Watching and learning
Data harvesting by MP: concerns over alleged misuse of local petitions
The data management practices of Helena Dollimore MP have been challenged by the Green Party. They point out that campaign petitions are launched on constituency issues, but not often delivered (though some were) or reported on. How many had an outcome publicly declared? Other questions follow, such as ‘Are these petitions a way of gathering targets for campaigning or electoral messages, and is that within ‘the regs’?’ Bernard McGinley reports.
Sixteen-or-so petitions are or have been on local MP Helena Dollimore’s website, for causes such as water problems, empty shops, fire station cuts, and children’s playgrounds. To support them, constituents have to give personal details: full name, email, phone, address and postcode are compulsory.
Now the local Green Party has asked for clarification on where these petitions went and what the outcome to date of the issue was. An exception is the petition submitted to Parliament on 12 February 2025 on scaffolding business standards, following the horrific death of young Harry Dennis in a traffic accident at Hooe in 2022.
Evidence is scant that petitions were presented somewhere such as the Borough Council or the County Council, or delivered to an offending utility company or some other organisation. The possibility arises that these campaigns were primarily for the purpose of data harvesting. Some tiny print unhelpfully refers to the ‘private policy’ [sic] but the link is to a long and wilfully tedious document that uses the word ‘constituents’ once.
Transparency
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) states that under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), compliance includes Article 5(1) on transparency:
Article 5(1) requires that personal data shall be:
(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’) . . .
(c) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’) . . .
(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed.
Article 5(2) adds that:
The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’)
Given the requirement for openness, news of the destination and outcome of the petitions ought to be readily available therefore.
Bottle Alley and the beach (Wikimedia Commons: N Chadwick)
Beach patio?
The Selkie café in Bottle Alley is in the news and social media at present over its use of the beach. The MP rapidly launched a petition to Hastings Borough Council (HBC) to use its discretion. It seems she did not first talk to HBC members or officers – or the Foreshore Trust (FT) – before launching the petition. HBC have issued a statement of rebuttal about some assumptions. Talks to resolve the matter are continuing.
According to the Council, the Hastings Borough Council Act 1988 states:
It has a duty to protect the foreshore ‘to hold and maintain the Trust land for the common use, benefit and enjoyment of all Her Majesty’s subjects and of the public for the time being forever’.
This is incorrect. As HOT has pointed out, this comes from the Trust foundation document of 1893. In the present to-do the FT has not yet commented on:
■ beach-use issues such as by cafés
■ the reopening of the Stade Pathway as a Public Right of Way
■ leasehold issues near the boating lake
and whether it is seeking external legal advice on the situation, as it is entitled to do.
Data required for public admission
Anti-social Behaviour
Surprisingly (or not), Helena Dollimore has extended the data gathering process to public events. The MP is having a ‘Public Meeting’ in Hastings Old Town on Thursday 7 August (‘Late afternoon’ – at 5 pm, and with a police commander) to discuss crime and antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues.
However the location is a secret unless attenders register, or scan a relevant QR code (and hope to avoid quishing). The public meeting – for residents/local businesses/Hastings police – is not much of a public meeting if registration is required. Arguably the control is itself a form of antisocial behaviour. An explanation regarding need-for-security can be expected but it would be at odds with what is known as ‘democratic engagement purposes’. Why does a ‘public meeting’ require personal data for admission?
Asked by HOT to comment on the handling and outcomes of petitions, the MP had an anonymous spokesperson send a lengthy statement that was doggedly off-the- point. Compliance with transparency requirements was asserted but not shown, and GDPR Article 5(1) went unmentioned. Liaison with HBC or the FT regarding the Selkie was ignored.
The spokesperson explained: ‘All the petitions currently on her website are still “live” and collecting signatures’, but said nothing about the outcomes of others – on ambulance waiting times, local station ticket offices, Silverdale School pool, local driving tests, and year-round seawater testing – about where the petitions went and what happened to the related data. The policies on data storage, retention and use are opaque.
The ignoral of these matters is peculiar. The MP’s message included: ‘It is a sign of a healthy democracy when elected representatives are able to directly engage with their constituents in this way’. The converse is even more true.
The full statement provided by a spokesperson for Helena Dollimore
Petitions form a vital part of the democratic process, and demonstrate the power communities can have when they work together to make change. Helena is extremely proud of all the work achieved with her public petitions for the Hastings and Rye community.
To cite just a few examples:
Helena started a petition signed by thousands of people to save The Ridge Fire Station. The petition was handed in to East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service and the Shadow Fire Minister. The Ridge Fire Station was saved.
Helena started a petition signed by hundreds of people for Southern Water to fairly compensate residents after the May 2024 water outage in Hastings. This formed a vital part of Helena’s campaign to put pressure on Southern Water to pay out. Millions of pounds was awarded in compensation as a result of Helena’s campaign with residents.
Helena started a feedback survey for local parents to canvass views on who should run our local schools after the rebrokerage of the University of Brighton Academies Trust. Over 100 parents completed the feedback survey which signalled overwhelming public concern about Ark taking over another Hastings school. Helena submitted these survey responses directly to the Minister for School Standards and the Department for Education Regional Director for the South East. Ark did not take over another Hastings school.
Helena is out listening to residents all year round to hear what they want to see improved in their area. All the petitions currently on her website are still ‘live’ and collecting signatures. After residents got in touch with Helena about the poor state of the cemetery and the subsequent lack of response from Hastings Borough Council, she met affected families on site and started a petition in response. After garnering over 1,500 signatures in under a week, the Support Selkie petition has shown that the Hastings and St Leonards community want their voices to be heard. Green Party-run Hastings Borough Council may not want residents to have their say, but that will not stop Helena from standing up for her constituents and campaigning to make our town a better place. Helena’s website is GDPR compliant. As per the website’s private policy and external link to the Information Commissioner’s Office, promoting democratic engagement is a vital part of being a Member of Parliament. It is a sign of a healthy democracy when elected representatives are able to directly engage with their constituents in this way to better represent them, and campaign on the issues which matter most to them. As the above examples show, Helena’s campaigns are vital for making tangible improvements to people’s lives across Hastings, Rye and the villages.
If you’re enjoying HOT and would like us to continue providing fair and balanced reporting on local matters please consider making a donation. Click here to open our PayPal donation link. Thank you for your continued support!
8 Comments
Please read our comment guidelines before posting on HOT
Leave a comment
(no more than 350 words)
Also in: Politics
Hastings Independents join Sultana and Corbyn’s Your Party »
The MP’s full-but-incomplete statement on campaign petitions has been published. The invitation to her to comment (which led to the statement) is also published, below. Before the ‘Data harvesting’ story was finished, Helena Dollimore was asked to comment, but the reply ducked the issues. Little of it was therefore relevant or quoted. The fate and status of numerous petitions remains unknown.
The statement was not made on the basis of ‘right of reply’ — as she was not replying to what was published, but repeating what she first said beforehand. Compliance with GDPR has been asserted but not shown. Concerns about data harvesting and breaches have not been allayed but intensified. ‘Helena’s website is GDPR compliant’ we are baldly told. That in itself breaches requirements on lawfulness, fairness and transparency, including being able to show compliance (Article 5(1) and (2)). See the Information Commissioner’s guidance on GDPR — including Article 21.
Comment by Bernard McGinley — Sunday, Aug 17, 2025 @ 11:51
Thank you, Bea, for advising us that you are a Labour Party member. For your information, I am not a member or supporter of any political party.
You say that you are protective of women being attacked. She is not being criticised because she is a woman. She is being criticised because she is an incompetent MP. She made a voluntary lifestyle choice to stand for Parliament and she needs to accept the consequences.
You repeat that this platform is for discussing issues. I repeat that SHE is the issue.
Comment by David Alan Stevenson — Wednesday, Aug 13, 2025 @ 13:48
The MP was not ‘attacked’. She was criticised. She was weighed in the balance and found wanting (Daniel v: 27) . She was asked to comment:
Dear Helena Dollimore: for the Hottie I’m doing a report on the issue of the campaigns or petitions you have raised (such as the Improve Playgrounds online petition), and want to record your perspectives. Clarification would be welcome on the fate (to date) of these 15-or-so cases. (The only Parliamentary one I can find is the one you did for Maria Dennis on 12 February 2025 on scaffolding business standards.)
In particular your view is sought on:
■ UK GDPR compliance, such as with Article 5(1) on transparency.
■ Regarding the Selkie café in Bottle Alley, did you talk to HBC officers or members – or the Foreshore Trust – before launching the petition?
Further comment on (e.g.) democratic engagement purposes would be welcome. I’ve read your Privacy Policy. There or elsewhere I can find nothing on publication of outcomes or openness with campaign supporters.
__
Each ■ was red. The rambling reply did not address those concerns: it ducked and deviated, which is why it was described as ‘doggedly off-the-point’.
On 13 February 2025 the MP said in the Commons of local media:
They are volunteer-led, and those volunteers do a huge job, updating the community on what is going on and holding people such as myself to account.
On that, let’s take her at her word.
Comment by Bernard McGinley — Wednesday, Aug 13, 2025 @ 09:30
David asks about my relationship with the Labour Party. I am a Labour Party member, and other commentators may also be members of political parties – let’s all be open about that.
Am I “protective” of women being attacked, verbally or otherwise? Yes. No apologies for that. I still maintain that HOT should be where we discuss issues.
Comment by Bea Rogers — Tuesday, Aug 12, 2025 @ 12:30
Ms Dollimore has been a great disappointment. Parachuted in by the central labour party, she does not reflect the views of the majority of left leaning Hastings residents. She is good at climbing on bandwagons to try and claim credit – eg Southern Water and the fiasco of the A21 improvements. I’m sure if these ever have a satisfactory outcome she’ll say she created that.
Comment by Ian Bunch — Monday, Aug 11, 2025 @ 16:01
I wonder why Bea Rogers is so protective of our MP (this article and another in this newspaper). Perhaps she should explain her relationship with the local Labour Party. She says “attack the issues, not the person”. On this occasion, the MP IS the issue. If the electorate suspect their MP of unethical or illegal activities, then we have every right to question them. If they refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question, then it is not surprising that we assume that they have something to hide. The election of July 2024 gave us the opportunity to clear out the dross from the House of Commons. It appears that we have just replaced Conservative crooks with Labour crooks.
Comment by David Alan Stevenson — Monday, Aug 11, 2025 @ 15:14
The MP was specifically asked about GDPR Article 5(1) on transparency, and contact with HBC over the Selkie. Both issues were evaded.
Data storage is subject to the Data Protection Principles, and the MP refuses to show compliance. In requiring personal data for admission to a public meeting, she is going beyond what is reasonable.
Comment by Bernard McGinley — Saturday, Aug 9, 2025 @ 13:10
Hey ho: yet another excuse for the Green Party to attack Helena as the sitting MP, greatly exaggerating the “data threat” from a petition on her website – which nobody is obliged to sign. Asking for personal names and addresses is standard practice for petitions, to verify that this is a real person signing and not a robot operated by some cause or other. If you don’t like it, don’t sign it.
Obviously the Greens would love to win the next general election with their own candidate, and there is nothing wrong with that. But they risk their reputation as being the nicest party. So attack the issues, not the person.
Comment by Bea Rogers — Friday, Aug 8, 2025 @ 11:02