Data Protection (Hansard, 13 July 1994)

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will describe, in each case, the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from the first sentence of paragraph 2.4, the second sentence of paragraph 3.1, and from the whole of paragraph 3.3 of Council of Europe recommendation R(85)20; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The reservation on the first sentence of paragraph 2.4 was made because the Government did not believe that individual notification of data subjects at the time of collection should always be required.
The reservation on the second sentence of paragraph 3.1 was made because United Kingdom law does not require an individual's consent to be obtained before data about him are disclosed.
The reservation on paragraph 3.3 was made because in the Government's view it is impracticable for controllers of marketing files to know to whom their lists have been provided by the original recipients of the lists.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from principles 6.2 and 6.3 paragraph 2 of Council of Europe recommendation R(91)10; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The reservations on principle 6.2 and principle 6.3, paragraph 2, were made because these provisions go beyond what is required by United Kingdom data protection legislation.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 687W June, Official Report, column 640, whether he will in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from principles 2.2 and 2.4 of Council of Europe recommendation R(87)15; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The reservation on principle 2.2 was made because in the Government's view it would be undesirable to provide the information in question in some circumstances.
The reservation on principle 2.4 was made because in the Government's view this principle could seriously inhibit the police in preventing and detecting crime.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will, in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from the second sub-paragraph of 1.2, the second sentence of paragraph 3.3, and from paragraph 5 of Council of Europe recommendation R(86)1; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The reservation on the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 1.2 was made to ensure that the recommendation did not apply to occupational pensions schemes in the United Kingdom.
The reservation on the second sentence of paragraph 3.3 was made because United Kingdom law does not require consent before personal data may be obtained from third parties.
The reservation on paragraph 5 was made because the United Kingdom does not have legislation governing the use of the national insurance number.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from extending the Council of Europe recommendation R(83)10 to manually processed data; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The reservation was made because United Kingdom data protection law does not apply to manually processed data.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 5.1c, and 7.1 of Council of Europe recommendations R(90)19; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The reservations on paragraphs 3.3 and 5.1.c were made because these paragraphs depend upon the individual's consent which is not required under United Kingdom law.
The reservation of paragraph 3.4 was made because in the Government's view the paragraph is unnecessarily restrictive on businesses which use non-cash means of payment.
The reservation on paragraph 7.1 was made because the paragraph could require the data subject to be given access to security information.