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 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.

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 todo 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.

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. 

Also in: Politics

Hastings Independents join Sultana and Corbyn’s Your Party »