I hate Bureaucrats

[liquorsnob]

So I'm doing some casework, involving CAFCASS (the family courts service). One of their Sheffield managers has taken the position that no information can be shared with the MP as that would infringe the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act with relation to the constituent's rights

Comments

[liquorsnob]

They aren't disputing the fact that the constituent has made the request for the MP to see the documents/help with the case. They seem to think that this isn't enough. Their latest letter said that under the Administration of Justice Act 1960 they weren't empowered to release any documents, or discuss the case at all, as they'd been acting as an agent of the court.

The DPA doesn't actually require that the person concerned make the request. It merely requires "explicit consent". "A trusted third party with an audit trail should be good enough.

Although it was when looking at this I came across a weird thing about the DPA in Scotland. Although the DPA does apply in Scotland, the act doesn't actually empower anybody to take actions against somebody under it. It explicitly calls on the DPP for England & Wales and whoever it is for NI. But no mention of Scotland there. Possibly because of the requirements of a separate legal system under the 1707 Act of Union, so actually prosecuting would be a devolved matter, even though the overall issue is reserved.

[redistributer]

On a side issue, the 1707 Act of Union isn't as sacrosanct as a lot of the anti-independence brigade, yourself included, would like to think. In the first fifty years of the Act, at least five of the around two dozen articles were overruled by new laws - don't you love that wonderful (English) tradition of parliamentary sovereignty? The most recent violation that I can think of was the 1975 Local Government Act, which legally terminated the existence of county-sized administrative units that were explicitly protected in 1707. Although every budget that puts a tariff on whisky continues to violate it.

A fellow nationalist once told me that whatever body it is that recognises international treaties doesn't recognise the 1707 Treaty for the simple reason that it's been violated so much. Now that would be an interesting negotiating point for independence, eh?

[liquorsnob]

Surely by definition the 1707 Act accepts the validity of parliamentary sovereignty? If it doesn't, then the whole Act is null and void (i.e. the then Scottish Parliament vacated its rights and responsibilities in favour of the British Parliament. As the legal inheritor of these, it had the right to do what ever it wanted with them.)

The 1975 Local Government (Scotland (surely?)) Act thus was as valid as, but more recent than, the 1707 Act as a constitutional "amendment"?

Or have I got this totally wrong and one of the articles of the 1707 Act was that the rights enshrined therein could not be abrogated?

[redistributer]

The Act sort of said it was unchangeable, but that's not the point. The point is that the Act was really an international treaty - the fact that there were two acts in two separate national parliaments to ratify it is secondary. Of course, international law is completely screwed on this one, mainly for two reasons - it's never come up and it's secessionist which countries find scary.

[liquorsnob]

A treaty is surely nothing more than an agreement to enter certain things into national law?
And by definition, because of the treaty, parliamentary sovereignty reigns supreme?

[redistributer]

Come back to this argument after you've taken a basic course in international relations, m'dorling.

[liquorsnob]

I would love to, but I couldn't get on it in first year. Why don't you educate me?

[adamantis]

well, Marco, how can you turn down an offer like that... ;P