Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Data is the new gold. It is by using good data, and lots of the stuff—heaps—that we will cure diseases, empower consumers and businesses, find solutions to societal problems and unleash economic growth. Behind that data, however, are the lives of everyday people, and the decisions made with that data will impact everyday lives. We must ensure that data and the value from it is used in the service of the British people. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill’s efforts to modernise and clarify our data laws and to unleash growth and opportunity.

The digital landscape is evolving rapidly, and it is right that we seek to keep pace. The Bill marks an improvement on the previous data Bill introduced under the Conservative Government. However, although this Bill contains some positive steps, it also contains significant gaps and missed opportunities. We must seize this opportunity to get the legislation right, and to ensure that the data landscape we put in place serves all of us across the UK.

Maintaining public trust in data safeguards is vital. As the Ada Lovelace Institute emphasises, trust about data and technology is a must. In order for our democratic principles to be upheld, citizens must be able to trust how their data is being used. That is even more important as the data-driven digital interfaces of government increase.

Trust is also two sides of the same coin: inclusion and adoption. One is critical for society and the other is crucial for growth. That is why, in the name of constructive opposition and the interest of firming up public trust, we would like to highlight concerns and missed opportunities. As the Bill passes through the House, we will be seeking to interrogate and strengthen it where necessary.

One of our primary concerns lies with the powers granted to the Secretary of State, particularly on recognised legitimate interests and the framework for digital verification. In essence, the Bill allows ministerial decisions that bypass meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. That risks a situation where changes to how data is captured or shared are made unilaterally, without the thorough checks and balances that Parliament or the public expect.

Both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these issues. The Open Rights Group highlights concerns that a governing party could change the rules on election data, for example, or have undue influence on the Information Commissioner’s decision-making process and jeopardise impartiality. Although there is a drive in the Bill to formalise digital identity frameworks, the Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial to strike the right balance. We support harnessing digital verification to make services more efficient, provided there is robust transparency and independent oversight of how personal data is stored and used. We urge Ministers to tighten this area with clear ethical safeguards to genuinely foster trust rather than undermine it.

Secondly, modernisation should not come at the cost of transparency. Several clauses appear to dilute individuals’ rights to information about how their data is collected and processed, notably in respect of legitimate interests and automated decision making. Clause 77, for example, risks seriously watering down the rights of data subjects, and in doing so seriously hampers public trust in data processing. The National Data Guardian and the British Medical Association, for example, are worried about the clause eroding transparency in how health and social care data is used for research. If we truly wish to harness the benefits of emerging technology, from AI to digital verification, we must earn and maintain that trust, and that depends on being open about how data is used and by whom.

That brings me on to the Bill’s proposals on automated decision making. They currently focus on special category data, which leaves our ordinary personal data less shielded. AI and algorithmic processes increasingly determine people’s credit, insurance, and even job prospects. There are risks in restricting enhanced safeguards to only certain categories of information without further amendments to protect individuals.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that tendency, but it does not have to be like that. We can either build a society that is about personal interactions and familiarity, or we can allow a society of the kind she describes to develop, which will destroy the tapestry of those interactions that make up the wellbeing of each of us and all of us.

[Victoria Collins]

There is definitely a lot of opportunity in automated decision making, but the safeguards must be in place to make sure that human decisions and the right to safeguards around the impact of those decisions are upheld, because restricting enhanced safeguards to only certain categories of information, without further amendments, could exclude a wide range of significant decisions from meaningful human review and create a lack of transparency. Again, doing so undermines public trust and hinders the adoption of AI and emergent technologies.

We share the concerns of organisations including Justice and the Open Rights Group that clause 80 weakens safeguards by broadening the scope for automated decisions. Although the clause makes safeguarding requirements more explicit, there are concerns that it also provides the Secretary of State with considerable powers via secondary legislation to amend or set aside those safeguards. The Liberal Democrats are firm in our conviction that where a person is the subject of automated decision making, there simply must be a right to explanation, a right to appeal and a meaningful human intervention.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I hope the hon. Lady recognises that one of the changes we have made to the Bill is to insist on there being meaningful human involvement. That was not in the previous version of the Bill. I think that that helps considerably with the issue of automated decision making.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. For us, it is a question of making sure that any input from the Secretary of State—whoever that is—does not undermine those safeguards. [Interruption.] I am sure that the current Secretary of State will be around for a while.

[Chris Bryant]

What do you know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I know nothing. I shall continue with data adequacy.

We must be mindful of our data adequacy agreements with the EU and other partners, and I know that the Government are all too aware of that. By watering down protections, we risk undermining our international credibility and endangering agreements that are essential for British businesses, academic institutions, and cross-border collaboration. It is paramount that our reforms do not jeopardise those vital partnerships, and it is vital that, as we update UK data law, we protect our position as a leading, trusted partner for international data sharing. At a time when international waters look increasingly choppy, this is more important than ever.

There is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and promote data trusts or data communities—where groups of individuals collectively manage their data for wider societal benefit, such as medical research or tackling climate change. The Bill could champion that approach, thereby boosting public interest innovation. Instead, it is largely silent on collective or community-driven data governance, and misses a crucial chance to build genuine public trust in how technology can help us all.

By going further on data trusts or data communities, we could further unlock economic growth, as is exemplified by open banking. Consumers and small business can use this, and smaller providers can grow and compete more effectively. Furthermore, considerations over access to data on energy consumption could help improve sustainability and drive down energy bills.

The Bill has come to us from the other place, and I commend the work that has taken place in the House of Lords in recent weeks to scrutinise and improve the legislation. There are several areas where the changes made in the other place will have the support of the Liberal Democrats. On AI and copyright, we have been very clear that the current Government proposals would fail creatives. The Conservative shadow Minister was not clear on his stance on the question of opt in or opt out, so the creative industry has been left unsure of whether the Conservatives will support it. I am happy to take an intervention from the shadow Minister if he wants to clarify his position.

[Alan Mak]

I said to the Minister, and I will say it again for the hon. Lady: it is for the Government to bring forward their proposal. Once the consultation closes, we will respond. That is the proper order in this House.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As Liberal Democrats, we have been very clear on this, and we have listened to what the creative industry has said so far—

[Alan Mak]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Collins]

Let me finish my point and then I would be very happy to give way.

We are against the opt-out system, because we want to preserve the rights of copyright. It is easy for those creatives to opt in, whereas opting out is harder, especially for smaller businesses or creatives in their own right.

[Alan Mak]

I was going to say to the hon. Lady, half in jest and half in reality, that the Liberal Democrats will say whatever they need to say in any part of the country and on any issue. That is the reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

Like anyone in this House, we can say whatever we want to say—within the rules of the House, of course, and under the eye of Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been clear on our views and on our values. We have listened to the evidence and we have said what our view is, which is that we do not support the opt out. Our creatives are one of the UK’s greatest exports, which is why we support them. Our world leaders in this area should never be asked to give up their existing rights.

We also welcome the provisions of clause 81 to protect children’s data and introduce a legal duty for data privacy by design for services that are likely to be accessed by children. Across all areas of technology and the online world, safety by design for children is a concept to which we are firmly committed, and this is an important step.

Finally, we welcome the measures in clause 141 on deepfakes. Sexually explicit deepfakes have devastated far too many lives in this country, and it is very welcome that the Bill now contains a consent-based offence and that enforcement will have real teeth, with the possibility of custodial sentences. This is a long overdue step that has to be taken.

Overall, we support a modernised data framework that upholds digital rights while stimulating innovation. We want a dynamic tech economy that addresses real-world challenges—from healthcare to public services to climate resilience. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat vision is of a digital future that spreads the benefits of technology across society while protecting fundamental liberties. None the less, the Bill needs further amendments to safeguard fundamental rights and embed proper scrutiny. We will work with colleagues across the House, as well as with civil society organisations such as Big Brother Watch, Liberty and the Ada Lovelace Institute, to ensure that those important protections are not overlooked. We welcome measures that clarify or simplify how organisations may use data to develop new products, support research or improve public services. For instance, the concept of data trusts and data communities, where individuals pool data for broader societal benefit, has the potential to create public interest innovation while retaining trust and control.

By improving oversight mechanisms, reinforcing transparency and embracing ideas such as data trusts, we can create a Bill that truly balances public interest with economic growth. We owe it to our constituents and to the future of our digital economy to deliver legislation that fosters innovation and secures individual rights in equal measure. I look forward to exploring these issues in Committee and ensuring that we seize the opportunity to shape a robust, rights-respecting digital landscape for the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As a self-professed data geek—[Interruption.] The Minister looks quite surprised at that. Well, I am now self-professing myself as a data geek, and it is a real pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the official Opposition.

As the original architects of the Bill, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the potential of these Conservative-led policies to make people’s lives easier by being able to prove identity quickly when dealing with statutory agencies and service providers; to streamline and enhance public service delivery, such as by harmonising the information available to healthcare professionals across NHS settings; and to boost economic growth through the innovative use of smart data. In short, this Bill will bring into effect the previous Government’s ambition to harness and exploit data as the currency of the digital age.

The staggering pace of recent technological advances presents not only enormous opportunity, but challenges that demand further scrutiny. Earlier, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), rightly pointed out some of the areas where the Government’s approach to the science and technology sector conflict with the outcomes that they want. We have had an extensive debate today with hon. Members covering a range of topics, some of which I shall refer to shortly.

Perhaps it is ironically apt that the Data (Use and Access) Bill has had so many iterations and this recursive Second Reading, but I must pay tribute to those who have been working before us to get it to the state it is in today. Much of the Bill is technical and uncontroversial, but some of it still needs to be thrashed out and debated, and I look forward to taking it through in Committee. I would like at this point to pay tribute to Lord Markham and Viscount Camrose. I was particularly pleased to hear the Government’s response with regard to security around the underground assets register.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who I am sure is glad that he is not doing another Second Reading speech and hopefully not taking the Bill through Committee for this side, and of course to Baroness Owen for the incredible work that she has done. The tribute paid to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was far better than anything I could put together from this Dispatch Box, and I thank him for his comments.

By my count, we have had 15 or 16 Back-Bench speakers, and I would like to draw particular attention to the intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who pointed out the wranglings that took place in the House of Lords regarding data that is used for scientific purposes. I am sure that the definition of public interest will be discussed in further detail in Committee. I also particularly liked the speech from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). As I have said, much of this Bill—this big tome—is in some ways uncontroversial. Many Members focused on a few specific areas, but I was interested that he looked at the whole scope of the Bill, particularly around the civil liberties components and the GDPR issues, which is what much of the core of the Bill is about.

There are a few points I would like to focus on, starting with data accuracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is not in her place, remarked that to empower the public and businesses to take full advantage of the speed and simplicity offered by digital verification services, there must be a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the data provided by public authorities. In the other place, the Minister acknowledged this concern, stating that, as far as the data underpinning digital identity is concerned,

“we must have a single version of the truth”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1620.]

However, he did not support the amendment seeking to guarantee the accuracy of data held by public authorities for the purpose of digital verification services, and nor did the Secretary of State in his opening remarks today.

While the reliability of the data that supports digital identity is fundamentally important across the board, an area of particular importance is the accurate recording of biological sex. This is vital for ensuring that services such as medical care are delivered properly and to protect female-only spaces. Biased data is worse than no data, and wrong data is worst of all. We call on the Government to ensure that data is robust and accurate as a matter of priority.

We must ensure the digital infrastructure is in place to support the Bill’s aims. We welcome the inclusion of provisions for NHS data sharing, and I should declare an interest as a former doctor whose wife is a doctor. I have spoken many times of the importance of data sharing. We focus on AI, but we need to get the basics right.

NHS data sharing, if implemented effectively, will enable the fast and seamless transfer of patient data between healthcare settings. It will lead to better clinical decision making and improved outcomes for patients, and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) will be able to see his patients more efficiently and more effectively. I pay tribute to the strength of his argument, and I hope he takes the mantle I had when my party was in government of pushing for this to happen as quickly as possible.

To harness those benefits, the Government have acknowledged that healthcare settings’ IT systems will need to meet common standards to facilitate data sharing across platforms. The previous Government set out a bold plan for upgrading the nation’s digital infrastructure. This Government must continue and expedite that work to ensure the NHS has the tools it needs to implement the Bill’s reforms.

Finally, on the important subject of AI and copyright, the powerful debate both in the other place and here highlights the challenges, the complexities and the importance of making sure we get this right, particularly on the Government’s proposal for a data mining opt-out, as mentioned in the consultation. Many Members have raised that point, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

We cannot hold back the tide of change that AI has brought with it, nor can we put the genie back in the bottle, but we must do everything in our power to protect and promote our creative industries so that they can continue to thrive and grow, as they did with the support put in place by the previous Government during the pandemic.

The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright remains under way. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State spoke about the overwhelming need for the Government to respond to the consultation as soon as possible. The Government must engage constructively with the industry and the official Opposition to identify solutions that turbocharge our developing AI industry while protecting and boosting the growth of our creative sector.

All of us, both those who work in the creative sector and those who benefit from it, understand just how important it is for our national identity. Live music is one of my passions. It was the thing I missed most during the pandemic. The idea that we could end up causing harm to our creative industry fills me with horror. The Opposition want to make sure we get this right, not only for those whose livelihoods depend on the industry but for all of us. This is complicated and difficult. If it were not, there would already be an answer—the Europeans would have an answer. This is a difficult situation that we need to get through.

[Victoria Collins]

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is vital that we support our creative industries. Will he clarify the Conservatives’ stance on opting in versus opting out, which is the current proposal?

[Dr Spencer]

Our position is pretty much exactly as I have just set out in my speech. A Government consultation is under way that presents four options, including the Government’s preferred opt-out option. There are challenges with that opt-out approach, as well as with a whole range of different approaches. As I have previously said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, whatever we do we must think about how that co-ordinates with what can happen in other jurisdictions. It is a complicated issue, and we need to ensure we get the legislation absolutely right. As I said, we need a response to the consultation as soon as possible so that we can chew through this further to find the best solution. In his summing up, I hope the Minister will update the House on that.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank all hon. Members taking part in the Committee as well as the officials. As the Minister said, this is the third iteration of this Bill and it has been extensively covered in Committee before. We rely on and thank former Members and those in the other place who worked on the Bill to get it to where it is. I am pleased that the Government are taking the Bill forward and that it is one of the early Bills in the Session.

There is much to say about the Bill that is positive, and not just because it is a reformed version of our previous two Bills. Although, ironically, the Bill does not reference the term “smart data”, clause 1 brings forward smart data and smart data schemes. That will help to open up a digital revolution, which will build on the successes of open banking in other sectors. We very much support that.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The Liberal Democrats very much support the Bill and the move towards smart data. Every single day, millions of people in the UK unknowingly generate vast amounts of data, whether they are switching energy providers, checking their bank balance or simply browsing the internet. That is why I want to speak to new clause 15.

For the past decade, we have seen the enormous benefits of open banking, which has given customers the power to securely share their financial data with new providers. That has unlocked better deals, personalised financial data and a wave of innovation. I welcome what the Minister said about a strategy, but new clause 15 explicitly seeks to extend the benefits across multiple sectors, from energy to telecoms and beyond, giving consumers and small businesses a real say in how their data is used and the chance to benefit from that.

If Linda, a business owner in Tring, wants to switch to a cheaper energy provider or broadband deal, she faces a mountain of admin and endless calls to suppliers. She has no simple way of exporting her usage data and instantly comparing deals. But what if she did? A multi-sector consumer data right, as proposed by the new clause, would give Linda the ability to export her energy usage securely to a new provider. She could use a digital tool to automatically compare plans, switch to a greener provider and save thousands in operational costs, freeing up her focus for growing a business.

However, it is not just Linda and family businesses. New clause 15 would put real power in the hands of households struggling with the cost of living crisis—an ability to break free from restrictive contracts, find better deals and ultimately reduce bills. This is not just a radical idea: Australia has already implemented the consumer data right across finance, energy and telecoms, leading to an explosion of new services, better competition and savings for consumers. The European Union is moving in that direction, yet in the UK we have not taken that step. However, I accept what the Minister said about our strategy moving forward, which I very much welcome.

New clause 15 does not demand an overnight change. It would require the road map to be published in 12 months and to ensure that technical standards are in place and data sharing is secure and efficient. It includes a phased implementation plan to bring in new sectors gradually as well as consumer protection measures so that is done safely and fairly, with public trust at its core. This is not just about giving consumers more control over their data. It is about driving economic growth and innovation. If we get this right, we can see new fintech and comparison tools so that consumers can slash bills and switch telecom providers faster and more easily. It is about more competition, more choice and more innovation. I urge colleagues to consider the new clause, but I absolutely welcome what the Minister has said. Let us take a step forward and ensure that consumers and businesses have the rights that they deserve over their own data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I note the comments from the shadow Minister, and I am grateful for them.

There is a fundamental flaw in the argument from the hon. Member for North Norfolk that this new clause was tabled in the House of Lords, because what he means is that it was lost in the House of Lords—the House of Lords did not bring it to us. There is a second flaw in the argument, which is that it seems to presume that people will be required to use a digital verification service. That is not true. People will be able to use non-digital systems if they want to in every circumstance. That is an essential part of being able to take forward digital verification services. It may be that a growing number of people begin to find them more useful, reliable and trustworthy than carrying around a set of papers. I am sure that many of us have gone through the tedious process of renting a car—having to turn up with copies of the previous three months of bills sent to your house, and all that. They have to be printed out, of course, and not provided in digital form, and so on. In the end, therefore, this measure will be transformational for the vast majority of people, but that does not mean that we should exclude people.

Where the hon. Member for North Norfolk is absolutely right is that there are many different patterns of digital exclusion. One, which I am very conscious of from my own constituency in south Wales, is physical digital exclusion. Many people in the south Wales valleys simply do not have the physical digital connections, a mobile phone or whatever it may be, to be able to transact their business. The second is the simple issue of poverty. Social tariffs do not even touch the edge for lots of families, because it is yet another bill. Even another £10 or £15 bill a month is one that has to compete with whether they have fresh food on the table for the kids. Another level where people might be excluded relates to age, at the top end and at the bottom end. The hon. Member mentioned nonagenarians, but he could go down to 60-year-olds and find people who simply do not want to use open banking or any kind of digital system, do not have a smartphone and have absolutely no intention of getting one, or, for that matter, do not have any kind of broadband connection to their home. I understand that fully, and that is why the Bill is written as it is, so that it is permissive and not mandatory.

That is an important reason why—although I have listened to the arguments that the hon. Member for North Norfolk has repeated from Big Brother Watch—I am determined to do everything we possibly can to tackle each and every one of the issues of digital exclusion. I have not even referred to skills—people might have some form of disability, might have simply never acquired or wanted to acquire digital skills, or might find using a screen particularly difficult for whatever set of reasons. We want to tackle every single form of digital exclusion, but I do not think that this is the place to do so. We will not be able to tackle digital exclusion by putting an additional measure in the Bill, and that is why, if the hon. Member wants to push this to a vote, I will still resist his new clause. I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee.

[Victoria Collins]

The Minister says that the proposal for digital verification services is not mandatory, so a non-digital version will be available for people to use. May I check what the guarantees are? We have seen this with card payments and even the banks—in Harpenden, we lost all our banks, apart from Nationwide. A very big team campaigned to get a banking hub, because a lot of people said, “You can either go online or drive many miles to get to a bank.” I want to understand what guarantees are in place to secure that non-digital version.

[Chris Bryant]

It is simply that there is no requirement for people to use a digital verification service to be able to secure the service that they want. Obviously, that is a key part of how local government or Government have to deliver their services. They have to think not only about the people who can use digital services, but about those who cannot, for all the reasons that we have laid out.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is absolutely right about banks, and it is not just in Harpenden; I do not have a bank in my constituency. I have seen them go one after another after another. We have a banking hub, but even it has had to move. That provides all sorts of difficulties for people who do not want to do their banking in any way other than physically going into a bank. That is why both our Government many years ago, then the Conservative Government for years, were trying to encourage people to use the post office as an alternative means of doing their banking.

That is the pattern that we will have to adopt. Government will always have to be aware. While we may want all the productivity gains and the added security that digital verification services can provide, none the less we need to ensure that others are provided for. That is all provided for in the Bill, and I would say adequately, although the hon. Member may disagree with me. Yet again, I am still resisting any amendment and urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I do understand. I will leave what happens with new clause 9 to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but it is important to state that we have seen a pattern, as my hon. Friend mentioned, of rights being taken away when we know that people cannot access services, and then the problem being solved after it was created. We need to think about a way to secure non-digital services, whether in respect of public services and council tax, our banks, or whatever it is. The Government need to think about how we can protect those services, whether through this Bill or something else, to ensure that those who are excluded can still access a non-digital version of services.

[Chris Bryant]

Even without inspiration, I agree with everything the hon. Lady said. I would add the fact that to park a car in lots of places in the country now we have to go online using a smartphone. When I was in Cardiff recently, the sign said “Go to the app”, but it did not say which app. What frustrates me is that every local authority in the land seems to have adopted a different app, so if we park in more than one local authority area, we have to download app after app, upload all our card details and all the rest of it.

I hope to God that one of the things smart data might be able to solve is the issue of different apps for parking, because the car does not change, we do not change and our banking details do not change; the only thing that changes is our location. To achieve that, though, we must also address the issue of digital exclusion. Lots of areas simply do not have a download speed of 5 megabits per second for mobile coverage, even though Ofcom probably suggests that there is 99% coverage in all areas from all four operators. My problem is that the new clause tries to correct many deficiencies in society, none of which has anything to do with digital verification services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I need to make it absolutely clear, for a start, that the element of clause 45 that we are removing—subsection (6)—makes no reference to sex or gender at all. The words do not appear on the face of the Bill at all. Subsection (6) refers to accuracy and inaccuracy, but it says

“the public authority is able to attest that it…has been corrected through a lawfully made correction,”

and that is obviously aiming at a particular form of lawfully made correction.

Public authorities are already bound in law by data protection legislation—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East just made—to ensure that the personal data they process is accurate and, importantly, that it is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed, and that it is kept up to date where necessary. In essence, what the noble Lords’ amendments to the Bill did was say that we should also be keeping, in every instance, a history of what the data had been. That, I think, is problematic.

The hon. Member is absolutely right about wanting to preserve women-only spaces, which is why public authorities are required to process information that is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed. In the delivery of healthcare, for instance, when it comes to health screening for transgender and non-binary individuals, the Department of Health and Social Care has comprehensive guidance that sets out the NHS default adult screening programmes that are available in England and lays out who is invited. In England, it is up to GPs to ensure that, as part of processing gender change, the individual is correctly registered for relevant screenings in relation to their sex.

I simply do not buy this argument that we need to make this provision in relation to all digital verification services. Although it is of course right that, in the delivery of prison services or in the health service, or in so many other areas, simple common sense should apply in relation to female-only spaces and wanting to make sure that women are safe, I do not think that this Bill on digital verification services benefits from the introduction of a measure that would effectively mean that in the provision of every digital verification service—whether in regard to the provision of some sensitive service or not—you should make this provision. That is why we tabled amendments 10 and 11, and I urge all hon. Members to support them.

[Victoria Collins]

The Liberal Democrats support the Government amendments. As the Minister highlighted, the amendments are about proportionality in digital verification services. For Liberal Democrats, it is about the balance between trust and helping to protect privacy, as well as getting the data needed to make our society better. We believe that the original proposal had the proportionality right, so we will support the Government’s amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Bryant]

I will try one more time to persuade the hon. Member, but I will be repeating myself. The Government are not expanding the meaning of scientific research. The Bill’s definition is completely in line with present ICO guidance, which states that commercial organisations can also carry out scientific research. Scientific research conducted by commercial organisations can have a life-changing impact, as many hon. Members have noted, but the definition does not cover any commercial activity: it only includes activities that could reasonably be viewed as scientific research.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Lawfulness of processing

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 70, page 78, leave out lines 15 to 19.

This amendment would remove subsections (2)(b) and (c) from the Bill which would create a new lawful ground for processing personal data by way of inserting a new Article into the UK GDPR.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 53, in clause 70, page 78, line 17, after “interest” insert “, excluding personal health data”.

This amendment would exclude personal health data from being a recognised legitimate interest.

Amendment 50, in clause 70, leave out from line 24 on page 78 to line 32 on page 79.

This amendment omits subsection (4), (5) and (6) which make amendments to UK GDPR to define certain data processing activities as “recognised legitimate interests”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

Clause 70 introduces “recognised legitimate interests” as a new basis for processing personal data. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of the benefits of data, we have serious concerns that clause 70, as it stands, grants excessive and unchecked power to the Secretary of State, risking the erosion of fundamental rights. Our key message is that trust and innovation go hand in hand. For us to advance and share the benefits of innovation, we must foster trust.

In the name of constructive opposition, I will talk about the several amendments that we have tabled—amendments 49, 50, 53, new clause 5 and new clause 22, which was also tabled by colleagues in the other place. These amendments are crucial to ensure vital safeguards, ensure proper parliamentary oversight and demand greater transparency. They respond directly to concerns raised on Second Reading. Moreover, they echo the concerns of new civil society organisations, including—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Lady can only speak to amendments 49, 53 and 50 at this point.

[Victoria Collins]

In the interest of time, I would like to talk about all the amendments together.

[The Chair]

You cannot talk about them all at once because of how they are grouped.

[Victoria Collins]

I shall talk about amendments 49, 53 and 50, which would remove the core of clause 70 that allows the direct establishment of “recognised legitimate interests”. Clause 70 risks bypassing essential parliamentary scrutiny, a point underscored by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which expressed concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight. The amendments are essential to ensure that the Data (Use and Access) Bill fosters innovation responsibly without sacrificing fundamental data protection. I urge Government to look over the proposals, which would help improve the adoption and inclusion of growing technology and its benefits. I would also welcome any proposals to improve this scrutiny when we reach Report.

[Chris Bryant]

The new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest in clause 70 and schedule 4 have been designed to give organisations greater confidence when processing personal data for important public interest objectives, such as preventing crime, safeguarding vulnerable individuals and protecting national security. They also ensure that non-public bodies can share information with public authorities where it is necessary and proportionate to do so without having to conduct a complex balancing test in situations where timely action is essential.

Amendment 49 would remove that provision, making it harder for organisations to share data confidently and swiftly for those public interest purposes. I recognise that the hon. Lady might be concerned that the removal of the need to do a detailed legitimate interest balancing test in this narrow set of circumstances could reduce protections, but strong safeguards remain in place, as was recognised in the House of Lords, which did not approve such an amendment. Any processing must still be necessary and proportionate and comply with data protection principles under UK GDPR to ensure that individuals’ rights continue to be protected.

Amendment 50 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to amend the list of recognised legitimate interests using regulations, and delete the list itself from schedule 4 of the Bill. We believe that the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the list is a necessary safeguard to future-proof the framework. This power is not unrestricted. It is subject to strict safeguards, including parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and the requirement that any additions must serve public interest objectives under article 23(1) of the UK GDPR. Removing the power would make it more difficult to adapt the framework over time.

I have also considered amendment 53, which would prevent health data being processed under the new lawful ground, and I would argue that it conflicts with amendment 49. Health data would be processed under this new ground only in so far as that was necessary for one of the specified recognised legitimate interests in schedule 4 to the Bill. Any processing of health data would also have to meet one of the relevant criteria for processing specific category data in article 9 of UK GDPR and schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 53. I thank the Minister for his comments, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Turner. I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. I am concerned not by the unchecked power of the Secretary of State under this regulation—we of course have precedents to go with under GDPR—but it is the specific and extremely high-grade personal health data that remains a concern for me.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 5—Parliamentary approval for changes to data safeguards—

“(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to exercise any power under this Act to amend, vary or remove a safeguard relating to—

(a) recognised legitimate interests,

(b) automated decision-making,

(c) the definition of ‘special category’ data, or

(d) any data subject right provided under the UK GDPR,

the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament draft regulations containing the proposed changes and an explanatory statement.

(2) The explanatory statement must include evidence from consultations with the Information Commission, data subjects, and relevant stakeholders, and an assessment of any impact on data adequacy with the European Union where they have occurred.

(3) The draft regulations referred to in subsection (1) are subject to affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would prevent ministerial changes being made to data safeguards without parliamentary debate and approval.

New clause 22—Statement on changes to recognise legitimate interest—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a statement outlining the purpose of any additions or variations to what constitutes a recognised legitimate interest if they exercise powers contained under section 70.

(2) This statement must reference—

(a) the purpose of the addition or variation,

(b) whether it is appropriate to specific data controllers, and

(c) the timeline for its relevance.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement if they add or vary what constitutes a recognised legitimate interest under powers contained in section 70.

Schedule 4.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 70 and schedule 4 introduce a new lawful ground for processing personal data under article 6 of UK GDPR, allowing organisations to process data for recognised legitimate interests without conducting a balancing test. The aim is to provide legal certainty and facilitate faster data sharing for key public interest purposes such as crime prevention and safeguarding.

[Victoria Collins]

New clause 5 sets out that any future changes to data safeguards, including those related to recognised legitimate interests, automated decision making and special category data, must be subject to greater scrutiny in Parliament. It is essential that significant changes to our data protection go through that democratic process. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose, scope and timeline of any additional variations to recognised legitimate interests, again supporting greater transparency and accountability.

The new clauses are there to help improve public trust around data and improve the adoption and inclusion of the growing range of technology and its benefits. They are for the Government to look at when thinking about how we ensure that we bring people along with us. They will help to maintain trust and ensure that we have safeguards in line with recognised legitimate interests. If we are to accept clause 70, the Government must again assure us that robust checks and balances are truly in place.

[Chris Bryant]

New clause 5 seeks to strengthen parliamentary oversight of regulations that could amend the recognised legitimate interest list or the provisions on automated decision making and special category data, which we will debate in detail later. The regulation-making powers in the clause are already subject to appropriate safeguards, and have been designed with retaining our EU adequacy decisions at the forefront of our mind—we will return to the topic of EU adequacy in more detail when we reach new clause 2. It is important to respect the European Commission’s processes and its discretion in how its adequacy assessment is undertaken.

New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose of any changes to the recognised legitimate interest list, to whom they would apply and for how long. As I think I explained earlier on a previous amendment, any draft regulations laid before Parliament under these provisions will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which would lay out precisely the things the hon. Lady seeks. On that basis, I hope she will not push her two new clauses to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 72 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Information to be provided to data subjects

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 78 and 79 stand part.

[Victoria Collins]

Clause 77 strongly risks bypassing individual data rights by watering down transparency of the processing of personal data for reasons such as research, archiving in the public interest or statistical purposes. Although we welcome efforts to modernise data law, modernisation should not come at the cost of transparency—a cornerstone of public trust. Clause 77 risks seriously watering down rights regarding how our data is collected and processed.

Organisations such as Justice, the British Medical Association and the National Data Guardian share our concerns that this clause erodes transparency regarding the use of patient information. The National Data Guardian has specifically warned that weakening transparency obligations could negatively impact people’s trust in how our health and social care data is used for research, potentially impairing important data initiatives. Those concerns are also shared by the British Medical Association.

While we still face a crisis in the provision of health and social care, I strongly welcome all possibilities to unlock innovation to achieve healthcare benefits, as already discussed today. I welcome that innovation for my constituent Catherine in Harpenden, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which is often overlooked in women; for Andy and Sarah in Redbourn, who lost their daughter at a painfully young age to a brain tumour; and for the families and others across Harpenden and Berkhamsted who are awaiting diagnosis and treatment. It is also for them, and to ensure that we unlock those healthcare benefits by ensuring that more data is used, that I caution against clause 77.

The clause introduces exemptions from providing information to data subjects where that would require “disproportionate effort”. However, it is hard to see how that can improve transparency. That failure to be transparent risks that loss of public trust—a message I will repeat again and again. I urge Ministers to listen to those concerns and to remove clause 77 to ensure that we have genuine public trust and crucial data protection standards, as already discussed today.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid I do not accept the characterisation the hon. Lady has put on the clause. There is currently an exemption from notifying data subjects if it would constitute a disproportionate effort to do so or prove impossible—obviously, there are cases where it is impossible to notify somebody. At the moment, that exemption can be used only when data was not collected directly from the data subject. Clause 77 will create a new exemption for when data was collected directly from the data subject. It will be limited to processing only for research purposes, and only when there is a change of purpose.

We believe that that will help longitudinal studies that originally obtained data from data subjects but that would struggle to notify them about a change in purpose of the study—for instance, due to having lost contact over years or due to a deterioration in the data subject’s condition. The clause is therefore essential to our research facilities in the UK, and I urge Members to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Automated decision-making

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, a review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”

This amendment would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful a review must be carried out by a competent person.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Definition of meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making—

“The Secretary of State must, in conjunction with the Information Commission and within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, produce a definition of what constitutes meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making or clearly set out their reasoning as to why a definition is not required.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a definition of meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making, in collaboration with the Information Commission, or clearly set out reasoning why this is not required.

[Victoria Collins]

Amendment 51 directly addresses the ambiguity around meaningful human involvement in automated decision making. Clause 80 raises significant concerns around the future of automated decision making. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of data to drive innovation, we must remember that, behind those automated decisions, are people’s lives. Amendment 51 directly addresses that ambiguity and seeks to ensure that any human review is

“performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”

That would help to clarify the crucial definition of “meaningful”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Minister for those points. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but it is important to highlight that that person needs to have the necessary competence, training and authority around those decisions, so that that meaningful human involvement is very clear.

[The Chair]

Before seeking permission to withdraw the amendment, do you want to speak to new clause 23?

[Victoria Collins]

New clause 23 mandates that the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Information Commissioner, must produce a clear definition of meaningful human involvement within six months or justify why a definition is not required. Again, that is to ensure that the term “meaningful human involvement” is not just a hollow gesture. I welcome the Minister ’s remarks clarifying the issue, but it is crucial, if we are to get automated decision making right, that these things are defined and clear for everyone involved.

[Chris Bryant]

I will briefly add that the Information Commissioner already provides guidance in this sphere. We do not want to prevent the Information Commissioner from doing that in the future. The hon. Member is absolutely right: it has to be meaningful human involvement, and we think we have the balance right in the Bill.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 6.

New clause 1—Requirements of public sector organisations on use of algorithmic or automated decision-making systems—

“(1) No later than the commencement of use of a relevant algorithmic or automated decision-making system, a public authority must—

(a) give notice on a public register that the decision rendered will be undertaken in whole, or in part, by an algorithmic or automated decision-making system,

(b) make arrangements for the provision of a meaningful and personalised explanation to affected individuals of how and why a decision affecting them was made, including meaningful information about the decision-making processes, and an assessment of the potential consequences of such processing for the data subject, as prescribed in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State,

(c) develop processes to—

(i) monitor the outcomes of the algorithmic or automated decision-making system to safeguard against unintentional outcomes and to verify compliance with this Act and other relevant legislation, and

(ii) validate that the data collected for, and used by, the system is relevant, accurate, up-to-date, and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018, and

(d) make arrangements to conduct regular audits and evaluations of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems, including the potential risks of those systems and steps to mitigate such risks, as prescribed in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.

(2) ‘Algorithmic decision system’ or ‘automated decision system’ mean any technology that either assists or replaces the judgement of human decision-makers.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the public sector to provide increased transparency to service users in informing when automated decision making had been used. It would also require them to develop processes to monitor the outcomes from utilising automated decision-making.

New clause 4—Register of algorithmic tools used in public sector decision-making—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain, or arrange for the establishment and maintenance of, a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make, or materially influence, decisions affecting the rights, entitlements or legitimate expectations of individuals.

(2) A public authority that uses or intends to use an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool must notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the name or brief description of the tool,

(b) the decision or class of decisions in which it is used,

(c) the nature and source of the data used by the tool, and

(d) details of any meaningful human review required by law or policy.

(3) The information set out in subsection (2) must be submitted to the register prior to the deployment of any automated or semi-automatic decision-making tool by a public authority.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, publish guidance on compliance with this section, following consultation with the Information Commission.”

This new clause would create a publicly accessible register for AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector.

New clause 7—Information regarding high-risk AI decisions—

“(1) Where a decision based wholly or partly on automated processing, including AI or machine learning, has a legal or similarly significant effect on a data subject, that data subject has the right to request the following information from a data controller—

(a) an explanation of the reasons and criteria used by the automated processing to reach the decision,

(b) a description of the principal factors or features that most significantly influenced the outcome, and

(c) information about process for appeal, or request human review of, that decision.

(2) In this section, ‘legal or similarly significant effect’ includes decisions affecting an individual’s access to credit, employment, insurance, healthcare, social security, or other key public or private sector services.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the criteria and thresholds for ‘high-risk AI decisions’ to which this section applies, following consultation with the Information Commission, technical experts, civil society bodies, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would give individuals a right to obtain from data controllers an explanation of the key factors determining an AI outcome and provide a mechanism to appeal or request a human review of “high-impact” automated decisions.

New clause 24—Register of algorithmic tools used in public sector decision-making—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain, or arrange for the establishment and maintenance of, a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make, or materially influence, decisions affecting the rights, entitlements or legitimate expectations of individuals.

(2) A public authority that uses or intends to use an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool must notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the name or brief description of the tool;

(b) the decision or class of decisions in which it is used;

(c) the nature and source of the data used by the tool; and

(d) details of any meaningful human review required by law or policy.

(3) A public authority must not deploy an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool unless the information specified in subsection (2) has been submitted to the register.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on compliance with this section, following consultation with the Information Commission.”

This new clause would create a publicly accessible register for AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector.

New clause 26—Provision of explanations for high-risk AI decisions—

“(1) Where a decision based wholly or partly on automated processing, including AI or machine learning, has a legal or similarly significant effect on a data subject, that data subject has the right to obtain from a data controller, on request—

(a) a concise, explanation of the reasons and criteria used by the automated processing to reach the decision;

(b) a description of the principal factors or features that most significantly influenced the outcome; and

(c) meaningful information about how to appeal, or request human review of, that decision.

(2) In this section, ‘legal or similarly significant effect’ includes (but is not limited to) decisions affecting an individual’s access to credit, employment, insurance, healthcare, social security, or other key public or private sector services.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the criteria and thresholds for ‘high-risk AI decisions’ to which this section applies, following consultation with the Information Commission, technical experts, civil society bodies, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would give individuals a right to obtain from data controllers an explanation of the key factors determining an AI outcome and provide a mechanism to appeal or request a human review of high-impact automated decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

Ah, the temptation.

The point about automated decision making is that decisions can be made about people without their involvement, which can have substantial consequences, particularly when decisions are made in the public sector. Of course, automated decision making takes place all the time, day in and day out. We saw it on a huge scale during the covid pandemic when people had to sign up to universal credit, as there were checks on people’s basic characteristics and assets to assess their eligibility. Those decisions had quite a substantial impact on people, but the data points were actually quite simple and straightforward. As I understand it, no particular concern was raised about automated decision making in that context, apart from a few examples where people’s circumstances were remarkably unique.

The purpose of the Bill is to scale up, particularly when it comes to AI and more sophisticated decision making. We think the new clauses seek to place onerous and unnecessary obligations on Government bodies and public authorities. New clause 1, among other things, would require public bodies to give notice on a public register for each and every function they perform where automated decision making is used. New clause 4 would oblige the Secretary of State to put in place and maintain a public register of all semi-automated or fully automated decision-making tools used by public authorities in relation to individuals, with public bodies being precluded from using such tools in advance of their registration.

New clause 7 would provide service users with a range of powers to request information from data controllers in relation to the workings of wholly or partly automated decisions, and to purportedly high-risk decisions. I am amazed by the provisions suggested in new clauses 7 and 26 by the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and for North Norfolk. They seem to give quite extensive discretionary powers to the Secretary of State to define high-risk decisions and regulate them accordingly. I was surprised to see the extent of the powers handed over to the Secretary of State by these new clauses.

The new clauses are especially burdensome and unnecessary, given the widespread use of automated decision making for initial assessments in the Department for Work and Pensions, as I alluded to earlier. Automated decision making is a subject of significant debate, and clause 80 includes more safeguarding measures in proposed new article 22C of the UK GDPR. Those safeguards include requirements on data controllers to provide information to data subjects about significant decisions being taken through solely automated processing, the right to contest those decisions and the right to seek human intervention at the request of the data subject.

Our view is that clause 80, as drafted, provides a proportionate approach to the protection of individual rights, and that these tools will help with potential speed and, importantly, efficiency gains, which I mentioned earlier with regard to the use of automated decision making for universal credit in the response to covid. The basic functions of Government and public authorities rely on widespread automated decision making.

[Victoria Collins]

I like to think that the Liberal Democrats are aligned on automated decision making and AI being an exciting opportunity for this country, but it is a fundamental shift. It is our job as a constructive Opposition to put forward proposals for consideration, so that there is proper scrutiny and ideas to ensure we take the public with us. All our proposals are made in that light.

Behind these decisions are real people’s lives. I have a family in Wheathampstead who are desperate for a social home to fit their family life. I have someone from Tring—I will call him John—who says he has been systematically failed since high school. His universal credit claim was closed because he did not upload the correct documents, and he feels that a lack of human understanding of why he was unable to do so was a barrier to getting the help he needed. Another case involves HMRC, with a constituent being taxed on pension income he is not actually receiving—it was only after hours of support from my team and the Department that we were able to turn his case around.

The point is that it will be very difficult for people to fix errors that result from automated decision making if there is not enough transparency. We have to get that balance right. The Secretary of State’s power to define crucial terms such as “meaningful human involvement” and “similarly significant effect” creates uncertainty and the potential for watering down protections.

Clause 80 seeks to update the safeguards around automated decision making, but organisations such as Justice and the Open Rights Group have real worries that it weakens those vital safeguards by broadening the scope for purely automated decisions. Furthermore, the considerable powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend or set aside the safeguards through secondary legislation create a concerning lack of parliamentary oversight.

It is with these reservations in mind, and as a constructive Opposition, that we tabled these new clauses. New clause 1 would place a clear requirement on public sector organisations regarding the use of algorithmic automated decision making. It would demand public notice of their use and the provision of meaningful and personalised explanations to affected individuals about how and why a decision was made. I have already raised some cases that the provision would impact, and I am sure we all have similar cases in our inboxes. New clause 1 directly tackles the concerns about transparency and the right to an explanation—a principle that the Liberal Democrats firmly believe in.

New clause 4 proposes the creation of a publicly accessible register of AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector. New clause 7 seeks to empower individuals by granting them the right to request comprehensive information on decisions based wholly or partly on automated processes that have a legal or similarly significant effect on them. This aligns with the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to ensuring accountability and redress.

New clause 24 proposes the establishment of a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make or materially influence decisions. These measures would help to promote transparency and enable public scrutiny, which is something that this House and its Members are here to do, either through legislation or for our constituents on a daily basis. It is important that we ask questions about these increasingly influential technologies.

Finally, new clause 26 would reinforce the right to an explanation by requiring data controllers to provide, on request, clear explanations of high-risk AI decisions. We need to ensure that meaningful human involvement remains central.

The new clauses are not intended to stifle innovation, but to ensure that the evolution of data use is guided by principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. We must ensure that data truly is the new gold for everyone, and that individuals’ rights and protections are not devalued in the process. Indeed, innovation is often better promoted by guidelines. The new clauses represent our commitment to ensuring that clause 80 truly modernises our data laws without sacrificing the fundamental safeguards that protect everyone, including the people behind those decisions. I thank the Minister for his consideration.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that I have a great deal to add. I feel caught between the rocks of “You are going too far” and “You are not going far enough,” which suggests to me that what we are advocating is probably proportionate and sensible, so I resist the new clauses and support clause 80.

I simply add that I do not have Spotify on my phone because I choose not to stream—I prefer to pay for my music—but I note that my ministerial podcast is available on Spotify.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 81

Data protection by design: children’s higher protection matters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

At the heart of new clause 21 is the aim to restrict access to certain social media platforms by children under the age of 16. I am very sympathetic to the motivations of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.

[Victoria Collins]

I just want to clarify that the new clause is about the age of data consent, not access to social media. I will cover that in my speech, but I want to ensure that is clear.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. Nevertheless, I think there is an overlap with the debate that took place in the Chamber last Friday on the ballot Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which has been dubbed the safer phones Bill. We all took part in that debate.

During Friday’s debate, I highlighted the mounting research and evidence on the harm to adolescents’ mental health from social media platforms. Policy in this area needs to be developed based on the best data and evidence. In that regard, we also need to learn from the roll-out of the Online Safety Act 2023 and the implementation of Ofcom’s guidance on putting in place age assurance in relation to particular types of content and data.

I welcome reports that the Government intend to commission the chief medical officer to review the harms associated with this area. It is disappointing that the Minister did not give a firm commitment on that from the Dispatch Box last Friday. Will he take the opportunity to do so today?

[Victoria Collins]

I start with the young people at the heart of this. We have indeed debated this time and again, and it is important that we keep that going. I have been on a Safe Screens tour, speaking to young people across Harpenden and Berkhamsted—from Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted to St George’s school in Harpenden, and beyond. Girl guides have spoken to me of their concerns about online bullying and harmful content. When I visited local schools on my Safe Screens tour, young men told me that social media has shown them extreme content that they do not want to see, and despite their efforts to block or ban it, the algorithm brings it back. Young women have told me of their worries about the growing misogyny in online content. Together, young women and men alike have talked about the impact on their body image, bullying and the amount of time sucked up by social media—time they want to spend doing other things.

There is mounting evidence of the negative effects of our children’s exposure to an unsafe online environment. Every day, we hear the concerns of parents, the anxieties of teachers and, crucially, the voices of young people themselves, all crying out for action to ensure their safety online and calling for stronger regulation of their online experience. I realise that the Online Safety Act is moving forward, but it will not go far enough.

This is a matter of profound importance for the wellbeing of our nation’s children and young people. The digital world is now the fabric of our lives and the lives of young people—it is where they learn, connect and seek entertainment—and yet, as the digital landscape expands, so do the risks they face. As 5Rights highlights,

“the enormous potential of technology can only be realised when it is designed with children in mind”.

Parliament now has an opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to help shape that technology. It is disappointing that the safer phones Bill was watered down, so we have tabled new clause 21 as a crucial step to strengthen protections for young people in the digital age. It seeks to bring UK data law in line with many of our European neighbours, by raising the minimum age at which internet companies can collect, process and store a user’s data without explicit parental consent to 16.

New clause 21 is not about banning children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. It is important that the responsibility lies with the social media companies to ensure that online spaces are age-appropriate, and to manage content and features. This new clause is a targeted and proportionate measure to require online services to change fundamentally how they handle children’s data. This crucial change will necessitate restricting the pervasive and often harmful influence of algorithms to make the platforms inherently less addictive and ultimately foster a more child-friendly digital environment.

It is imperative that digital technology is designed with the best interests of our children and young people at heart, ensuring that their rights and privacy are upheld—not as an afterthought, but with safety by design and by default. Furthermore, new clause 21 underscores the fundamental principle that the responsibility for managing content and features must remain firmly with the social media companies. We call for the establishment of robust digital standards to ensure that platforms prioritise child safety and privacy as their default setting, rather than as an optional extra.

Our duty to protect children online, however, cannot end with new clause 21. We call on the Government to take further action, such as explicitly recognising and treating children’s use of social media as a critical public health issue, thoroughly examining international best practice, identifying innovative solutions to the challenges we face, and developing evidence-based policies that will demonstrably improve online safety for children. I welcome the Government’s proposal last week to introduce a cross-Government safer screens taskforce to look at research into the multifaceted impact of social media on children’s wellbeing.

This is not an overnight phenomenon. Last year marked 20 years since Facebook was created and 18 years since the smartphone was launched. We now face mounting calls from young people, parents and teachers. Now is the time for greater action on the gaps left by the Online Safety Act. I urge the Government to recognise the urgent need for decisive action and to support new clause 21. This is a pivotal opportunity to strengthen protections for young people online and to cultivate a digital world where they can thrive, not merely navigate potential harms. Let us work together across party lines to ensure a safer and brighter digital future for all our children.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Turner.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to do with new clause 21. I invite the Minister to address, as I am sure he will, her very specific point that it is not about restricting access to social media for people aged between 13 and 16, but about further restricting how social media is targeted at those age groups. After visiting schools in my constituency, I am minded to support her argument. At Ryde academy, I heard the reaction of young people to their school restricting access to their phones, which a school can only do during the school day.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the quite reasonable proposition on how to restrict social media companies from targeting children aged 13 to 16. Restricting the way they collect their data sounds like a small, but meaningful, step that the Government could take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I rise mainly to speak to new clause 8, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. It would require the Information Commissioner to review and publish an annual report on data sharing by law enforcement and the intelligence services. Any processing of personal data by law enforcement and the intelligence services must, by definition, be lawful, which inherently includes the requirement that the processing be necessary and proportionate.

The Information Commissioner is obliged to provide an annual report to Parliament under the Data Protection Act 2018, and may also produce additional reports as they see fit. The commissioner has powers of investigation, monitoring and enforcement that they may exercise as appropriate to oversee law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. Given the current system of oversight, and the fact that the commissioner is already required to provide reports annually, I hope the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted will not press her new clause to a vote.

[Victoria Collins]

I am sure members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that I have a very short speech. Clause 89 permits the processing of personal data jointly between law enforcement and intelligence services for the crucial purpose of safeguarding national security. While the Liberal Democrats recognise the necessity of such collaboration in specific circumstances, the inherently sensitive nature of the data demands the highest level of protection and scrutiny. New clause 8 is designed to ensure that ministerial changes to the data safeguards on this joint processing cannot be enacted without proper scrutiny by Parliament. We would also welcome hearing from the Government on Report proposals to uphold and ensure that parliamentary scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Codes of practice for the processing of personal data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 27—Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the Information Commission—

“(1) Prior to issuing any guidance or statement of strategic priorities to the Information Commission, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee of the House of Commons, and

(b) the Senedd, Scottish Parliament, or Northern Ireland Assembly where guidance relates to devolved powers.

(2) The Secretary of State may not reject or change a Code of Practice prepared by the Information Commission without a resolution to do so from each House of Parliament.”

This new clause seeks to strengthen the regulator’s independence by limiting ministerial powers to direct or override the Information Commission without oversight.

Clause 93 stand part.

[Dr Spencer]

I have a specific point on the text of new clause 27. We do not support this curtailment of powers, particularly in this context. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consult as a matter of course in carrying out his duties, whatever they are, and a specific requirement to consult the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, notwithstanding its prowess and stature, would be inoperable.

[Victoria Collins]

For us, the amendment is again in the spirit of ensuring proper scrutiny. However, I welcome the Minister’s comments and am happy not to press it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 93 and 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Regulations under this Part: Parliamentary procedure and consultation

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 95, page 120, line 31, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment removes a subsection which was inserted at Report stage in the Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister can interpret that how he wishes. We must ensure that our creative industry is supported to thrive while harnessing the technological and economic benefits of growing our domestic AI capability. The amendments in this area from the other place touch broadly on a number of important principles, which we support. They include the application of copyright law to data mining and AI-generative activity, which is covered in clause 135; the need for high transparency in how AI models are trained and the materials used for that purpose; and the importance of identifying sound technical solutions so that copyrighted content can be identified by web crawlers and AI models excluded from training and generative activity.

However, these matters and their solutions are complex from technological, legal and societal perspectives. We totally recognise the challenges of legislating in this area. Our international counterparts face the same challenges in trying to strike an effective balance between supporting our AI industries and supporting our creative sector. It is not a zero-sum game. There is clear scope for collaboration and mutual benefit if we get this approach right. As the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), stated in the Chamber, creative industries are telling us that the Government’s solution—set out in their consultation as their preferred option—is “not fit for purpose”. We need to engage carefully with the feedback received from industry stakeholders to come up with the right solutions in this area.

As the Minister mentioned, new clauses 17 to 20 recognise that putting together a specific plan in great detail on how to solve this problem needs to be done by chewing through the information from the ongoing consultation and through extensive engagement with the people who are actually going to do this stuff and the people who will be affected by it. In effect, the proposals are end-point clauses, about the world we want to see in the future, where our AI and creative sector can work together and we get all the benefits from both. It is where we want to get to. It is a bit less about putting together the journey plan of how we get there, with the exception of the fact that the Government need to crack on and sort this out—[Interruption.] Well, he’s the Minister. It comes with the job.

New clause 17 is intended to require the Government to confirm the application of existing copyright law to creative content mined by AI web crawlers and models in the same way that it would apply to other offline content. The Opposition feel that there is no ambiguity about the application of copyright law in this context. However, the Government have consistently suggested, in their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence and elsewhere, that the legal position is unclear. In effect, that has created ambiguity and given rise to significant concern and objection from the creative sector. It deters smaller AI enterprises and start-ups from developing their products.

Running counter to that is the near existence of a possible future opt-out. I have heard evidence that AI companies are now thinking, “Let’s hang on before we buy licensed content, because we might get it for free anyway if this applies going forward.” If the aim was to give confidence to the AI sector, as was dealt with by the consultation, that has not happened either.

Clarity is needed for both the creative and AI industries, but not in the form of a wholesale exemption from copyright law for development and generative activity undertaken by AI models. The Government should make a clarificatory statement about the existing application of copyright law in this area. That certainty is the foundation block of sound policy aimed at supporting the creative industries to harness the economic value of their work, so I commend new clause 17 to the Committee.

New clause 18 requires the Government within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to put forward proportionate and effective measures to ensure transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, development and generative activities of AI models, with emphasis on the proportionate and effective nature of the measures. At a high level, ensuring transparency in this area will help to ensure that information is available for rights holders to discern where and how their work has been used, and seek payment for the use of their work where appropriate.

New clause 18 seeks to address the widespread concerns of creative rights holders that they do not know when their material is being used, which acts as a block to any form of enforcement of their rights or licensing going forward. However, the approach to transparency must be proportionate. In particular, transparency obligations should not be so onerous that they stifle the market for AI start-ups and smaller enterprises in their infancy, when these entities should form the lifeblood of our future technological economy. One could envisage a situation where, if we get the legislation on this wrong, the recording and storing of information that has created a model, in its extreme triviality, could in effect become a bigger dataset than the set used in the first place— hence the focus on the importance of proportionate and effective measures.

The timing of the action to be taken by the Secretary of State under the new clause—within three months of Royal Assent—is intended to give the Secretary of State a proper opportunity to consider the feedback of the creative and AI industries and other stakeholders received under the recently concluded consultation on copyright and AI. I am ambitious for the Minister and the Government. I know he slightly deprecated his ability to get on and try to put something together, but I have faith in him to drive this forward. The feedback should help to formulate a plan that is both effective and workable, so I commend new clause 18 to the Committee.

New clause 19 requires the Secretary of State within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises, specifically in relation to access to data to train their models. The Government’s now concluded consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence specifies that one of its key aims is to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK.

The AI opportunities action plan commissioned by the Government made a series of recommendations relating to the need to unlock public and private datasets to enable innovation by UK start-ups and researchers in order to attract international talent and capital. Although the imbalance in access to resources between established companies and start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises is in the nature of markets, failing to address that in this context risks reinforcing a situation where AI development activity remains the preserve of a relatively small number of established operators. I am thinking particularly of those that have been able to set up now, using datasets that have not had to comply with whatever provisions will eventually be put in place to regulate this area.

The Prime Minister indicated in his response to the action plan that DSIT would look at how to take this policy area forward. New clause 19 calls on the Government to put their money where their mouth is, and come up with a proper plan to turbocharge not only growth in our AI sector, but diversity and competition among operators of all sizes, by coming up with a plan to reduce the barriers to market entry that the accessibility of data presents.

Given the increasing adoption and use of AI by digital Government and the mechanisms of the state, it is critical for our national security and our national resilience to have a functioning domestic AI market that we can draw on for our use. The timescale for the Secretary of State to publish his report provides an opportunity for industry and stakeholder feedback to be taken into account when developing effective plans. For those reasons, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.

Finally, new clause 20 requires the publication of a technological standard. I hope that the previous three new clauses are relatively uncontroversial, and I particularly hope that this new clause is the most uncontroversial of all. It is based on an amendment that was moved by my noble Friend Viscount Camrose in the other place, but which was withdrawn on receipt of reassurances from the Minister. The new clause requires the Government to publish a technological standard for machine-readable watermarks for the purpose of identifying the licensed content when it is encountered by web crawlers and AI models.

The development of such a standard would greatly enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their work, and to support enforcement of creative rights by creating a record of where and how content has been used. The development of a technological standard will be incredibly useful, even if the Government decide to take forward the flawed opt-out proposals and even if they are not ultimately adopted. This technological standard would be used in whatever situation we find ourselves in over the next few years in this industry.

This proposal would provide web crawlers and AI models with clear signposting that the content is not available for training or generative activity. Where that is properly deployed and observed by AI models, it will reduce the need for rights holders to take action to seek compensation for infringement of their copyright. The new clause does not ask the Government to commit to a specific solution, and nor should it, but it requires them to commit to identifying such a solution within a reasonable period. Let the industry sort it out. One of the challenges that has been going through my mind when exploring this area is why, from a point of principle, the market has not fixed this in the first place, and why we are where we are now in trying to resolve these issues. The new clause will promote transparency and certainty for the creative and AI industries, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Victoria Collins]

I have found these discussions among Members across the House about AI and copyright to be a delightful exchange about the creative industries that we love. I understand the Minister’s comments about there being different spaces for that debate and that this may not be the place for that, but I would like to speak to the new clauses that were proposed in the other House.

To highlight one of the creative industries that I love, this weekend I went to The Rex cinema in Berkhamsted, one of the best cinemas in the world—if any Members want to come, they are all very welcome. Sitting there, watching “A Complete Unknown”— about Bob Dylan and his songs—in a local movie theatre reminded me just how important it is to ensure that the creative industries can maintain their creativity, because it speaks to our soul and our society. They are beyond machine learning. They are humans who actually understand us and help to tell our stories in different ways.

That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed new clauses 135 to 139 that were tabled in the other place. We also welcome the consultation from the Government and are pleased to hear that there have been over 11,000 responses. Members will find responses from us in there, because we wanted to make sure that the Liberal Democrats made representations at every stage. It is disappointing that the change that the Government have set out means there is an “opt in by default” provision, and the message has come across from the creative industries that they are calling for an open consultation, so we can make sure that their views are heard. We support their voices being heard and, indeed, striking that balance where the creative industries can work with innovation, as they have been. This is about getting that right. We are proud of those industries in the UK. We must work together and truly listen to those thousands of voices up and down this country. That is what we stand for, and we will support the Government moving forward in that way.

[Chris Bryant]

First of all, I commend both hon. Members on their contributions. Let us face it; this is very difficult. It is a classic case of difficulty for the Government because, as the previous Government found, two sectors are really important to UK growth. The creative industries are one of the fastest-growing sectors in the UK and are representative of our future growth. Somebody put it to me the other day that there was a time when our economy relied on selling industrial products, then it was services, and, in the new era, perhaps one of the things that we are exceptionally good at is selling experiences, and a large part of that is through intellectual property from the creative industries.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Turner. I want to make a point about new clause 30, which I know was not selected for debate. Many will be familiar with the story of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen Roome, who lost her 14-year-old son Jools in 2022. Jools was a happy boy. He died in tragic circumstances. In her search for answers about the circumstances leading up to Jools’s death, Ellen has come up against outdated laws and social media giants taking an intransigent approach to sharing data that should naturally be hers as a bereaved parent. We are talking about things that, in the past, she would have been able to find out by looking through her child’s bedroom—things that might have been in wardrobes, stored under the bed or in scrawled notes. These days, those bits of data could be on multiple social media accounts, but parental access is denied.

That is the subject of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen’s Member of Parliament. The change to the law would be known as Jools’ law, in his memory. It would give parents access rights to their deceased child’s data automatically, with certain safeguards to respect third parties, so that other grieving parents will never face the challenges and the huge legal costs that Ellen has had to endure. I know that this new clause has not been chosen for discussion, but I would welcome a meeting with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to discuss the issue further.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Turner. The reason new clause 30 has not been selected is not that anybody has wanted to rule it inadmissible; it is simply because we are cracking through the Bill at such a speed that, although it was anticipated we would still be sitting on Thursday, it seems likely we will finish today, and new clause 30 therefore cannot be reached today because of its late tabling.

I know that Ellen is in the room, and I am very happy to facilitate a meeting with her, which I think is still outstanding with the Department. We will make sure that happens before the Bill gets to Report stage. If the hon. Member for Cheltenham or other Members want to be present at that meeting, I will make sure that happens. This is not a slight of any kind; it is just an accident of fortune in terms of the tabling of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I rise to speak to clause 117, the first clause in part 6, on reforming the information commission. Part 6 sets out provisions to abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office and transfer its functions to a new body, the information commission, with a chief executive and board of directors. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the fact that the Government are substantially taking forward some measures on reform of the ICO envisaged in previous iterations of this Bill, including the previous Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Indeed, the ICO has said that the changes under the Bill will bring its governance structure into line with that of comparable regulators. Given some of the challenges and opportunities that our data-driven economy will present, the new information commission must be set up in the right way to perform its regulatory functions as effectively as possible.

There is no doubt that the scope of the information commission’s role will grow, commensurate with the changes brought in by the Bill—for example, the obligation to have regard, in the performance of its role, to factors such as promoting innovation and competition. We are supportive of those aims, but it would be helpful if the Minister could briefly address some of the concerns raised by my noble Friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in the other place, particularly the Minister’s strategy for ensuring that the information commission is provided with clarity as to its responsibilities and obligations when it comes to economic growth, and how he will ensure that that remains consistent with the information commission’s primary functions relating to data protection.

[Victoria Collins]

I will speak only briefly about amendment 52, but I would like to think that after all the Liberal Democrat interventions today, no one will have any doubt that we take data very seriously. I realise that we have outlined a lot of proposals, but they are all in the spirit of helping to shape the data vision and of saying how important we feel it is. Amendment 52 is about the questioning of scrutiny. I am happy not to press the amendment, but again it is important to make sure we have trust in line with innovation.

[Chris Bryant]

The Government are, of course, committed to the independence of the ICO. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, the recommendations about changing the structure were entirely ones that were advanced in the previous version of the Bill and supported by the previous Government. We think that it will just make it more efficient, more effective and more transparent.

As I have said, we are committed to the ICO’s independence; it is a vital part of its role. That is why the new role of the chair of the information commission will be appointed by His Majesty, by letters patent— the same approach taken for the current Information Commissioner role. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has agreed with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the role of chair will be listed as a significant appointment with the Commissioner for Public Appointments and be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

The shadow Minister’s questions about how the Information Commissioner can balance those two requirements are perfectly legitimate. I think that they are questions for the Information Commissioner, and they are the kind of questions that could legitimately be asked in a pre-appointment session with the Select Committee. I do not, therefore, believe that the amendment from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is necessary.

However, I would like to put on record that the Government intend to maintain the title of the Information Commissioner in respect of the chair of the information commission, acknowledging the fact that the identity and brand of the Information Commissioner is valued and recognised domestically and internationally. We do not want to lose that, so we intend to preserve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 118 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Information standards for health and adult social care in England

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I will speak specifically on new clause 3. On the question of trust, I know that even the British Medical Association has highlighted concerns over transparency and ensuring that we unlock that innovation and bring that data—in other words, that people are willing, ready and happy to be part of this. New clause 3 therefore highlights that health and social data, when used for research, should have clear data categories that are properly recorded, and that individuals have a right to understand how their data is used. However, I appreciate the comments from the Minister, and I am happy not to press the new clause.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge nearly caught me out because I had to look up “iatrogenic”. Basically, I think it means that when someone is being treated for something, it can lead to harmful effects. I am worried about that, because I have a PET CT scan tomorrow afternoon and an MRI scan on Saturday, so I am worried that I am being subjected to more risk because of all this imaging.

The truth of the matter is that a patient wants to be able to access as many of their records as possible—whether it is their blood tests or whatever else. That is a significant change that has happened in the last few years. It is about putting the patient back in a key role in the NHS, and them being able to manage their own data, but that simply cannot happen unless we pass this legislation and roll out changes across the whole of the NHS.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question, although he admitted that it is not really my plan to develop these things; I might have to get the Department of Health and Social Care to write to him to lay some of that out. That is part of the work that we need to do at the moment. This is not in the Bill, but as a Welsh MP, I would like us to have shared standards across the whole of the United Kingdom, because there are people using different parts of the NHS across the different nations. That would make simple, common sense.

I also worry sometimes about cyber-security, with every different part of the NHS buying its own systems, and whether those systems all have the necessary cyber-security to make sure that data is preserved safely. I believe that the Bill will enable us to get a much more secure set of data provisions on the way health information can be shared between different parts of the NHS in England.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15

Information standards for health and adult social care in England

Amendment made: 14, in schedule 15, page 255, line 35, at end insert—

“(5) This section does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by this section).

(6) In this section, ‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment provides that information may not be processed for the purposes of new section 251ZC of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (public censure of relevant IT providers) if that would contravene the data protection legislation.

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Retention of information by providers of internet services in connection with death of child

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

This is not the appropriate place to discuss new clause 30, but I hope that there will be ample opportunity on Report for further discussion of the broader issue, which is of great importance.

[Victoria Collins]

Clause 124 concerns the retention of information by internet service providers in the deeply tragic event of a child’s death. It rightly acknowledges the potential need to access such data for crucial investigations and to understand the circumstances surrounding such a loss. However, mere provision for data retention is insufficient without a mechanism to ensure its effective implementation in line with broader online safety efforts. That is why we have proposed new clause 29, which ensures Government oversight by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a compliance report within 12 months. The report will assess whether social media platforms, including category 1 services under the Online Safety Act 2023, are preserving data when needed for investigations, regulatory actions and legal proceedings. I appreciate the comments from the Minister.

Although it is not in this Bill, this is an opportunity to highlight the Liberal Democrat’s belief that category 1 services should not be linked to the size of online platforms alone and that platform functionality and other characteristics should determine whether a regulated provider is classed as category 1 or 2. We know that harmful content, abuse and illegal activity leave a digital footprint but, without enforcement, key evidence may be erased before authorities can act. The new clause ensures that platforms are held accountable, preventing data from being lost if needed. It is about not just policy, but ensuring that social media companies meet their legal obligations and that enforcement is transparent and effective. Once again, I appreciate the open discussion of these issues that the Minister has put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

Retention of biometric data and recordable offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 54, in clause 127, page 161, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) An authority which retains biometric data under this Part must—

(a) review the necessity and proportionality of retention every 12 months, and

(b) erase the biometric data unless continued retention is strictly necessary for a lawful purposes, the reasons for which must be recorded and reviewable by the Information Commission.

(6B) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the retention and use of biometric data under this Part, including statistical data on the number of records retained, the time period of retainment, and the purposes of retainment.”.

This amendment would introduce mandatory periodic reviews of retained biometric data, requiring erasure unless the authority can demonstrate ongoing necessity. It also would mandate annual transparency reporting to Parliament on biometric use and retention.

Clauses 127 and 128 stand part.

[Victoria Collins]

I did not realise that we would be debating all these amendments today. I appreciate that my voice is probably being heard loud and clear, which was not the original intention, but these are important issues. Clause 126 addresses the sensitive issue of biometric data retention, particularly for law enforcement purposes. Amendment 54 strengthens safeguards by requiring judicial review methods before data can be retained beyond a defined period. That is where we are raising the alarm to ensure that there is a defined period, and that there is cause to ensure that data is not kept beyond that. It is a crucial protection to prevent undue encroachment on civil liberties.

The use of biometric data must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and overreach: while we acknowledge the role of such data in tackling crime, we must ensure that retention policies are both proportionate and necessary. Amendment 54 aligns the UK’s approach with best practices, ensuring that security does not come at the cost of fundamental rights.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady has tabled another amendment that calls for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. I hope that I am proving that the requirement to put those reports in the Bill is unnecessary.

The amendment would introduce a new duty on the police to review the retention of biometric data under clause 127, and a duty for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the use of that data. Clause 127 does not alter the existing duty in the Data Protection Act 2018, which ensures that the police retain only personal data, including sensitive personal data such as biometrics, as long as it is considered “necessary and proportionate”—precisely the terms that she advocated.

The biometrics commissioner already has independent oversight of biometric data retained under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and has a statutory duty to report to Parliament annually. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation also has statutory oversight of all the powers in the 2008 Act, and reports annually to Parliament. For those reasons—without doubting the hon. Lady’s intent—I hope that she will not press the amendment to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 to 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135

Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

I start by congratulating my noble Friend Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for her hard work and tenacity in raising the profile of the harms caused to victims of sexually explicit deepfakes, and ensuring that clauses criminalising that activity were inserted into the Bill in the other place. We very much welcome the Government’s engagement in this important area, and we broadly support their amendments, which substantially deliver the changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that Baroness Owen sought in the other place.

In particular, we welcome Government amendment 31, which substantially reflects the offence of solicitation under clause 141, but could the Minister put a bit more flesh on the bones of the reasoning and necessity behind substituting the term “requesting” for “solicitation”? Does he regard those terms as having equivalent meaning in this context? If not, what is the material difference in the approach to terminology?

I am thankful for the Minister’s comments on the “reasonable excuse” defence, but I have some questions about what exactly a reasonable excuse looks like in this context. Does he have any examples to aid our understanding of what constitutes a reasonable excuse in these circumstances? Based on that, do the Government intend to publish guidance on the scope of this defence and its explanation?

We are pleased to see the inclusion of Government amendment 38, inserting among other things an extended limitation period of three years from the date of creation, or request for creation, of a purported intimate image for bringing criminal charges. This will increase the scope for victims to seek justice where these images come to light some time after creation.

[Victoria Collins]

The Liberal Democrats very much welcome clause 141 and action taken on violence against women and girls in particular, including online. However, the clause talks about creating or soliciting the creation of purported intimate images of adults, but it does not necessarily deal with the sharing of them. How do we hold to account those who are sharing intimate images that they should not be?

[Chris Bryant]

I should have put on the record, as the shadow Minister did, my gratitude and congratulations to Baroness Owen for her tenacity; that point was absolutely right.

[Victoria Collins]

Hear, hear.

[Chris Bryant]

Excellent: we all agree that Baroness Owen has done a great piece of work for us, and we are grateful. Incidentally, I am also grateful to Ministry of Justice officials who worked with DSIT officials on the amendments before us today, which provide a more comprehensive version of what was originally argued for.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked me about the difference between solicitation and requesting. Often, it is considered that solicitation would require some form of exchange of money. Obviously, that would not necessarily be the case in this context, which is why we have “requesting”, a broader category than solicitation. A request includes doing an act that could reasonably be taken to be a request—for example, nodding or otherwise indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer. It also includes both making a request directed to a particular person or persons and making a request available to one or more people, or people generally, without directing it to a particular person or people. In other words, that is broader than what solicitation would have required. I think Baroness Owen agrees with us that this is therefore a more comprehensive offence.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the “reasonable excuse” defence. Let us say that a software developer wants to ensure that he or she—probably “he” in this case—has developed the right safeguards in his software to stop people generating intimate deepfakes without the consent of the person depicted. In some circumstances, he will have a reasonable excuse where, in the course of the testing to ensure that the software does not create such images, he creates a purported intimate image. That might be an instance of a reasonable excuse. I do not want to lay out what reasonable excuses might be, because the courts are so used to dealing with the concept of a reasonable excuse. There are many offences to which it applies, and the courts, as I have said, are used to dealing with them.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked me about sharing—is sharing a deepfake an offence? Sharing a deepfake intimate image without consent is already an offence under section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I hope that, without further ado, we can agree the amendments and the clause.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendments made: 29, in clause 141, page 173, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 174.

This amendment removes a new offence of soliciting the creation of a purported intimate image of an adult. For a replacement offence, see Amendment 31.

Amendment 30, in clause 141, page 174, line 26, at end insert—

“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”

This amendment adds a defence of reasonable excuse to the new offence of creating a purported intimate image of an adult.

Amendment 31, in clause 141, page 174, line 29, at end insert—

“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),

(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),

(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).

(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—

(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or

(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.

(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—

(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and

(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.

(6) An offence under this section is committed—

(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,

(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and

(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.

(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.

(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).

(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”

This amendment makes it an offence to request the creation of a purported intimate image of an adult without consent.

Amendment 32, in clause 141, page 174, line 30, leave out “soliciting” and insert “requesting”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 29 and 31.

Amendment 33, in clause 141, page 174, line 32, leave out “section 66E” and insert “sections 66E and 66EA”.

This amendment provides that the definitions in new section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply for the purposes of new section 66EA of that Act (see Amendment 31) (as well as for the purposes of new section 66E).

Amendment 34, in clause 141, page 174, line 33, leave out “the creation of a purported intimate image” and insert “an act”.

This amendment, and Amendments 35 and 36, adjust the definition of “consent” in new section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so that it works for the purposes of new section 66EA of that Act (see Amendment 31) (as well as for the purposes of new section 66E).

Amendment 35, in clause 141, page 174, line 34, leave out “of creation”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 34.

Amendment 36, in clause 141, page 174, line 35, at end insert

“(and see also section 66EA(5))”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 34.

Amendment 37, in clause 141, page 175, line 10, at end insert—

“(8) The “maximum term for summary offences” means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;

(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”

This amendment explains what is meant by the “maximum term for summary offences” in new sections 66E and 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (New section 66EA is inserted by Amendment 31).

Amendment 38, in clause 141, page 175, line 10, at end insert—

“66G Creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult: time limit for prosecution

(1) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, a magistrates’ court may try an information or written charge relating to an offence under section 66E or 66EA if the information is laid or the charge is issued—

(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and

(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge.

(2) A certificate signed by or on behalf of a prosecutor stating the date on which evidence described in subsection (1)(b) came to the prosecutor’s knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.”

This amendment extends the period during which a person may be prosecuted for an offence under new section 66E or 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult).

Amendment 39, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, after “66E” insert “, 66EA”.

This amendment provides that references to an image of a person in new section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see Amendment 31), like references to such an image in new section 66E of that Act, do not include an image of an imaginary person.

Amendment 40, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, after section 177D insert—

‘177DA Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences

(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).

(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 177C(3) (and section 94A(3)(b)(ii)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).’”

This amendment provides that deprivation orders can be made under the Armed Forces Act 2006 in connection with an offence under new section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).

Amendment 41, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, at end insert—

“(3B) In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offences to be disregarded in reckoning whether an act is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence: England and Wales), after paragraph 38 insert—

‘Sexual Offences Act 2003

38ZA An offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).’”

This amendment provides that a person cannot be guilty, under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, of encouraging or assisting the offence under new section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of a purported intimate image) (see Amendment 31).

Amendment 42, in clause 141, page 175, line 17, leave out

“or soliciting the creation of”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Clause 141, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 142

Power to make consequential amendment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I will speak only to Government amendment 16, which is highly technical—there will be a test on it afterwards. It removes the privilege amendment inserted at Lords Third Reading to clause 147, which was necessary given the Bill was introduced in the Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

Extent

Amendments made: 43, to clause 144, page 177, line 25, leave out “141” and insert

“141(1) to (3) and (4)”.

This amendment, and Amendment 44, are consequential on Amendments 40 and 41.

Amendment 44, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, leave out “extends” and insert “extend”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 43.

Amendment 45, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) section 141(3A) (amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006) extends to—

(i) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,

(ii) the Isle of Man, and

(iii) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar;”

This amendment provides for the amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006 made by Amendment 40 to have the same extent as that Act.

Amendment 46, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) section 141(3B) (amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”

This amendment provides for the amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007 made by Amendment 41 to have the same extent as that Act.

Amendment 47, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—

“(5A) The powers conferred by section 384(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (powers to extend provisions to the Channel Islands and to make provisions apply with modifications as they extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar) may be exercised in relation to section 177DA of that Act (inserted by section 141(3A) of this Act).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment provides that the new section inserted in the Armed Forces Act 2006 by Amendment 40 may, like the other provisions of that Act, be extended to the Channel Islands and modified as it extends to those Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar.

Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145 and 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147

Short title

Amendment made: 16, in clause 147, page 179, line 10, leave out subsection (2).—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 147, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Impact of this Act and other developments at national and international level on EU data adequacy decision

“Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact on the European Union data adequacy decisions relating to the United Kingdom of the following—

(a) this Act;

(b) other changes to the United Kingdom’s domestic frameworks which are relevant to the matters listed in Article 45(2) of the UK GDPR (transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision);

(c) relevant changes to the United Kingdom’s international commitments or other obligations arising from legally binding conventions or instruments, as well as from its participation in multilateral or regional systems, in particular in relation to the protection of personal data.”—(Victoria Collins.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act and other changes to the UK’s domestic and international frameworks relating to data adequacy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.

It will be no surprise that the Liberal Democrats support greater collaboration with our European partners. Local people and businesses across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, as well as up and down the country, continue to highlight the importance of working with the EU and for ever closer union.

New clause 2 seeks to ensure that any changes in our data laws or international commitments do not jeopardise our data adequacy, which is due to be reassessed by the EU in June this year. The Minister may be pushing through the Bill to ensure that we get our adequacy in line with that requirement, which is crucial, because the UK’s ability to transfer data internationally underpins business, research and security partnerships.

Data adequacy is what allows personal data to flow freely between the UK and the EU without the need for costly and complex additional safeguards. A report by the New Economics Foundation put the cost of data inadequacy with the EU at between £1 billion to £1.6 billion for British businesses, highlighting the importance of aligning with our European neighbours on this. The UK is also party to various international agreements and conventions relating to data protection.

New clause 2 ensures that we assess how our international commitments may impact the EU’s view of our data protection framework. If we fail to maintain strong data protections, we risk losing our EU data adequacy status, an outcome that could cost billions in compliance burdens, disrupt cross-border operations and hinder UK businesses from accessing global markets. That would be a hammer blow to the UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, that rely on seamless data exchange with our European partners.

Supporting new clause 2 is about ensuring that Britain continues to lead on data governance, innovation and global collaboration. Data adequacy is not just a legal issue; it is a fundamental element of maintaining economic growth, international trust and our competitive edge. We welcome assurances—and indeed the discussions I have already had with the Minister—on data adequacy with Europe being maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

First, I should have also thanked the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), because she has been intimately involved in bringing forward the measures that we debated in the last group. My apologies for forgetting that, Mr Turner.

On new clause 2, I completely agree that EU data adequacy is vital, but I completely disagree with the new clause, because I think it is technically deficient. One reason for that is the timeline that it lays out of three months, by which time I hope we might be able to have made progress. I also think that it undermines the independence of the process that the European Commission has to go through. The European Commission has already confirmed that its review of its two adequacy decisions for the UK are currently under way—ahead of the deadline, which is good. As Lord Vallance stated in the House of Lords, DSIT and the Home Office have dedicated teams supporting the European Commission’s technical review, as required.

I acknowledge the unilateral nature of the adequacy assessment made by the European Commission. For that reason, it is important to provide the European Commission with the discretion needed to complete its process, which I am afraid new clause 2 would undermine. So, for that reason, I am resisting the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Public-interest data trusts and communities

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for promoting data trusts and community data governance models for the public interest (referred to in this section as ‘data trusts’).

(2) That strategy must include—

(a) a definition of data trusts or data communities which prioritise ethical and responsible use of personal data,

(b) mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participant control and governance over shared datasets,

(c) potential incentives for organisations to participate in or develop such data trusts,

(d) safeguards to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms when data is shared,

(e) requirements for transparency in data trusts’ decision-making, including governance arrangements and any commercial partnerships,

(f) arrangements for ongoing independent oversight and review, and

(g) an assessment of how these models might advance innovation, economic growth, and data-driven research in socially beneficial areas such as health, climate resilience, and energy.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commission, UK Research and Innovation, relevant civil society groups, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to laying the strategy under subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, publish a progress report on how data trusts and data communities are being used and how they have contributed to the public interest, including any recommendations for further legislative or policy changes.”—(Victoria Collins.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a formal strategy for data trusts and to report periodically on progress. Encourages innovative but responsible data use.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 25—Promotion of public-interest data trusts and communities—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for promoting data trusts and community data governance models for the public interest (referred to in this section as ‘data trusts’).

(2) That strategy must include—

(a) a definition of data trusts or data communities which prioritise ethical and responsible use of personal data;

(b) mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participant control and governance over shared datasets;

(c) potential incentives for organisations to participate in or develop such data trusts;

(d) safeguards to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms when data is shared;

(e) requirements for transparency in data trusts’ decision-making, including governance arrangements and any commercial partnerships;

(f) arrangements for ongoing independent oversight and review; and

(g) an assessment of how these models might advance innovation, economic growth, and data-driven research in socially beneficial areas such as health, climate resilience, and energy

(3) The Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Information Commission,

(b) UK Research and Innovation,

(c) relevant civil society groups, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to laying the strategy under subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, publish a progress report on how data trusts and data communities are being used and how they have contributed to the public interest, including any recommendations for further legislative or policy changes.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a formal strategy for data trusts and to report periodically on progress. Encourages innovative but responsible data use.

New clause 28—Public-interest data altruism—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, establish a framework to recognise and register ‘data altruism organisations’ that manage personal data voluntarily contributed for public-interest objectives.

(2) A data altruism organisation registered under this section must—

(a) demonstrate enhanced governance, transparency, and accountability measures;

(b) publish clear terms on how personal data is used or shared; and

(c) uphold safeguards protecting data subjects’ rights.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) provide for eligibility criteria and the application process for data altruism organisations;

(b) specify ongoing compliance and auditing requirements;

(c) establish processes for revocation of registration where an organisation fails to meet the criteria.

(4) In developing the framework under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commission, data subjects, civil society organisations, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require creation of a statutory framework for data altruism allowing organisations to register as data altruism organisations where they collect and process personal data for public-interest purposes under enhanced transparency, governance, and accountability standards.

[Victoria Collins]

This is my last intervention, which I am sure the Committee will all be very sad about, and it is on data. I know that we have talked a lot about public trust, but I also want to highlight that, as Liberal Democrats, we are also excited about unlocking the opportunities from data. These new clauses speak to that.

New clauses 6, 25 and 28 together would ensure that we harness the benefits of data while upholding fundamental rights. Too often, data is seen as something that happens to people rather than something that they have a say in. We have an opportunity here to unlock even more opportunities, not just in Government data systems but in how data is used across research, public services and wider society.

New clause 6 calls on the Government to develop a clear strategy for public-interest data trusts and community data governance. That means allowing individuals and communities to contribute their data for socially beneficial purposes while retaining meaningful control. Imagine if patients suffering from rare diseases could securely share their data for medical research, knowing that it would be used solely for public good, not commercial gain; that is a future we can build.

New clause 25 would ensure that the Government take a proactive role in shaping public-interest data governance, setting clear ethical guidelines for how data can be shared securely and fairly. This is about moving beyond reactive regulation. Instead, we should actively create frameworks that allow innovation to flourish while protecting those rights. If we want the UK to be a leader in responsible AI and data stewardship, we need clear structures that allow businesses, researchers and civil society to work together with confidence.

New clause 28 would establish a framework for data altruism, ensuring that those who wish to donate their data for public interest projects can do so safely and transparently. Consider a family in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted who want to contribute to a dementia research project. Right now, there is no clear framework guaranteeing that their data will be protected from misuse. By formalising ethical data-sharing models, we can enable research and innovation without compromising trust. These new clauses share a simple principle: data must serve people, not the other way around. We must strike the right balance, harnessing data to drive innovation while ensuring that public confidence and ethical standards remain at the core of our approach.

We have a huge economic opportunity. The UK has led the way in setting high regulatory and Government standards in sectors such as fintech, law and insurance, where trust, transparency and compliance are critical. We should build on those strengths and apply the same principles to emerging fields such as AI, healthtech and responsible data sharing. By learning from what works and setting clear guidelines now, we can unlock investment, support start-ups and ensure that the UK becomes a hub for innovative, data-driven businesses. That is why I urge colleagues to consider new clauses 6, 25 and 28, as well as the principles put forward in them, to ensure that we build a data-driven future that is transparent, accountable and a gold standard for responsible innovation and public involvement.

[Dr Spencer]

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s comments, and I want to reflect on one point. She presented, or at least seemed to present, a tension between public interests and the commercial use of data. It is really important that we recognise that a lot of health research, particularly pharmaceutical development, is for commercial purposes, with a huge amount of benefits for health as a consequence.

I do not think it is to right to try to sabotage the use of data for commercial purposes, because it has huge benefits for the care and treatment of people. We depend on pharmaceutical companies to spend the risk money, for which a state organisation would never have the appetite, to develop the new drugs of the future. It is important to be quite careful when one is thinking about commercial interests versus non-commercial interests for scientific research.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that this is her last contribution to the debate, so in the words of the “The Little Mermaid”, I suppose we are poor, unfortunate souls. I thank her for tabling these new clauses, and she raised issues that were also discussed in the other place.

On new clause 6, as my noble Friend Baroness Jones noted in the House of Lords, the Government support giving individuals greater agency over their data and a robust regime of data subject rights. We have already announced our intention to publish a call for evidence on the potential role of data intermediaries. It is important that we establish a firm evidence base before we make any changes to people’s data rights, so I hope that that makes new clause 6 unnecessary.

On new clause 25, as I have just said, we have already published a call for evidence on the potential role of data intermediaries, which is why we need to proceed carefully before going down the route offered by the new clause. Finally, on new clause 28, the Government acknowledge that there are various models of data intermediaries, including those that manage voluntarily contributed personal data for the common good, such as data co-operatives and trusted research environments.

We have already announced our call for evidence, which will seek views on various aspects relevant to data intermediaries, including the delegation of data subject rights to third parties, barriers preventing data intermediaries from operating at full capacity and risk factors associated with significant growth in their activities. This will also include views on different models of data intermediaries, including those focused on data altruism, as the hon. Lady mentioned. Given that we have already announced our intention to act in these areas, I very much hope that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw the motion.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Right to use non-digital verification services

“(1) This section applies when an organisation—

(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and

(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.

(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—

(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and

(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”—(Steff Aquarone.)

This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Clerks, as well as you, Mr Turner, and other Chairs who have been on this Committee. I also thank the Government and Committee members for working together to get through the Bill very quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I completely understand and, in large measure, share those concerns. We wanted to ensure, in this fast-changing world, that the creative industries in the United Kingdom could be remunerated for the work they had produced. We are not in the business of giving away other people’s work to third parties for nothing: that would be to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, to use a term from an old translation of the Bible, and we are determined not to do it. As my hon. Friend—and several other Members—will have heard me say many times before, we would only proceed with the package of measures included in the consultation if we believed that we were advancing the cause of the creative industries in the UK, rather than putting them in danger or legal peril.

I think that some of the things I will say in a moment will be of assistance. We want to reach a point at which it is easier for the creative industries—whether they are large businesses with deep pockets and able to use lawyers, or very small individual photographers or painters—to assert and protect their rights, and to say, if they wish, “No, you cannot scrape my material for the purpose of large language model learning, unless you remunerate me.” That remuneration might happen via a collective licensing scheme, or it might happen individually. Either way, we want to get to more licensing rather than less. As, again, I have said several times at this Dispatch Box, we have looked at what has happened in the European Union and what is happening in the United States of America, and we believe that although the EU said that its package was designed to deliver more licensing, it has not led to more licensing or to more remuneration of the creative industries, and we want to avoid that pitfall.

As I have said, I take the concerns of the creative industries seriously, both as a DSIT Minister and as a DCMS Minister; of course I do. I agree—we, the Government, agree—that transparency is key. We want to see more licensing of content. We believe that the UK is a creative content superpower, and we want UK AI companies to flourish on the basis of high-quality data. I have spoken to a fair number of publishing companies, in particular UK companies such as Taylor & Francis, a largely academic publisher. As Members will know, the UK is the largest exporter of books in the world. Those companies are deliberately trying to get all their material licensed to AI companies, for two reasons: first, they want to be remunerated for the work that they have provided, and secondly, just as importantly, they want AI to come up with good answers. If you put dirty water into a pipe, dirty water will come out at the other end, and if you put good data into AI, good answers will come out of AI. That is an important part of why we want to ensure that we have strong AI based on high-quality data, and much of that is premium content from our creative industries.

We also agree that the Government must keep an open mind, and must take full account of the economic evidence. That is why we have tabled new clauses 16 and 17, which set out binding commitments to assess the impact of any and all proposals and to consider and report on the key areas raised in debate. That includes any and all of the options that were involved in the consultation that we published after the amendments were tabled in the House of Lords. As the Government take forward the commitments made by these amendments, they will consider all potential policy options. I must emphasise that the Government have not prejudged the outcome of the consultation, and take the need to consider and reflect on the best approach for all parties very seriously.

Members will, I am sure, have read new clause 17; it requires the Government to report on four matters. First, there is the issue of technical solutions that would enable copyright owners to control whether their copyright works could be used to develop AI.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Lady just let me finish this paragraph, because it might read better in Hansard? Actually, I have now added that bit, so it is ruined, and I might as well give way to her.

[Victoria Collins]

The question of technical solutions is very important, but my challenge is this. I have spoken to representatives of some of the big tech companies who are pushing for that, and who are saying that it is hard for them to do it at scale but creatives can do it. Why can the tech companies not be leading on an opt-in system for creatives? Let me hand that back to the Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I should point out that the hon. Lady, as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party, will be speaking very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for your patience regarding my earlier intervention. I am very passionate about all elements of the Bill.

On Second Reading, I said:

“Data is the new gold”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 302.]

—a gold that could be harnessed to have a profound impact on people’s daily lives, and I stand by that. With exponential advances in innovation almost daily, this has never been truer, so we must get this right.

I rise today to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name specifically, and to address two urgent challenges: protecting children in our digital world and safeguarding the rights of our creative industry in the age of artificial intelligence. The Bill before us represents a rare opportunity to shape how technology serves people, which I firmly believe is good for both society and business. However, I stand here with mixed emotions: pride in the cross-party work we have accomplished, including with the other place; hope for the progress we can still achieve; but also disappointment that we must fight so hard for protections that should be self-evident.

New clause 1 seeks to raise the age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16 years old. We Liberal Democrats are very clear where we stand on this. Young minds were not designed to withstand the psychological assault of today’s social media algorithms. By raising the age at which children can consent to have their data processed by social media services, we can take an important first step towards tackling those algorithms at source. This is a common-sense measure, bringing us in line with many of our European neighbours.

The evidence before us is compelling and demands our attention. When I recently carried out a safer screens tour of schools across Harpenden and Berkhamsted to hear exactly what young people think about the issue, I heard that they are trapped in cycles of harmful content that they never sought out. Students spoke of brain rot and described algorithms that pushed them towards extreme content, despite their efforts to block it.

The evidence is not just anecdotal; it is overwhelming. Child mental health referrals have increased by 477% in just eight years, with nearly half of teenagers with problematic smartphone use reporting anxiety. One in four children aged 12 to 17 have received unwanted sexual images. We know that 82% of parents support Government intervention in this area, while a Liberal Democrat poll showed that seven in 10 people say the Government are not doing enough to protect children online.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I welcome new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend. Does she agree that raising the age of consent for processing personal data from 13 to 16 will help reduce the use of smartphones in schools by reducing their addictiveness, thereby also improving concentration and educational performance in schools?

[Victoria Collins]

That is exactly what is at the heart of this matter—the data that drives that addictiveness and commercialises our children’s attention is not the way forward.

Many amazing organisations have gathered evidence in this area, and it is abundantly clear that the overuse of children’s data increases their risk of harm. It powers toxic algorithms that trap children in cycles of harmful content, recommender systems that connect them with predators, and discriminatory AI systems that are used to make decisions about them that carry lifelong consequences. Health Professionals for Safer Screens—a coalition of child psychiatrists, paediatricians and GPs— is pleading for immediate legislative action.

This is not a partisan issue. So many of us adults can relate to the feeling of being drawn into endless scrolling on our devices—I will not look around the Chamber too much. Imagine how much more difficult it is for developing minds. This is a cross-party problem, and it should not be political, but we need action now.

Let me be absolutely clear: this change is not about restricting young people’s digital access or opposing technology and innovation; it is about requiring platforms to design their services with children’s safety as the default, not as an afterthought. For years we have watched as our children’s wellbeing has been compromised by big tech companies and their profits. Our call for action is supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 5rights, Healthcare Professionals for Safer Screens, Girlguiding, Mumsnet and the Online Safety Act network. This is our chance to protect our children. The time to act is not 18 months down the line, as the Conservatives suggest, but now. I urge Members to support new clause 1 and take the crucial steps towards creating a digital world where children can truly thrive.

To protect our children, I have also tabled amendment 45 to clause 80, which seeks to ensure that automated decision-making systems cannot be used to make impactful decisions about children without robust safeguards. The Bill must place a child’s best interests at the heart of any such system, especially where education or healthcare are concerned.

We must protect the foundational rights of our creators in this new technological landscape, which is why I have tabled new clause 2. The UK’s creative industries contribute £126 billion annually to our economy and employ more than 2.3 million people—they are vital to our economy and our cultural identity. These are the artists, musicians, writers and creators who inspire us, define us and proudly carry British creativity on to the global stage. Yet today, creative professionals across the UK watch with mounting alarm as AI models trained on their life’s work generate imitations without permission, payment or even acknowledgment.

New clause 2 would ensure that operators of web crawlers and AI models comply with existing UK copyright law, regardless of where they are based. This is not about stifling innovation; it is about ensuring that innovation respects established rights and is good for everyone. Currently, AI companies are scraping creative works at an industrial scale. A single AI model may be trained on thousands of copyrighted works without permission or compensation.

The UK company Polaron is a fantastic example, creating AI technology to help engineers to characterise materials, quantify microstructural variation and optimise microstructural designs faster than ever before. Why do I bring up Polaron? It is training an AI model built from scratch without using copyright materials.

[David Davis]

I am emphatically on the hon. Lady’s side in her intent to protect British creativity, but how does she respond to the implicit threat from artificial intelligence providers to this and other elements of the Bill to effectively deny AI to the UK if they find the regulations too difficult to deal with?

[Victoria Collins]

We have a thriving innovation sector in the UK, so those companies are not going anywhere—they want to work with the UK. We actually have a system now that has a fantastic creative industry and we have innovation and business coming in. There are many ways to incentivise that. I talk a lot about money, skills and infrastructure—that is what these innovative companies are looking for. We can make sure the guardrails are right so that it works for everyone.

By ensuring that operators of web crawlers and AI models comply with existing UK copyright law, we are simply upholding established rights in a new technological context. The UK led the world in establishing trustworthy financial and legal services, creating one of the largest economies by taking a long-term view, and we can do the same with technology. By supporting new clause 2, we could establish the UK as a base for trustworthy technology while protecting our creative industries.

Finally, I will touch on new clause 4, which would address the critical gap in our approach to AI regulation: the lack of transparency regarding training data. Right now, creators have no way of knowing if their work has been used to train AI models. Transparency is the foundation of trust. Without it, we risk not only exploiting creators, but undermining public confidence in these powerful new technologies. The principle is simple: if an AI system is trained using someone’s creative work, they deserve to know about it and to have a say in how it is used. That is not just fair to creators, but essential for building an AI ecosystem that the public trust. By supporting new clause 4, we would ensure that the development of AI happens in the open, allowing for proper compensation, attribution and accountability. That is how we will build responsible AI that serves everyone, not just the tech companies.

On the point of transparency, I will touch briefly on a couple of other amendments. We must go further in algorithmic decision making. That is why I have tabled amendment 46, which would ensure that individuals receive personalised explanations in plain language when an automated decision system affects them. We cannot allow generic justifications to stand in for accountability.

[Pete Wishart]

I will support the hon. Lady’s new clause 2 tonight, if she pushes it to a vote, and I encourage her also to push new clause 4 to a vote. This is a most important issue. We must ensure that transparency is available to all artists and creators. Does she agree that there is no good technological barrier to having transparency in place right now?

[Victoria Collins]

That has been my challenge to the tech companies, which I absolutely support in innovating and driving this—but if they are saying that it would be easy for creatives to do this, why is it not easy for big tech companies with power and resources to lead the way?

Amendments 41 to 44 would ensure that the decisions made about people, whether through data profiling, automated systems or algorithms, are fair. They would clarify that meaningful human involvement in automated decision making must be real, competent and capable of changing the outcome, not just a box-ticking exercise.

The amendments before us offer a clear choice to protect our children and creators or to continue to delay while harm grows—the choice to build a future in which technology either builds trust or destroys it. We have the evidence and the solutions, and the time for action is now. Let us choose a future in which technology empowers, rather than exploits—one that is good for society and for business. I urge all Members to support our amendments, which would put people and the wellbeing of future generations first.

[Samantha Niblett]

I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of new clause 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), to which I have added my name. The clause would give our media and creative sectors urgently needed transparency over the use of copyright works by AI models. I am sure that my speech will come as no surprise to the Minister.

I care about this issue because of, not in spite of, my belief in the power of AI and its potential to transform our society and our economy for the better. I care because the adoption of novel technologies by businesses and consumers requires trust in the practices of firms producing the tech. I care about this issue because, as the Creative Rights in AI Coalition has said:

“The UK has the potential to be the global destination for generative firms seeking to license the highest-quality creative content. But to unlock that immense value, we must act now to stimulate a dynamic licensing market: the government must use this legislation to introduce meaningful transparency provisions.”

Although I am sure that the Government’s amendments are well meant, they set us on a timeline for change to the copyright framework that would take us right to the tail end of this Parliament. Many in this House, including myself, do not believe that an effective opt-out mechanism will ever develop; I know it is not in the Bill right now, but it was proposed in the AI and copyright consultation. Even if the Government insist on pursuing this route, it would be a dereliction of duty to fail to enforce our existing laws in the intervening period.

Big tech firms claim that transparency is not feasible, but that is a red herring. These companies are absolutely capable of letting rights holders know whether their individual works have been used, as OpenAI has been ordered to do in the Authors Guild v. OpenAI copyright case. Requiring transparency without the need for a court order will avoid wasting court time and swiftly establish a legal precedent, making the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to continue with the mass theft that has taken place. That is why big tech objects to transparency, just as it objects to any transparency requirements, whether they are focused on online safety, digital competition or copyright. It would make it accountable to the individuals and businesses that it extracts value from.

The AI companies further argue that providing transparency would compromise their trade secrets, but that is another red herring. Nobody is asking for a specific recipe of how the models are trained: they are asking only to be able to query the ingredients that have gone into it. Generative AI models are made up of billions of data points, and it is the weighting of data that is a model’s secret sauce.

The Government can do myriad things around skills, access to finance, procurement practices and energy costs to support AI firms building and deploying models in the UK. They insist that they do not see the AI copyright debate as a zero-sum game, but trading away the property rights of 2.4 million UK creatives—70% of whom live outside London—to secure tech investment would be just that.

There are no insurmountable technical barriers to transparency in the same way that there are no opt-outs. The key barrier to transparency is the desire of tech firms to obscure their illegal behaviour. It has been shown that Meta employees proactively sought, in their own words,

“to remove data that is clearly marked as pirated/stolen”

from the data that they used from the pirate shadow library, LibGen. If they have technical means to identify copyright content to cover their own backs, surely they have the technical means to be honest with creators about the use of their valuable work.

I say to the Minister, who I know truly cares about the future of creatives and tech businesses in the UK—that is absolutely not in question—that if he cannot accept new clause 14 as tabled, he should take the opportunity as the Bill goes back to the Lords to bring forward clauses that would allow him to implement granular transparency mechanisms in the next six to 12 months. I and many on the Labour Benches—as well as the entire creative industries and others who do not want what is theirs simply to be taken from them—stand ready to support the development of workable solutions at pace. It can never be too soon to protect the livelihoods of UK citizens, nor to build trust between creators and the technology that would not exist without their hard work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I would just like to clarify that we have thought long and hard about this Bill, along with many organisations and charities, to get it right.

[Dr Spencer]

That is good to hear.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Over the course of debating the Bill, it has become customary to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, particularly Baroness Owen for her work on deepfakes and others who have campaigned boldly in that area.

I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 49B. We have been clear that supporting the creative and AI sectors is not a zero-sum game; we need to support both sectors. Through their ham-fisted consultation on copyright and AI, the Government have raised great concern throughout the creative sector, and the resulting attempts to amend this Bill have been in response to the mess they have created. In Committee and on Report, we set out a series of amendments that focused on the outcome—not the process—for a solution in this area. Those amendments focused on ensuring that the position in law of copyright in this area was clear, on the need for proportionate and effective transparency, on removing barriers to start-ups, and on facilitating technological solutions via digital watermarking.

In one of the many interventions on the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) mentioned the importance of implementing digital watermarking. He referred to it as a response to deepfakes, but it also has relevance to technical solutions, and it strikes me as quite odd that the Minister went on to cover broadly the same topics in his opening remarks, despite pointing out to my right hon. Friend that those topics were not relevant to the ongoing debate. That indicates how confused the treatment of this area in the Bill has become, and the need for clarity.

I pay tribute to Viscount Camrose, Lord Parkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), Baroness Kidron, and others in this House and in the other place, for their work on amendments to reach a resolution in this area. We had sympathy with earlier versions of those amendments, but also concerns about their workability and prescriptiveness. We have worked with Baroness Kidron to get to a position that we can now support; we believe that solutions need to incorporate the principles of transparency and proportionality. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is more reasonable than doing nothing.

I find it astounding that the main criticism that the Minister has made of Lords amendment 49B is that it has a run-in period prior to implementation and that people are calling for things to happen now. That is an odd way of approaching legislating. As the Opposition, we are working with other parties, among others, to try to find a solution to get the Minister out of a hole. I hope that Members across the House support the amendment.

Moving on to digital verification services, I welcome the Lords’ disagreement with amendments 32 and 52, and support their amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C on sex data accuracy, which received the support of Members in the other place. As my noble Friend Viscount Camrose said in his speech, it was necessary to re-table amended versions of the clauses on data accuracy previously secured in the other place because our new clause 21 was not in scope for debate in the Lords. The Lords amendments are technical and complex, so if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to new clause 21 to explain for the benefit of Members how things have evolved over time.

Our new clause 21 would have compelled public authorities to correct the datasets they hold in relation to sex and to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex in accordance with the legal definition set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment: biological sex. It would also have allowed public authorities to collect data on acquired sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate where that is relevant and lawful. It would have imposed no new obligations on the correction of data held by public authorities—the obligation already exists under article 5(1)(d) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation—but would simply have put in place a timescale for correcting data on sex. We know from the findings of the Sullivan review that that correction is much needed and long overdue.

To address a misconception, new clause 21 was silent on how sex is recorded in physical and digital forms of identity for those holding a gender recognition certificate. That is a sensitive issue for the 8,500 holders of GRCs in the UK, and we hope that much-needed clarity in this area will be given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its guidance due to be laid before Parliament next month. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make rules as to how that guidance is implemented in digital verification services. However, that issue, while important, does not affect the clear obligation that already exists in law to record data on sex accurately.

Lords amendments 32C and 32B, and disagreement with amendment 32, would compel the Secretary of State to examine whether the public authorities that will act as data sources for the digital verification services system ascertain sex data reliably in accordance with biological sex and, where lawful and relevant, with sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That would prevent inaccurate sex data from being entrenched and proliferated in the digital verification services system. Lords amendments 52B and 52C, and disagreement with amendment 52, would give the Secretary of State the power to define in a data dictionary sex data as biological sex and, where relevant, sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That could then be applied across the digital verification services system, the register of births and deaths, and other circumstances where public authorities record personal data. The amendments are critical for correcting our compromised datasets on sex and would ensure that poor-quality and inaccurate data does not undermine digital verification services.

To be clear, if our amendments do not make it into the Bill, self-ID will be brought forward through the back door, risking the protections that single-sex spaces offer to everyone. Self-ID is not and never has been the position in UK law. I do not understand why the Government are resisting these measures. Digital verification systems need to be trustworthy to deliver the benefits intended by the Bill. If they are not trustworthy, the system will fail. I therefore commend these vital and much-needed amendments to the House.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Let me join others in expressing my gratitude for the work of many Members, especially in the other place—in particular, Baroness Owen and Baroness Kidron—but also across this House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, including much constructive discussion on many elements of the Bill with the Minister. Today, though, I will refer specifically to Lords amendment 49B.

I am lucky enough to represent a part of Hertfordshire that is woven into British creativity, from Graham Greene of Berkhamsted, whose masterpiece “Brighton Rock” shaped our cultural consciousness, to Eric Morecambe of Harpenden, whose partnership in Morecambe and Wise brought joy to millions, while the music of the Devines from Berkhamsted gets us up and dancing, and local artists such as Mary Casserley and Andrew Keenleyside paint our daily lives in ways that bring perspective, colour and joy in a way that only artists can achieve. Our landscapes in Ashridge and Aldbury have inspired film-makers from Disney to the producers of the Harry Potter films, and our pubs have been featured in films including “Bridget Jones”.

Today, this creative legacy faces an unprecedented threat. The current situation is more than just alarming; it is threatening the essence of our national identity and our creative economy. We hear concerns about resources for protecting our creative sector, but those arguments miss a crucial point: our creative industries, combined, contribute £126 billion to our economy, employ 2.4 million people, and are growing significantly faster than the wider economy. The question is not whether we can afford to protect these industries, but whether we can afford not to. When we invest in enforcing copyright protections, we are also investing in safeguarding one of Britain’s greatest economic assets and our competitive advantage on the world stage.

The transparency provisions in Lords amendment 49B are essential and proportionate. They apply proportionately to businesses of different sizes, while ensuring that our creative powerhouse can continue to thrive and, indeed, work hand in hand with technology. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, not exploitation. Let me make it clear that this is not about resisting technology, but about recognising value and safeguarding innovation—and that brings me back home to Berkhamsted.

In the heart of my constituency sits the British Film Institute National Archive, one of the largest and more significant film collections in the world, comprising over 275,000 titles and 20,000 silent films dating back to 1894. It is a living memory of our national story, told on screen. Would we allow anyone to walk into the BFI and take whatever they liked? Would we let them scan, copy and republish those works without permission or compensation? Of course not. So I ask the Minister, why would we allow the same thing to happen in the digital world?

This is a defining moment. We can build an AI-powered future that respects and rewards creativity, or we can allow short-term interests to strip-mine the work of generations. The question before us today is simple: will we stand for a future when technology and creativity flourish together, or will we allow the foundations of our cultural life and economic prosperity to be hollowed out for short-term gain? I urge the Government to stand up for our creators, stand up for transparency, and stand up for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Here we are again. Once again, I would like to thank those in the other place who have worked so hard on these amendments, and indeed Members across the House who have stood up for creatives. We are back here again two weeks later to discuss and vote on Lords amendment 49F to secure the rights of creatives in the changing face of AI.

What has changed in those two weeks? An awful lot actually. Forty eight hours before we voted on the amendment on 20 May, the latest big AI tech launch occurred when Google launched Veo 3—literally an all-talking, all-singing, all-dancing AI video creator, the like of which we have never seen before. Seeing is believing, and even when you see it, you will not always be able to believe that what you are seeing is not real. The emotions of the characters created by binary code, a series of zeros and ones, have already had me laughing, feeling and thinking; their jokes like a stand-up comedian, the light of the sunset comparable to standing at the Ashridge beech woods as a perfect day’s golden hour arrives, the tangible fear of the binary character representing the actress, the director and the artist questioning what this means for them. The engineering, the development and, dare I say it, the creativity that has gone into developing such software is epic. There is no denying that, but I cannot help but wonder if all the value came from the engineering and the computing. What about the period dramas, the beauty of children’s illustration, the wit of the one-liner and the fast-paced thrillers that have helped to train this cinematic experience at the touch of a prompt?

As far as I can discover, Google representatives have previously mentioned that, as well as publicly available content, YouTube may have been used to train the model. I wonder how many must feel, seeing their creations replicated. Of course, this is just one example of the AI developments happening every minute. The alarm bell that creatives have been ringing has come to fruition a thousand times over. As much as I am sure that many creatives are excited about the possibilities, many will be questioning the implications for their industry, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Just this afternoon, I spoke to creatives from the Creators’ Rights Alliance, who have proof of their works being essentially copied against their will. Artists, writers, photographers, filmmakers, singers and songwriters are watching their life’s work swallowed up.

I have not even spoken about Lyria, which writes music, or the thousands of other developments coming out of AI—incredible developments that we must celebrate, but we must also ensure that the creative work that has gone into it is also valued. While technology moves at pace, our frameworks for accountability have not kept up. In this moment, as artificial intelligence reshapes how creative works are used, adjusted and commercialised, the time for reflection is behind us. I appreciate the Government talking about protecting rights and the actions they are taking, but the time for real action is now. That is why I urge Members across the House to vote for Lords amendment 49F, to ensure transparency of business data is used in relation to AI models, a proportionate approach that calls to establish transparency. I urge the Government to also move at pace to protect creators’ rights with a plan and with everyone around the table, something we have heard across the House today.

As I walked around Little Gaddesden arts fair this weekend, I saw the bright colours and joy that had been created by Sally Bassett, Alison Bateson and Andrew Dixon. Right at the end of the road, Little Gaddesden village hall is where parts of “The Crown” were filmed. I thought of the legendary story about Picasso, which many Members may know. At a Parisian market, an admirer approached Picasso and asked if he could do a quick sketch on a napkin. He kindly obliged, creating art on the napkin. He handed it back to her, but not before asking for 1 million francs. “But it only took you five minutes,” barked the admirer. “No,” Picasso replied, “it took me 40 years to be able to draw this in five minutes.”

Given that prompts can create art, whether song, print, film or story, in seconds, who is being renumerated for the years of work that have gone into it? I urge Members across the House to vote for Lords amendment 49F. We must find a solution to ensure that human creativity is truly valued.

[Sir Julian Smith]

First, the Ministers, who I like personally and rate a lot, unfortunately do not control the timetable of Government business. Secondly, they do not have a Bill in the King’s Speech. Thirdly, my prediction is that they will be promoted before this new Bill comes to pass.

The speeches were honest, but what they exposed is that there is no time commitment whatever from those on the Government Benches to bring back a Bill to this House to address the current property theft raining down on the UK creative industries. That is why the creative industries and the debate in the other place, which we listened to yesterday, are so passionate. Theft of the property rights of composers, writers, filmmakers and other creatives have been happening for years. They continue to happen and will continue to happen until the new Bill comes forward; greater and greater volumes of intellectual property and hard-fought rights falling into the AI hopper never to be seen again, and no system of redress other than expensive legal action to get it back. How would we feel if it was our own property, business or land—if it was removed without us even being asked, with the gentle reassurance that we could take action retrospectively?

Creatives are desperate. Most do not have the workers’ rights the majority of us have, or things such as pensions or holiday pay; all they have is their intellectual property rights. Where will the incentive be now to toil for weeks, months and years creating a piece of music or writing a text, only to have it snatched away when success arrives? There is an irony, with the Government returning shortly with the Employment Rights Bill, that creative workers’ rights continue to be so eroded.

The transparency amendment in front of us today is a much diluted version of the previous Kidron amendments sent to us from the other place. It sets out a clear timeline for when the Government must return with a Bill, which is a modest request; the Government will still be able to delay the Bill, should they want to, and, to be honest, the creative industries will still not have the opportunity to protect their works in the meantime.

The amendment should be accepted because it will provide reassurance to a key UK sector. However, it should also be accepted as an example of our two Chambers respecting each other. No one in the debate yesterday, listening to the words of Baroness Kidron, Lord Forsyth or others, could feel they were trying to cause the Government problems. Each and every supporter of the amendment did so on the basis of support for the rights of those working in one of the UK’s leading economic sectors, who are pleading with us for their survival and to work positively with this new technological development.

Our politics is currently jam-packed with black and white positions and an instinct to jump to disagreement and polarisation. The Lords amendment before us today represents a modest proposal to disagree well, and the Government should accept it.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I would like to either disappoint or reassure the House that, sadly, I do not have a story for Members today. I will dive straight into the amendments that are before us.

Just three months. After all the discussions and the cries for fairness from the creative industries, which have seen the daylight robbery of their life’s work, the Government are sending back an amendment that, in essence, changes the economic assessment from 12 months to nine months, with a progress statement and some expansion. I understand that this is the data Bill, and that this legislation contains many important elements relating to the future of our data, which we must secure. In response to the point made by the Minister, I absolutely understand the importance of securing data adequacy with the European Union. However, the creative industry is at a critical juncture with AI. Many feel that it is already too late, but they are doing what they can, fighting for transparency and fairness for a £126 billion UK industry.

The Creators’ Rights Alliance has already started to see the impact for creators. 58% of members of the Association of Photographers have lost commissioned work to generative AI services, with an increase of 21% in the past five months alone, totalling an average loss of £14,400 per professional photographer—approximately £43 million in total. Some 32% of illustrators report losing work to AI, with an average loss of £9,262 per affected UK creator. There is an uncomfortable truth that economic gains from AI—of which I am sure there will be many—will also be met with economic losses that must be addressed. Indeed, at Old Street tube station, there are signs everywhere at the moment saying “Stop hiring humans.” Some 77% of authors do not know whether their work has been used to train AI, 71% are concerned about AI mimicking their style without consent, and 65% of fiction writers and 57% of non-fiction writers believe that AI will negatively impact their future earnings. At this point, the creative industry feels betrayed, and is asking for solutions.

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statements this weekend. He talked about looking comprehensively at the challenges creatives will face into the future and about bringing legislation in at the right time, but that time is now. Last week’s Lords amendment 49F highlighted that the Lords understood the need for separate legislation and asked for a draft Bill looking at copyright infringement, AI and transparency about inputs, which is something that creatives have been clear about from the start. I have always highlighted the positive impacts of technology and innovation, and I have no doubt that creatives will also use AI to aid their creativity. However, from musicians to film makers and photographers to writers and painters, the works of this massive industry have been swallowed up, and creatives are left wondering what that means for them—especially as they are already starting to see the impact.

In my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted I see the creative spirit everywhere. There is: Open Door, a caring oasis with walls covered by local artists; the Harpenden Photographic Society, established more than 80 years ago, where generations have learned to capture light and moment through their lens; the Berkhamsted art society, where painters and craftspeople gather to nurture each other’s artistic journey; and the Berkhamsted Jazz group, who get us up and dancing. These creators are the threads that weave the rich tapestry of British culture, and the creative industries permeate our towns, including the filming of box office hits such as “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” at Ashridge. Who will be the guardians of this creative galaxy? Why does this theft feel a little less heroic than Robin Hood?