header-logo header-logo

The Data Protection Bill - virtues out of necessity?

24 November 2017 / Hannah Smith , Miranda Mourby , Stergios Aidinlis
Issue: 7771 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Claims & counter claims: Miranda Mourby, Stergios Aidinlis & Hannah Smith review the progress of the Data Protection Bill

  • A number of claims have been made for the Data Protection Bill, as it serves a number of purposes—modernisation, ensuring data flows post-Brexit, and exercising derogations under the GDPR to create a more ‘nationalised’ law.

The new Data Protection Bill is currently going through Committee stage in the House of Lords. After a largely positive second reading, the Bill has encountered controversy— particularly in its relationship with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

The Data Protection Bill (DPB) arises from a clear practical necessity to repeal the Data Protection Act 1998 prior to the direct effect of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018. However, the Bill has been presented as more than this: it has been hailed as a much-needed modernisation of data protection law, as a way to smooth the transition through Brexit, and as a means of creating a distinctly British data protection

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll