Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

20:07

Amendment 56A

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

56A: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Creating purported sexual image of adult(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) After section 66A insert—“66AA Creating purported sexual image of adult(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally creates a purported sexual image of another person (B),(b) A does so with the intention of causing B alarm, distress or humiliation, and(c) B does not consent to the creation of the purported sexual image.(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally creates a purported sexual image of another person (B),(b) A does so for the purpose of A or another person obtaining sexual gratification,(c) B does not consent to the creation of the purported sexual image, and(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(3) “Purported sexual image” of a person means an image which—(a) appears to be or include a photograph or film of the person (but is not, or is not only, a photograph or film of the person),(b) appears to be of an adult, and(c) appears to show—(i) the person participating or engaging in a sexual act which is not of a kind ordinarily done in public,(ii) the person doing a sexual thing which is not of a kind ordinarily done in public,(iii) all or part of the person’s exposed genitals or anus, or (iv) all or part of the person’s exposed breasts, except where what appears to be shown is something of a kind ordinarily seen in public.(4) In this section, a reference to creating a purported sexual image of a person does not include doing so by modifying a photograph or film of the person where what is created by the modification is an image which—(a) appears to show the person, and(b) does not appear to show something within subsection (3)(c)(i) to (iv) which, or a person who, is not shown in the photograph or film.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.66AB Creating purported sexual image of adult: definitions etc(1) This section applies for the purposes of section 66AA.(2) “Consent” to the creation of a purported sexual image includes general consent covering the particular act of creation as well as specific consent to that particular act.(3) Whether a belief is “reasonable” is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.(4) A reference to an “image”, “photograph” or “film” includes data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into an image, photograph or film.(5) An image of a person appears to be an image of an adult if—(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is aged 18 or over, or(b) the predominant impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is aged 18 or over (even if some of the physical characteristics shown are those of a person under 18).(6) An act or thing is “sexual” if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.”(3) In section 79(5) (meaning of references to image of a person), after “a person” insert “(except in sections 66AA and 66AB)”.(4) In the Sentencing Code, after section 154 insert—“154A Purported sexual images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 66AA(1) or (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported sexual image of adult).66AA(1)(2) The purported sexual image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 153 (and section 157(3)(b)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).””Member's explanatory statement
This clause creates offences of creating a purported sexual image of an adult and provides that deprivation orders can be made under the Sentencing Code in connection with the offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, as will become clear, although I am moving Amendment 56A, it is not the Government’s intention to insert these provisions into the Bill.

This is an issue on which there has been great and very important debate. I start by thanking the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, for her tireless campaigning on this matter. This is a crucial area of law to get right, and the noble Baroness has rightly kept it at the top of the agenda in your Lordships’ House, arguing passionately on behalf of victims of this appalling form of abuse. I also thank other signatories to amendments in this group: the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Gohir, my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We have valued the engagement that has taken place. It is because we have been listening very carefully to the points made by these noble Lords and, indeed, many others, that we are able to confirm that the Government will be making good on their manifesto commitment to criminalise those who create a sexually explicit deepfake of an adult without their consent.

Noble Lords will know that the Government had intended to legislate in this area in the upcoming crime and policing Bill. However, following consultation with stakeholders and colleagues across your Lordships’ House, we have not only decided to use this Bill to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes but will bring new amendments forward for Third Reading. Our proposed new amendments will take a similar approach to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on many key issues of concern raised in your Lordships’ House, while ensuring that they will work effectively within existing legal frameworks. Our new amendments will make it an offence to intentionally create an intimate image of a person without their consent or reasonable belief in their consent. There will be no additional intent element to our offence.

We have listened carefully in engaging with noble Lords across the House and considered additional evidence, and we agree that this consent-based approach is the right one to protect victims from abuse. The harm to victims of this behaviour cannot be underestimated. A consent-based offence sends a clear message that we want to stamp out the inexcusable creation of intimate deepfakes at its root.

We have also heard the concerns about what types of images it will be criminal to create. If the noble Baroness works with us, our proposed government amendment will define which images are captured by reference to Sections 66D(5) to (9) in the wider intimate image abuse framework, and will therefore cover the creation of the same types of images as covered by the sharing and proposed taking intimate images offence. This means that it will be a criminal offence to create, take or share an image that shows or appears to show someone engaged in sexual acts, or where the most intimate parts of the body are exposed or covered with underwear. It will mean that criminals cannot escape justice by altering images so that intimate parts of the body appear to be covered with emoji symbols or pictures. We are clear that this behaviour is unacceptable and should be criminal.

We are aware of concerns about overcriminalisation, particularly in relation to children, so that they are not unnecessarily brought into the criminal justice system. That is why we will be working closely with the Department for Education to tackle misogyny at every level. This will be critical to achieving our commitment to halve violence against women and girls, for which we will pull every lever to shift behaviour towards women.

We will also be including in our amendment a defence of reasonable excuse. The government amendment will be tech neutral, meaning that it is future-proofed if there are new ways to create hyperrealistic, sexually explicit likenesses in the future.

The Government have also heard, and agree with, the aim of the noble Baroness’s amendment to criminalise asking someone to commit the offence for you, regardless of where they are located and whether the image is then created. Existing law means that, once the creation of a sexually explicit deepfake without consent is an offence, it will automatically be an offence to encourage or assist someone to commit this offence in England and Wales under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

These inchoate offences apply to almost all criminal offences, but we share Peers’ concern about the need to ensure that this can apply if the request is made of any creator anywhere in the world. We are carefully considering how best to give effect to that, but bespoke “encouraging” offences are very rare and there is a serious risk of unintended consequences for wider areas of the criminal law. I want to be clear that we will be ensuring that the criminal law covers this behaviour. We will be developing provisions at pace, and want to work with the noble Baroness and her co-sponsors as we do that.

I cannot commit to the final proposals being brought forward at Third Reading. However, I will provide an update at Third Reading on when and how we expect to bring these specific measures forward. If they are inserted into the Bill in the House of Commons, they will of course return to this House for further consideration. The new government amendments will effectively protect victims and bring offenders to justice. Together with existing law and our new taking and installing offences in the Crime and Policing Bill, we will have a holistic package of offences to address intimate image abuse.

20:15

Amendment 70 would require the Government to create and publish a code of practice for the courts on the use of deprivation orders under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for those convicted of intimate image and similar offences. Sentencing, including decisions on what order to impose, is a matter for the independent courts, in line with relevant sentencing guidelines made by the Sentencing Council, which is independent of government.

We support the policy aim of the amendment, which is that victims are not further harmed by perpetrators being allowed to keep the images resulting from the offence. That is why we are amending the Sentencing Act to ensure that courts have the power to deprive offenders of any images created in connection with their conviction for this offence, as well as the hardware on which they may be stored. The courts already have this power in relation to sharing intimate images without consent, at Section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act, or sending a photograph or film of genitals, at Section 66A of that Act. We will also be ensuring that courts have the power in relation to taking an intimate image without consent when we introduce offences to tackle this behaviour in the Crime and Policing Bill. This will ensure parity across all the offences. To be clear, this power extends to any image that the offender owns. Beyond that, where images have been shared non-consensually on sites under the Online Safety Act regime, they can and should be removed.

I know the noble Baroness is keen to ensure that this measure is comprehensive and works in practice. I share that desire and I want to keep working with her on this issue. However, we are unable to support Amendment 70, because it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Government to produce a code of practice for the judiciary to follow. The Sentencing Council is currently reviewing its guidance on ancillary orders, including deprivation orders, to improve its clarity and usefulness to sentencers. My department has passed the concerns about the use of deprivation orders for intimate image abuse to the Sentencing Council and we await the outcome of its review.

The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment criminalising the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit audio deepfakes. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for raising this important issue, and I reassure her that the Government are considering this wider issue carefully. Offences relating to the abuse of sexually explicit audio material, real or deepfake, would be a wholly new area of law and would need to be considered carefully, including in relation to child sexual abuse material as well as material depicting adults. We are reviewing this area of law very carefully and I would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness and other Peers to discuss it further.

I thank once again the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and her supporters, including victims’ organisations, for their tireless campaigning on these important matters. I reiterate that the Government are fully committed to providing victims with protection. By putting the manifesto commitment into effect with a broadly defined, consent-based offence, we are sending a clear signal that this behaviour is unacceptable and offenders will face justice.

With the caveat that, having moved Amendment 56A, I will in due course withdraw it, I beg to move.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 69, 70 and 72. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its Future Forum and AI policy conference. I will also speak to government Amendments 56A, 74A and 77. I am grateful to the Government—particularly the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Sarah Sackman, who I know want to do the right thing by victim survivors—for taking the time to meet me and other noble Lords from across this House, and for the movement they have made in not pressing their own amendment.

I am so grateful for the offer to work together to put victim survivor experience at the heart of our legislation. As I have always advocated, a consent-based approach is the only approach that shows that the violation of a woman’s consent through the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit images and films is an act of abuse, regardless of a person’s motivation.

I am pleased that the Government have finally conceded that a woman’s consent is enough and, in doing so, will not press their amendments. I turn first to Amendment 69, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In doing so, I thank them for their steadfast and unwavering support.

I understand that the Government wish to bring forward their own amendment in time for Third Reading, I need to get absolute assurances from the Minister that it would be consent-based, as he has confirmed, cover solicitation, use the same definition of “an intimate state” as in the pre-existing sharing offence, that the limitation of time under the Magistrates’ Court Act will be taken as the date on which the victim becomes aware that the content has been created, and not the date on which it was created, and that it will include clarity under the law that the content used for image-based abuse will have clear guidance under Section 153 of the Sentencing Code.

If I cannot have absolute assurance from the noble Lord, I am motivated to test the opinion of the House, because a deepfake offence without the inclusion of solicitation will not be holistic. Amendment 69 vitally includes the solicitation of this content in order to close the gaps in the law and ensure that it cannot be circumnavigated by asking someone else in another jurisdiction where they have not yet legislated to create the content for you. It makes it an offence to solicit the content whether or not the creation happens. This vitally reflects the borderless nature of the internet and ensures that those in the UK who seek to abuse women by circumnavigating the proposed law will be held accountable.

Anyone who has had to witness their clothed images being touted on these sites dedicated to abuse will be subject to enormous fear and forced to live under the threat that the creation of sexually explicit content could happen at any moment. I would be grateful for the Minister’s absolute assurance that this will be part of the Government’s new amendment that they will bring at Third Reading and that it will be a consent-based solicitation offence. Without the inclusion of solicitation, we will be left with a gaping omission in our legislation.

My amendment uses the definition of “an intimate state” from Sections 66D(5), (6) and (7) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in order to have consistency with the pre-existing sharing laws. Unlike with the government amendment, victims will not have two separate definitions to contend with, depending on whether their image has been created or shared or both. I would just like a final reassurance from the Minister that this will be the definition.

My amendment clearly states in relation to Section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 on the limitation of time that the date on which the matter of complaint arose will be taken as the date on which the victim becomes aware of the content, as opposed to the date on which the perpetrator created the content. I need assurance from the Minister that their proposed amendment would do the same, so women are not inadvertently timed out of seeking justice. This issue was highlighted to me by campaigners at #NotYourPorn.

I turn now to Amendment 70 on the deletion of data used to perpetrate intimate image abuse. Following Committee, where I explained to the House that victims were being retraumatised by their abusers still being in possession of sexually explicit content of them following successful prosecution, I was very disheartened by the government response that no action was necessary due to Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020. I believe clarity under the pre-existing law is essential in order to avoid situations where victims are left traumatised and in a state of anxiety by their abusers keeping their intimate images.

However, I am very pleased that, following my amendment, the Government have had a change of heart. I understand that they are now willing to commit to amending the deprivation order powers of Section 153 of the Sentencing Code 2020 to ensure that courts can apply the orders to images and videos relating to the conviction of this offence, and any hardware. I would need the Minister’s assurance that it would also include physical copies and those held on any device, cloud-based programmes, digital messaging or social media platforms that the perpetrator controls. I would also like the commitment that this will be applied to the other pre- existing intimate image abuse offences, as my amendment did.

I turn to Amendment 72, which is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has previously highlighted to the House the growing problem of audio abuse. It is easy to envisage that, in only a short space of time, we could very realistically be in the same place on audio abuse as we are with sexually explicit deepfakes, as less data is required to create high-quality audio. This has the potential to be weaponised to yet again abuse women. We have the chance now to be proactive. I hope the Government, if they are not prepared to commit to it now, will take it seriously in their upcoming justice Bill.

As I have set out, I am extremely grateful for the Minister’s movement on these issues. I know that it is not straightforward to produce complex amendments at speed and I know the Minister is committed to getting the details right in this vital legislation. I expect the Government to provide an undertaking to bring amendments back at Third Reading to address this issue. Unless I receive reassurances that such amendments will address all the issues in the manner I have set out, I will test the opinion of the House. If I receive the reassurances that I am looking for today but, for any reason, the Government do not follow through with them at Third Reading, I reserve the right to bring back my own amendment covering all the elements I have raised on this important issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has said. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will briefly speak on Amendment 72 about sexually explicit audio abuse, which I have raised a couple of times before.

I am concerned about why, now the Government know and are aware that sexually explicit audio abuse is a thing, they do not want to act now. We have victims right now. Perpetrators are making these recordings and using them to threaten and blackmail. They share these recordings to shame their victims and to maintain power and control. In some communities where shame and honour are a thing, those victims are then at risk of honour-based abuse. With new technologies, you can create deepfake audio as well.

It feels like the Government are kicking this into the long grass. I welcome the Minister’s comments that this will be considered, but there seems to be no timetable; it could be years before action is taken. I wonder whether the Government are waiting for there to be more noise on the issue and for more victims to come forward before they take action. Why not nip this in the bud now? The Minister mentioned the crime and policing Bill. It would be good to know why, for example, it cannot be included in that. I hope that we can shut down this avenue of abuse now and prevent there being more victims.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 69 and 70, to which I have added my name. I support the other amendments in the group, but I will leave others to speak to them because they own them. I do not think my noble friend the Minister wishes me to support his amendment, given what he has told us.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, whose campaigning on these issues has been a model of its kind. She has brought not only passion and commitment but astonishing forensic scrutiny to bear on them. She is to be commended for getting us to the place we are in today. I hope my noble friend the Minister will help her get to the destination she has set for us, which is the appropriate destination for this legislation.

The noble Baroness also brought me and others into contact with victims and survivors of this appalling sexual abuse and those who support them, which has been an extraordinary privilege too. Mostly young women, they are immensely impressive in the way they have worked together. Almost all of the many thousands of victims there have already been of this appalling abuse have been extraordinarily well represented.

I also thank those who have supported them. I will pick out Professor Clare McGlynn KC of Durham University and read part of the briefing paper that she produced for this occasion. I hope that all noble Lords who wish to participate in this debate have seen it. I know it has had a significant effect on people; I will not mention who they are, but I know that when they read it they were significantly affected by it.

20:30

At one point in the discussions there was some suggestion that no crime was committed until the created images were known about, shared or seen. Professor McGlynn makes the case that image creation without consent—non-consensual being the crime—is a significant cause of the harm done by this appalling behaviour. I will read from pages 5 and 6 of the briefing paper. I will read as little as possible, but this passage is so overwhelmingly persuasive that I want to read it:

“Non-consensual creation violates a person’s sexual autonomy and dignity. The creator decides how the person appears, talks, and acts in sexually explicit ways that deeply affects an individual’s personal integrity and dignity … Victims experience the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes as a sexual assault … Creation of sexually explicit deepfakes is experienced as a threat: the image is the threat. A digital image/video can instantly and easily be shared whether accidentally, maliciously, or through hacking … Threat of being deepfaked pervades the lives of women and girls: The easy creation and prevalence of deepfake image-based abuse material is experienced as an ever-present threat pervading women’s lives, with young women in particular expressing a palpable sense of despair at the lack of control over their identities and sexual autonomy”.

I also find myself in the happy position of being able to praise my noble friends on the Front Bench and those who advise them in much the same terms—although I do not always agree with them. They have been extremely responsive and given of their time generously to me and to many other noble Lords over the last few weeks. They have listened and shown a willingness not merely to hear concerns but to act on them. The test, of course, will be at the end of this debate as to whether those actions are sufficient for us to move to the next stage of concluding this.

My reasons for supporting the amendments in this group are simple. I believe that a consent-based approach, rather than one founded on intent, is critical. I believe that including the offence outlined in proposed new Section 66E of soliciting or commissioning a third party to create a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film is essential, and that the provisions outlined in Amendment 70 requiring the deletion of such images are vital if this overlapping mesh of protections is to be meaningful. I also believe that if sharing such an image attracts the maximum range of summary penalties, which includes up to six months’ imprisonment, the creation should expose the convicted creator to that range of sentences as well.

I will return to some of these issues shortly, but it is first worth stating that, in this context, the term “deepfake porn” is misleading. The creation, production and dissemination of these issues is sexual abuse. It is abuse that overwhelmingly affects only women, and these amendment will not merely represent a set of much-needed enforcement measures but carry genuine symbolic weight. Such symbolism is an important facet of statute law. These amendments will send a clear signal that the manufacturer is not only wrong but criminal, and that perpetrators will face criminal sanctions.

As I have said, the principle of consent outlined in Amendment 69 is fundamental. The amendment would remove the need for the victims to prove malicious intent by the perpetrator. Frankly, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which someone could produce such images or films with innocuous or benevolent intent. However, it is absolutely right that the accused should have to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the production or solicitation of such material, or a reasonable belief that consent had been given. In this context, it may be that we can look at making intent an aggravation, if those who think intent is so important to this think that it should be present. That would open up the possibility of the highest sentences.

I do not intend to weary your Lordships’ House with a rehearsal of arguments that have already been made, some of which I know will be made by others who have put their names to amendments. I just re-emphasise the importance of the provisions that criminalise the soliciting—or, perhaps more accurately, the commissioning—of sexually explicit images, videos or audio. I realise that, as with the elements of Amendment 70 relating to the deletion of such material, there may well be international issues when it comes to prosecuting individual cases, but these difficulties magnify rather than diminish the need for these principles to be enshrined in law. There are, of course, ample precedents for soliciting an illegal act falling under the scope of criminal law, and it is clear that these provisions are the fruit of bitter experience and are inspired directly by the testimony and campaigning of the survivors.

On the issue of soliciting, in short, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, referred to jurisdictional reach and other international implications. I understand these to be exercising Ministers and their advisers, and that they have committed to bringing forward the appropriate provisions on soliciting that do not breach commitments that we may have in that regard. However, with all due respect, I feel that these challenges have surfaced because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the soliciting provision seeks to criminalise. It is the act here in the United Kingdom, in our jurisdiction, of soliciting or commissioning the creation of a non-consensual digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film that is being criminalised. Were this provision to become law, it would be a crime no matter where in the world the image was created.

I shall share an analogy that I made up myself from my own experience as a lawyer in criminal law. If an importer of illegal drugs in this country lifts the phone to his supplier in Colombia, orders 6 kilograms of the best cocaine and discusses with him how it will come here, he commits a crime in this country. That does not extend our jurisdiction to Colombia; it has implications for that, maybe, in sentencing and other things, but the crime is committed here. The same is true, as we have heard, of the compelled deletion of material after conviction. It would be absurd, verging on Kafkaesque, if we were to see further examples of successful prosecutions, only for the perpetrator to leave the court and have his devices returned, still containing the sexually explicit deepfake images and videos that were the subjects of the trial.

We know that the march of technology and the feeling of anonymity and impunity afforded by the internet have conspired to make this problem epidemic. The amendments that I have put my name to, as well as others in this group, engage this challenge. They are proportionate and they could not be more timely. Although it may not be today, I hope to see them pass, clear the remaining stages in the other place and arrive on the statute book as quickly as possible.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her skill and persistence in persuading the Government to address this noxious practice, which is causing so many women so much distress and humiliation. It is outrageous that this is still not unlawful.

I very much welcome what the Minister said, and I will press him on four matters. I hope that I understood him correctly when he said that the criminal offence will include solicitation in this country of the creation of these images abroad. I see that he is nodding—I am grateful. This is vital for this provision because, unless the criminal offence in this country covers such matters, the mischief will continue, as the Minister recognises. I can see no difficulty in terms of constitutional theory or practice or international law, because there are many offences in the criminal calendar where what is criminalised is conduct in this country, even though part of the matter that causes concern occurs abroad. I am very grateful to the Minister.

Secondly—and I hope I understood the Minister correctly—he said that the Government’s amendments will contain no intent element other than intent to create the image. That is very important. If the prosecution has to establish some other intent, that will enable defendants to come up with all sorts of spurious explanations such as, “It was not my intent” and “I didn’t realise that it would have this effect”, which would frustrate the purpose. I think that is what the Minister said, and I would welcome confirmation on that important point.

I would also welcome confirmation on another point. Another “intent”—intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation—is in his Amendment 56A, which I of course appreciate will not be pursued in due course. Does the Minister’s statement that no other intent than intent to create the image will be required also covers the other element, which is in Amendment 56A? That also requires the prosecution to prove, as an alternative, the purpose for which these images are created. It has to be proved under Amendment 56A that the purpose is to obtain sexual gratification. The defendant will inevitably say that it is not their purpose. Could the Minister confirm that that will not be replicated in the amendment that will eventually be brought forward? I see the Minister nodding, and I am grateful to him.

Thirdly, the Minister referred to what will be in the amendment that will eventually be brought forward. If I understood him correctly, there will be a defence of reasonable excuse. The Minister confirms that that is what he said. I have great difficulty in understanding in what circumstances a defendant could have a reasonable excuse for creating or soliciting a fake image of a sexual nature without either the consent of the victim or, at the very least, a reasonable belief by the defendant that the victim had consented. Can the Minister give us an example of where the image has been created or solicited and the defendant does not believe that the woman has consented, or does not have a reasonable belief that the woman has consented, but there is nevertheless a reasonable excuse for this conduct? I cannot think of one. I am not expecting an answer from the Minister today, but if his amendment contains the reasonable excuse defence, I for one will be pressing him on it.

Fourthly and finally, I understood the Minister to give a commitment, not that the amendment will be ready in time necessarily for Third Reading, but that it will be ready and introduced during the passage of this Bill through Parliament. My understanding is that there is no question of this being kicked into the long grass. We have a commitment that the Government will propose legislation in the course of parliamentary consideration of this Bill. If I am right on that—again, I saw the Minister nodding—I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, will not feel it necessary to press her amendment this evening. She has made enormous progress on this, which is much welcomed around the House. It would be much better, would it not, to preserve and reserve her position for Third Reading, if she needs to bring the matter back then?

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, it is such a pleasure briefly to follow my noble friend Lord Pannick; not for the first time I thought that, if I ever get in trouble, I know who I will go to.

I record my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. She has fought a just and forensic fight and she has mastered the gift of the House of Lords very rapidly. I also thank the Minister, Sarah Sackman, for the meeting on this subject and for agreeing to look again and again at the issue of intent and consent, which is something that those of us who have been in the world of sexual offences really must insist on, so I was delighted to hear from the noble Baroness and the Minister that that is somewhat resolved.

20:45

I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I thought it was a fantastic lesson in the Government listening. I then listened carefully to the noble Baroness, and I think she said the word “assurance” six times—it may have been seven. I very much hope that, when the Minister replies, we will get whatever number of assurances she required and that whatever details remain are resolved in a way that satisfies the noble Baroness and, indeed, the victims of these horrendous crimes.

The noble Baroness has done us a good service, but this is not an issue on which we can celebrate. Like the other amendments in my name on AI child sexual abuse that were in this group in Committee—which I have not tabled because they will also be subject to announcements by the Home Office in the next few days—these issues are urgent and obvious and, frankly, we should not have to battle this hard to get laws on to the statute book that enshrine basic legal protections for women and children. I am really glad that the Government have chosen to act on these two issues and commend them for doing so.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Owen on these three splendid amendments. She has done a tremendous service to the criminal law and the women of this country—and young men, who I understand are abused in this way too. It is really important. I shall not add anything to the speeches that have been made, other than to say that I endorse everything said by the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We must act now, and we must have a Bill that is complete at Third Reading and which includes everything that the noble Baroness has asked for; there cannot be any excuse for quibbling about solicitation. We have to act now, it has got to be done and I am sure the criminal courts will endorse and adopt it. This is a terrible mischief that causes great harm, and we would be doing a great disservice if we did not act on it.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her tenacity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, she has learned the lessons of how to change the law in this House very early on—it takes the rest of us quite a while to catch up. I am very grateful that the Government Front Bench have listened, and it demonstrates the value of this House.

The noble Baroness has outlined why her version of the amendment is right: in victims not having to prove the intent of those who have created or solicited the creation of the image, and also the importance of that solicitation. She is in a difficult position tonight. It is a difficult choice to have to make. I fully appreciate that this is part of the Government’s overall commitment to halve violence against women and girls, I think in the course of this Parliament, and that is extremely noble. But we debated this on 13 December, when we debated the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill; we are now at the end of January and, for everything that is welcome in what the Minister said, he also said that he is unable to give the assurance that the amendment will be tabled at Third Reading. He wants the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to accept that, if she does not see the amendment then, it will appear in the Commons. I have no reason to think that that will not be the case, but, of course, if it does not appear at Third Reading, and if the noble Baroness does not put down her amendment at Third Reading and push it to a vote, then she is very reliant on it coming back in the Commons.

The broader point that I want to make is that, although we are all committed to ending violence against women and girls and next month we will see the Online Safety Act guidance on that very issue being published by Ofcom, the lesson from the Online Safety Act is that—and it was a Government of which I was a supporter and at the time I was taking the Whip—it took the Government an awfully long time to catch up to the fact that there was a group of Members of this House who just wanted the right thing to be done. The Government took far too long. If the Government had actually been engaging by drafting their own amendment to capture the points made by the noble Baroness between 13 December and today, we would have an amendment that we could all unite around and be even more congratulatory to both the noble Baroness and the Government Front Bench in having tackled these images. As it is, we are in a deeply unsatisfactory place. While I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right that, perhaps, we should not have a vote tonight, the noble Baroness is taking that on an enormous amount of trust.

Therefore, I say to Government Ministers that, when we come to tackle these issues of violence against women and girls in the rest of this Parliament, it should not matter where the proposals come from; if they are right, if they reflect the reality of women’s and girls’ experiences online or offline, then I would hope that Ministers would listen and that the Opposition would obviously help support and secure those changes. As the online world develops, and as technology gets faster and faster, we need to be nimble in this Parliament in addressing those images. If the noble Baroness pushes Amendment 69 to a vote, I would support it tonight. We will all listen very carefully—no pressure—to what the Minister says, and we shall be guided by the noble Baroness and her decisions as we reach the conclusion of this debate.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, who did so much during the Online Safety Bill—now Act—to champion the issues that are now before us. She should get full credit for the first steps she made. I think I said it before, and I will say it again in her presence, that we thought we had achieved much of what we are talking about today in the final wind-up of that Bill, but we had to swap it for a slightly bigger prize and it fell down slightly on the list, so I feel very guilty about this and want to help to redress somehow the balance of the deficit that was created.

I do not want to get, in this House, any reputation for being a person who asks geeky questions about Third Reading issues, but the Minister will know that getting access to debates at Third Reading is tricky. It often requires the graven head of the clerk to nod very slowly at an appropriate moment, and I wonder if we could just rehearse that slightly so that we are quite clear exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was saying.

Am I right in saying that the intention—and good intentions are great—is that there will be a government amendment at Third Reading? Since it is being produced by the Government, there is not an issue for the clerk to nod at, because that is allowed. If there is a government amendment dealing with all the issues we raised today, then we are all in a good place. It is right that this House, which has done so much to come together to create it, gets the credit for this Bill going down to the Commons. That is appropriate and something that we should get right.

In the absence of the Bill—and I recognise that there are difficulties about drafting, and it may well be that we have a very short time between Report and Third Reading—would it not be appropriate for the Minister to say to the clerk that it is his intention that, if necessary, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, may bring forward an amendment on these issues so that at least we get, if not all of the package, the parts that are relevant and most important to it in the Bill as it leaves this House? That would be helpful all round, and it would be in accordance with the sentiment of the House.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I share in the congratulations of my noble friend Lady Owen. It has taken me about 10 years to begin to understand how this House works and it has taken her about 10 minutes.

I want to pursue something which bewilders me about this set of amendments, which is the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I do not understand why we are talking about a different Bill in relation to audio fakes. Audio has been with us for many years, yet video deepfakes are relatively new. Why are we talking about a different Bill in relation to audio deepfakes?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on having brought forward these very important amendments. It has been a privilege to be part of her support team and she has proved an extremely persuasive cross-party advocate, including in being able to bring out the team: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has cross-examined the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. There is very little to follow up on what noble Lords have said, because the Minister now knows exactly what he needs to reply to.

I was exercised by this rather vague issue of whether the elements that were required were going to come back at Third Reading or in the Commons. I did not think that the Minister was specific enough in his initial response. In his cross-examination, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, really went through the key elements that were required, such as the no intent element, the question of reasonable excuse and how robust that was, the question of solicitation, which I know is very important in this context, and the question of whether it is really an international law matter. I have had the benefit of talking to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and surely the mischief is delivered and carried out here, so why is that an international law issue? There is also the question of deletion of data, which the noble Lord has explained pretty carefully, and the question of timing of knowledge of the offence having been committed.

The Minister needs to describe the stages at which those various elements are going to be contained in a government amendment. I understand that there may be a phasing, but there are a lot of assurances. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, is it six or seven? How many assurances are we talking about? I very much hope that the Minister can see the sentiment and the importance we place on his assurances on these amendments, so I very much hope he is going to be able to give us the answers.

In conclusion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said—and it is no bad thing to be able to wheel on a former Secretary of State at 9 o’clock in the evening—there is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-based abuse. This is something which motivates us hugely in favour of these amendments. I very much hope the Minister can give more assurance on the audio side of things as well, because we want future legislation to safeguard victims, improve prosecutions and deter potential perpetrators from committing image-based and audio-based abuse crimes.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Owen for bringing these amendments to your Lordships’ House. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I join others in paying tribute to the tenacity, commitment and skill that my noble friend Lady Owen has shown throughout her campaign to ban these awful practices. She not only has argued her case powerfully and persuasively but, as others have remarked, seems to have figured out the machinery of this House in an uncanny way. Whatever else happens, she has the full support of these Benches.

I am pleased that the Government have engaged constructively with my noble friend and are seeking to bring this back at Third Reading. The Minister has been asked some questions and we all look forward with interest to his responses. I know from the speeches that we have heard that I am not alone in this House in believing that we have an opportunity here and now to create these offences, and we should not delay. For the sake of the many people who have been, and will otherwise be, victims of the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, I urge the Government to continue to work with my noble friend Lady Owen to get this over the line as soon as possible.

21:00

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen and Lady Gohir. The Government of course share the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords across the House. That is why we committed in our manifesto to criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, and why we have been listening carefully to the issues and evidence that noble Lords and campaign groups have put forward on the best way to achieve our shared target of deterring people from creating these images and delivering justice to victims where this deterrent does not work.

As I made clear in my opening speech, the Government will not press Amendments 56A, 74A and 77. Instead, as I have set out, we intend to bring forward new amendments at Third Reading based on Amendment 69 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and drawing on aspects of Amendment 70. These will incorporate and address the issues raised during this debate. The new amendments will criminalise the intentional creation of an intimate image deepfake without consent or a reasonable belief of consent. This will not require any additional motivation. They will use the same definition of an “intimate state” as in the sharing intimate images offence. They will amend the Sentencing Code to ensure that the courts can deprive offenders of the relevant images if convicted of this offence, as well as any hardware on which they are stored.

We have agreed that we want to make it criminal to ask someone to create a sexual deepfake on your behalf, regardless of where they are in the world and regardless of whether the image is created. I remind the House that the Government are making a firm commitment that this will be done quickly. However, this is a complex area of law and any responsible Government should want to ensure that criminal law will function as intended.

I repeat my earlier commitment to provide an update on the specific issue of solicitation at Third Reading. The Government have not only heard the case put forward by noble Lords; they are acting to respond to those concerns and deliver these important changes. We must do this in a way that works alongside existing offences and will be effective in securing convictions, to make sure that victims will be protected and perpetrators brought to justice. I hope that the noble Baroness will bear this in mind as she considers whether to work with the Government ahead of Third Reading or press her amendments later this evening.

I will pick up some of the points made by noble Lords, starting with one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I agree wholeheartedly with her point that it does not matter where the good ideas come from; we need to work across this House to try to implement the measures that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has inspired this House to support, if I can put it like that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, asked about audio. I am advised that this is a very novel and difficult aspect of law. While I will do absolutely everything I can in my current role as a Minister to move this forward, I am not in a position to give a more fulsome commitment to the amendment she seeks at this stage. However, I absolutely undertake that we will pursue this matter.

As I said, we commit to addressing solicitation at Third Reading, but the amendments will come back at whatever necessary stage in the House of Commons—so within this Bill. Of course, if any amendment is made there, this House can consider the matter again.

In summary, I hear the concerns that have been raised in this debate and it is my intention to act on those concerns, as far as possible. I hope the noble Baroness will not feel it is necessary to press her amendment, but, whether she presses it or not, I look forward to working with her on these issues in the weeks to come.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I just ask the Minister, before he sits down, whether he will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised. The Minister said that he will address matters at Third Reading, but of course he can address matters only if an amendment is brought forward. Is he accepting, as I hope he is, that if the Government do not bring forward some form of amendment for debate purposes at Third Reading, it would be entirely appropriate, and the Government would support the idea, that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, could bring forward her own amendment at Third Reading for the purposes of further of further debate? Is he accepting that?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the opening amendment in this group is a government amendment that we are withdrawing, so we are setting up the debate. There could be a similar mechanism at Third Reading. I do not know how it will actually be worked out, but there is an undertaking on behalf of the Government to say how far we have got on the solicitation issue, with a view to moving amendments in the other place.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, that was exactly the point I was trying to make, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for raising it again. It does need the Minister to say to the clerk that it is possible for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to bring an amendment, if necessary, at Third Reading. If the Minister could repeat that at the Dispatch Box, I think we would both be happy.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes. If the noble Baroness wants to bring back a similar amendment on this issue, that indeed can be debated at Third Reading.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I get his assurance that deletion will include cloud-based systems and physical copies? He mentioned hardware, but I would like the assurance on the additional physical copies, those held on any device, cloud-based system, digital, messaging or social media platform that a person controls, because you can post something to a personal account without actually having shared it with other people. I would like clarification around that.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

That is certainly the intention of the legislation, but I am aware that it is extremely complex.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down again—forgive me—I am concerned about women being inadvertently timed out by the six-month limitation. Could the noble Lord address this point with a little more clarity please?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I understand the point the noble Baroness makes. but that is also something which we are willing to look at. The noble Baroness’s amendment was on the point at which a woman knows that has been such an intimate image abuse. I would point out to her that there may be many cases where the woman never knows that there has been such a type of abuse. I am thinking of previous legislation on upskirting. There have been successful convictions of people for upskirting where the woman never knew she was a victim and the images were of no particular determinate time. I understand the point the noble Baroness is making and I agree in general terms, but there may be a way of addressing the point, capturing the wider point I am making of women who may not know they are victims.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 56A.

Amendment 56A withdrawn.

Amendment 57

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

57: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Private copy levy on digital access(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment of an annual private copy levy, to be levied when online digital content is accessed or stored.(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The provisions made under subsection (1) must include but are not limited to—(a) establishing governance arrangements to calculate the rate and application of the levy,(b) permitting relevant copyright collecting societies to collect and distribute monies raised by the levy to rightsholder funds, and(c) distributing any surplus funds raised by the levy for the purposes of funding arts and cultural initiatives in the United Kingdom.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(5) The Secretary of State must commission an annual transparency report on the operation of the levy.(6) The Secretary of State must lay the report made under subsection (5) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to establish a private copy levy for digital content, with revenue distributed to rightsholder funds and cultural initiatives.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. When this Bill was introduced, I rightly praised the vision of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who has since taken it forward, in setting it in the context of driving economic growth, supporting modern digital government and improving citizens’ lives. Technological adoption has had a profound impact on creators and performers’ remuneration. This amendment seeks to ensure that tech and creative sectors can flourish together. While 81% of people consider accessing culture through digital devices important, UK creators face unprecedented challenges in making a living.

Research shows that median earnings for visual artists have decreased by some 47% to just £12,000 per annum since 2010, with over half forced to find second and other jobs. The last Labour Government left a legacy when they introduced the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations in 2006, which has, thankfully, stood the test of time in protecting over 130 million royalty payments for UK artists since its introduction.

It is my contention that we must help creators and artists flourish in this new digital environment without curtailing the use of digital technology. We would not expect other professions to work without payment. My amendment seeks to create what is described as the “smart fund” solution, inspired by private copying levies in 45 other jurisdictions. It requires manufacturers of electronic devices to make a one-off contribution when a new device is sold. This contribution is typically a small fraction of the device price. In Spain, the 2022 levy on a €909 smartphone was just over £1, or 0.12% of the sale price.

In France, €285.5 million was collected in 2022, with €212.3 million redistributed to artists and creators and over €70 million allocated to cultural projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has endorsed such proposals, estimating that this could generate between £250 million and £300 million a year in the UK, at no cost to the Government, taxpayer or consumers. If we release 25% of the total funds for arts and culture initiatives, as they do in France, that would generate an extra £75 million a year, which would more than double the £60 million that the Government announced in just the last week as a boost for creative industries.

It is my belief that we can learn from established smart funds in France, Germany and Spain on how to put in place the necessary governance to administer the smart fund, bringing together stakeholders and collecting societies to distribute to artists and use the funds to support arts and cultural purposes in high-need areas. This was particularly important post pandemic, when European countries made income from private copy levy available as part of their cultural recovery funds. Making funding available to our national arts and culture sector, as well as individuals, could help them get off their feet and turbocharge growth.

Evidence from similar smart funds shows no impact on retail device prices. Introducing a smart fund here would help align us with other European countries, addressing the challenge of artists accessing royalties from abroad. It is my contention that we must seize this opportunity to protect and reward creators in an increasingly digital environment. Creative industries contributed some £124 billion to the UK economy in the 12 months to June 2024; it is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the UK economy.

The Government agree with this; they have identified the creative industries as a growth-driving sector and want to encourage it. The smart fund can be a catalyst for further growth, due to both the potential of higher personal earnings and the multiplier effect of new arts and culture funding. We must avoid too many creators being locked out of this new potential prosperity.

In bringing forward this Bill, the Minister plays an integral role in bringing together different government departments, including DCMS, the Treasury and DSIT, to help and ensure that the digital and creative sectors flourish together. I commend the Minister for meeting me and other colleagues recently to discuss this. I realise that the amendment is not perfection in itself but if we want to do more for the creative and cultural sector, this is one way of doing it.

21:15

We do not get free money for culture in this country. We have not had the investment we have needed over the past decade and a half. This is an opportunity at no cost to the Treasury for us to begin to unlock more resources so that we can drive further inspiring and brilliant work from our cultural community and ensure that communities that are harder pressed and have lost money through cuts to cultural budgets over that period are restored in some way, and so that we can make more progress in driving growth in the cultural industries.

For my part, I thank the Minister. I also thank DACS, the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, Directors UK, BECs and Picsel, which helped brief and get this proposal this far. This move has tremendous potential and could help unlock further funding for cultural industries. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I, too, thank the Minister for the constructive meeting we had about the smart fund. While the creative industries are hugely important to this country, as was made clear in an earlier debate, artists’ earnings have suffered a real battering. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society reported that authors earning all their income from writing decreased from 40% in 2006 to 19% in 2022, and performers and visual artists have comparable concerns about their earnings. The smart fund would provide a useful additional—I emphasise “additional”—means of funding in terms of fair recompense for creators.

The smart fund would be managed by established copyright societies, which have a track record of fair payment to creators, regulated by the Collective Management of Copyright (EU Directive) Regulations 2016. So that infrastructure, to a great extent, already exists. European schemes successfully provide royalties to UK rights holders. However, as acknowledged by the Government, this is under threat due to Brexit and alignment with such schemes would be extremely helpful.

I understand that discussions between DACS, the IPO and the Government have now opened up, and these discussions need to include DCMS. I say to the Minister that it would be helpful if Chris Bryant were made aware of what is said in this debate. This scheme could be introduced at little or no cost, which would be a win-win for everybody. Finally, I thank DACS and the ALCS for their briefings for this debate.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

I support the amendment, to which I have attached my name, along with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I declare my interest as a member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society, and I, too, thank the Minister for meeting us prior to this debate.

Today’s digital landscape presents unique and pressing challenges for visual artists that we can no longer ignore. A 2022 YouGov survey commissioned by DACS uncovered a revealing paradox in our digital culture. While 75% of people regularly access cultural content at least three times a week, with 63% downloading it for free, an overwhelming 72% of the same respondents actively support compensating artists for digital sharing of their work. These figures paint a stark picture of the disconnect between the public’s consumption habits and their ethical convictions about fair compensation.

The Netherlands offers a compelling blueprint for change through DACS’ partner organisation Pictoright. Its innovative private copying scheme has successfully adapted to modern consumption habits while protecting artists’ interests. Consider a common scenario in museums: visitors now routinely photograph artworks instead of purchasing traditional postcards. Under Pictoright’s system, artists receive fair compensation for these digital captures, demonstrating that we can embrace the convenience of digital access without sacrificing creators’ right to earn from their work. This proven model shows that the tension between accessibility and fair compensation is not insurmountable.

The smart fund offers a similar balanced solution for the UK. This approach would protect our cultural ecosystem while serving the interests of creators, platforms and the public alike. I hope the Government will look favourably upon this scheme.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for retabling his Committee amendment, which we did not manage to discuss. Sadly, it always appears to be discussed rather late in the evening, but I think that the time has come for this concept and I am glad that the Government are willing to explore it.

I will make two points. Many countries worldwide, including in the EU, have their own version of the smart fund to reward creators and performers for the private copy and use of their works and performances. Our own CMS Select Committee found that, despite the creative industries’ economic contribution—about which many noble Lords have talked—many skilled and successful professional creators are struggling to make a living from their work. The committee recommended that

“the Government work with the UK’s creative industries to introduce a statutory private copying scheme”.

This has a respectable provenance and is very much wanted by the collecting societies ALCS, BECS, Directors UK and DACS. Their letter said that the scheme could generate £250 million to £300 million a year for creatives, at no cost to the Government or to the taxpayer. What is not to like? They say that similar schemes are already in place in 45 countries globally, including most of Europe, and many of them include an additional contribution to public cultural funding. That could be totally game-changing. I very much hope that there is a fair wind behind this proposal.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for laying this amendment and introducing the debate on it.

As I understand it, a private copying levy is a surcharge on the price of digital content. The idea is that the money raised from the surcharge is either redistributed directly to rights holders to compensate them for any loss suffered because of copies made under the private copying exceptions or contributed straight to other cultural events. I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve and very much support his intent.

I have two concerns. First—it may be that I have misunderstood it; if so, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would set me straight—it sounds very much like a new tax of some kind is being raised, albeit a very small one. Secondly, those who legitimately pay for digital content end up paying twice. Does this not incentivise more illegal copying?

We all agree how vital it is for those who create products of the mind to be fairly rewarded and incentivised for doing so. We are all concerned by the erosion of copyright or IP caused by both a global internet and increasingly sophisticated AI. Perhaps I could modestly refer the noble Lord to my Amendment 75 on digital watermarking, which I suggest may be a more proportionate means of achieving the same end or at least paving the way towards it. For now, we are unable to support Amendment 57 as drafted.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for his Amendment 57 on the subject of private copying levies. It reinforces a point we discussed earlier about copying being covered by copyright.

The smart fund campaign seeks the introduction of a private copy levy. Such a levy would aim to indirectly compensate copyright owners for the unauthorised private copying of their works—for example, when a person takes a photo of an artwork or makes a copy of a CD—by paying copyright owners when devices capable of making private copies are sold.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in April 2024, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended that the Government introduce a private copying levy similar to that proposed by this amendment. The Government’s response to that recommendation, published on 1 November, committed the Intellectual Property Office to meet with representatives from the creative industries to discuss how to strengthen the evidence base on this issue. That process is under way. I know that a meeting with the smart fund group is planned for next week, and I can confirm that DCMS is included and invited. I know that the IPO would be glad to meet my noble friend, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to discuss this further. I also absolutely assure him that Chris Bryant is aware of this important issue and will be following this.

I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is essential that we properly engage and consider the case for intervention before legislating. Therefore, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment, to allow the Government the opportunity to properly explore these issues with creative and tech industry stakeholders.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will happily withdraw my amendment. I am delighted to hear of the progress that the Minister has set out. I view his comments as a positive endorsement of the progress made so far.

It is essential that we get more money into the hands of creators, who are an important driving force and part of our economy. It is essential too that we make more funds available for arts generally across the country. This is one way of doing it. The approach was endorsed in a recent Fabian Society publication, Arts For Us All. It identified a number of other potential sources for generating income that could be distributed to the arts and arts organisations.

I commend the Government for taking up the challenge posed by the smart fund and I look forward to playing my part, along with my colleagues on the Cross Benches and others who support this initiative. It could do much to strengthen the funding base for the arts as a cultural sector, which was sadly eroded by the previous Government over the last decade and a half. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

Amendment 58

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

58: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Sovereign data assets(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations define data sets held by public bodies and arm’s length institutions and other data sets that are held in the public interest as sovereign data assets (defined in subsection (6)).(2) In selecting data sets which may be designated as sovereign data assets, the Secretary of State must—(a) have regard to—(i) the security and privacy of United Kingdom data subjects;(ii) the ongoing value of the data assets;(iii) the rights of United Kingdom intellectual property holders;(iv) ongoing adherence to the values, laws and international obligations of the United Kingdom;(v) the requirement for public sector employees, researchers, companies and organisations headquartered in the United Kingdom to have preferential terms of access;(vi) the need for data to be stored in the United Kingdom, preferably in data centres in the United Kingdom;(vii) the need to design Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) as bridges between each sovereign data asset and the client software of the authorized licence holders;(b) consult with— (i) academics with expertise in the field;(ii) the AI Safety Institute;(iii) those with responsibility for large public data sets;(iv) data subjects;(v) the Information Commissioner.(3) The Secretary of State must establish a transparent licensing system, fully reflecting the security and privacy of data held on United Kingdom subjects, for use in providing access to sovereign data assets.(4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the ongoing value of the sovereign data assets, in terms of—(a) their value to future users of the data;(b) the financial return expected when payment is made for the use of such data in such products and services as may be expected to be developed.(5) The National Audit Office must review the licensing system established by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) and report annually to Parliament as to its effectiveness in securing the ongoing security of the sovereign data assets.(6) In this section—“sovereign data asset” means—(a) data held by public bodies and arm’s length institutions of government;(b) data sets held by third parties that volunteer data to form, or contribute to, a public asset.(7) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
The UK has a number of unique publicly-held data assets, from NHS data to geospatial data and the BBC’s multimedia data. This amendment would create a special status for data held in the public interest, and a licensing scheme for providing access to them, which upholds UK laws and values, and ensure a fair return of financial benefits to the UK.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group. Amendment 58, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to ensure that the value of our publicly held large datasets is realised for the benefit of UK citizens. A full explanation of the amendment can be found at col. 162GC of Hansard. Amendment 71 is new and has a different approach to many of the same ends.

The speed at which the Government are giving access to our data is outpacing their plans to protect its financial or societal value. As we have seen over the last 24 hours, in which $1 trillion was wiped off the US AI sector and China provided a next gen proposal for AI—at least for the moment—technology moves at pace, but data is still the gold dust on which it rests.

Amendment 58 would require the Government to act as custodian of that vital asset. For example, they would need to decide the criteria for assigning publicly held data sets as a sovereign data asset, secure a valuation for that asset, and then be accountable for the decisions they took to protect that value and generate a return, both financial and societal, on behalf of the British public.

When that idea was proposed at Second Reading, the Minister said the Government’s proposal for a national data library would address those concerns. However, despite requests for further information from noble Lords in Committee, the Minister did not elaborate. That is a source of considerable frustration, given that in the same period no fewer than seven recommendations for the national data library in Matt Clifford’s AI action plan were fully accepted and widely trumpeted by the Government—including giving away BBC assets for free without asking the BBC.

21:30

If the national data library is to be central to the way the Government manage publicly held data sets, then the basis on which it is established should be subject to insight and oversight from Parliament. I have been struck in recent meetings that officials, academics and the public all agree that there is a lack of trust in both government and tech motives, yet the Government repeatedly refuse our amendments that try to set out the contours of a deal with data owners, whether creatives as before or, in this case, citizens.

Amendment 71 tries to address that need directly. It would require the Government to consult on and lay before Parliament regulations setting out the basis on which the NDL would exercise its functions and powers in relation to data use and access. There is a long list in the amendment of issues that the Government would have to consider when drafting the national data library, including, but not limited to: protecting UK data subjects’ personal data; the UK’s economic and national security interests; setting out the basis for extraterritorial data access and transfers; the transparency of onward use of sovereign data assets; data hygiene, to keep it accurate, up to date and free from bias; when consent may be required; how it will value and license the datasets; what process the Government will use to ensure maximum value to the public purse; whether to prioritise UK-based entrepreneurs and researchers; and the mechanisms through which the national data library will be governed and managed.

These are not trivial matters. If the national data library lies at the heart of the Government’s AI strategy then Parliament and the public, who may claim rights to that data, must be on board with their strategy. The amendments propose the sorts of actions that engender trust. Although I will definitely not press the issue tonight, I ask the Minister to make a commitment to bring the Government’s plans before Parliament so that we and those in the other place can review and approve their plans before the NDL takes charge of one of the UK’s most valuable assets. I ask him to reassure us at the Dispatch Box that the Government will not give access to those same data assets to those who are circling our most precious data—the NHS—without consideration of these matters.

For the second time today, I mention DeepSeek. It is a timely reminder that the market will change repeatedly. However, the response from the titans of AI today has been not about values or alternative visions of the world but to release sooner, build faster and bet everything on being the winner.

I am not alone. Indeed, swathes of those inside the sector think there is a role for AI that will be a smaller, higher-quality, problem-solving technology that will power real-world businesses, innovations and an information ecosystem of the future. It is that growth opportunity that lies within the capability and the datasets of the UK. I beg to move.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on Amendment 58, to which I have also put my name. Given the time, I will speak only about NHS datasets.

There have been three important developments since the Committee stage of this Bill in mid-December: the 43rd annual J P Morgan healthcare conference in San Francisco in mid-January, the launch of the AI Opportunities Action Plan by the Prime Minister on Monday 13 January and the announcement of the Stargate project in the White House the day after President Trump’s inauguration.

Taking these in reverse chronological order, it is not clear exactly how the Stargate project will be funded, but several US big tech companies and SoftBank has pledged tens of billions of dollars. At least $100 billion will be available to build the infrastructure for next-generation AI, and it may even rise to $500 billion in the next four years.

The UK cannot match these sums. The AI Opportunities Action Plan instead lays out how the UK can compete by using its own advantages: a long track record of world-leading AI research in our universities and some unique, hugely valuable datasets.

At the JP Morgan conference in San Francisco, senior NHS management had more than 40 meetings with AI companies. These companies all wanted to know one thing: how and when they could access NHS datasets.

It is not surprising, therefore, that it was reported in November that the national federated data platform would soon be used to train different types of AI models. The two models mentioned were Open AI’s proprietary ChatGPT and Google’s medical AI, Med-Gemini, based on Google’s proprietary large language model, Gemini. Presumably, these models will be fine-tuned using the data stored in the federated data platform.

Amendment 58 is not about restricting access to UK datasets by Open AI, Google or any other US big tech company. Instead, it seeks to maximise their long- term value, driven by strategic goals rather than short-term, opportunistic gains. By classifying valuable public sector datasets as sovereign data assets, we can ensure that the data is made available under controlled conditions, not only to public sector employees and researchers but to industry, including US big tech companies.

We should expect a financial return when industry is given access to a sovereign dataset. A first condition is a business model such that income is generated for the relevant public body, in this case the NHS, from the access fees paid by the companies that will be the authorised licence holders.

A second condition is signposted in the AI Opportunities Action Plan, whose recommendations have all been accepted by the Government. In the third section of the action plan, “Secure our future with homegrown AI”, Matt Clifford, the author of the plan, writes that

“we must be an AI maker, not just an AI taker: we need companies … that will be our UK national champions … Generating national champions will require a more activist approach”.

Part of this activist approach should be to give companies and organisations headquartered in the UK preferential terms of access to our sovereign data assets.

These datasets already exist in the NHS as minimum viable products, so we cannot afford to delay. AI companies are keen to access data in the federated data platform, which is NHS England’s responsibility, or in the secure data environments set up by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR.

I urge the Government to accept the principles of this amendment as they will provide the framework needed now to support NHS England and NIHR in their negotiations with AI companies.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I have signed Amendment 58. I also support the other amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, although I did not get around to signing it. They both speak to the same questions, some of which have been touched on by both previous speakers.

My route into this was perhaps a little less analytic. I used to worry about the comment lots of people used to make, wittily, that data was the new oil, without really thinking about what that meant or what it could mean. It began to settle in my mind that, if indeed data is an asset, why is it not carried on people’s balance sheets? Why does data held by companies or even the Government not feature in some sort of valuation? Just like oil held in a company or privately, it will eventually be used in some way. That releases revenue that would otherwise have to be accounted for and there will be an accounting treatment. But as an accountant I have never seen any company’s assets that ever put a value on data. That is where I came from.

A sovereign data approach, which labels assets of value to the economy held by the country rather than a company, seems to be a way of trying to get into language what is more of an accounting approach than perhaps we need to spend time on in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has gone through the amendment in a way that explains the process, the protection and the idea that it should be valued regularly and able to account for any returns it makes. We have also heard about the way it features in other publications.

I want to take a slightly different part of the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which talks about data and states:

“We should seek to responsibly unlock both public and private data sets to enable innovation by UK startups and researchers and to attract international talent and capital. As part of this, government needs to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the value of the data it holds, how this value can be responsibly realised, and how to ensure the preservation of public trust across all its work to unlock its data assets”.


These are very wise words.

I end by saying that I was very struck by the figures released recently about the number of people who opted out of the NHS’s data collection. I think there are Members present who may well be guilty of such a process. I of course am happy to have my data used in a way that will provide benefit, but I do recognise the risks if it is not properly documented and if people are not aware of what they are giving up or offering in return for the value that will be extracted from it.

I am sure we all want more research and better research. We want research that will yield results. We also want value and to be sure that the data we have given up, which is held on our behalf by various agencies, is properly managed. These amendments seem to provide a way forward and I recommend them.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 58 and 71, which address what I consider to be a fundamental oversight in our nation’s stewardship of public data assets.

While these amendments embrace intentionally broad definitions of sovereign data assets and a national data library, their purpose is precise: to recognise, protect and optimise the public value of these critical national resources for generations to come. The amendments’ dual emphasis on robust consent mechanisms and a transparent licensing framework—one that provides preferential access to UK entities—strikes a careful balance between fostering public trust and safeguarding our national interests.

Central to these amendments is the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide comprehensive reporting on both the current value and projected returns from these assets. This addresses a striking accountability gap in our governance framework. While the National Audit Office maintains rigorous oversight of our physical infrastructure, previous Administrations have failed to adequately account for the taxpayers’ substantial investment in public data infrastructure and intangible or knowledge assets.

Consider this striking disparity: Ernst & Young’s 2019 analysis projected that a curated NHS dataset could generate £5 billion annually for the UK, while delivering £4.6 billion in patient benefits through enhanced infrastructure. Yet we lack robust mechanisms to track whether these substantial benefits materialise or are captured and flow back into our healthcare system. This speaks directly to the Tony Blair Institute’s prescient call last year, endorsed by none other than the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, for the establishment of an NHS data trust or comparable stewardship vehicle.

As we navigate an AI revolution, we must shift our focus from simply managing risks to proactively harnessing opportunities for social impact and economic growth. This raises two fundamental questions. How can we leverage this technological transformation to maximise public benefit, and how will Parliament effectively scrutinise future trade agreements, particularly with nations like the United States, without established evaluation methodologies or transparent licencing systems of our valuable data assets?

The British public, already bearing a significant tax burden to fund public services, deserves assurance that our valuable digital assets will not be transferred today, only to be transformed into expensive treatments tomorrow, benefiting companies that pay tax overseas. Amendments 58 and 71 provide essential safeguards against the inadvertent undervaluation or transfer of these critical national assets. They ensure proper stewardship of our digital resources for the public good, and I therefore support the intentions behind these amendments.

21:45

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much encourage the Government to go down this road. Everyone talks about the NHS just because the data is there and organised. If we establish a structure like this, there are other sources of data that we could develop to equivalent value. Education is the obvious one. What works in education? We have huge amounts of data, but we do nothing with it—both in schools and in higher education. What is happening to biodiversity? We do not presently collect the data or use it in the way we could, but if we had that, and if we took advantage of all the people who would be willing to help with that, we would end up with a hugely valuable national resource.

HMRC has a lot of information about employment and career patterns, none of which we use. We worry about what is happening and how we can improve seaside communities, but we do not collect the data which would enable us to do it. We could become a data-based society. This data needs guarding because it is not for general use—it is for our use, and this sort of structure seems a really good way of doing it. It is not just the NHS—there is a whole range of areas in which we could greatly benefit the UK.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, all our speakers have made it clear that this is a here-and-now issue. The context has been set out by noble Lords, whether it is Stargate, the AI Opportunities Action Plan or, indeed, the Palantir contract with the NHS. This has been coming down the track for some years. There are Members on the Government Benches, such as the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who have been telling us that we need to work out a fair way of deriving a proper financial return for the benefits of public data assets, and Future Care Capital has done likewise. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has form in this area as well.

The Government’s plan for the national data library and the concept of sovereign data assets raises crucial questions about how to balance the potential benefits of data sharing with the need to protect individual rights, maintain public trust and make sure that we achieve proper value for our public digital assets. I know that the Minister has a particular interest in this area, and I hope he will carry forward the work, even if this amendment does not go through.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving her amendment. The amendments in this group seek to establish a new status for data held in the public interest, and to establish statutory oversight rules for a national data library. I was pleased during Committee to hear confirmation from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the Government are actively developing their policy on data held in the public interest and developing plans to use our data assets in a trustworthy and ethical way.

We of course agree that we need to get this policy right, and I understand the Government’s desire to continue their policy development. Given that this is an ongoing process, it would be helpful if the Government could give the House an indication of timescales. Can the Minister say when the Government will be in a position to update the House on any plans to introduce a new approach to data held in the public interest? Will the Government bring a statement to this House when plans for a national data library proceed to the next stage?

I suggest that a great deal of public concern about nationally held datasets is a result of uncertainty. The Minister was kind enough to arrange a briefing from his officials yesterday, and this emerged very strongly. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what is being proposed. What are the mechanics? What are the risks? What are the costs? What are the eventual benefits to UK plc? I urge the Minister, as and when he makes such a statement, to bring a maximum of clarity about these fundamental questions, because I suspect that many people in the public will find this deeply reassuring.

Given the stage the Government are at with these plans, we do not think it would be appropriate to legislate at this stage, but we of course reserve the right to revisit this issue in the future.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for Amendments 58 and 71, one of which we also considered in Committee. I suspect that we are about to enter an area of broad agreement here. This is a very active policy area, and noble Lords are of course asking exactly the right questions of us. They are right to emphasise the need for speed.

I agree that it is essential that we ensure that legal and policy frameworks are fit for purpose for the modern demands and uses of data. This Government have been clear that they want to maximise the societal benefits from public sector data assets. I said in the House very recently that we need to ensure good data collection, high-quality curation and security, interoperability and ways of valuing data that secure appropriate value returns to the public sector.

On Amendment 58, my officials are considering how we approach the increased demand and opportunity of data, not just public sector data but data across our economy. This is so that we can benefit from the productivity and growth gains of improvements to access to data, and harness the opportunities, which are often greater when different datasets are combined. As part of this, we sought public views on this area as part of the industrial strategy consultation last year. We are examining our current approach to data licensing, data valuation and the legal framework that governs data sharing in the public sector.

Given the complexity, we need to do this in a considered manner, but we of course need to move quickly. Crucially, we must not betray the trust of people or the trust of those responsible for managing and safeguarding these precious data assets. From my time as chair of the Natural History Museum, I am aware that museums and galleries are considering approaches to this very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may well be interested to see some of the work going on on biodiversity datasets there, where there are huge collections of great value that we actually did put value against.

Of course, this issue cuts across the public sector, including colleagues from the Geospatial Commission, NHS, DHSC, National Archives, Department for Education, Ordnance Survey and Met Office, for example. My officials and I are very open to discussing the policy issues with noble Lords. I recently introduced the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, to officials from NHSE dealing with the data side of things there and linked him with the national data library to seek his input. As was referred to, yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Tarassenko and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, all met officials, and we remain open to continuing such in-depth conversations. I hope the noble Baroness appreciates that this is an area with active policy development and a key priority for the Government.

Turning to Amendment 71, also from the noble Baroness, I agree that the national data library represents an enormous opportunity for the United Kingdom to unlock the full value of our public data. I agree that the protection and care of our national data is essential. The scope of the national data library is not yet finalised, so it is not possible to confirm whether a new statutory body or specific statutory functions are the right way to do this. Our approach to the national data library will be guided by the principles of public law and the requirements of the UK’s data protection legislation, including the data protection principles and data subject rights. This will ensure that data sharing is fair, secure and preserves privacy. It will also ensure that we have clear mechanisms for both valuation and value capture. We have already sought, and continue to seek, advice from experts on these issues, including work from the independent Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, also referred to the work that I was involved with previously at the Tony Blair Institute.

The NDL is still in the early stages of development. Establishing it on a statutory footing at this point would be inappropriate, as work on its design is currently under way. We will engage and consult with a broad range of stakeholders on the national data library in due course, including Members of both Houses.

The Government recognise that our data and its underpinning infrastructure is a strategic national asset. Indeed, it is for that reason that we started by designating the data centres as critical national infrastructure. As the subjects of these amendments remain an active area of policy development, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am grateful for a breakout of agreement at this time of night; that is delightful. I agree with everything that the Minister said, but one thing we have not mentioned is the incredible cost of managing the data and the investment required. I support the Government investing to get the value out, as I believe other noble Lords do, and I would just like to put that point on record.

We had a meeting yesterday and thought it was going to be about data assets, but it turned out to be about data communities, which we had debated the week before. Officials said that it was incredibly useful, and it might have been a lot quicker if they had had it earlier. In echoing what was said in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, there is considerable interest and expertise, and I would love to see the Government move faster, possibly with the help of noble Lords. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

59: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Data use: review of large language models(1) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a review to consider the introduction of standards for the input and output of data of large language models which operate and generate revenue in the United Kingdom.(2) The review must consider—(a) the applicability of similar standards, such as those that already exist in industries such as pharmaceuticals, food and drinks,(b) whether there is a need for legislative clarity under section 27 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 about whether the input and output of large language models constitute an “article”, and(c) whether a minimum standard should be a condition for market access.”

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 59, I shall also speak to Amendments 60 and 66 in my name.

AI has been a recurrent theme running through most, if not all, our discussions on the Bill, because it is utterly absent from the Bill. It seems extraordinary: what is AI without data, and what is a data Bill without AI being considered? It is difficult to see how we will have the clarity, consistency and coherence of approach to address the opportunities and challenges of all these new technologies, not least artificial intelligence, when it has remained absent from the Bill by government design.

Amendment 59 asks about the categorisation and classification of large language models in the UK in terms of the data input and the output from those models. Will the Minister specifically address his comments on this amendment to the issues around Section 27 of the copyright Act of 1988 and how that interacts with the needs of LLMs, whether there should be issues around market access for these large tech companies and whether LLMs in themselves constitute an article under the 1988 Act?

If AI is absent from the Bill by government design, perhaps even more curiously, data centres are largely absent. If AI is nothing without data, what is data without data centres? They are the factories and the boundaries fuelling this new fourth industrial revolution. Data has often been described as the new oil; I suggest that it is nothing of the sort, but we need so much actual new oil—that is, the renewables and SMRs—if we are to power this fourth industrial revolution, not least the data centres therein.

Amendment 60 looks at the current supply of data centres. Is the Minister satisfied not just with how quickly the Government plan to have data centres coming onstream but how possible it is for them to be in places where they can be hooked up to the grid, not just for existing fuels but, crucially, for renewables and potentially SMR technologies, which will absolutely be required if this fourth industrial revolution is to be not only efficient and effective but sustainable?

22:00

Amendment 66 addresses the power usage effectiveness measure used to measure the power use of data centres. Does the Minister feel that that measure is accurate, effective and useful for what we are all trying to get at here? It may be worth the Government looking again at that measure and leading some work to assess new, more effective and more modern ways of measuring the power usage of this critical national infrastructure, as he described.

In his response to the last group, I sensed that the Minister let rather an important cat out of the bag. I am always looking for the Government to be doing policy development, but he used a key word in that answer which I would very much like him to use in his answer on this group. For the Government, it seems that it is not policy development that matters but “active” policy development. I look forward to his response and the debate on this group. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we have had some discussion already this week on data centres. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is absolutely right to raise this broad issue, but I was reassured to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, earlier in the week that the building of data centres, their energy requirements and their need may well be included in NESO’s strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan. Clearly, in one part of the forest there is a great deal of discussion about energy use and the energy needs of data centres. What is less clear and, in a sense, reflected in the opportunities plan is exactly how the Government will decide the location of these data centres, which clearly—at least on current thinking about the needs of large language models, AI and so on—will be needed. It is about where they will be and how that will be decided. If the Minister can cast any light on that, we would all be grateful.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for moving this amendment. Amendment 59 is an important amendment that addresses some of the key issues relating to large language models. We know that large language models have huge potential, and I agree with him that the Government should keep this under review. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would be willing to update the House on the Government’s policy on large language model regulation on her return.

Data centre availability is another emerging issue as we see growth in this sector. My noble friend is absolutely right to bring this to the attention of the House. We firmly agree that we will have a growing need for additional data centres. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did not respond substantively to Amendments 60 and 66 from my noble friend on data centres, which I believe was—not wholly unreasonably—to speed the Committee to its conclusion just before Christmas. I hope the Minister can give the House a fuller response on this today, as it would be very helpful to hear what the Government’s plans are on the need for additional data centres.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his amendments on reviews of and consultations on large language models and data centres. First, on Amendment 59, as we have discussed in some detail, the Government are conducting their consultation on copyright and AI. This will consider issues relating to transparency of creative content in both input and output of AI. This would apply not just to large language models but to other forms of AI. Questions on the wider copyright framework are also included in the consultation, including the issue of models trained in other jurisdictions, importation and enforcement provisions.

A review of large language models, as required by this amendment, as well as the consideration of the specific provisions of copyright law, would prejudge the outcome of that consultation. I might even go so far as to say to noble Lords that the consultation and the process around it is, in a sense, the very review that this amendment seeks—or at least a range of ways may be suggested through that consultation to address these issues, which are important and might be more effective than a further review. I also remind noble Lords about the AI Safety Institute, which, of course, has a duty to look at some of the safety issues around these models.

I reassure noble Lords that we welcome those suggestions and will carefully consider which parts of the copyright framework would benefit from amendment. I reiterate that the proposals the Government have put forward on copyright and AI training will not affect the wider application of copyright law. If a model were to output a creator’s work without their permission, rights holders would be able to take action, as they are at present.

On Amendment 60, as the Prime Minister laid out as part of the AI opportunities action plan, this Government intend to secure more data centre capacity and ensure that it is delivered as sustainably as possible. Noble Lords will have also noted the investment that followed the investment summit targeted towards data centres. The Government are committed to ensuring that any negative impact of data centres is, where possible, minimised and that sustainability is considered. The noble Lord may well be aware of the creation of the AI energy council, which will be led by Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ. That will consider the energy requirements and, of course, the need for future energy requirements, including things such as SMRs. The Government recognise the aim of this amendment, but we do not feel this Bill is the place to address this issue. The accompanying notes to the Bill will detail its environmental impacts.

Amendment 66 calls for a consultation on data centre power usage. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources. The first data centre site has been identified as Culham. Why is it there? It is because the UK Atomic Energy Authority has a very large power supply, with some 100 megawatts of electricity supply available. That will need to increase to something closer to 500 megawatts. How we will select other data centre sites will depend on where there is power and an appropriate ability to put those sites. Noble Lords can expect them to be distributed around the UK. The sector operates under a climate change agreement, to encourage greater uptake of energy-efficiency measures among operators.

Data centres themselves, of course, play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new tech that increases the efficiency of energy use across towns and cities or development and application of innovative materials and new technologies that take carbon out of the atmosphere. The energy efficiency of data centres themselves is improving with new technologies and will continue to do so. Perhaps that was one of the features of the announcement of DeepSeek—exactly how that might advance rather rapidly. Closed-loop cooling, energy-efficient hardware, heat reuse and hot/cold aisle containment are already having an effect on the energy consumption and output of data centres.

The Government continue to monitor the data centre industry and are aware of the environmental impacts of data centres. I hope that, in the light of the points I raised, the noble Lord will be content not to press his amendments.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank everyone who took part in this short debate, in particular the Minister for that full, clear and helpful answer. In a spirit of throwing roses at this stage of the evening, I congratulate him and the Government on the quick identification and implementation of Culham as the first site for one of these centres. It makes complete sense—as he says, the power already exists there. I urge the Government to move with such speed for the remaining five of the first six sites. It makes complete sense to move at speed to identify these resources and the wider benefits they can bring to the communities where they will be located. For now, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Amendment 60 not moved.

Amendments 61 to 65

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

61: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision (including any such provision as might be made by Act of Parliament), requiring the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to comply with United Kingdom copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts relating to the pre-training, development and operation of those web crawlers and general-purpose AI models take place.(2) Provision made under subsection (1) must apply to the entire lifecycle of a general-purpose AI model, including but not limited to—(a) pre-training and training, (b) fine tuning,(c) grounding and retrieval-augmented generation, and(d) the collection of data for the said purposes.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a group of amendments that would clarify the requirement for web-crawlers and other “data gatherers” to observe UK copyright law. This is to counter the wide spread theft of IP by AI companies who use it as raw material for their products.

62: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Transparency of crawler identity, purpose, and segmentation(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding the identity of crawlers used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—(a) the name of the crawler,(b) the legal entity responsible for the crawler,(c) the specific purposes for which each crawler is used,(d) the legal entities to which operators provide data scraped by the crawlers they operate, and(e) a single point of contact to enable copyright owners to communicate with them and to lodge complaints about the use of their copyrighted works.(2) The information disclosed under subsection (1) must be available on an easily accessible platform and updated at the same time as any change.(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to deploy distinct crawlers for different purposes, including but not limited to—(a) web indexing for search engine results pages,(b) general-purpose AI model pre-training, and(c) retrieval-augmented generation.(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to ensure that the exclusion of a crawler by a copyright owner does not negatively impact the findability of the copyright owner’s content in a search engine.(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a group of amendments that would clarify the requirement for web-crawlers and other “data gatherers” to observe UK copyright law. This amendment requires the SoS to set out strict transparency requirements for web crawlers so that it is possible for IP holders to identify the owners of webcrawlers.

63: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Transparency of copyrighted works scraped(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general-purpose AI models, including but not limited to— (a) the URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by them or by third parties on their behalf or from whom they have obtained text or data,(b) the text and data used for the pre-training, training and fine-tuning, including the type and provenance of the text and data and the means by which it was obtained,(c) information that can be used to identify individual works, and(d) the timeframe of data collection.(2) The disclosure of information under subsection (1) must be updated on a monthly basis in such form as the regulations may prescribe and be published in such manner as the regulations may prescribe so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a group of amendments that would clarify the requirement for web-crawlers and other “data gatherers” to observe UK copyright law. This amendment requires the SoS to set out transparency requirements that would allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken.

64: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Enforcement(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the Information Commission (under section 114 of the Data Protection Act 2018) (“the Commissioner”) to monitor and secure compliance with the duties under sections (Transparency of crawler identity, purpose, and segmentation) and (Transparency of copyrighted works scraped) (“the duties”) by an operator of a web crawler or general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) model whose service has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“a relevant operator”), including but not limited to the following—(a) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an "information notice”) to require a relevant operator to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of investigating a suspected failure to comply with the duties;(b) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an "assessment notice") to require and to permit the Commissioner to carry out an assessment of whether a relevant operator has complied or is complying with the duties and to require a relevant operator to do any of the acts set out in section 146(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018;(c) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied that a relevant operator has failed, or is failing to comply with the duties, the Commissioner may give the relevant operator a written notice (an "enforcement notice") which requires it—(i) to take steps specified in the notice, or(ii) to refrain from taking steps specified in the notice;(d) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied that a relevant operator has failed or is failing to comply with the duties or has failed to comply with an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice, the Commissioner may, by written notice (a "penalty notice"), require the person to pay to the Commissioner an amount in sterling specified in the notice, the maximum amount of the penalty that may be imposed by a penalty notice being the "higher maximum amount" as defined in section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018; (e) the regulations may provide for the procedure and rights of appeal in relation to the giving of an information notice, an assessment notice, an enforcement notice or a penalty notice.(2) The regulations must provide that any failure to comply with the duties by a relevant operator shall be directly actionable by any copyright owner who is adversely affected by such failure, and that such copyright owner will be entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered and to injunctive relief.(3) The regulations must provide that the powers of the Commissioner and the rights of a copyright owner will apply in relation to a relevant operator providing a service from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such one provided from within the United Kingdom).(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a group of amendments that would clarify the requirement for web-crawlers and other “data gatherers” to observe UK copyright law. This amendment creates an enforcement procedure in line with the Data Protection Act 2018.

65: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Technical solutions(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the technical solutions that may be adopted by copyright owners and by the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent and to identify the unauthorised scraping or other unauthorised use of copyright owners’ text and data.(2) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must report on such technical solutions and must issue guidance as to the technical solutions to be adopted and other recommendations for the protection of the interests of copyright owners.”

Amendments 61 to 65 agreed.

Amendment 66 not moved.

Amendment 67

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

67: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Data dictionary(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations establishing the definitions and associated metadata for core personal data attributes, and may require that these definitions are used in relation to—(a) Part 2 of this Act (digital verification services);(b) Part 4 of this Act (registers of births and deaths);(c) Part 7 of this Act (other provision about use of, or access to, data);(d) personal data recorded by public authorities in general.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure consistency of definition of key personal attributes across government and over time, e.g. definition of “sex”.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, if we are to live in a data-rich world, we really need a set of well-understood, good definitions for the basic information we are collecting. At the moment, age is about the only stable personal characteristic, in that we generally know where it comes from, where it is recorded and can trust it. Name has become unstable: people are using name changing to hide previous criminal convictions, because we do not have a system of linking one name with another. Residence is widely abused by people who want to get their kids into the school of their preference.

Disability, ethnicity, sexuality and religion are all self-identified. We really need to understand why we are basing policy on something that is self-identified and whether we are collecting the right information for the policy uses we are making of it, particularly when, in areas such as employment, we are encouraging people to make particular choices because they are favoured in the employment advertisements. There is a collection of information there which we really ought to make an effort to be clear about if we are to make proper use of it and understand data going down the decades.

The definition we ought to do something about now is the protected characteristic of sex, because the misuse of sex and its conflation with gender has caused a whole suite of disadvantages and corruptions in the system. Basically, sex is simple: there are only two sexes. For the huge majority of humans, you can easily determine which sex they are. There are some for whom it is harder, but there are still only two sexes. We are in a situation where we record sex and use it to provide safe spaces for women, to have female sports, to know which prison to put someone in, to know how to record crime and, presumably, to know what action to take as a result of it.

Sex and knowing how women are doing is a really important thing to collect accurately, because there is a whole suite of areas in which women have been historically disadvantaged, such as in employment. It is well known that the standards in medical care have been set on men, not women, which has led to a series of disadvantages. We need accurate data. To my mind, rules based on reality and truth that are then adapted to people are much better than rules based on the way we wished things were, then trying to reconcile that with the truth.

We would do better for everybody—women in particular, but also people who identify as trans—if we based our description of them, when it comes to sex, on the truth. We would provide better healthcare, better protection, a much easier attitude to integration into society and proper provision for them. We should seek to do this. Truth should be the base of how we collect data; we should really insist on that. We should not corrupt our data but adapt our practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, this one should be easy. Last week, we passed amendments that said that the public authorities, in recording data on matters including sex, should do so accurately. Some might think that that should not be particularly controversial. This amendment says that the Government “may make regulations” about definitions of that sort of thing—that is “may”, not must. It is a negative resolution, not a positive one. It is not difficult, so let us do it.

22:15

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke on this before, and I will repeat what I said previously. The only way out of this one is to have two fields against someone: one that we will call “sex” and another that we will call “gender”. I will use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for this. “Sex” is what you are biologically and were born, and that you cannot change. There are instances where we need to use that field, particularly when it comes to delivering medicine to people—knowing how you treat them medically—and, possibly, in other things such as sports. There are one or two areas where we need to know what they are biologically.

Then we have another field which is called “gender”. In society, in many cases, we wish that people did not have to go around saying that they are not what they were born but what they want to be—but I do not have a problem with that. We could use that field where society decides that people can use it, such as on passports, other documents and identity cards—all sorts of things like that. It does not matter; I am not worried about what someone wants to call themselves or how they want to present themselves to society.

Researchers will have the “sex” field, and they can carry out medical research— they can find out about all the different things related to that—and, societally, we can use the other field for how people wish to project themselves in public. That way we can play around with what you are allowed to use in what scenarios; it allows you to do both. What we need is two fields; it will solve a lot of problems.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is clear that Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is very much of a piece with the amendments that were debated and passed last week. On these Benches, our approach will be exactly the same. Indeed, we can rely on what the Minister said last week, when he gave a considerable assurance:

“I can be absolutely clear that we must have a single version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify it consistently and there need to be rules. That is why the ongoing work is so important”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1620.]


That is, the work of the Central Digital and Data Office. We are content to rely on his assurance.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing his Amendment 67, which builds on his previous work to ensure accuracy of data. On these Benches, we agree wholeheartedly with him that the information we have access to—for example, to verify documents—must be accurate. His amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing definitions under the Bill for the purposes of digital verification services, registers of births and deaths, and other provisions. Crucially, this would enable the Government to put measures in place to ensure the consistency of the definitions of key personal attributes, including sex. We agree that consistency and accuracy of data is vital. We supported him on the first day at Report, and, if he pushes his amendment to a Division, we will support him today.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require terms relating to personal attributes to be defined consistently across government data. The Government believe that public sector data should continue to be collected based on user needs for data and any applicable legislation, but I fully recognise the need for standards and consistency in data required for research and evaluation. Harmonisation creates more meaningful statistics that allow users to better understand a topic. It is also an important part of the code of practice for statistics; the code recommends using harmonised standards unless there is a good reason not to.

As I set out in last week’s debate, the Government believe that data accuracy is essential to deliver services that meet citizens’ needs and ensure accurate evaluation and research as a result of that. I will set out to the noble Lord some work that is ongoing in this space. The Office for Statistics Regulation published guidance on collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity in February 2024, and the Government Statistical Service published a work plan for updated harmonised standards and guidance on sex and gender identity in December 2024 and will take into account the needs for accurate metadata. The Sullivan review explores these issues in detail and should be published shortly; it will be taken into account as the work progresses. In addition, the Government Digital Service has started work on developing data standards on key entities and their attributes to ensure that the way data is organised, stored and shared is consistent between public authorities.

This work has been commenced via the domain expert group on the “person” entity, which has representation from organisations including the Home Office, HMRC, the Office for National Statistics, NHS England, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Local Government Association and the Police Digital Service. The group has been established as a pilot under the Data Standards Authority to help ensure consistency across organisations.

As I said last week, it is the Government’s belief that these matters are crucial and need to be considered carefully, but are more appropriately considered holistically outside this Bill. The intention of this Bill is not to define or remark on the specific definitions of sex or gender, or other aspects of data definition. It is, of course, to make sure that the data that is collected can be made available, and I have reiterated my point that the data needs to be both based in truth and consistent and clear. There is work going on to make these new regulations and approaches to this absolutely clear. As such, I urge the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am particularly glad to know that the Sullivan review will be published soon—I look forward very much to reading that—and I am pleased by the direction the Government are moving in. None the less, we only get a Bill every now and again. I do think we need to give the Government the powers that this amendment offers. I would hate noble Lords opposite to feel that they had stayed here this late to no purpose, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

22:23

Division 2

Ayes: 120

Noes: 105

22:33

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

68: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Reliability of computer-based evidence(1) Electronic evidence produced by or derived from a computer, device or computer system (separately or together “system”) may be relied on as evidence in any proceedings —(a) where that electronic evidence is not challenged;(b) where the court is satisfied that the electronic evidence is derived from a reliable system or otherwise the court is satisfied that the evidence is reliable.(2) Rules of Court must provide that electronic evidence sought to be relied upon by a party in any proceedings may be challenged by another party as to its correctness.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), Rules of Court must provide for the circumstances in which the Court may be satisfied that the admissibility of electronic evidence cannot reasonably be challenged. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the matters that may be taken into account by the court in determining if a system is to be considered reliable include—(a) whether the evidence is wholly obtained from a regulated system (such as a speed camera and DVLA database);(b) the errors that have been reported in the system, the actions taken to correct them, and any errors that remain uncorrected (these may include the Known Error Log and Release Notices);(c) the measures taken to ensure that the electronic evidence accurately records the facts that are being claimed (including measures to block, record and manage cyberattacks);(d) the forensic measures taken to ensure that the electronic evidence has not been affected by accidental, privileged or unauthorised access;(e) the route that the electronic evidence has taken from the originating system to the court and the measures taken to ensure its integrity;(f) external independent audit of the system.(5) If the materials under subsection (4) are not available or if the materials produced for the purposes of subsection (4) are considered by the court to be insufficient for the court to conclude that the system is reliable for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the party seeking to rely upon the electronic evidence must otherwise satisfy the court that that evidence is reliable.(6) For the purposes of this section—“computer” means any device capable of performing mathematical or logical instructions;“device” means any apparatus or tool operating alone or connected to other apparatus or tools, that processes information or data in electronic form;“electronic evidence” means evidence derived from data contained in or produced by any device or computer the functioning of which depends on a software program or from data stored on a computer, device or computer system or communicated over a networked computer system.”

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 68 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones. This amendment has been debated several times within this Bill and its predecessor; however, this version differs slightly in approach. The objective remains the same: to overturn the common-law assumption in both civil and criminal law that computers are infallible.

This assumption has led to untold injustice. Innocent people have lost their lives, freedom and livelihoods because the law wrongly assumed that computers are never wrong. This of course is nonsense, as explained in detail in our last debate, at column GC 153 of Hansard. In summary, computer systems are very susceptible to both human and technological error. Indeed, the presence of bugs is normal, anticipated and routine in all contexts other than the court.

As with previous iterations of this amendment, Amendment 68 overturns that common-law assumption, but the drafting now closely mirrors provisions under the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, which was enacted in recognition that the majority of trade documents are now electronic.

The ETDA ensures and assures the integrity of electronic trade documents. It was put in place to protect those on both sides of the trade, so I am curious, at the very least, as to why we will be able to consider the efficacy of computer evidence in relation to trade but not in our legal system. I am also concerned that the MoJ, under several Governments, has been so slow to recognise the scale of the problem of this assumption, which one of my most experienced computer science colleagues described as “wicked nonsense”.

In brief, the amendment provides that the electronic evidence produced by or derived from a computer may be relied upon as evidence where that evidence is not challenged and where the court is satisfied that the evidence can be relied upon. The rest of the amendment is carefully drafted by legal experts and computer scientists with legal expertise to support the court in coming to a meaningful assessment of whether to be satisfied, or not, that the evidence can be relied upon.

This proposal has been tried and tested within our legal system. We know that it works, and I therefore see no reason why the Government should not simply accept it. However, rather than discuss it, the Government chose to announce, last week, a consultation on computer evidence. The call for evidence is a source of significant frustration for those of us who have championed this issue, as is the fact that the promised meeting with the MoJ did not happen before that announcement, in spite of repeated requests.

In her introductory remarks to the consultation, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, says that the purpose of the consultation is to help her department

“better understand how the current presumption concerning the admissibility of computer evidence is working in practice, and whether it is fit for purpose in the modern world”.

This is a backward step. The evidence that presumption is not working and is not fit for purpose is overwhelming and decades long; what are needed now are solutions, one of which is before us tonight.

Moreover, the Government’s preference for doing everything behind doors has sunk their own consultation. Had experts been consulted, the first thing they would have pointed out is that the scope is insufficient because it does not address civil proceedings but only criminal proceedings, even though the presumption is the same for both. This means that, at best, the Government’s consultation can lead only to a partial solution.

We in this House have discussed this issue in the case of the postmasters; it is a case that is front of mind. This approach may have spared those postmasters who were subject to criminal prosecutions, but not those such as Lee Castleton who was subject to civil proceedings by the Post Office, which chased him to bankruptcy. He was also branded a thief, spat at and verbally abused in the street. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder. His wife developed epilepsy from stress, his daughter developed an eating disorder and his son remains so traumatised that he cannot be in a room where someone says the words “Post Office”. A solution that does not prevent the injustice done to Lee and his family from happening to others is not fit for purpose. If the MoJ had done us the courtesy of a meeting, this could have been avoided.

I am sure the Minister will assure us that the Government are acting, but for those whose lives have been ruined, those who have fought for too many years on this issue, the consultation creates the spectre of yet another battle and further delay when the solutions are here and at hand. I want nothing more than to be wrong on this, and for the Government to prove me wrong. But for past victims, for lawyers and experts who have given their time so generously, and for those whose lives will be ruined because the computer got it wrong, half a consultation on a matter so well-established and urgent is a pretty poor result. I beg to move.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, as so often, I listened with awe to the noble Baroness. Apart from saying that I agree with her wholeheartedly, which I do, there is really no need for me for me to add anything, so I will not.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too am lost in admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—still firing on all cylinders at this time of night. Current law is clearly out of touch with the reality of computer systems. It assumes an untruth about computer reliability that has led to significant injustice. We know that that assumption has contributed to miscarriages of justice, such as the Horizon scandal.

Unlike the amendment in Committee, Amendment 68 does not address the reliability of computers themselves but focuses rather on the computer evidence presented in court. That is a crucial distinction as it seeks to establish a framework for evaluating the validity of the evidence presented, rather than questioning the inherent reliability of computers. We believe that the amendment would be a crucial step towards ensuring fairness and accuracy in legal proceedings by enabling courts to evaluate computer evidence effectively. It offers a balanced approach that would protect the interests of both the prosecution and the defence, ensuring that justice is served. The Government really must move on this.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her amendments. The reliability of computer-based evidence, needless to say, has come into powerful public focus following the Post Office Horizon scandal and the postmasters’ subsequent fight for justice. As the noble Baroness has said previously and indeed tonight, this goes far beyond the Horizon scandal. We accept that there is an issue with the way in which the presumption that computer evidence is reliable is applied in legal proceedings.

The Government accepted in Committee that this is an issue. While we have concerns about the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment is drafted, we hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to set out clearly the work that the Government are doing in this area. In particular, we welcome the Government’s recently opened call for evidence, and we hope Ministers will work quickly to address this issue.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Amendment 68 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, aims to prevent future miscarriages of justice, such as the appalling Horizon scandal. I thank the noble Baroness and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the commitment to ensuring that this important issue is debated. The Government absolutely recognise that the law in this area needs to be reviewed. Noble Lords will of course be aware that any changes to the legal position would have significant ramifications for the whole justice system and are well beyond the scope of this Bill.

I am glad to be able to update the noble Baroness on this topic since Committee. On 21 January the Ministry of Justice launched a call for evidence on this subject. That will close on 15 April, and next steps will be set out immediately afterwards. That will ensure that any changes to the law are informed by expert evidence. I take the point that there is a lot of evidence already available, but input is also needed to address the concerns of the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I am sure they will consider the important issues raised in this amendment.

I hope the noble Baroness appreciates the steps that the Ministry of Justice has taken on this issue. The MoJ will certainly be willing to meet any noble Lords that wish to do so. As such, I hope she feels content to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

The Minister did not quite address my point that the consultation is not broad enough in scope, but I will accept the offer of a meeting. Although the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, spoke very briefly, he is my partner in crime on this issue; indeed, he is a great campaigner for the postmasters and has done very much. So I say to the Minister: yes, I will have the meeting, but could it happen this time? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendment 69

Tabled by

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge]

69: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Digitally created sexually explicit photographs or filmsIn the Sexual Offences Act 2003, after section 66D, insert—“66E Creating or soliciting a non-consensual digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A creates or solicits the creation of a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film of another person (B),(b) B does not consent to the creation or solicitation of the photograph or film, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(2) Subsection (1) applies when the solicitation of the creation of digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film has taken place in the United Kingdom, irrespective of the location of the person or persons who have been solicited for the creation of such a photograph or film.(3) A person (A) may commit an offence under this section whether or not creation occurs.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating, or soliciting the creation of, the photograph or film.(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).(6) In relation to section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (limitation of time) the date on which the “matter of complaint” arose will be taken as the date on which B becomes aware that an offence under this section may have been committed. (7) In this section, “soliciting” means encouraging or facilitating the creation of a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film.(8) In this section, “sexually explicit photograph or film” means a photograph or film, as defined in section 66A(3) to (5), which appears to be a photograph or film of anyone in an “intimate state” as defined in section 66D(5), (6) or (7).””

22:45

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who spoke. The Minister stopped short of saying that he will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. It is clearly the will of the House to address and debate this issue at Third Reading. I therefore give notice that in the absence of a government amendment I will be bringing back an amendment next week at Third Reading. I accept the noble Lord’s kind offer to continue to engage.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendments 70 to 72 not moved.

Amendment 73

Moved by

[Viscount Camrose]

73: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Data risks from systemic competitors and hostile actors(1) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Information Commissioner, must conduct a risk assessment on the data privacy risks associated with genomics and DNA companies that are headquartered in countries the Government determines to be systemic competitors and hostile actors.(2) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must present a report on the risk assessment in subsection (1) to Parliament and consult the intelligence and security agencies on the findings, taking into account the need not to make public information critical to national defence or ongoing operations.(3) This risk assessment must evaluate—(a) the degree of access granted to foreign entities, particularly those linked to systemic competitors and hostile actors, to genomic and DNA data collected within the United Kingdom;(b) the potential for genomic and DNA data to be exfiltrated outside of the United Kingdom;(c) the potential misuse of United Kingdom genomic and DNA data for dual-use or nefarious purposes;(d) the potential for such data to be used in a manner that could compromise the privacy or security of United Kingdom citizens or undermine national security and strategic advantage.(4) The risk assessment must consider and include, but is not limited to—(a) an analysis of the data handling and storage practices of genomics companies that are based in countries designated as systemic competitors and hostile actors,(b) an independent audit, including digital and physical forensic examination, at any company site that could have access to United Kingdom genomics data, and(c) evidence of clear disclosure statements to consumers of products and services from genomics companies subject to data sharing requirements in the countries where they are headquartered. (5) This risk assessment must be conducted as frequently as deemed necessary by the Secretary of State or the Information Commissioner to address evolving threats and ensure continued protection of the genomics sector from entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by countries designated as systemic competitors and hostile actors.(6) The Secretary of State may issue directives or guidelines based on the findings of the risk assessment to ensure compliance by companies or personnel operating within the genomics sector in the United Kingdom, safeguarding against identified risks and vulnerabilities to data privacy.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure sufficient scrutiny of national security and data privacy risks related to advanced technology and areas of strategic interest for systemic competitors and hostile actors, inform the development of regulations or guidelines to mitigate those risks, and ensure security experts can scrutinise malign entities and guide researchers, consumers, businesses, and public bodies.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 73 standing in my name which would require the Secretary of State to undertake a risk assessment on the data privacy risks associated with genomics and DNA companies that are headquartered in countries which the Government determine to be systemic competitors and hostile actors. The UK is a world leader in genomics research, and this a growing sector that makes an important contribution. The opportunities in genomics are enormous and we should take the steps needed to protect the UK’s leading role here.

I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in Committee that:

“the Government have continued the important work of the UK Biological Security Strategy of 2023, including by conducting a full risk assessment and providing updated guidance to reduce the risks from the misuse of sensitive data”.

The Minister also gave the undertaking that the Government would

“brief the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on the findings of the risk assessment in the new year”.—[Official Report, 18/12/24; col. GC 124.]

I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Joint Committee has been briefed and, if not, when that will happen.

I look forward to continuing to engage with Ministers on the issue of data security in the face of growing threats from international competitors and hostile actors.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for giving me an opportunity to speak for 45 minutes on genomics, which I know everyone will be very grateful for. I shall resist that temptation and thank him for the amendment on security in genomic data.

As he is aware, the UK is a world leader in genomics, and its various datasets and studies have contributed to health globally. I also note that the UK Biological Security Strategy of 2023 has been endorsed by this Government and a variety of measures are under active consideration. I recognise the noble Viscount’s desire for quick movement on the issue and agree with him that this is of great importance. I reassure him that my officials are working at speed across government on this very issue. I would be very happy to brief him and other noble Lords present today on the findings of the risk assessment in due course. We have not yet engaged with the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy but will do shortly as per standard practice.

I hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate that this work is live and will grant a little patience on this issue. I look forward to engaging with him soon on this but, in the meantime, I would be grateful if he would withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his clear response and for taking pity on the House and not giving us the full benefit of his knowledge of genomics. Meanwhile, I recognise that we have to move with deliberateness here and not rush into the wrong solution. I gratefully accept his offer of further briefings and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

Amendment 74

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

74: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Retrospective applicationWithin one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a statement clarifying whether the changes enacted by its commencement will apply to controllers and processors retrospectively, or only to data first processed following its commencement.”

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I have the very dubious privilege of moving the final amendment on Report to this Bill. This is a probing amendment and the question is: what does retrospectivity mean? The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, asked a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in Committee in December:

“Will the forthcoming changes to data protection law apply to such data that controllers and processors already hold?”


She replied that

“the new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest will apply from the date of commencement and will not apply retrospectively”.—[Official Report, 10/12/24; cols. GC 435-437.]

But the question is not really whether the lawfulness is retrospective, but whether the changes made in the new law can be applied to any personal data previously collected and already held on the commencement date of the Act—so that is the exam question.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

It is indeed getting late. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for moving his amendment, and I really will be brief.

We do not oppose the government amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. I think the Minister should be able to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, given that the noble Lord’s amendment merely seeks clarification on the retrospective application of the provisions of the Bill within a month of the coming into force of the Act. It seems that the Government could make this change unnecessary by clarifying the position today. I hope the Minister will be able to address this in his remarks.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I will speak first to Amendment 76. I reassure noble Lords that the Government do not believe that this amendment has a material policy effect. Instead, it simply corrects the drafting of the Bill and ensures that an interpretation provision in Clause 66 commences on Royal Assent.

Amendment 74, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out whether any provisions in the Bill apply to controllers and processers retrospectively. Generally, provisions in Bills apply from the date of commencement unless there are strong policy or legal reasons for applying them retrospectively. The provisions in this Bill follow that general rule. For instance, data controllers will only be able to rely on the new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interests introduced by Clause 70 in respect of new processing activities in relation to personal data that take place after the date of commencement.

I recognise that noble Lords might have questions as to whether any of the Bill’s clauses can apply to personal data that is already held. That is the natural intent in some areas and, where appropriate, commencement regulations will provide further clarity. The Government intend to publish their plans for commencement on GOV.UK in due course and the ICO will also be updating its regulatory guidance in several key areas to help organisations prepare. We recognise that there can be complex lifecycles around the use of personal data and we will aim to ensure that how and when any new provisions can be relied on is made clear as part of the implementation process.

I hope that explanation goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. There is clearly no easy answer. I think we were part-expecting a rather binary answer, but clearly there is not one, so we look forward to the guidance.

But that is a bit worrying for those who have to tackle these issues. I am thinking of the data protection officers who are going to grapple with the Bill in its new form and I suspect that that is going to be quite a task. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Clause 135: Extent

Amendment 74A not moved.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Clause 136: Commencement

Amendment 76

Moved by

[Lord Vallance of Balham]

76: Clause 136, page 169, line 20, at end insert—
“(za) section 66 (meaning of “the 2018 Act” and “the UK GDPR”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the clause defining “the 2018 Act” and “the UK GDPR” for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Bill comes into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment 76 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 77 not moved.

House adjourned at 10.54 pm.