principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). If the data required for statistical purposes contains information which may identify individuals (personal data), then the sharing should be approached in the same way as for any other circumstances, as explained in this guidance. In preparing this guidance, we have consulted the Information Commissioner, the Local Government Association and government departments. 34 Section 2 - Overview of existing legal framework Power to share data 1. When considering whether a proposal to share data is lawful, it is first necessary to consider whether the parties to the proposed arrangement have the necessary powers. 2. A public body may only share data if it has power to do so. The power may be set out expressly in statute, or it may be implied from the body s other statutory powers and functions. Government departments headed by a Minister of the Crown may also have common law powers to share data. 3. It is also important to ascertain whether there are express statutory restrictions on the data sharing activity proposed, or any restrictions which may be implied by the existence of other statutory, common law or other provisions. 4. For a more detailed discussion, see sections 3 and 6. The Data Protection Act If it has been established that the parties have the necessary powers, the next step is to consider whether the proposal is compatible with other legal provisions regulating the use of personal data. 6. The principal legislative provision relating to data protection is the Data Protection Act 1998 ( DPA ), which implements the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The DPA gives individuals a number of important rights to ensure that personal information covered by the Act is processed lawfully. It regulates the manner in which such information can be collected, used and stored, and so is of prime importance in the context of data sharing. Key principles in the DPA that are relevant to data sharing are considered in section It is important to note at the outset that the DPA regime does not cease to apply if information about individuals is already in the public domain. Public bodies wishing to share data which has previously been published or has otherwise been made available to the public remain subject to the requirements of the legislation. 8. The DPA only permits data sharing that is lawful. When considering whether this is the case, it may be necessary to consider other legal regimes, such as the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (section 5); and duties of confidence (section 6). 45 Section 3 - Power to share data General 1. A public body may only share data if it has power to do so. The power may derive from statute (expressly or impliedly), or from the common law. Public bodies that are not central government departments headed by a Minister of the Crown (such as nondepartmental public bodies) will normally, but not always, derive their powers entirely from statute. 2. There is no general statutory power to disclose, obtain, hold or process data. So when considering whether a body has statutory power to share data, it will be necessary to consider the specific legislation governing the policy or service that the data sharing would support. That legislation may include an express power to share data, or it may do so impliedly. 3. Express powers to share data give the highest degree of certainty, but are relatively rare and tend to be confined to specific activities and be exercisable only by named bodies. It will be more common to rely on implied powers. 4. In the case of central government departments headed by a Minister of the Crown, even if a power to share data cannot be reasonably implied from statutory provisions defining the Minister s powers, the Minister may still have common law powers to share data. Express statutory powers 5. Some legislation includes explicit gateways by which information can be disclosed or received for particular purposes. Such gateways may be permissive (creating a discretionary power to disclose or receive data) or mandatory (requiring data to be transferred in certain circumstances). 6. Examples of permissive statutory gateways include: Schedule 2 paragraph 18A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, allowing local authorities to use council tax data to identify empty properties; section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, allowing anyone to pass information to certain authorities if it is necessary or expedient for the purposes of any provision of the Act; section 17 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, allowing disclosures under the statutory provisions specified in Schedule 4 for purposes connected with criminal investigation and prosecution, where such disclosures are proportionate; 56 regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, allowing the Secretary of State to make any particulars contained in the vehicle registration register available to a number of specified persons; and section 14 of the Offender Management Act 2007, allowing data sharing between specified bodies for various purposes relating to offenders. 7. Examples of mandatory statutory gateways include: section 8 of the National Audit Act 1983, imposing a legal obligation on public bodies to provide relevant information to the National Audit Office; and section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, making it obligatory for a public body to provide information, when requested, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in connection with the exercise of its functions. 8. The words of the statute must be carefully considered to establish whether a statutory gateway authorises disclosure or receipt for the particular purpose contemplated Where the State s coercive powers are engaged, these should not encroach upon individuals rights more than is fairly and reasonably necessary. 3 Implied statutory powers 10. Where no express statutory power to share or receive data exists, such a power may be implicit in the provisions defining the relevant powers or functions. Many activities of statutory bodies will necessarily be carried out pursuant to implied statutory powers, given the difficulty of defining expressly all the activities that they may carry out in connection with their day-to-day functions. The courts will interpret implied powers relatively generously Activities such as data collection and sharing are not of themselves usually express statutory functions, but may be incidental to other statutory functions. 5 2 See, for instance, DfT s guidance on the circumstances in which information in the vehicle registration register can be disclosed under regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 to a person who can show he has reasonable cause for wanting the information. 3 Morris v Director S.F.O. [1993] Ch Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co (1880) 5 App Cas 473, Lord Selborne LC: whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the Legislature has authorised, ought not (unless expressly prohibited) to be held, by judicial construction, to be ultra vires. 5 For example, in R v Chief Constable of the North Wales Police ex p AB [1999] QB 396 the Court of Appeal accepted that the police had power to disclose information about paedophiles to individuals living in the relevant area, because disclosure was for the purposes of performing their public duties. Similarly, in Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2000] 1 WLR 25 the Court of Appeal accepted that the police had power to disclose information to a regulatory body for the purposes of an inquiry as this was in the public interest. 67 12. When considering whether a body has an implied power to share data, it is firstly necessary to identify the function or activity to which that sharing would be ancillary. If the body does not have the power to perform that function or activity, there can be no implicit power to share data. Account should also be taken of other relevant statutory provisions that might expressly or implicitly prohibit the data sharing that is being proposed In particular, local authorities may have power to share data under the following provisions: Section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, providing that they shall have power to do anything...which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their statutory functions. Section 2(1) of the Local Government Act 2000, providing that they shall have power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects (a) the promotion or improvement of the economic wellbeing of their area; (b) the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area; (c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area. 7 Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, imposing a general duty on them to provide services to meet children s needs. 8 Similarly, the police and local authorities have implied power to share data as part of their statutory duty under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to formulate and implement strategies for reduction of crime in their area. 9 6 See, for example, the restrictions on sharing council tax data in paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Finance Act See DCLG s guidance Power to promote or Improve economic, social or environmental wellbeing (March 2000) and Power to promote well-being of the area: Statutory guidance for local councils (February 2009). In R (Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin), at [21], the court accepted that section 2(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 gives local authorities a legal basis to disclose information about particular individuals who are the subjects of anti-social behaviour orders. 8 R v Local Authority and Police Authority in the Midlands ex parte LM [2000] 1 FLR 612 (police and social services have the power to disclose to a third party allegations of sexual abuse of children if they genuinely and reasonably believe that it is desirable to do so to protect children); R (A) v Hertfordshire County Council [2001] EWHC 211 (Admin), at [31] (the local authority had an implied statutory power to notify the director of education that there was reasonable cause for suspecting that a particular head teacher posed a risk of significant harm to children in his care). 9 R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321 (Admin) at [32]. See the Criminal Justice System guidance, Publicising Sentencing Outcomes (December 2009). 78 Common law powers 14. If there is no relevant express or implied statutory power to share data, government departments that are headed by a Minister of the Crown may be able to rely on common law powers to share data. 15. Ministers of the Crown have ordinary common law powers to do whatever a natural person may do, in contrast with bodies which have powers conferred on them by statute and no powers under the common law. Government lawyers have called this principle the Ram Doctrine as it is explained in a memorandum by the then First Parliamentary Counsel Sir Granville Ram dated 2 November However, Ministers common law powers may be extinguished by statute 11 and may otherwise be limited by the requirements of public law, the law of confidence or by agreement. 16. In relation to data collection, use and sharing, reliance on common law powers by public bodies has not often been considered by the courts, so there might be an element of risk in such reliance. The degree of risk would depend on the facts, particularly the nature of the information proposed to be collected and disclosed, the purposes for which it was to be collected and disclosed and the identity of the bodies acting as recipients 12. It is worth noting that even where common law data sharing powers are compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR, they may still not provide a suitable basis for public sector data sharing for other reasons. Sometimes a statutory framework is necessary in order, for example, to impose criminal sanctions on officials for non-compliance Public bodies which are neither central government departments nor organisations which derive their powers from statute will need to analyse carefully what powers (if any) they have to process data and whether there are any explicit or implicit restrictions or limitations upon such processing. Because the powers available to any such body will almost entirely depend upon the specific nature of the body concerned and its legal status, it is impossible to provide general guidance on such cases. 