Data Protection Bill — Information Held for the Purposes of Maintaining Effective Immigration Control — 9 May 2018 at 18:00

The majority of MPs voted for key elements of data protection law not to apply when personal information is held for the purposes of maintaining effective immigration control.

MPs were considering the Data Protection Bill[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • Amendment 15, page 141, line 17, leave out paragraph 4.

Had it not been rejected this amendment[2] would have impacted Schedule 2 of the Bill[3]. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 was titled: Immigration and began:

  • (1) The GDPR provisions listed in sub-paragraph (2) do not apply to personal data processed for any of the following purposes—
  • (a)the maintenance of effective immigration control, or
  • (b)the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control, to the extent that the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The explanatory notes to the Bill [4], state, in relation to Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2:

  • Paragraph 4 restricts the application of the certain GDPR provisions to personal data processed for the purposes of the maintenance of effective immigration control, or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control, to the extent that the processing would be likely to prejudice those purposes.

Those elements of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)[5] which the Bill sought to dis-apply in respect of immigration control included:

  • Article 13(1) to (3)
  • Article 14(1) to (4)
  • Article 15(1) to (3)

Which relate to the provision of the identity of the data controller and other information to the data subject

  • Article 17(1) and (2)

Which provide for the "right to erasure" ('right to be forgotten')

  • Article 18(1)

Which provides for a restriction of processing a subject's data.

  • Article 21(1)

Which provides for a right for a data subject to object to processing in the public interest, or in the exercise of official authority, or "for the purposes of legitimate interests", preventing a controller processing their data unless they demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override the interests, rights and freedoms of the data subject or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con299 (+2 tell) 0095.3%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 50100.0%
Lab0 230 (+2 tell)090.3%
LDem0 10083.3%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 32091.4%
Total:310 282093.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive