British negotiators warn of security dangers as they call for preferential treatment

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

UK negotiators in Brussels have warned of significant economic and security dangers for Europe should the EU not grant a special deal on data-sharing laws after Brexit.

In an appeal for immediate talks on the issue, a government presentation given to Michel Barnier’s EU team on Tuesday included a mixture of implicit threats and expressions of concern for the future.

The UK wants a seat in the body that applies data laws on companies, and has insisted it should be given preferential treatment over other non-EU countries after Brexit.

EU businesses in sectors ranging from finance to telecommunications that are reliant on current data-sharing arrangements earned €36bn (£32bn) from the UK in 2016, British officials said.

In the same year, 13,000 requests from EU member states for information about criminal convictions of UK nationals received a response. Britain issued 35,000 notifications regarding EU nationals being convicted in the UK.

The UK’s presentation said: “The continued, uninterrupted and secure flow of personal data between the EU and UK is vital for all partners.

“An agreement on data protection will be crucial for the EU and the UK, and any disruption to cross-border data flows would be costly to all partners. An agreement will also ensure clarity on enforcing citizens’ rights.”

The EU has expressed willingness to strike a deal over data, but there are serious concerns in Whitehall about the UK losing its say over the future shape of the legal framework and day-to-day impact of imposing those rules on businesses and individuals.

The EU’s Brexit guidelines, published in March, suggested a future legal framework for data sharing “should be governed by union rules on adequacy”, meaning Brussels would allow data sharing if the UK’s standards stayed in alignment with the EU.

However, the UK’s presentation said such a basis for data “would not reflect the full breadth and depth of the UK-EU relationship”.

Britain instead wants a more “stable” system that allows the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the largest data protection authority in the EU, to sit on the body that regulates and sets guidelines.

It also wishes to be part of the “one-stop shop” mechanism, whereby only one supervisory authority, rather than multiple bodies across the EU, decides on cross-border data disputes.

The nationality of the body taking the lead would be determined by the location of the main establishment of the data controller involved.

The UK’s presentation said: “It will benefit EU businesses operating in the UK to avoid two parallel processes on data protection disputes – one in the UK led by the ICO and one in the ‘one-stop shop’, and avoids unnecessary additional cost.

“It could include amendment, dispute resolution and termination provisions. This would provide EU and UK individuals and businesses with greater stability and certainty.”

Barnier has previously expressed his concerns about attempts by the British government to meddle in the autonomy of EU decision making after Brexit.

The UK, however, has said trade, consumers and public services stand to lose out if such a deal cannot be struck.

It also pointed to its efforts to enforce General Data Protection Regulation – which aims to make all organisations gain genuine consent to use personal information – as an indication of the UK’s high standards.

Officials told the commission’s negotiators: “We seek a new agreement on data protection that builds on a standard adequacy decision.

“Such a pragmatic approach would reflect our close shared interests and unique relationship, to the benefit of both the EU and UK … The UK is ready to begin discussing the future EU-UK relationship on data protection now.”

A second presentation to the EU, released by the government, expresses its hope for an association agreement with the bloc’s collaborative research and science programmes, with “an appropriate level of influence” on their content.

The paper says: “This should be greater than current non-EU precedents, recognising the quality and breadth of the UK’s contribution.”

The UK, in turn, would accept the remit of the European court of justice in that field, in a softening of the prime minister’s red lines first trailed in her speech in Munich this year.