Politics time!
There's a nasty bit of legislation running through the Commons the noo, which goes by the name of the Coroners and Justice Bill, Clause 152. I'd encourage you to read it. Thankfully it's not very long.
Back? Good. I'd like to draw your attention to the following in particular:
(1) An information-sharing order may-- ... (h) modify any enactment.
Any enactment? So, by invoking an 'information-sharing order', any Member of Parliament can do... anything they like.
I'm not sure of the scope of this legislation, but that provision is entirely unqualified. There doesn't seem to be any limit on what's allowed once one of these 'information-sharing orders' is created. Maybe, if required, your house could be raided. Maybe you could be detained indefinitely. Maybe Jacqui Smith could just send the boys round to kick your head in and get the information.
Even if the Clause only affects the Data Protection Act's provisions (the Clause is an amendment to the DPA), that's some seriously powerful legislation. It allows any MP, MSP etc. to throw the Data Protection Act in the bin and do whatever they want with whatever information they like. And then they can let anyone else do the same as long as:
(a) the sharing of information enabled by the order is necessary to secure a relevant policy objective (b) that the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to that policy objective, and (c) that the provision made by the order strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person affected by it.
What policies? Any policies, apparently. Who decides the public interest and fair balance? We're not told. These three conditions are all that limit the power of this legislation, and being so ill-defined they offer no protection from abuse. Not that this matters very much, since the Clause allows for the modification of any enactment, presumably including the Clause itself.
Accordingly, and for the first time in my puff, I've written to my MP and requested that this deeply sinister power-grab be rejected at the first possible opportunity. If you've got 5 minutes, I'd be much obliged if you'd do the same.
The three conditions that you list at the end are actually pretty strict tests. They would ultimately be decided in a Court of Law, which would decide whether the information sharing was relevant, proportionate and whether it struck a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the person affected. An MP would therefore need to take legal advice on the legal risks before seeking to enact the amended Act. I reckon they're meaningful obstacles if all three conditions must apply.
Honestly; paranoia, Citizen Smith. Remember, the Government is only here to look after your best interests. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Bloody libertarian.
Presumably the tests would only be challenged after an order had been implemented, which would be too late - the stable door may be shut but at least one horse got out.
An MP would have to seek legal advice? Maybe they could ask Lord Goldsmith what he thinks again. Sure beats putting legislation through the Commons and the Lords - what a pain in the ass that is.