10 See also R v Secretary of State for Health ex p C [2000] 1 FLR 627, at [13]-[21]; Shrewsbury and Atcham BC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 148, at [44]-[49].. 11 See R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, especially [6], [46]-[47], [94]-[95] and [123]. 12 See R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte 'C' [2000] EWCA Civ 49 at [16] [20] (the Crown has common law power to engage in certain forms of data collection and sharing), R v (1) Worcester County Council (2) Secretary of State for Health ex parte SW [2000] EWHC Admin 392 (such powers may be compatible with Article 8 rights even in the absence of a relevant statutory framework); but contrast Malone v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (No 2) [1979] 2 All ER 620 which reached the ECHR as Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14. The case concerned telephone tapping which the ECHR held to be unlawful in the absence of any clear and accessible legal basis for the infringement of Article See, for example, section 182 of the Finance Act9 Section 4 - Data Protection Act 1998 Application of the Data Protection Act 1. The sharing of personal data is primarily governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), which implements the EU Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC). The DPA establishes a legal framework of rights and obligations that protect personal information. 2. The DPA imposes obligations upon data controllers when they are processing personal data, and gives rights to data subjects. Sections 1 and 2 of the DPA define these concepts: Data includes all automatically processed information as well as some manual records. 14 Personal data means data relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. Anonymised data may still be personal data if the data controller can identify who the information relates to. 15 Sensitive personal data are personal data consisting of information as to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious and similar beliefs, trade union membership, physical or mental health, sexual life, and the commission or alleged commission of any offence or criminal proceeding. The DPA imposes additional requirements in relation to the processing (including the sharing) of such data. The processing of personal data includes anything which may be done to personal data, such as obtaining, holding, using, disclosing or destroying it. Many types of public sector data sharing will involve information held on computer, so if the information relates to identified or identifiable individuals, it will be clear that the DPA applies. Data controllers are persons who determine the purposes for which, and the manner in which, the personal data are processed. Data processors are persons who process personal data on behalf of a data controller, rather than on their own behalf. Data subjects are the individuals to whom the personal data relate. 14 Further guidance on the definition of data can be found on the ICO s website. See in particular Technical Guidance Note Determining what information is data for the purposes of the DPA dated 28 January Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner [2008] UKHL 47, at [27] and [75]. 910 3. Government departments and other public bodies are usually data controllers in relation to personal data they process. In this guidance, the term data sharing refers to the processing of personal data by one data controller by giving it (or a copy of it) into the custody and control of another data controller. The term data sharing is sometimes used in other contexts to describe the transfer of personal data by a data controller to a third party data processor. However in such transfers the control of the data remains at all times with the data controller, so this does not strictly constitute sharing. The data protection principles 4. The eight data protection principles set out in Schedule 1 Part I of the DPA form the core of data protection regulation. The following paragraphs consider how each of the principles may apply in relation to data sharing, but as the first principle raises the largest number of legal issues it is treated in greater detail. The first principle: fairness and lawfulness 5. This requires that Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless (a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and (b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met. 16 The fairness requirement is an objective standard that must be applied on a case by case basis. Thus, for example, if a public authority obtains personal data on the ownership of dishwashers for the purposes of a national survey of living standards, further processing of the data for the production of regional statistics, or the sending of thank you letters to the participants, is likely to be fair processing. However, were the information to be further processed so as to enable targeted advertising by commercial interests to the survey participants, that processing would not satisfy the fairness condition. Schedule 1 Part II, discussed below, explains in further detail what is required if processing is to be fair. But Schedule 1 Part II is not an exhaustive description of what fairness requires. Even if its requirements are met, there may be other aspects of the processing that make it unfair. 