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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll