MPs lay into UK.gov's planned immigration data exemptions

The UK government's plan to excuse itself from having to hand over information about the data it holds on immigrants has received short shrift from MPs. In the first debate on the Data Protection Bill in the House of Commons on Monday evening – the draft text having been passed by the Lords in January – MPs lambasted an …

[Doctor Syntax]

Hancock also shrugged off Cherry's statement that legal opinions suggested the immigration exemption would not be permissible under the GDPR, saying simply that "there are always legal opinions about everything".

Indeed there are and the place where these get resolved is in court. Maybe the prospect of a fine of 4% of HMGs revenue ought to concentrate his mind. Perhaps someone should ask the Chancellor if his budget contains provision for this.

[James 51]

Given that home sectary after home sectary has not tackled the issue of illegal databases and illegally held data by police the most likely scenario is what ever the law is in practice they will continue to do whatever they like.

[phuzz]

Plus, if/when other countries decided that the UK does not meet GDPR requirements, it'll be spun as 'nasty Europe trying to tell us what to do' (Britain has been part of the EU throughout the introduction of the GDPR, and British MEPs have had a hand in shaping it).

[Geekpride]

Don't solve the problem, hide it.

"In a recent answer to a House of Lords question, the other place was told that in the 10 years to 2015, 250,000 appeals were allowed against the Home Office," - I suspect this may be part of the reason for the immigration data exemption. Instead of trying to make fewer mistakes, they're trying to make it harder for people to prove mistakes have been made.

The other factors in the reasoning are probably general anti-immigrant bias and government's apparent determination to hide all the data they possess, even as they slurp up everybody else's.

[John Smith 19]

trying to make fewer mistakes,..make it harder for people to prove mistakes have been made.

Yes that's sounds like the Home Office is keeping up its reputation as "Centre for Evil" in the UK.

[Cederic]

Re: Don't solve the problem, hide it.

Does an appeal being 'allowed' mean that the appeal was successful, or that the individual was allowed to appeal?

In which case, how many appeals even succeeded?

[earl grey]

what can possibly go wrong?

said no one, ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

i missed a bit ...

where are the clauses that make responsible civil servants and ministers personally liable, under both civil and criminal law, and unable to hide behind crown immunity (or using public funds for defence / fines) if they fail to protect personal data?

Could it be that "our" government doesn't give a * about citizens rights?

(Sorry, that was a silly quesiton: we know that they do not. Mrs May said she'd seek to protect rights, yet her ministers are busy trying to strip key rights away from people)