16 Schedule 1 Part 1 paragraph 1 1011 The lawfulness requirement means that all relevant legal obligations, both statutory and under common law, must be complied with. The DPA cannot render lawful any processing which would otherwise be unlawful. This means, in particular, that the authority must have power to carry out the processing, as discussed in Section 3. Some other possible legal constraints are discussed in Sections 5 and 6. It is always necessary to consider whether at least one condition in Schedule 2 (and, for sensitive personal data, one condition in Schedule 3) is met. But even if it is, the fairness requirement must still be considered separately as noted above. Schedule 1 Part II: fairness 6. Schedule 1 Part II of the DPA, paragraphs 1-4, contains interpretative provisions relating to the requirement of fairness in the first principle. In determining for the purposes of the first principle whether personal data are processed fairly, regard is to be had to the method by which they are obtained, including in particular whether any person from whom they are obtained is deceived or misled as to the purpose or purposes for which they are to be processed. 17 Thus it would be unfair for a public body to share information which it obtained from individuals if it had told them that the information was solely for its own use and would not be further disclosed. 7. Generally data are to be treated as obtained fairly if they consist of information obtained from a person who (a) is authorised by or under any enactment to supply it, or (b) is required to supply it by or under any enactment or by any convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation on the United Kingdom. 18 So where a statute requires the provision of personal data by or to a public body for a specific purpose (e.g. the mandatory registration of all births with the General Register Office), the obtaining of that data for processing is likely to be fair, regardless of what the individual who supplied the data believed. 17 Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 1(1). 18 Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 1(2). 1112 However, the overall requirement of fairness imposed by the first principle would not necessarily be discharged merely by virtue of statutory authority or obligation. 8. Generally, personal data are not to be regarded as being processed fairly unless the data subjects of the personal data are provided with (or have ready access to) certain pieces of information, either prior to, or at the time that the processing first takes place, or very soon afterwards. 19 This information includes the identity of the data controller or any nominated representative; the purposes for which the data are intended to be processed; and any further information that is necessary in order for the processing to be regarded as fair having regard to the specific circumstances. 20 Usually this requirement is complied with through the provision of fair processing notices 21 which are drawn to the data subject s attention when they supply the personal data to the data controller. For example, a local authority may include on an application form for meals-on-wheels services a statement that the information provided may be supplied to the Department for Work and Pensions in order to assess whether the data subject is entitled to any other benefits and will not be used for any other purpose. Subject to what is said below, the notification requirements apply whether the data controller obtains the data from the data subject or from elsewhere. However, where the data was obtained from a source other than the data subject, there is an exemption 22 from the provision of this information where it would involve a disproportionate effort, or where the recording or disclosure of the data is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation. This exemption could apply, for instance, where a local authority seeks historical data from the Department for Education about exam results. In that scenario the contact details of data subjects are unlikely to remain accurate, and so informing them is likely to involve disproportionate effort. But even when the exemption applies, the further conditions prescribed in the Data Protection (Conditions under Paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 1) Order 2000 must be met. For instance, the information must still be provided upon request by the data subject, and a written record of the reasons why providing a fair processing notice would involve disproportionate effort, must be kept. 19 Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 2(1). 20 Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 2(3). 21 The Information Commissioner calls these Privacy notices in recent guidance. 22 Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 3. 1213 Note that the exemption only applies to the requirement to provide information (such as a fair processing notice), and does not reduce the other requirements that have to be satisfied before a processing operation could be considered fair under the first principle. Even if the exemption applies (e.g. when data are obtained pursuant to statutory powers), it could still be unfair for the data controller to fail to provide some or all of the relevant information to the data subject. Whether the processing is fair will depend on the assessment of the processing in the round, and so particular circumstances may require part or all of the relevant information to be provided, despite the applicability of the exemption. For example, if insurance companies were obliged by law to share claims information with a public ombudsman, the exemption would apply, but it could be argued that the ombudsman would have to publicise the fact that the companies had to share their data with him in order to render the processing fair. Careful consideration should, therefore, always be given to ways in which individuals can be provided with this information. Schedules 2 and 3: conditions for processing 9. Processing of personal data will only be compatible with the first principle if at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 to the DPA is met, and, in the case of sensitive personal data, that at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met. Those conditions that are particularly relevant to public sector data sharing are considered in more detail at paragraphs below. 10. As will be seen, several of the conditions include the requirement that the processing should be necessary for a particular function or purpose. Data sharing may be necessary in this context if it is a proportionate method of achieving a legitimate objective: it need not be absolutely essential to the achievement of that objective. 23 Whether it is necessary will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the sensitivity of the data and the effects that the disclosure may have on the data subjects and third parties. Schedule 2 conditions of particular relevance to public sector data sharing 23 Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin), at [60], and R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321 (Admin), at [29], referring to the discussion in R v (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532, at [27]- [28], of what is meant by the equivalent concept in Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 1314 Paragraph 1: consent The data subject has given his consent to the processing. 11. Public bodies which share data may be able to rely on the consent of the data subject to satisfy Schedule 2 (and explicit consent in relation to schedule 3). While consent is the most conclusive of the conditions, it frequently cannot be met. Obviously where another Schedule 2 condition is applicable, it is not necessary to obtain consent. In certain circumstances (such as data sharing in the context of regulatory or enforcement functions) it is unlikely that consent would be an appropriate condition and public bodies will wish to rely on other conditions. 12. It is not always straightforward to establish whether the data subject has given consent. As a general rule the Information Commissioner s guidance drawing on Article 2(h) of the EU Directive suggests that consent should be informed and freely given, and that there must have been some active communication from the data subject. For example, if one public body conducted a survey about public services and the survey form stated clearly that the information would be processed and shared with a second body for the purpose of improving those services, it is likely that people completing the form would be regarded as having consented not only to the initial use of the information but also to its being processed by both bodies. Paragraph 3: compliance with a legal obligation The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. 13. This provision covers legal obligations arising from any source other than contract, including statute, EU law or the common law. As explained in paragraph 10 above, necessary in this context does not mean absolutely essential. 14. If there is a relevant statutory gateway that imports a legal obligation to disclose data, then this condition is likely to apply. For example, it would be relevant to data processing by public bodies that are under a legal obligation to provide relevant information to the National Audit Office under section 8 of the National Audit Act Paragraph 5(a): administration of justice 1415 The processing is necessary for the administration of justice. 15. This condition is likely to apply to a wide variety of processing activities carried out by courts, tribunals and other bodies that have judicial functions. It would, for example, permit a court to provide a defendant s criminal and other records to a lawyer appointed by the court at short notice to represent the defendant at a hearing following the execution of an arrest warrant. Paragraph 5(b): functions conferred by or under an enactment The processing is necessary for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment. 16. This condition will include processing carried out pursuant to express statutory powers or reasonably required or ancillary to the exercise of express or implied statutory functions. 17. For example, ombudsmen will often fulfil statutory functions that reasonably require the use and sharing of personal data. Similarly, it will often be appropriate for bodies responsible for law enforcement to share information for the purposes of promoting public confidence in the justice system When data are shared there are two instances of processing, one by the body making the disclosure and the other by the recipient. Each of these bodies must comply with the DPA, and in particular both bodies must have the appropriate vires (the first to disclose, and the second to receive and further process the data). It may be hard to show that the disclosure is necessary to the first body s functions. This does not matter for the purposes of paragraph 5(b), because the disclosing body can rely on the fact that the sharing of data is necessary for the functions of the receiving body. For the purposes of paragraph 5(b) what matters is the overall objective of the sharing, rather than the specific objective of either body. 19. In any event, as explained in paragraph 10 above above, necessary in this context does not mean absolutely essential, and data sharing may meet this condition if it is a reasonable and proportionate way for a public body to give effect to its functions. Paragraph 5(c): functions of central government 24 See Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin), at [60]- [63], and the Criminal Justice System guidance, Publicising Sentencing Outcomes (December 2009). See also R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321 (Admin), at [29] and [32]-[39], and R (Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin), at [40]-[42]. 1516 The processing is necessary for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department. 