Privacy campaigners have warned that voters’ personal data could be used to target them with political messaging under new laws.
In a letter written to Chris Bryant, the data protection minister, and the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, campaigners said there was “potential for abuse of new powers” in the data protection legislation, which was introduced to parliament at the end of 2024.
The campaigners, spearheaded by the Open Rights Group, said the new laws would give the secretary of state discretion to determine how personal data was used to target political campaigning, and to time this in a way that would give the ruling party an electoral advantage over opponents.
The letter, which is supported by signatories including Big Brother Watch, Unlock Democracy, Fair Vote UK, Good Law Project, Keep Our NHS Public and three academics, describes these as “Henry VIII powers”, since they would allow any future government to change the rules with minimal parliamentary oversight.
Under current data protection law, organisations including political parties must risk-assess use of personal data to balance individuals’ rights with the interests of the organisation processing the data. This assessment can be challenged by individuals.
The proposed data (use and access) bill, which is expected to come into force in early 2026, would permit the secretary of state to use personal data without the same risk assessment and without it being subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as other legislation.
James Baker, a programme manager at Open Rights Group, said: “Political parties are stuck in an arms race as to how they can use data to reach and influence potential voters in order to win elections.
“It’s therefore vital that there are clear and fair rules for how political parties are allowed to use our data. Any changes to these rules must be properly scrutinised by parliament. This is not just about how our data is being used now; it’s about the future of our democracy.”
While Baker noted the government might not intend to use these powers to sneak through changes, he said there could be no guarantee that future administrations would operate in the same way, particularly against a backdrop of “a surge in populist governments that are prepared to use executive powers to advance their agenda”.
He added: “This is not the time to weaken parliamentary scrutiny; the government must act to prevent the data bill from enabling future abuses of power.”
A Department for Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson said the use of personal data for political campaigning or engagement was “not included in the measures of the data bill”.
Noting that regulations would be subject to “three robust safeguards”, including consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Officer, approval by the UK parliament and a requirement to serve the important objectives of general public interest, they added: “It is also false to claim there would be no parliamentary oversight of potential changes to these rules.”
Ross McKenzie, a partner at Addleshaw Goddard, said the law was written in such a way that future secretaries of state would not have a “completely unfettered right” to use personal data, and acknowledged it would probably only be in “extreme scenarios” that ministers might “extend recognised legitimate interest grounds without the same level of parliamentary scrutiny”.
But he added: “Other countries with General Data Protection Regulation rules in Europe don’t have this allowance. The UK government’s view is to make doing business in the UK easier, and one way is to give more flexible rights to use data – this allowance makes that quicker and easier to achieve. But I can see why it’s not attractive from a human rights perspective.”
The data bill is designed to cut red tape around data use, and the government has estimated it could add some £10bn to the UK economy over a period of 10 years.
Peers in the House of Lords constitution committee have previously expressed concerns, warning they were “not satisfied that the case has been sufficiently made to entrust the powers in these clauses to secondary legislation”.
