Tynwald has rushed through a change to data protection rules to ensure one of its own investigatory committees is not forced to disclose details on a vulnerable witness.

Members approved the change during Tuesday’s extra online sitting, which was arranged ostensibly to deal with Covid-19 issues

Policy and Reform Minister Ray Harmer explained the issue had arisen due to a clash between the rules of data protection and those covering parliamentary privilege, effectively over whether the information commissioner’s powers on handling personal data superseded Tynwald’s right to manage its own affairs.

Mr Harmer said it came following a ’data subject access request from a witness before a highly sensitive committee inquiry’.

Clerk of Tynwald Roger Phillips had asserted parliamentary privilege on behalf of the committee but last month the information commissioner’s office (ICO) demanded a revised response be given to the witness who made the request - by today (Friday) - and for the committee to show its workings.

Mr Harmer said: ’If the Clerk of Tynwald’s office responds to the ICO in compliance with the present law as we now understand it to be, it will be necessary to breach confidences given by Tynwald in good faith to extremely vulnerable witnesses who were told that no one would see their evidence - including the fact that they gave evidence - without their consent.’

He said the ICO wanted sight of the information to ’second guess’ Tynwald’s determination to assert its privilege.

The rule changes that will prevent this happening have been made by amending regulations made under Data Protection Act. The changes - which went through unopposed - put Tynwald’s obligations under data protection law on the same footing as the UK.

Mr Harmer added the new rules were needed in place before the end of this week ’because of the need to prevent a potential breach of confidence in relation to a live case’.

He said: ’Committees routinely give assurances to witnesses that they can speak in confidence and that the information they give will not be disclosed to anyone without consent.

’These assurances are essential to the effective functioning of committees. Relying on these assurances, witnesses often name other people in their evidence.

’They may name, for example, other witnesses or persons working in public services such as police officers or social workers, or managers of those services.

The minister added: ’In the most sensitive inquiries it is not only what the witness has said, but the very fact that they have approached the committee at all which they do not wish to be known by anyone else.’

He said that even the process of seeking consent to disclose their evidence would be ’potentially damaging’ to vulnerable witnesses.

Tynwald needed to be able to maintain any confidentiality promised.