20. This condition will cover processing relating to functions carried out by central government departments and offices that derive from the Crown s common law or statutory powers. It is probably the most commonly used condition for all data processing by central government. If the body concerned is acting within its powers, and in compliance with public law, then as discussed above it is likely that the processing will meet the requirement that it is necessary for the exercise of its functions. 21. As with paragraph 5(b), for these purposes the disclosing body can rely on the functions performed by the receiving body, and does not need to show that the transfer is necessary for a separate function of its own. For instance, the Ministry of Justice might share data with the Home Office so that the latter can perform its departmental functions. The function in question would be that of the Home Office, and the Ministry of Justice may rely on paragraph 5(c) even if it has no separate relevant function of its own. Paragraph 5(d): other public functions The processing is necessary for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person. 22. Similar considerations apply to this condition as to paragraphs 5(b) and (c), but the condition is more broadly worded. As explained in paragraph 10 above, necessary in this context does not mean absolutely essential. This condition would, for example, cover processing by voluntary organisations or private bodies, provided that it is in support of a public function that is in the public interest for example, the reservation of beds in hostels run by a voluntary body for persons registered with local authorities as homeless. 25 Paragraph 6: legitimate interests of the data controller The processing is 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, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. 25 See Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin) at [60]. 1617 23. The concept of legitimate interests is not defined in the DPA and is potentially of very wide application. It involves a case by case consideration of the balance between the legitimate interests of the data controller and the data subject. In most cases where data sharing by a public body could satisfy this condition, it is also likely to satisfy one of the other, more specific, conditions explained above. Consequently we recommend that public bodies rely on this condition only where no other condition can be satisfied. An example which might satisfy only paragraph 6 could be the provision by a local authority of the names and addresses of housebound elderly people to commercial organisations offering appropriate care services. Schedule 3 conditions of particular relevance to public sector data sharing 24. If sensitive personal data are being shared, one of the conditions in Schedule 3 must also be fulfilled. Some of the conditions in Schedule 3 closely mirror those in Schedule 2, and there is no prohibition upon relying upon similar conditions in both Schedules, providing of course that they are properly fulfilled; there are slight differences in wording that must be considered. Paragraph 1: explicit consent The data subject has given his explicit consent to the processing of the personal data. 25. As previously described in relation to paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, consent may form the basis for legitimate data sharing. In relation to Schedule 3, the consent must be explicit. 26. There is no clear definition of what explicit consent means. But the Information Commissioner s guidance says that the consent must be absolutely clear: it should cover the specific processing details, the type of information (or even the specific information), the purposes of the processing, and any special aspects that may affect the individual, such as any disclosures that may be made. 27. Public bodies should satisfy themselves when relying on this condition that the individual was fully aware of all the relevant details of the proposed sharing. This should, at a minimum include details of exactly what will be shared, with whom, on what basis and for what purpose. Paragraph 7(1): public functions The processing is necessary (a) for the administration of justice, (b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under an enactment, or (c) for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department. 1718 28. The conditions set out at paragraph 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Schedule 3 are worded in a similar way to those set out at paragraph 5(a), (b) and (c) of Schedule 2 respectively, considered above. 29. However, these conditions are included in Schedule 3 by virtue of Article 8(4) of the EU Directive, which requires that any processing must be for reasons of substantial public interest and subject to suitable safeguards. This reinforces the point that public authorities will need to consider particularly carefully how the conditions apply when they wish to share sensitive personal data. The other data protection principles The second principle: purposes Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. 30. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 1 Part II contain interpretative provisions relating to the second principle. Paragraph 5 provides that the purpose or purposes for which personal data are obtained may, in particular, be specified either in a fair processing notice, or in a notification given to the [Information] Commissioner under Part III of the Act. 31. Paragraph 6 states that further processing must not be incompatible with the purpose for which the data were obtained; incompatible processing would of course not be fair. But the requirement of compatibility has a relatively low threshold. Compatible does not mean identical to, and purposes which are quite different from the original purposes can still be compatible with those original purposes. Provided the further processing is for a purpose that is not contradictory to the originally specified purpose or purposes, it will be consistent with the second principle. 32. For example, it would not offend the second principle for data originally obtained for local authority administrative purposes subsequently to be shared with the police to prevent crime pursuant to the power in section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act The two purposes are not incompatible. However, a public authority in receipt of complaints about canvassing by private companies from members of the public which passed complainants details to other companies for commercial purposes would clearly be processing their data for an incompatible purpose. 1819 The third principle: adequate, relevant and not excessive Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed. 33. When considering a data sharing request or project, public bodies should focus on the objective of the exercise, decide what information is actually required to achieve it, and limit the scope of the shared data accordingly. 34. Hence, bulk transfers of data including irrelevant material should not be conducted merely as a matter of convenience. That said, there may be circumstances in which it would be impracticable or prohibitively expensive to separate particular fields or records from a dataset prior to a transfer. If that is the case, a bulk transfer which includes limited amounts of material which is irrelevant to the intended purpose may not be regarded as excessive. The fourth principle: accurate and up to date Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. 35. In a data sharing exercise, a public body which is the recipient of personal data collected by another organisation will have relatively limited responsibilities in relation to this principle. The requirement is that having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained, reasonable steps must be taken to ensure its accuracy. 26 It must store the data so that it remains as accurate as it was when it was received, but it is not responsible for any existing errors. 36. If, however, data subjects inform the sending authority that the data it holds about them is incorrect, it should notify the recipient authority so that it too can rectify or mark the disputed accuracy of, the data. 27 Equally a data subject could notify the receiving authority directly of the alleged inaccuracy. In that case the recipient should also either rectify or mark the data as appropriate, and it is good practice for it to notify the sending authority of the alleged inaccuracy. The fifth principle: information not to be kept longer than necessary Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. 26 Paragraph 7, part 2 Schedule 1 DPA 27 And indeed it may be ordered to do so by a court under section 14(3) of the DPA. 1920 37. Unless there is good reason to retain it, information should be destroyed by the recipient once a data sharing project has come to an end. If a data sharing agreement (see Section 7 below) is used it should make appropriate provision for this, and it is often good practice to include a specific deletion schedule. Even where a formal data sharing agreement is not used, it is essential that the recipient makes provision to ensure that the personal data it has received is kept no longer than is necessary for the purpose for which it was received. 38. Section 33 of the DPA provides an exemption to this principle, allowing data controllers to keep personal data indefinitely where necessary for historical, research or statistical purposes, provided that certain conditions are met. See paragraph 61 below. The sixth principle: rights of data subjects Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act. 39. The rights of data subjects are set out in Part 2 of the DPA. These rights apply in the context of public sector data sharing to both the sender and the recipient of the data, as they do to all other processing operations, but no specific considerations arise. The seventh principle: keeping personal data secure Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data. 40. High-profile data losses have resulted in greater emphasis on security and the imposition on all central government departments of mandatory minimum security measures. 41. Data sharing agreements should specify the security arrangements, both technical and administrative in nature that each party will put in place. The eighth principle: transfer outside the EEA Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area 28 unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data. 28 The EEA includes the EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. 20 View more
Freedom of information guidance Exemptions guidance Section 41 Information provided in confidence 14 May 2008 Contents Introduction 2 What information may be covered by this exemption? 3 Was the information More information Subject access code of practice
ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY 01037/12/EN WP 196 Opinion 05/2012 on Cloud Computing Adopted July 1 st 2012 This Working Party was set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC. It is an independent More information THE BRIBERY ACT2010. Guidance
THE BRIBERY ACT2010 Guidance about procedures which relevant commercial organisations can put into place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing (section 9 of the Bribery Act 2010) THE BRIBERY More information The Human Rights Framework as a Tool for Regulators and Inspectorates
The Human Rights Framework as a Tool for Regulators and Inspectorates Contents Foreword 5 Part 1: Introduction and Background 7 Who should use this handbook and why? 8 What is the human rights framework? More information CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF STATE BODIES
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF STATE BODIES PREFACE The first set of guidelines on Corporate Governance in State Bodies entitled State Bodies Guidelines was issued by the Department of Finance More information Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence
259 Human Rights Review 2012 Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: 1. Everyone has the More information Queensland building work enforcement guidelines
