New data protection bill is a cynical attack on immigrants, says Labour MEP

The government is using the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – which modernises EU data protection law – as cover for its attempts to remove key rights from people subject to UK immigration procedures, a Labour MEP has alleged.

Claude Moraes, writing in The Guardian, has drawn attention to a clause in the government’s new data protection bill that would remove the rights of people going through immigration procedures (eg, seeking the right to remain post-Brexit) to know what information public authorities hold about them, as well as to correct or delete inaccurate or unlawfully collected personal data. The rule would affect all non-UK nationals, including EU citizens.

The clause has been argued to be discriminatory and unfair on the grounds that it would prevent people in immigration disputes with the Home Office from obtaining personal information that would be essential to their cases. The rule could therefore increase the perception among some that the Home Office is pursuing an unofficial policy of deportation over and above the facts of individual cases.

The main scope of the new data protection bill is to implement the GDPR, but Moraes believes that the extra clause would be damaging to UK interests, as well as the rights of people immigrating to the country. Writing in The Guardian, he said: “[I]n essence, what is happening here is that the UK government, under the cover of the complexity of data protection law in particular, and its chaotic Brexit negotiations in general, is seeking to create damaging new discriminatory national immigration restrictions. In addition, the government is undermining the implementation of the most important piece of EU data protection law ever drafted, which will have the knock-on effect of undermining the ability of the United Kingdom to ensure the free flow of data post-Brexit. This, as people will have seen this week, could have major economic and security implications for the United Kingdom.

“This issue should alarm all those who care about human rights, a fair immigration system, and a professional and transparent implementation of data protection rules in the United Kingdom.”

On the other side of the argument, the sizeable and influential group of ‘hard Brexit’ advocating MPs in the government have continually pointed out that a key reason for the majority vote to exit the European Union was a desire to cut immigration. What the outcome will be of the ongoing war in the corridors of power between the Brexiteers and those who favour a ‘soft’ Brexit (or Britain remaining an EU member) remains to be seen.