Queensland building work enforcement guidelines Achieving compliance of building work with the provisions of the Building Act 1975 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997 Effective 1 September 2002 Contents More information THE PLAIN LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION
THE PLAIN LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT CONTENTS Part 1: Introduction What is the Act trying to achieve? Who does the Act apply to? Part 2: Provisions in the Act relating More information Guiding Principles on Business. Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Implementing the United Nations Protect, More information COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Executive Office of the President
46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 23, 1981) As amended COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Executive Office of the President Memorandum to Agencies: Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental More information Acting as a litigation friend in the Court of Protection
Guidance Note Acting as a litigation friend in the Court of Protection Introduction 1. The Court of Protection plays a vital role in securing the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in society. More information EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS Solving Problems at Work
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS DOL 11668 NOV 12 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Hikina Whakatutuki Lifting to make successful MBIE develops and delivers policy, services, advice and regulation More information AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON CYBER SECURITY AND PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION EX.CL/846(XXV)
AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON CYBER SECURITY AND PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION EX.CL/846(XXV) AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE UNIÃO AFRICANA P.O. Box: 3243, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Tel.: +251-115 18 24 02 Fax: +251-115 More information Code of Human Research Ethics
Code of Human Research Ethics If you have problems reading this document and would like it in a different format, please contact us with your specific requirements. Tel: 0116 2254 9568; e-mail mail@bps.org.uk. More information Select Committees and Coercive Powers Clarity or Confusion? Richard Gordon QC Amy Street
Report Select Committees and Coercive Powers Clarity or Confusion? Richard Gordon QC Amy Street SELECT COMMITTEES AND COERCIVE POWERS CLARITY OR CONFUSION? Richard Gordon Q.C. and Amy Street 2 SELECT COMMITTEES More information On the Record. A Practical Guide to Health Information Privacy. 3 rd Edition
On the Record A Practical Guide to Information Privacy 3 rd Edition On the Record 3rd edition Published by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner 2011 1st Edition 1999 2nd Edition 2000 PO Box 10094 Level More information The Right to Blog. Policy Brief
The Right to Blog 2013 Policy Brief ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre 60 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3GA United Kingdom T: +44 20 7324 2500 F: +44 20 7490 0566 E: info@article19.org W: www.article19.org Tw: More information No secrets: Guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse
No secrets: Guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse There can be no secrets and no hiding place when it comes to exposing the More information RPC004772_EN_WB_L_2. Code of Practice. for Revenue Audit and other Compliance Interventions. www.revenue.ie
RPC004772_EN_WB_L_2 Code of Practice for Revenue Audit and other Compliance Interventions www.revenue.ie To serve the community by fairly and efficiently collecting taxes and duties and implementing Customs More information Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. Direct marketing
Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations Direct marketing 1 ICO lo Data Protection Act Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations Contents Introduction... 3 Overview... 4 Legal framework... More information Human rights at home:
Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance Human rights at home: Guidance for social housing providers www.equalityhumanrights.com Contents Foreword 2 Introduction 5 1. What are human rights and where More information Safeguarding older people from abuse and neglect
Factsheet 78 May 2015 Safeguarding older people from abuse and neglect About this factsheet This factsheet is designed to explain the new laws on safeguarding adults and to help you decide what to do if More information Close to home. An inquiry into older people and human rights in home care
Close to home An inquiry into older people and human rights in home care Inquiry into older people and human rights in home care Acknowledgements This has been a collaborative inquiry, significantly enhanced More information GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETHICS FOR REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
7 th Edition 2009 GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETHICS FOR REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS professional conduct responsibilities to patients medical records and confidentiality consent to medical More information Determining what information is data for the purposes of the DPA
OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting ACTION 13: 2014 Deliverable OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project More information Council of the European Union Brussels, 9 March 2015 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 9 March 2015 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2012/0011 (COD) 6833/15 NOTE From: To: Presidency Council DATAPROTECT 26 JAI 156 MI 144 DRS 18 DAPIX 30 FREMP 45 COMIX More information 2017 © DocPlayer.net Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback