Post Office Horizon Compensation Scheme

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay and congratulate them on their maiden speeches. I am sure this House would agree with me that they both bring a wealth of experience, particularly in speaking up for working people, and I look forward to working closely with them as they navigate their way through our shared UK growth missions. My noble friend Lady Elliott—I am sure the House agrees—will be an important northern voice in this Chamber. I am sure that the House will also agree that we will all benefit from my noble friend Lord Barber’s experience in arbitration and conciliation. We have a lot to learn from him in that regard.

I am pleased to respond for the Government and . I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this Motion and allowing us to debate this very important issue. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Beamish, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, as members of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. They have helped guide and shape the Government’s work in this area.

Like my noble friend Lord Beamish, I pay tribute to Alan Bates and the 550 who took the case to court and finally shone a light on the role of the Post Office in deliberately hiding the truth. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that certain members of the press—ITV has obviously been mentioned—and in particular Nick Wallis, played an important role in shining a light on this in a very dogged and determined way, and brought it certainly to my attention for the first time.

I welcome this opportunity to provide an update on the progress of the Horizon redress schemes and to discuss the contribution of Fujitsu to the costs of the scandal. This scandal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in this country’s history. Redress for the postmasters whose lives were scarred by it is of great importance for the new Government. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Elliott, gave very moving examples of the individuals impacted by the scandal and their lives being torn apart as a result. We recognise the devasting impact that the Post Office’s actions had on many postmasters’ lives, their families and their communities.

The Government remain focussed in our efforts to ensure that all postmasters receive full, fair and swift redress for the terrible ordeals to which they have been unjustly subject. That is why the Government have set aside around £1.8 billion for redress for the 2024-25 financial year onwards for those postmasters affected by this grievous miscarriage of justice. This is in addition to the around £200 million already paid to victims in previous years; this is not a ceiling but an estimate.

I turn now to the progress of the redress schemes. My department and Post Office Ltd publish monthly updates on progress. Since the end of June last year, the total amount of redress paid to victims of the Horizon scandal has more than doubled. Across this period, 1,409 more victims have settled their claims. Approximately £663 million has now been paid to over 4,300 claimants.

As we have identified, there are four separate redress schemes. This is by no means ideal, but, as noble Lords know, the reasons for it are historical. I will describe separately the progress of each scheme. I will start with the Horizon shortfall scheme, which covers postmasters who were not part of the group litigation and do not have a criminal conviction. It is run by Post Office Ltd, with funding, oversight and governance provided by the Department for Business and Trade. Approximately £315 million has been paid under this scheme. However, it has delivered redress too slowly, for two reasons. First, the scheme received many more applications than were originally anticipated: 7,000 and counting rather than a few hundred. Secondly, amounts are decided by a panel independent of the Post Office. This is intended to ensure fairness, but it makes the process slower. Combined with the huge volume of cases, this has caused real problems.

In March 2024, the Minister for Postal Affairs announced an optional fixed sum offer of £75,000 to those applicants who did not wish to complete a full claim. This has greatly accelerated progress. As well as providing speedy redress for those who accepted the offer, it has substantially shortened the queue for everyone else.

The Government have also acted to give postmasters assurance of fair redress. Many postmasters have had understandable concerns about any scheme run by the Post Office, even though redress offers are recommended by an independent panel, which the Post Office has never undercut. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked whether there was secret guidance to the Post Office lawyers on this issue. In response, I say that the principles of the Horizon shortfall scheme are public; offers are set by an independent panel, with a KC, an accountant and a retail expert. There is also a process to dispute the offer.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister when we are time-pressed. Can she undertake to explore whether the Post Office really is operating to those published principles? The material that I have seen seems to give credible backing to the suggestion that it is not. Indeed, there is an exchange featuring Post Office lawyers saying that they are working on a contractual basis and not a consequences-of-loss basis, which is entirely different.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Perhaps if she has some of that evidence, she could share it with us. I am not dismissing what the noble Baroness said. If she has that evidence, we will of course look into it. It is important that justice is done in this case, and is seen to be done.

In light of these concerns, in September the Minister announced that the Government are setting up an appeal process for postmasters who are unhappy with the full assessments of their claims, as recommended by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. We expect to receive the first appeals in the spring. The Government have committed to covering the reasonable costs of postmasters obtaining legal advice at each stage of the appeals process. The Government are also actively looking at other ways in which the pace of redress can be sped up and have been supported by the recommendations from the advisory board and claimants’ lawyers in this area.

Post Office prosecutions of innocent postmasters were perhaps the most reprehensible part of this scandal. Some 111 of these unfortunate individuals had their convictions overturned by the courts. The Post Office set up the overturned convictions scheme to ensure that such people get fair redress for malicious prosecution and other losses. Approximately £65 million has been paid under this scheme. So far, 82 of the 111 exonerated people have submitted full and final claims for redress. In response, 73 redress offers have been made and 66 accepted and paid. This scheme provides the option of an upfront offer of £600,000 to claimants, ensuring swift redress is provided to those victims who do not wish to submit a full claim. This is larger than the fixed offer in the HSS, reflecting the greater harm done to those who were convicted. As of 3 January, 58 people have chosen to accept that offer.

The House will recall the widespread concern that people convicted as a result of the scandal were not being exonerated by the courts, often because the evidence had gone or because they could not face a further legal fight. These people were therefore exonerated en masse by Parliament in May of last year. As of 7 February, 557 individuals in England and Wales have been sent a letter, informing them that they have at least one conviction quashed by the Act. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are running parallel exercises.

In July last year, the Government launched the Horizon convictions redress scheme to address the suffering of these people, wherever they are in the UK. I am pleased to report that it has made excellent progress. Under this scheme, eligible applicants are entitled to an interim payment of £200,000. They can then opt to have their claims individually assessed or take the fixed offer of £600,000. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that 72% of people in this redress scheme have not yet been paid. Most of the costs of redress relates to convictions which were rightly overturned by Parliament. No full claims have yet been received from those individuals and the Government are not going to slow down the redress. When people claim and we get the full claims, we aim to make to make an offer within 40 working days in 90% of the cases.

As of 31 January, 383 initial interim claims had been received, of which 364 have been paid; 232 full claims have been received, with 208 of those paid and 24 offers accepted and awaiting payment. The department’s target is for the first offers to be provided in response to 90% of full claims within 40 working days of receipt. A total of £156 million, including interim payments, has been paid to eligible claimants under this scheme. BBC News recently ran a story of two more claimants having received their £600,000 claims. It is very good to hear those individual cases of justice being done, even if it has taken far too long.

This brings us to the GLO scheme—the group litigation scheme. The group litigation court order case celebrated in last year’s ITV drama provided redress which proved to be unequal and unfair when compared with that provided by the HSS. The GLO scheme is intended to put that right.

The scheme is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than the Post Office. Last year, Sir Alan Bates expressed concern that the scheme was not delivering fast enough. The Government agreed, but the problem was that we were not receiving the full claims. However, those concerns have now been eased. Out of the 492 postmasters eligible for the scheme, the department has received 408 completed claims. When it receives claims, the department acts quickly. It aims to make offers in 90% of cases within 40 working days of receiving a completed claim. As of 31 January, 89% of offers were made within that target period.

If any postmaster cannot resolve their redress through such bilateral discussions, they can go to the scheme’s independent panel. So far, only five cases have required help from the panel. By contrast, 257 cases have been by agreement between the department and the postmaster, either in response to the first offer or a subsequent challenge. This demonstrates that the department is making fair offers.

A total of £128 million, including interim payments, has been paid to postmasters under the GLO scheme. The Government expect to have paid redress to the great majority of the GLO claimants by 31 March 2025.

My noble friend Lord Sikka raised a question about the DWP convictions. I can assure him that the Minister for Transformation is looking into this, a review is being established, and I hope to provide more information about that. My noble friend also raised questions about the Lost Chances charity. A meeting has been arranged between it and my colleague, Minister Thomas.

We have been talking about the Horizon redress schemes but, as noble Lords have pointed out, a predecessor system known as Capture also involved errors and bugs which affected some postmasters. I pay tribute to the tireless advocacy of my noble friend Lord Beamish on behalf of this group.

In response, the Minister announced on 17 December last year that the Government will be providing full and fair redress to postmasters who were victims of errors and bugs in the Capture programme. The Government will continue to discuss this work with my noble friend Lord Beamish, and we will return to the House in the spring with an update.

Fujitsu supplied the Horizon software at the heart of this scandal. The sorry tale of its introduction has been fully explored by Sir Wyn Williams’ public inquiry. The Government of course welcome Fujitsu’s acknowledgement of a moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal and continue to talk regularly to Fujitsu about this. The Post Office Minister will be meeting Fujitsu’s Europe CEO shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked: if Fujitsu were in jail, would we be giving it the millions that we are currently giving it? It is of course true that Fujitsu has admitted wrongdoing, but at the moment we do not know whether it is criminal. Deciding on that before reviewing the evidence is part of what has caused the scandal, and we should not repeat it. In its apology, Fujitsu recognised that it has a civil liability, and this will be dealt with through the financial contributions which it has promised.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, my noble friend Lord Monks, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others raised the issue of errors made by the Post Office auditors. The noble Lords have referred the performance of Post Office auditors to the Financial Reporting Council, and my department officials have also spoken to it. It is the right body to consider this, and the Government should not second-guess it. But, going back to the issue of Fujitsu’s contribution, the full amount cannot be determined until we have Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will set out the full facts of what happened.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Sikka raised the potential for an interim contribution from Fujitsu. I would say that it is too soon to decide on Fujitsu’s final contribution to the costs of the scandal, but I agree with noble Lords that an interim contribution would be very welcome and appropriate in these circumstances. Given the nature of the discussions that will need to take place on Fujitsu’s contribution, the Government will not be giving a running commentary on them. But I can promise that we will keep the House informed of progress at appropriate moments.

The Horizon system is still in place, unfortunately. A new version was introduced in the late 2010s, which the High Court accepted was “relatively robust”, but it is none the less very much in need of replacement. There can be no overnight fix for this lack of investment.

We are working with the Post Office to secure a new system which is fit for purpose, and which will not involve Fujitsu. In the meantime, the Post Office is, unfortunately, still dependent on the Horizon system to run its branches. I understand the widespread desire to see Fujitsu out of the Post Office picture immediately, but the only way to achieve this would be to shut down all local post offices and deny citizens the vital services which they provide. We do not think that we can do that, and so Fujitsu must remain for the time being. The Post Office has extended its contract until March 2026 but is looking to reduce its input as soon as possible.

Recognising its responsibility for the scandal, Fujitsu has voluntarily paused bidding for new government contracts. However, the Post Office is not the only area where government needs help which is only practicable to get from Fujitsu. So, while we agree with Fujitsu’s decision not to bid for government contracts in general, there will be situations where existing contracts need to be extended, or new ones begun, although generally in connection with existing services. Of course, we understand why that is undesirable, but it is being done only because currently there are no viable alternatives.

There have been allegations in the media that Fujitsu is seeking and receiving contracts beyond those limits. I assure the House that this is not the case. The Crown Representative and his team in the Cabinet Office, who oversee all the Government’s dealings with Fujitsu, are keeping a close watch on the situation.

I agree with noble Lords that individuals and companies responsible for the Horizon scandal must be held to account. The Metropolitan Police is keeping a close eye on the Williams inquiry and has a number of staff working on this. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked about the involvement of law processes. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that it has more than 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms relating to the scandal. There are other channels of accountability, too, and all of these need to be investigated in due course. My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the wholesale culture change needed at the Post Office, and my noble friend Lord Sikka raised specific questions about the culpability of the directors. This will all be covered in Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will establish what happened, what went wrong and why.

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, raised the question of an independent body—

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting. I know she has had a lot of questions to answer; I very much hope she will send detailed replies to a lot of the questions I asked. One matter was the case of 92 year-old Mrs Betty Brown, who, despite promises from the Minister six weeks ago, is still waiting for her compensation. Secondly, I asked whether the Minister could meet me and Mrs Gowri Jayakanthan, who had been refused any compensation and whose husband committed suicide, unfortunately, under pressure from Post Office allegations. Would the Minister be good enough to meet us, please?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to go on to say that a number of noble Lords have asked very specific questions, and I will of course write. I will just deal quickly with the idea that there should be an independent body for redress in the future. That is certainly something that we are looking into, and it is a very helpful suggestion coming forward from the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, among others.

Horizon was a terrible scandal, and it is right that we should continue to keep it in our minds through debates such as this. The Government are determined to learn the lessons from it, which is why Sir Williams’s report will be so important, to deliver full and fair compensation, as quickly as possible, to those postmasters who were so unjustly used. I thank noble Lords for this very helpful debate.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their initial assessment of the scale and balance of responses to their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government consulted on several issues regarding copyright and AI. That consultation closed on 25 February and over 11,500 responses were received. We welcome this significant engagement from across the creative and AI sectors. Our priority must be now to analyse the evidence that has been submitted. Proposals will be set out in due course, including a fuller breakdown of the types of respondent to the consultation.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. I declare my interests as an author, like many Members of your Lordships’ House. Does she agree that the intellectual property of creatives in this country is no less precious or important than the intellectual property of tech companies that have, frankly, already been scraping the internet for creative work and ripping these people off? Wherever the policy lands in the future as a result of the consultation, will the Government consider offering assistance to creatives, many of whom are really not very well off, to ensure that they have restitution for the grand theft that has already been perpetrated?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course the Government recognise the concerns that many in the creative industries have about the potential impact of AI on that sector. This is why we want to act now to give UK creators greater control over their works and more transparency about how their work is being used, as well as creating the ability for them to be paid for it. That is exactly what the proposals in our consultation aim to achieve. But I should say that this is a complicated area, because AI adoption also has the potential to drive growth across the economy, including in the creative industries. For example, 38% of creative industry businesses are already using AI technologies. So this is a complicated area, but we know we have to find a solution and protect the interests of creatives in the future in the way that the noble Baroness has alerted us to.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, the Government intend to take out the transparency amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Kidron in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. What provision are they going to make to ensure that creatives know that their copyrighted work has been pirated by AI models, so that they can then take action?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government agree with many of the points made during the debate on the data Bill, and in other discussions in this House, that further transparency is needed from AI developers about their use of web crawlers and the materials that they use to train their models. However, we have a consultation out and it would be premature to commit to specific legislation until we have analysed the responses to that consultation and heard all the voices in this sector. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Viscount that we intend to resolve this issue. It is one that the previous Government failed to resolve and we need to resolve it now, so we will take action as soon as the consultation has been analysed and resolved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there has been widespread concern that the Secretary of State in the Minister’s department has been very happy to meet representatives of big tech and AI firms but less willing to meet representatives of our thriving but threatened creative industries. Of course, in due course his meetings will be published through the Government’s quarterly transparency returns but, given how germane this is to a contentious area of policy currently under discussion, will she give consideration to publishing that list of meetings sooner?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, that information will be published in the normal way. What I will say is that the Minister for AI and Digital Government and the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism have been extremely active in engaging on this subject. They have held round tables with the creative industries and the AI sector during the consultation, which is a joint consultation involving DCMS and DSIT. This morning, the Secretary of State for DSIT explained that, and also said that he is of course open to meetings with the creative sector. All that is on the table and there is no problem about dialogue or engagement. That will go on in the next few months as well, while we seek to find a solution to this issue.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, regardless of whatever future plans are brought forward, will the Minister confirm that, if the outcome of current challenges shows that our current IP regime is legal, the Government will provide assistance to those creators whose IP has been stolen on an industrial scale by AI companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that this is a complicated copyright area and there are some legal cases in the offing. It is a complicated area that needs a holistic approach. Our view is that addressing the issue in isolation will not provide sufficient legal clarity or resolve the issue in a way that I think that most noble Lords would expect. The consultation will help guide us on this issue and I urge noble Lords to await its outcome, which I hope will provide some solutions.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, despite what the Minister says, there is a basic concern about the framing of this issue by the Government, their perceived need for a balance between the tech companies and the creative industries, and the logic of that in terms of the need for someone to give something up. Should any side have to give up something that is already theirs, morally and in law: namely, work made by artists, who therefore hold the copyright? This is not about balance; it is about rights.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Earl is right, and we are trying to find a way to ensure that those rights are upheld. However, all these sectors need to grow in our economy. As I was just explaining, the creative sector uses AI, so it is not as simple “us and them” situation. AI is increasingly being used by all sectors across our economy. We need to find a way through this that rewards creators in the way that the noble Earl has outlined, which I think we all understand.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise of course that the task of analysing the results of the consultation still needs to go ahead. That said, does the Minister agree with us that digital watermarking is going to be a key component of the solution to the AI and copyright issue? If so, what does she make of the number of digital watermarking solutions that are now coming to market? In her view, is this to be welcomed or should we be pursuing a single standard for digital watermarks?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Viscount has made an important point about watermarks, and that is certainly one solution that we are considering. The issue of transparency is crucial to the outcome of this issue, and watermarks would certainly help with that. I do not have a view as yet on whether we should have one or many, but I am hoping that the consultation will give us some guidance on that.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is right when she says that AI is extensively used in the creative industries and the music industry, and has been for a long time—as a servant, not a master of creatives. Is this not an opportunity to look at those companies such as DAACI that try to use AI in an ethical way which ensures that creators are rewarded for their input?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that proposal. Again, I hope that all these companies will contribute, or have contributed, to the consultation, because those are exactly the sorts of standards we want to achieve. We want to make sure that creators get the right awards; that is certainly our intention through this consultation. We need to find a way through this. We are working hard and we will not give up until we have found a way to resolve the issue.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, all pointed out the way in which big tech has already stolen large amounts of property. Had that property been cash or gold, we surely would be getting a different reaction from the Government—yet it is actually the same thing. I have a constructive suggestion to help the Minister. How about a universal basic income for the creative sector as compensation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful suggestion. Hopefully, she has fed that into the consultation. I am sure it will be considered as one of the many proposals to resolve this issue.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government received representations, formal or informal, on this subject from the Government of the United States and, if so, will they publish the substance of those representations?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

To my knowledge, we have not received any representations from the US Government. I am sure any such discussions that take place will become public very quickly.

Plant Oxford Site

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying how delighted we all are to see the Minister back in her place on the Front Bench. We were all appalled to hear about her sad accident and hope that her appearance today means that she is now restored to full health.

Having said all that, given BMW’s decision to review its £600 million investment in electric Mini production due to slowing EV demand, I ask the Government whether they now acknowledge that their decision not to delay the 2030 ban on internal combustion engine cars was a mistake. Will they reconsider their approach to ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for automotive investment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and look forward to working with him in our new roles in the future.

The precise timeline for the launch of Oxford’s Mini new electric vehicle models is a commercial matter for the company. It is not unusual for a manufacturer in the automotive industry to adjust its plans for future products, including production dates. However, the reasons given by BMW are the “multiple uncertainties” that it is facing rather than any specific issue. Its concerns are about the timings and not about the willingness to invest. We are, of course, in regular dialogue with BMW to understand its future investment timelines and to discuss its plans for the UK plants and those employed there.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps it would help if we identified some of the headwinds that our automotive industry is facing. To meet the mandate and try to sell enough EVs, last year our top motor brands discounted a total of £4.5 million and still they will not reach the mandate and will face penalties. On top of that, energy costs are up to 65% higher than the costs faced in the rest of Europe and of course there are higher business rate multiples and employer NIC costs coming up. Those are the challenges that our businesses face. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that there is a challenge and undertake to find ways of better meeting it, perhaps by helping consumers to buy more EVs and looking at energy costs?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we understand the challenges faced by the sector. The Government have been working closely with stakeholders across the automotive industry and beyond to support demand for zero-emission electric vehicles. Defra has been consulting on this issue and recently closed a consultation to understand stakeholders’ views on the transition to zero-emission vehicles. However, this is not just a UK issue; a number of countries, particularly in Europe, have similar zero-emission targets for cars. It is a challenge that all automotive companies are facing globally. Nevertheless, we are committed to making the UK one of the best places in the world for automotive investment. In the Budget, we committed over £2 billion of capital and research funding for zero-emission vehicle manufacturing and its supply chains. We continue to work with this very important growth sector; it is one of the arms of our industrial strategy, so we see a strong future for the automotive industry. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made an important point.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

May I ask my noble friend to pay tribute to BMW? These are very difficult times, with global headwinds making it extremely difficult for the automotive industry. BMW is an excellent employer, and I hope that there will not be redundancies, but should there, be I hope that the Government would do everything they could to safeguard jobs in Oxford. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to BMW for the work that it does in the community—it believes in enhancing the lives and opportunities of people who live in the environs of the factory.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I concur with my noble friend’s point. BMW often describes Oxford as the home of the Mini and sees that investment as crucial. I hope that my noble friend and other noble Lords will welcome our new announcement for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential sectors within that, in which the automotive sector could well play a part. My noble friend Lord Vallance will be the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor champion; it will ensure new investment into the sector and, I hope, provide further encouragement for BMW to carry on investing in the Mini lines.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in light of the lighter restrictions which many of our allies have placed on the import of cars made in China, and given that the labour used to manufacture those vehicles is often connected to slave labour in Xinjiang and there can therefore never be fair or proper competition in any sense of the word, what account are the Government taking of the threat posed by the flooding of our markets by the unrestricted import of large numbers of electric cars from China?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very aware of the situation with regard to China, in particular Chinese electric vehicles. China’s role in the global automotive industry is growing, which presents both risks and opportunities for us. We will not hesitate to act where that creates issues or problems for the UK, but we are very mindful of the opportunities that this presents as well. Our automotive industry in the UK is very different from those of other European countries because it is export oriented; we export 80% of our cars abroad, unlike, for example, the EU and the US, where production is sold domestically. Nevertheless, we are aware of the issues that the noble Lord raises and will continue to act in our interests.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the daughter of a former assembly line worker at Cowley—I am very conscious of the incredibly skilled and dedicated workforce there—and as a trade unionist who, frankly, has worked with motor companies and unions through many ups and downs over the years and knows the importance of working together. Can my noble friend reassure us that, as well as working closely with the company, the Government are working closely with the unions to ensure a strong future for the car industry and that that future is electric?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. We are talking not just to the employers but to the unions about the future for the staff employed there. They have a central role to play in helping us build the development of the manufacturing of the future. When we enact the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill, there will be further opportunities for unions to be consulted and involved in decisions such as this.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I have a deep concern. There is now a general view at Motability, which I founded, as some noble Lords will be aware, that it will not go to electric cars. For many car manufacturers today—very much in Germany and other places such as that—the margins are so thin that, over the next few years, many of them will go broke. I draw that to the Government’s attention before we put money into a company which may eventually go broke. Capitalism will work, but not necessarily in our favour.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point of which I was not aware. I will go away and look into it. We are investing in the development of electric vehicles; just today, the Department for Transport has extended the plug-in van grant for another year to help van drivers and businesses transition to zero-emission vehicles, which will mean that businesses and van drivers can receive grants of up to £2,500 when buying small vans. I do not know whether that will apply to the circumstances the noble Lord mentions, but I will certainly look at whether that is covered.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 December 2024 be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must set thresholds for three categories of service: category 1, category 2A and category 2B. The services that fall into each of these categories must comply with additional duties, with category 1 services having the most duties placed on them. These duties are in addition to the core duties which apply to all user-to-user and search services in scope, including illegal content duties and child safety duties.

All categorised services must comply with transparency reporting duties. They must also have terms on parents’ ability to access information about how their child used a service, in the tragic event that their child dies. Category 1 and 2A services also have additional duties to tackle paid-for fraudulent advertising. They will also have to comply with enhanced risk assessment and record-keeping duties.

The most additional obligations will fall on category 1 services. These are the services with the most users, and which spread content easily, quickly and widely. To the extent it is proportionate to do so, category 1 services must give adults more choice about who they interact with and the content they see. That includes suicide, self-harm and hate-inciting content. Additionally, category 1 services must protect journalistic and news publisher content and content of democratic importance. The duties will also hold these companies to account over their terms of service, making sure that they keep the promises they make to their users.

The Act requires that specific factors must be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding the thresholds for each category. The threshold conditions for user-to-user services, categories 1 and 2B, must be set on user numbers, functionalities and any other characteristics or factors related to the user-to-user part of the service the Secretary of State deems relevant. For category 2A, they must be set on the number of users of the search engine, plus any other factors or characteristics.

For category 1, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service and its functionalities on how quickly, easily and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service. For category 2A, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the search engine on the level of risk of harm to individuals from search content that is illegal or harmful to children. For category 2B, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service and its functionalities on the level of risk of harm to individuals from illegal content and content that is harmful to children disseminated by means of the services.

These considerations formed the basis of Ofcom’s independent research and advice, published in March last year, which the Secretary of State had to consider when setting threshold conditions. Once in force, these regulations will enable Ofcom to set up a public register of categorised services, which it expects to publish this summer. Ofcom will then consult on the remaining draft codes of practice and guidance, where relevant, for the additional duties.

In laying these regulations before Parliament, the Secretary of State has considered Ofcom’s advice and decided to follow it. I know that this decision will not please everyone, so let me set out why it was made.

Ofcom’s research concluded that, as the number of users of a service increases, so does how widely content spreads. The statutory consideration of category 1 under the Act is

“how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service”.

Therefore, it was concluded that user numbers should not be ignored. Setting thresholds for category 1 that take into account the size and reach of services is also essential to make sure we avoid inadvertently categorising hundreds of small, low-risk services.

I turn now to the regret amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled before the House. It is disappointing that a regret amendment has been tabled. I understand that it is because of the noble Lord’s view that risk should be the main consideration for category 1. He would ideally like to see so-called “small but risky” services, such as small suicide forums, brought into scope.

I also want to acknowledge that the successful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made it possible to create threshold combinations by reference only to functionalities and any other factors or characteristics. However, in practice this was difficult to do at the time.

In setting the threshold conditions, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework, which means he still must consider easy, quick and wide dissemination of user-generated content for category 1. He must also act within the powers afforded to him in setting the thresholds, which does not allow for sub-delegation to outside parties, such as coroners or Ofcom.

Unintended consequences were considered, including unintentionally categorising hundreds of small, low-risk services. I want to be very clear through this that the Government did consider options to bring small but risky services into scope, including those proposed by many thoughtful people on this complicated issue, but ultimately a workable and robust condition for capturing small but risky services was not found.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that in responding the Minister will follow not just the commitments that I made when I was in her place in a previous Parliament but the spirit that ushered that Act on to the statute book. It was a great example of cross-party working in this House. I feel rather existential; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether anything a Minister says at the Dispatch Box is worth it. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out that the Parkinson rule has been honoured more in the breach than the observance. I hope that in responding to the regrets that have been voiced in all corners of the House, the Minister will act in the spirit of the debates that gave us this landmark Act. We will continue to scrutinise it to make sure it does indeed make the United Kingdom the safest place to be online.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge all the hard work, and the cross-party consensus, that went into creating the Online Safety Act. For all the questions that noble Lords are raising today, it is still seen as being a global leader on online safety, so it is certainly nothing we should be ashamed of. I still believe it will be transformative when it is rolled out in the next few weeks and months, when it really will begin to have an impact. I pay tribute to those who did all that work at the time.

There has been a suggestion that we have just kowtowed in some way. I cannot tell noble Lords for how many hours, days and weeks my office and the Secretary of State’s office have pored over the detail of this to make sure that we feel we are doing the best we can to implement the Act in the way that was intended. Noble Lords who have read the draft statement of strategic priorities, which we sent to Ofcom, will see that we are reiterating a lot of the issues that colleagues around the Chamber are raising today. They are our priorities as well. It came down to the practicalities of some of the issues we were being asked to enforce. I hope that in my responses now I can address some of those questions.

I should be specific about the user number thresholds that have been chosen. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and others, just to put it on the record, I note that Ofcom recommended category 1 threshold combinations of either: user numbers of more than 7 million UK users in addition to the functionality of forwarding or resharing user-generated content and the characteristic of a content recommender system to be met; or user numbers of more than 34 million UK users and a content recommender system to be met.

Ofcom specifically set out in its research and advice, published last March, that it considered but discounted a recommendation that allowed for the categorisation of services for category 1 by reference exclusively to functionalities and characteristics. That was because the research indicated that user reach has an important role to play in content dissemination. Ofcom made a regulatory judgment on where to set the user number thresholds, based on an assessment of what comprised targeted and proportionate regulatory action. Ofcom also undertook sensitivity testing on the thresholds.

In this debate it has been clear that some, such as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, think there will be services—particularly, as we have been debating, small but risky services—that evade the core duties of the Act. I want to assure noble Lords that the legislation does not allow for that. All regulated user-to-user services and search engines, no matter what their size, will be subject to the existing illegal content duties and, where relevant, the child safety duties; the categories do not change that.

The codes on illegal content duties, which were laid in Parliament, have passed the objection period and may now be issued by Ofcom. The duties should be in effect next month. They will force services to put in place systems and processes to tackle illegal content and require services to name a senior person accountable for compliance. If a service is likely to be accessed by children, the child safety duties will require services to conduct a child safety risk assessment and provide safety measures for child users. We expect that these duties will come into effect this summer, on the basis that the codes for the duties will be passed by then. Together, the illegal content and child safety duties will mark the biggest material change in online safety for UK citizens since the internet era began. By Ofcom’s own assessment, the Act may cover up to 100,000 services of various sizes, showing that the legislation reaches far and wide to ensure important protections for users, particularly children, online.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Kidron, asked why category 1 thresholds are not risk-based. I will now turn to that.

The decision of the Secretary of State to set the categorisation thresholds as per Ofcom’s recommendations, rather than deviating from its research, was as follows. When the OSA was introduced, category 1 thresholds were due to be assessed based on the level of risk of harm to adults from priority content disseminated by means of the service. As noble Lords will know, this was removed during the passage of the Bill by the then Government and replaced with consideration of the likely impact of the number of users of the service, its functionalities, and how easily, quickly and widely user-generated content is disseminated. This was a significant change and, while the risk of harm may be seen to be a more relevant factor, this is the position under the Act as it now stands.

As I have already acknowledged, the successful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Parkinson—did make it possible to require threshold conditions on functionality and characteristics to be met without user numbers. However, as I have set out, the considerations within the Act, Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences have meant that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting a threshold for category 1.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

The Minister is setting out a clear case, with which I, and I think many others in this House, disagree. To cut to the chase, the Minister has just said that the Government understand the amendment passed in this House on 19 July 2023 but have decided, on the advice of Ofcom, that that amendment does not work and therefore should be ignored. We should be clear that that is what has happened. The Government should own that decision and the House, when it votes on the amendment tonight, will decide whether it thinks that is an acceptable way to behave or an unacceptable way to behave.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can only reiterate what I have already said: we took Ofcom’s advice after a great deal of scrutiny of why it had come to that piece of advice. Its advice was that the key factor to be taken into account was how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated. That is the basis on which we made that decision.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Sorry to interrupt but, to return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is it the Government’s position that, although the law says it is permissible, and indeed was expected, that in making their decision about category 1 the Government would require Ofcom to ensure that both reach and risk were taken account of, the Government have decided that only reach will be taken account of?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Ofcom’s advice was that how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated are the key factors that it needed to make the judgment. I cannot say anything more than that.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but maybe this would be a good moment to answer my question about the hierarchy of text in an Act versus the regulator’s advice. It was my understanding, when the House agreed to that amendment, that it was an instruction to the regulator rather than something “nice to have” if it decided later that it did not like it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The SI before us today, based on Ofcom’s advice, is the best way that we can find, in terms of practicality, of enforcing what was written in the Act.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the Act does not oblige the Secretary of State to follow Ofcom’s advice, and that the Government have a separate decision-making moment—a process—to consider that advice and reach their own decision? So it is not on Ofcom; it is on the Government. It is the Government who think it is the correct way forward to ignore what was previously in the Act.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that that is a factor that we considered. The Secretary of State received Ofcom’s advice, duly reflected on it, looked at all the evidence and decided that we would abide by Ofcom’s advice on the issue. It was the Secretary of State’s decision, and that is why we have this SI in front of us today.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister heard the example that I gave and is aware of the harm that was done as a result of using the small channel Telegram. For harm to be done, the material does not need to be widely disseminated; it is disseminated through a very small group of hardcore believers in some of these strange cults, and that is how the harm is done. The fact that it is not widely disseminated is completely irrelevant. One person taking that onboard and then doing something unmentionable should be against the Act as it was written and as we understood it would be legislated for, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The breadth and extent of dissemination and the number of users are irrelevant.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole “small but risky” issue that the noble Lord is raising is hugely close to our heart. We have engaged with Ofcom and pressed it to take more action on the sort of small but risky services that he is talking about. Our view is that they do not necessarily have to be dealt with under the categorisation process; there are other ways. Ofcom has assured us, in the way that it has come back to us, that there are other ways in which it is addressing them.

It is not as though they have been discarded. It is an absolute priority for this Government that we address the “small but risky” issue, and we are doing so. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that that is followed through. As I said when I opened this debate, the fact is that we have worked with Ofcom and it is setting up a task force to look at this, while separately we are looking at these issues. What more can we do? On the position at the moment regarding the rollout of the SI and the categorisation, the reality is that Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences, means that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting category 1 and so on.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Minister rightly said “currently” and, even if that is the case, why are the Government closing the door to having this option available to them and Ofcom later? She is right that Ofcom is doing a lot of work in ways other than categorisation, but surely she and her colleagues in government can see that this is a useful tool to have in the armoury in the fight against the sorts of harms noble Lords have been raising. Why are the regulations written so tightly as to close that off and avoid taking the concession that was so hard won by my noble friend Lady Morgan and others when the Bill went through Parliament?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only say what I have already said on this. We are looking at “small but risky”. Ofcom is working hard on this, and we are working hard on this. We can review whether the categorisation process is working. As I have already set out, that option is available to us further down the line. But, at the moment, as with other parts of the Online Safety Act, we felt we needed to get on with it and put these measures into place. Already, the categorisation provisions will take another year or 18 months to come into effect, so it is not as though that is the most imminent part of the implementation of the Act. I hear what noble Lords say. None of these issues are off the table, but we just wanted to get the Act rolled out in as quick and as current a form as we could.

If I could move on, in response to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Parkinson, I am not able to share the legal advice, but, as I have said, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework. The current thresholds are legally valid and have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In addition to small but risky services, even though in principle there is a provision that allows a user number threshold not to be met, it does not for example allow for sub-delegations to other parties such as coroners, which was another concern of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.

The decision on the categorisation thresholds has led, as I have just been saying, some to assume that certain small high-risk services are being overlooked by the legislation. However, this is not the case, as they will be subject to the stringent illegal harm and child safety duties. I know that Members are aware that the categorisation of small but risky services would also not prevent or deter users who were determined to access harmful content on dedicated forums. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the question of small but risky services evading the core duties, such as the terms of service and user empowerment. Services that exist solely to host abusive or pro-suicide content, for example, will not have terms of service banning such content, so enforcing those terms would be ineffective in reducing harm.

In addition, the user empowerment tools will enable adult users of category 1 services to avoid certain types of content, such as harmful suicide content. We anticipate that these duties will be most beneficial when services have commercial incentives to prohibit harmful content and where users wish to avoid content they may otherwise see, but not where users are actively seeking out harmful content.

I hope that begins to explain the Secretary of State’s decision. I have to say, and have said, that it was a difficult one and, while we acknowledge the possibility of deviating from Ofcom’s advice and utilising the option to set threshold combinations without a user number, this would not have had the effect of meaningfully reducing harm on small but risky services but would risk regulating hundreds of small low-risk services.

Regarding Ofcom’s small but risky supervisor task force, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about, I am confident that Ofcom can effectively use that task force to address these issues. Ofcom already had plans to ensure compliance with the first duties that go live under the Act. These include using targeted enforcement action against small risky services where there is evidence of a significant ongoing risk of harm to users, especially children, and an apparent lack of safety measures in place. In serious cases, Ofcom can seek a court order imposing business disruption measures if there is evidence of continued non-compliance. This could mean asking a third party to withdraw from the service or asking an internet service provider to limit access.

I hope that, as the child safety and illegal content duties come into force this year and the work of the task force begins, those in this House who are concerned will be able to see how these services will not evade their responsibilities under the Act.

Regarding Wikipedia, in response to the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, the Government are not in a position to confirm which services will be designated as category 1. Indeed, this is Ofcom’s statutory obligation once the regulations have passed and are in force. It is worth noting that many of the duties on categorised services are subject to the principle of proportionality. This requires Ofcom to consider measures that are technically feasible to providers of a certain size or capacity. Where a code of practice is relevant to a duty, Ofcom must have regard to a principle of proportionality. What is proportionate for one kind of service might not be proportionate for another.

The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, also queried how Ofcom could make assessments against the definitions of certain functionalities, characteristics and user number thresholds in the statutory instrument. Once the regulations have been approved by Parliament, Ofcom will issue requests for information and will start assessing services against the threshold conditions.

I also understand that there has been concern that small low-risk platforms, such as local community forums, are being overburdened by the Act and its duties. I must reiterate that these platforms, often run by a small number of users, will not be captured by the categorisation thresholds debated today. At the same time, I acknowledge that the new illegal content and child safety duties will require some additional work from these types of services.

I assure those here today that the principles of proportionality and risk are embedded into the duties on services and Ofcom in relation to the codes of practice. This means that small and low-risk services should not be overburdened by the duties in the Online Safety Act. In efforts to ease the process for small services, Ofcom is providing support to online services to help them to understand their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. These can be found on Ofcom’s website.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson raised the question of engagement with relevant committees. I agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Online Safety Act and welcome the expertise Members of both Houses bring. The Government agree that it is vital that regulators are accountable for their services, including through existing annual reports and reporting requirements. We will continue to work with the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to support their ongoing scrutiny, as well as any other parliamentary committees that may have an interest in the Act. I am more than happy to meet my noble friend Lord Stevenson to discuss how that could be progressed further.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, I want to put on record that a letter was shared with the Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Committee in response to concerns raised during the Commons debate.

I must again stress that the Secretary of State will be holding these thresholds and the wider regulatory framework under review going forward and the Government will take whatever action is necessary to tackle risky services of any size.

I would finally like to thank all those who have contributed today: the noble Lords, Lord Clement- Jones, Lord Pannick, Lord Moylan, Lord Stevenson, Lord Russell and Lord Knight, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Kidron, Lady Penn—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who continues to put valuable work, expertise and energy into making the UK a safer place, both online and in the material world. I specifically thank user safety groups that have engaged with the Government on this matter and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his dedication to his work on these issues.

I recognise that there are some who would like to see changes to this instrument and some who believe that the decisions of the Government do not align with the intentions of the Act. I hope they understand that every decision made by this Government is made with the intention of bringing about the Act in an important and timely way. For too long, children and adults in this country have had to grapple with an unsafe online environment, and the instrument that we have debated today shows real progress.

I do not shy away from the challenge we face in navigating the ever-changing online world. I recognise that the Act is imperfect. However, it is not the destination but a significant step in the right direction. There will always be more that we can do. Years of delay and lack of progress have come at an unfathomable cost for vulnerable children and adults, with lives cut short and families’ worlds turned upside down. It is time to deliver change. I hope noble Lords will consider the time pressure and the fact that we have to get on with the rollout of the Act. I urge noble Lords to approve this vital legislation today.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I raised a number of questions and I would be grateful, if the Minister is not going to answer them in the moment, if she could write to me about the Joint Committee, the hierarchy of the Act and statements from the Dispatch Box versus this decision and other decisions.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, if I have not covered any issues, I will of course write to noble Lords to clarify any matters that are outstanding.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, used the expression “emotions raised”. That is exactly what this regret amendment has done. There is real anger about the way in which this statutory instrument has been put together. I think many noble Lords who were involved in the Act were extremely proud of our work, as has been expressed.

The Minister has made a valiant attempt, but I am afraid that she has been given a hospital pass. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State did not have to accept the advice from Ofcom. Its advice about functionalities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made absolutely clear, and the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, put forward, not to mention the evidence from the anti-Semitism foundation, all indicate that there is considerable belief around this House that we are not dealing with the high-risk but smaller sites such as Telegram, 8chan and 4chan.

In these circumstances, as I believe is accepted by many noble Lords across the House, the Government have got this completely wrong and it needs rethinking. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I too welcome the Minister back. As the House will know, there is a long tradition in the creative industries that, before someone has a performance, you wish them the best by saying, “Break a leg”. I feel that that might not be opportune in this case, but I am very pleased to have the Minister back. I will keep my contribution brief, because the points have been well made.

As a former director of ITV and director of a TV production company—none other than that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, funnily enough—I understand the importance of the creative industry. Of course, it is a massive industry in the UK, contributing some $124 billion a year. I know from personal experience that fundamental to a successful creative industry is a copyright regime that has the confidence of the people, that is seen as fair, that is trusted and that is transparent. I see this almost like four legs of a chair, and the problem is that, if you wobble any of those legs, you undermine all of it.

This is a complex area—I think we all appreciate that—and I appreciate that option 0A came out of an earlier consultation, with people and the civil servants being creative in order to come up with a solution. But my concern is that, by not consulting on option 0A in such a complex area, we can get into unintended consequences. It is only when you really talk to the people at the sharp end that you understand what the true industry impact might be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, rightly said, with this having a detrimental impact particularly on US rights owners, we are all aware of the unintended consequences it could have in what is, given all the sanctions, a very volatile situation. So we need to tread very carefully and, given that, it seems eminently sensible for us to consult the industry.

I appreciate that at this stage, regret Motions are normally seen as a bit of a slap on the wrist—I say that as a Minister myself not that long ago—but I ask the Minister to go back to the department and seriously explore whether we can do anything to take on board the view of the experts in this space. Their input is vital, and I hope that we can find a way through this.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome back. I am sorry that I missed some important debates while I was away, but I assure noble Lords that I watched them vigorously on television—it was absolutely riveting. I am pleased to be back and to hear that noble Lords had a constructive meeting with my colleague Minister Clark on these issues. I too welcome this debate and the opportunity it provides to reassure noble Lords, I hope, about the process that led to the order and the policy it implements. As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, rightly said, this is a complex area, but one in which we have sought to find a fair solution. That has always been the overriding aim of this consultation and of others in the past.

Noble Lords have referred to the background of the consultation process that preceded this legislation, but it is important that I set it out clearly on record. UK copyright law gives performers such as musicians and copyright owners such as record labels the rights to be paid equitable remuneration when their sound recordings are broadcast or played in public. These public performance rights are an important source of revenue for the UK recorded music sector. According to data from the BPI, the UK trade body for record labels, UK recorded music revenue from these sources was £154.5 million in 2023, which equates to more than 10% of total revenues for the recorded music sector.

However, as noble Lords have said, not every country provides equivalent protections for this copyright law. In some countries, performers and record labels—including British performers and British record labels—are not paid when their music is broadcast on the radio or played in public. Whether UK law should provide public performance rights to performers and producers from such countries was the focus of the public consultation run by the Intellectual Property Office in early 2024. A range of evidence and views were submitted in response to that consultation by creators, collective licensing societies, record labels, broadcasters and academics. I stress that the Government carefully considered the views and evidence submitted to the consultation before deciding on a way forward, and that we received a range of views.

The approach implemented by this order largely preserves the effect of the former law—option 0 in the consultation—except for some limited changes. This means that more foreign performers qualify for the right than previously—a change that was made to allow the UK to fulfil its international commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether we were in effect maintaining the status quo. This SI largely preserves the effect of the law as it formerly applied at the point that the SI took effect. The SI took effect simultaneously with the changes in the CPTPP Act. The consultation also explicitly noted that the effects of that Act may be modified by this SI.

To come back to the main point, under the law as amended by this order, some foreign performers enjoy these public performance rights only where and to the extent that British performers enjoy equivalent protection under the other country’s law. The Government adopted this approach in light of the evidence submitted at consultation, which indicated that the other options under consideration would have meant substantial costs and disruption to the UK’s creative industries. I am not sure that noble Lords gave enough credence to that argument. For example, granting rights to all foreign performers, regardless of whether the other country provides reciprocal protection to British performers, would mean additional costs to the UK recorded music sector—estimated at £5.9 million per year—with no benefit to UK creators, copyright owners or the public. This could undermine continued investment in new British artists and their music.

I have listened to what people say and I appreciate that some consider it unfair to provide different treatment to performers based on their nationality. However, as I have said, this is a reflection of the treatment accorded to British performers by other countries. If they were to change their law and provide equivalent protection to British performers, then performers from these countries would automatically enjoy these rights under UK law. The Government would be pleased to see all other countries adopt similarly high standards of protection to the UK in this area, to the mutual benefit of performers from the UK and other countries. We continue to pursue that objective where and when we can. I assure noble Lords that these measures were not targeted at the US or any other country in particular. The SI implements the general principles that deliver the best outcome for the UK’s creative industries. I hope we can agree that that ought to be a priority.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope they are in some ways reassured about the Government’s process in making this order, which we believe delivers the best outcome for the UK’s creative industries. I hope noble Lords will reflect on it and that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be content to withdraw his Motion.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

136: Clause 92, page 117, line 24, leave out from “of” to the end of line 27 and insert “—
(a) a code prepared under section 124A, or(b) an amendment of such a code,that is specified or described in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
New section 124B(11) of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides that the Information Commissioner’s duty to establish a panel to consider draft codes of practice may be disapplied or modified by regulations. This amendment ensures that regulations can make provision in relation to a particular code or amendment or a type of code or amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 141, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would both require the ICO to publish a code of practice for controllers and processors on the processing of personal data by educational technologies in schools.

I say at the outset that I welcome this debate and the contributions of noble Lords on this important issue. As various noble Lords have indicated, civil society organisations have also been contacting the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Education directly to highlight their concerns about this issue. It is a live issue.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Knight, who talked about some of the important and valuable contributions that technology can play in supporting children’s development and guiding teaching interventions. We have to get the balance right, but we understand and appreciate that schoolchildren, parents and schoolteachers must have the confidence to trust the way that services use children’s personal data. That is at the heart of this debate.

There is a lot of work going on, on this issue, some of which noble Lords have referred to. The Department for Education is already exploring ways to engage with the edtech market to reinforce the importance of evidence-based quality products and services in education. On my noble friend Lord Knight’s comments on AI, the Department for Education is developing a framework outlining safety expectations for AI products in education and creating resources for teachers and leaders on safe AI use.

I recognise why noble Lords consider that a dedicated ICO code of practice could help ensure that schools and edtech services are complying with data protection legislation. The Government are open-minded about exploring the merits of this further with the ICO, but it would be premature to include these requirements in the Bill. As I said, there is a great deal of work going on and the findings of the recent ICO audits of edtech service providers will help to inform whether a code of practice is necessary and what services should be in scope.

I hope that we will bear that in mind and engage on it. I would be happy to continue discussions with noble Lords, the ICO and colleagues at the Department for Education, outside of the Bill’s processes, about the possibility of future work on this, particularly as the Secretary of State has powers under the Data Protection Act 2018 to require the ICO to produce new statutory codes, as noble Lords know. Considering the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all speakers in this debate. On the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I entirely agree with the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that it is important to remind ourselves about the benefits that can be achieved by AI in schools. The noble Lord set out a number of those. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, also reminded us that this is not a purely domestic issue; it is international across the board.

However, all noble Lords reminded us of the disbenefits and risks. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, used the word “dystopian”, which was quite interesting, although he gets very close to science fiction sometimes. He said that

“we have good reason to be concerned”,

particularly because of issues such as the national pupil database, where the original purpose may not have been fulfilled and was, in many ways, changed. He gave an example of procurement during Covid, where the choice was either Google or Microsoft—Coke or Pepsi. That is an issue across the board in competition law, as well.

There are real issues here. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, put it very well when he said that there is any number of pieces of guidance for schools but it is important to have a code of conduct. We are all, I think, on the same page in trying to find—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—a fairer and more equitable set of arrangements for children in schools. We need to navigate our way through this issue; of course, organisations such as Defend Digital Me and 5rights are seriously working on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, shall speak very briefly, which will save valuable minutes in which I can order my CyberUp Christmas mug.

Amendments 156A and 156B add to the definition of unauthorised access, so that it includes instances where a person who accesses data in the reasonable knowledge that the controller would not consent if they knew about the access or the reason for the access, and this person is not empowered to access by an enactment. Amendment 156B introduces defences to this new charge. Given the amount of valuable personal data held by controllers, as our lives have moved increasingly online—as many speakers in this debate have vividly brought out—there is absolutely clear merit not just in this idea but in the pace implied, which many noble Lords have called for. There is a need for real urgency here, and I look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 156A and 156B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I understand the strength of feeling and the need to provide legal protections for legitimate cybersecurity activities. I agree with the noble Lord that the UK should have the right legislative framework to allow us to tackle the harms posed by cybercriminals. We have heard examples of some of those threats this afternoon.

I reassure the noble Lord that this Government are committed to ensuring that the Computer Misuse Act remains up to date and effective in tackling criminality. We will continue to work with the cybersecurity industry, the National Cyber Security Centre and law enforcement agencies to consider whether there are workable proposals on this. The noble Lord will know that this is a complex and ongoing issue being considered as part of the review of the Computer Misuse Act being carried out by the Home Office. We are considering improved defences by engaging extensively with the cybersecurity industry, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and system owners. However, engagement to date has not produced a consensus on the issue, even within the industry, and that is holding us back at this moment—but we are absolutely determined to move forward with this and to reach a consensus on the way forward.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in the previous debate that the amendments were premature, and here that is certainly the case. The specific amendments that the noble Lord has tabled are premature, because we need a stronger consensus on the way forward, notwithstanding all the good reasons that noble Lords have given for why it is important that we have updated legislation. With these concerns and reasons in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Could the Minister say a few words on some of those points of discourse and non-consensus, to give the Committee some flavour of the type of issues where there is no consensus as well as the extent of the gap between some of those perspectives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that we published our analysis of the consultation responses to the previous Home Office investigation in November 2023, so all those mixed responses are on the record. It was therefore concluded by the Government that further work needed to be done on this. On my noble friend’s report, was there a government response?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Yes, the Government accepted the recommendations in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, although I have no amendments in this group, I will comment on some of them. I might jump around the order, so please forgive me for that.

Amendment 197 would change Clause 123 so that the Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 12 months after the Act is passed, make regulations requiring regulated services to provide information for the purposes of research into online safety. This is clearly sensible. It would ensure that valuable research into online safety may commence as soon as possible, which would benefit us all, as speakers have made abundantly clear. To that end, Amendment 198D, which would ensure that researcher access is enforceable in the same way as other requirements under the Online Safety Act, would ensure that researchers can access valuable information and carry out their beneficial research.

I am still left with some curiosity on some of these amendments, so I will indicate where I have specific questions to those who have tabled them and hope they will forgive me if I ask to have a word with them between now and Report, which would be very helpful. In that spirit, I turn to Amendment 198B, which would allow the Secretary of State to define the term “independent researcher”. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who tabled the amendment, whether he envisages the Secretary of State taking advice before making such regulations and, if so, from whom and in what mechanism. I recognise that it is a probing amendment, but I would be keen to understand more.

I am also keen to understand further from my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, why, under Amendment 198A, the Secretary of State would not be able to make regulations providing for independent research into the “enforcement of requirements” under these regulations. Again, I look forward to discussing that with them.

I have some concerns about Amendment 198, which would require service providers to give information pertaining to age, stage of development, gender, race, ethnicity, disability and sexuality to researchers. I understand the importance of this but my concern is that it would require the disclosure of special category data to those researchers. I express reservations, especially if the data pertains to children. Do we have the right safeguards in place to address the obviously heightened risks here?

Additionally, I have some concerns about the provisions suggested in Amendment 198E. Should we allow researchers from outside the United Kingdom to require access to information from regulated service providers? Could this result in data being transferred into jurisdictions where there are less stringent data protection laws?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have welcomed the provisions in the Bill. I very much appreciate that we have taken on board the concerns that were raised in the debates on the previous legislation. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments.

I will speak first to Amendment 197, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which would compel the Secretary of State to create a framework and to do so within 12 months of passage. I understand and share her desire to ensure that a framework allowing researchers access is installed and done promptly. This is precisely why we brought forward this provision. I reassure her that the department will consult on the framework as soon as possible after the publication of Ofcom’s report.

Turning to Amendments 198 and 198B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, respectively, Clause 123 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations relating to researchers’ access to data. I can reassure noble Lords that it does not limit the regulations to the non-exhaustive list of examples provided. I agree that fair and proportionate criteria for who is considered a researcher are critical to the success of the future framework. I reassure noble Lords that in the provision as currently written the Secretary of State can include in the design of the framework the specific requirements that a person must meet to be considered a researcher.

Turning to Amendments 198A and 198D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, while I am sympathetic to his desire to provide a future framework with the robust enforcement powers of the OSA, I assure him that as the provision is written, the Secretary of State can already use the existing enforcement powers of the OSA to support a future framework. Furthermore, should the evidence suggest that additional or different measures would be more effective and appropriate, this provision allows the Secretary of State the flexibility to introduce them.

Turning next to Amendments 198C and 198E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I understand the spirit of these amendments and note the importance of this issue, given the global nature of the online world. It is entirely reasonable to allow researchers who are not based in the UK to utilise our researcher access framework, as long as the subject of their research is the experience of UK users online. I reassure him that the provisions as drafted already allow the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting non-UK-based researchers to use the framework where appropriate. We plan to use the evidence gathered through our own means and through Ofcom’s report to set out who will be eligible to use the framework in the secondary legislation.

Finally, turning to Amendment 198F, I am aware of the concern that researchers have encountered blockages to conducting research and I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendment. We must ensure that researchers can use the future framework without fear of legal action or other consequences. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked me a specific question about legal exemptions and I will write to her to make that answer much clearer. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are considering the specific issues that the noble Lord raises. For these reasons, I ask that the amendments not be pressed while the Government consider these issues further and I am of course happy to engage with noble Lords in the meantime.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who spoke. I do not think I heard an answer to the may/must issue and I think I need to say that just relying on Ofcom’s report to set the framework for the regime is not adequate, for two reasons. First, it is no news to the Committee that there is a considerable amount of disquiet about how the Online Safety Act has been reinterpreted without Parliament’s intention. During the passage of this Bill, we are trying to be really clear—we will win some and we will lose some—on the face of the Bill what Parliament’s intention is, so that the regulator really does what we agree, because that subject is currently quite contentious.

This is a new area and a lot of the issues that the Minister and, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, raised are here to be sorted out to make sure that we understand collectively what it will look like. Having said that, I would like the Government to have heard that we do not wish to rest on the actions of whistleblowers but we will be increasingly forced to do so if we do not have a good regime. We must understand the capacity of this sector to go to court. We are in court everywhere, all over the world; the sector has deep pockets.

Finally, I welcome the nitpicking of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. Long may he nitpick. We will make sure that he is content before Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I was involved in an ethics committee that looked at genomics and cancer research some years ago, and this is very important. If research could be done on different genomic and racial types, it could be used against us adversely at some point. So there is a lot of sense in this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for moving this amendment, which raises this important question about our genomics databases, and for the disturbing examples that he has drawn to our attention. He is right that the opportunities from harnessing genomic data come with very real risks. This is why 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. We plan to brief the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on the findings of the risk assessment in the new year. Following that, I look forward to engaging with the noble Viscount on its outcome and on how we intend to take these issues forward. As he says, this is a vital issue, but in the meantime I hope he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I very much accept her offer of engagement. I will make a few further brief comments about the importance of this amendment, as we go forward. I hope that other noble Lords will consider it carefully before Report.

I will set out a few reasons why I believe this amendment can benefit both the Bill and this country. The first is its scope. The amendment will allow the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner to assess data security risks across the entirety of the genomic sector, covering consumers, businesses, citizens and researchers who may be partnering with state-linked genomics companies.

The second reason is urgency. DNA is regularly described as the “new gold” and it represents our most permanent identifier, revealing physical and mental characteristics, family medical history and susceptibility to diseases. Once it has been accessed, the damage from potential misuse cannot be researched, and this places a premium on proactively scrutinising the potential risks to this data.

Thirdly, there are opportunities for global leadership. This amendment offers the UK an opportunity to take a world-leading role and become the first European country to take authoritative action to scrutinise data vulnerabilities in this area of critical technology. Scrutinising risks to UK genomic data security also provides a foundation to foster domestic genomics companies and solutions.

Fourthly, this amendment would align the UK with key security partners, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Bethell mentioned, the United States, which has already blacklisted certain genomics companies linked to China and taken steps to protect American citizens’ DNA from potential misuse.

The fifth and final reason is protection of citizens and consumers. This amendment would provide greater guidance and transparency to citizens and consumers whose DNA data is exposed to entities linked to systemic competitors. With all of that said, I thank noble Lords for their consideration and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, the current law does not sufficiently protect children from AI-driven CSAM because it is simply such a fast-moving issue. It is a sobering thought that, of all the many wonderful developments of AI that many of us have been predicting and speculating on for so long, CSAM is really driving the technology forward. What a depressing reflection that is.

Overall, AI is developing at an extraordinarily rapid pace and has come with a number of concerning consequences that are not all yet fully understood. However, it is understood that child sexual abuse is completely unacceptable in any and all contexts, and it is right that our law should be updated to reflect the dangers that have increased alongside AI development.

Amendment 203 seeks to create a specific offence for using personal data or digital information to create or facilitate the creation of computer-generated child sexual abuse material. Although legislation is in place to address possessing or distributing such horrendous material, we must prioritise the safety of children in this country and take the law a step further to prevent its creation. Our children must be kept safe and, subject to one reservation, which I will come to in a second, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to further protect them.

That reservation comes in proposed new subsection 1(c), which includes in the offence the act of collating files that, when combined, enable the creation of sexual abuse material. This is too broad. A great deal of the collation of such material can be conducted by innocent people using innocent materials that are then corrupted or given more poisonous aspects by further training, fine-tuning or combination with other materials by more malign actors. I hope there is a way we can refine this proposed new paragraph on that basis.

Unfortunately, adults can also be the targets of individuals who use AI to digitally generate non-consensual explicit images or audio files of an individual, using their likeness and personal data. I am really pleased that my noble friend Lady Owen tabled Amendments 211G and 211H to create offences for these unacceptable, cruel acts. I support these amendments unambiguously.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her Amendment 203. It goes without saying that the Government treat all child sexual abuse material with the utmost seriousness. I can therefore confirm to her and the Committee that the Government will bring forward legislative measures to address the issue in this Session and that the Home Office will make an announcement on this early in the new year.

On Amendments 211G and 211H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, the Government share concerns that more needs to be done to protect women from deepfake image abuse. This is why the Government committed in their manifesto to criminalise the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults. I reassure the noble Baroness and the whole Committee that we will deliver on our manifesto commitment in this Session. The Government are fully committed to protecting the victims of tech-enabled sexual abuse. Tackling intimate audio would be a new area of law, but we continue to keep that legislation under review.

I also say to the noble Baroness that there is already a process under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the court to deprive a convicted offender of property, including images that have been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating any criminal offence. As well as images, that includes computers and mobile phones that the offender either used to commit intimate image offences or intended to use for that purpose in future. For those reasons and the reassurances I have given today, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling her amendment. We understand its great intentions, which we believe are to prevent another scandal similar to that of Horizon and to protect innocent people from having to endure what thousands of postmasters have undergone and suffered.

However, while this amendment would make it easier to challenge evidence derived from, or produced by, a computer or computer system, we are concerned that, should it become law, this amendment could be misused by defendants to challenge good evidence. Our fear is that, in determining the reliability of such evidence, we may create a battle of the expert witnesses. This will not only substantially slow down trials but result in higher costs. Litigation is already expensive, and we would aim not to introduce additional costs to an already costly process unless absolutely necessary.

From our perspective, the underlying problem in the Horizon scandal was not that computer systems were critically wrong or that people were wrong, but that the two in combination drove the terrible outcomes that we have unfortunately seen. For many industries, regulations require firms to conduct formal systems validation, with serious repercussions and penalties should companies fail to do so. It seems to us that the disciplines of systems validation, if required for other industries, would be both a powerful protection and considerably less disruptive than potentially far-reaching changes to the law.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for Amendment 207 and for raising this important topic. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords are right that this issue goes far wider than Horizon. We could debate what went wrong with Horizon, but the issues before us today are much wider than that.

The Government are agreed that we must prevent future miscarriages of justice. We fully understand the intention behind the amendment and the significance of the issue. We are actively considering this matter and will announce next steps in the new year. I reassure noble Lords that we are on the case with this issue.

In the meantime, as this amendment brings into scope evidence presented in every type of court proceeding and would have a detrimental effect on the courts and prosecution—potentially leading to unnecessary delays and, more importantly, further distress to victims—I must ask the noble Baroness whether she is content to withdraw it at this stage. I ask that on the basis that this is an ongoing discussion that we are happy to have with her.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the Minister, in particular for understanding that this goes way beyond Horizon. I would be very interested to be involved in those conversations, not because I have the great truth but because I have access to people with the great truth on this issue. In the conversations I have had, there has been so much pushing back. A bit like with our previous group, it would have been better to have been in the conversation before the consultation was announced than after. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving this amendment. As she rightly identified, the UK has a number of publicly held data assets, many of which contain extremely valuable information. This data—I flag, by way of an example, NHS data specifically—could be extremely valuable to certain organisations, such as pharmaceutical companies.

We are drawn to the idea of licensing such data—indeed, we believe that we could charge an extremely good price—but we have a number of concerns. Most notably, what additional safeguards would be required, given its sensitivity? What would be the limits and extent of the licensing agreement? Would this status close off other routes to monetising the data? Would other public sector bodies be able to use the data for free? Can this not already be done without the amendment?

Although His Majesty’s Official Opposition of course recognise the wish to ensure that the UK taxpayer gets a fair return on our information assets held by public bodies and arm’s-length organisations, and we certainly agree that we need to look at licensing, we are not yet sure that this amendment is either necessary or sufficient. We once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for moving it. We look forward to hearing both her and the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her amendment. I agree with her that the public sector has a wealth of data assets that could be used to help our society achieve our missions and contribute to economic growth.

As well as my previous comments on the national data library, the Government’s recent Green Paper, Invest 2035: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy, makes it clear that we consider data access part of the modern business environment, so improving data access is integral to the UK’s approach to growth. However, we also recognise the value of our data assets as part of this approach. At the same time, it is critical that we use our data assets in a trustworthy and ethical way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, so we must tackle these issues carefully.

This is an active area of policy development for the Government, and we need to get it right. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. However, she started and provoked a debate that will, I hope, carry on; we would be happy to engage in that debate going forward.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank all speakers, in particular my noble friend Lord Tarassenko for his perspective. I am very happy to discuss this matter and let the Official Opposition know that this is a route to something more substantive to which they can agree. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for tabling Amendment 221B and his other amendments in this group, which are on a range of varied and important issues. Given the hour, I hope he will be content if I promise to write to him on each of these issues and in the meantime, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who participated: I will not go through them by name. I thank the Minister for her response and would very much welcome a letter. I am happy to meet her on all these subjects but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling Amendment 211F and all noble Lords for their brief contributions to this group.

Amendment 211F ensures that all the biodiversity data collected by or in connection with government is collected in local environment records centres to ensure that records are as good as possible. That data is then used by or in connection with government, so it is put to the best possible use.

The importance of sufficient and high-quality record collection cannot and must not be understated. With this in mind, His Majesty’s Official Opposition support the sentiment of the amendment in my noble friend’s name. These Benches will always champion matters related to biodiversity and nature recovery. In fact, many of my noble friends have raised concerns about biodiversity in Committee debates in your Lordships’ House on the Crown Estate Bill, the Water (Special Measures) Bill and the Great British Energy Bill. Indeed, they have tabled amendments that ensure that matters related to biodiversity appear at the forefront of draft legislation.

With that in mind, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing provisions, via Amendment 211F, which would require any planning application involving biodiversity net gain to include a data search report from the relevant local environmental records centre. I trust that the Minister has listened to the concerns raised collaboratively in the debate on this brief group. We must recognise the importance of good data collection and ensure that such data is used in the best possible way.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his Amendment 211F. I absolutely agree that local environmental records centres provide an important service. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s digital planning programme is developing data standards and tools to increase the availability, accessibility and usability of planning data. This will transform people’s experience of planning and housing, including through local environmental records centres. On that basis, I must ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that extensive answer from the Minister. If I have anything that I hope that she might add, I will write to her afterwards.

My heart is always in the cause of making sure that the Government get their business done on time every time, and that we finish Committee stages when they ask, as doubtless they will discover with some of the other Bills they have in this Session. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

213: Clause 135, page 168, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) The power conferred by section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 may be exercised so as to extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man any amendment made by section 55 of this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modification or adaptation).(5B) The power conferred by section 76(6) of the Immigration Act 2014 may be exercised so as to extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man any amendment made by section 55 of this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modifications). (5C) The power conferred by section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016 may be exercised so as to extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man any amendment made by section 55 of this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modifications).”Member's explanatory statement
The immigration legislation amended by Clause 55 may be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. This amendment provides that the amendments made by Clause 55 may be extended to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, in carrying on on this group, I will speak to the question that Clause 78 stands part, and to Amendments 107, 109, 125, 154, 155 and 156, but to start I support Amendment 87 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We had a masterclass from him last Tuesday and he made an extremely good case for that amendment, which is very elegant.

The previous Government deleted the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the statute book through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, and this Bill does nothing to restore it. Although references in the UK GDPR to fundamental rights and freedoms are now to be read as references to the ECHR as implemented through the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government’s ECHR memorandum states:

“Where processing is conducted by a private body, that processing will not usually engage convention rights”.


As the noble and learned Lord mentioned, this could leave a significant gap in protection for individuals whose data is processed by private organisations and will mean lower data protection rights in the UK compared with the EU, so these Benches strongly support his Amendment 87, which would apply the convention to private bodies where personal data is concerned. I am afraid we do not support Amendments 91 and 97 from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, which seem to hanker after the mercifully defunct DPDI.

We strongly support Amendments 139 and 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Data communities are one of the important omissions from the Bill. Where are the provisions that should be there to support data-sharing communities and initiatives such as Solid? We have been talking about data trusts and data communities since as long ago as the Hall-Pesenti review. Indeed, it is interesting that the Minister herself only this April said in Grand Committee:

“This seems to be an area in which the ICO could take a lead in clarifying rights and set standards”.


Indeed, she put forward an amendment:

“Our Amendment 154 would therefore set a deadline for the ICO to do that work and for those rights to be enacted. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a good case for broadening these rights in the Bill and, on that basis, I hope the Minister will agree to follow this up, and follow up his letter so that we can make further progress on this issue”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. GC 322.]


I very much hope that, now the tables are turned, so to speak, the Minister will take that forward herself in government.

Amendments 154, 155 and 156 deal with the removal of the principle of the supremacy of EU law. They are designed to undo the lowering of the standard of data protection rights in the UK brought about by the REUL Act 2023. The amendments would apply the protections required in Article 23.2 of the UK GDPR to all the relevant exceptions in Schedules 2 to 4 to the Data Protection Act 2018. This is important because data adequacy will be lost if the standard of protection of personal data in the UK is no longer essentially equivalent to that in the EU.

The EU’s adequacy decision stated that it did not apply in the area of immigration and referred to the case of Open Rights Group v the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Court of Appeal. This case was brought after the UK left the EU, but before the REULA came into effect. The case is an example of how the preservation of the principle of the supremacy of EU law continued to guarantee high data protection standards in the UK, before this principle was deleted from the statute book by the REULA. In broad terms, the Court of Appeal found that the immigration exception in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 conflicted with the safeguards in Article 23 of the UK GDPR. This was because the immigration exemption was drafted too broadly and failed to incorporate the safeguards prescribed for exemptions under Article 23.2 of the UK GDPR. It was therefore held to be unlawful and was disapplied.

The Home Office redrafted the exemption to make it more protective, but it took several attempts to bring forward legislation which provided sufficient safeguards for data subjects. The extent of the safeguards now set out in the immigration exemption underscores both what is needed for compatibility with Article 23.2 of the UK GDPR and the deficiencies in the rest of the Schedule 2 exemptions. It is clear when reading the judgment in the Open Rights case that the majority of the exemptions from data subject rights under Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act fail to meet the standards set out in Article 23.2 to the UK GDPR. The deletion of the principle of the supremacy of EU law has removed the possibility of another Open Rights-style challenge to the other exemptions in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018. I hope that, ahead of the data adequacy discussions with the Commission, the Government’s lawyers have had a good look at the amendments that I have tabled, drafted by a former MoJ lawyer.

The new clause after Clause 107 in Amendment 154 applies new protections to the immigration exemption to the whole of Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018, with the exception of the exemptions that apply in the context of journalism or research, statistics and archiving. Unlike the other exemptions, they already contain detailed safeguards.

Amendment 155 is a new clause extending new protections which apply to the immigration exemption to Schedule 3 to the DPA 2018, and Amendment 156 is another new clause applying new protections which apply to the immigration exemption to Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018.

As regards Amendment 107, the Government need to clarify how data processing under recognised legitimate interests are compatible with conditions for data processing under existing lawful bases, including the special categories of personal data under Articles 5 and 9 of the UK GDPR. The Bill lowers the standard of the protection of personal data where data controllers only have to provide personal data based on

“a reasonable and proportionate search”.

The lack of clarity on what reasonable and proportionate mean in the context of data subject requests creates legal uncertainty for data controllers and organisations, specifically regarding whether the data subject’s consideration on the matter needs to be accounted for when responding to requests. This is a probing amendment which requires the Secretary of State to explain why the existing lawful bases for data processing are inadequate for the processing of personal data when additional recognised legitimate interests are introduced. It requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance within six months of the Act’s passing to clarify what constitutes reasonable and proportionate protections of personal data.

Amendment 109 would insert a new clause, to ensure that data controllers assess the risk of collective and societal harms,

“including to equality and the environment”,

when carrying out data protection impact assessments. It requires them to consult affected people and communities while carrying out these assessments to improve their quality, and requires data controllers to publish their assessments to facilitate informed decision-making by data subjects and to enable data controllers to be held accountable.

Turning to whether Clause 78 should stand part, on top of Clause 77, Clause 78 would reduce the scope of transparency obligations and rights. Many AI systems are designed in a way that makes it difficult to retrieve personal data once ingested, or understand how this data is being used. This is not principally due to technical limitations but the decision of AI developers who do not prioritise transparency and explainability.

As regards Amendment 125, it is clear that there are still further major changes proposed to the GDPR on police duties, automated decision-making and recognised legitimate interests which continue to make retention of data adequacy for the purposes of digital trade with the EU of the utmost priority in considering those changes. During the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, I tabled an amendment to require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on EU/UK data adequacy within six months of the Act passing; I have tabled a similar amendment, with one change, to this Bill. As the next reassessment of data adequacy is set for June 2025, a six-month timescale may prove inconsequential to the overall adequacy decision. We must therefore recommend stipulating that this assessment takes place before this reassessment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these clauses. First, I will address Amendment 87 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord—sorry, the noble Lord—Lord Clement-Jones.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I will take any compliment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We should take them while we can. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made an excellent contribution. I appreciate this is a particularly technical area of legislation, but I hope I can reassure both noble Lords that the UK’s data protection law gives effect to convention rights and is designed to protect them. The Human Rights Act requires legislation to be interpreted compatibly with convention rights, whether processing is carried out by public or private bodies. ECHR rights are therefore a pervasive aspect of the rules that apply to public and private controllers alike. The noble and learned Lord is right that individuals generally cannot bring claims against private bodies for breaches of convention rights, but I reassure him that they can bring a claim for breaching the data protection laws giving effect to those rights.

I turn to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the question of whether Clause 78 should stand part, which all relate to data subject requests. The Government believe that transparency and the right of access is crucial. That is why they will not support a change to the language around the threshold for data subject requests, as this will undermine data subjects’ rights. Neither will the Bill change the current expectations placed on controllers. The Bill reflects the EU principle of proportionality, which has always underpinned this legislation, as well as existing domestic case law and current ICO guidance. I hope that reassures noble Lords.

Amendments 97 and 99, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, relate to the notification exemption in Article 14 of the UK GDPR. I reassure noble Lords that the proportionality test provides an important safeguard for the existing exemption when data is collected from sources other than the data subject. The controller must always consider the impact on data subjects’ rights of not notifying. They cannot rely on the disproportionate effort exemption just because of how much data they are processing—even when there are many data subjects involved, such as there would be with web scraping. Moreover, a lawful basis is required to reuse personal data: a web scraper would still need to pass the balancing test to use the legitimate interest ground, as is usually the case.

The ICO’s recent outcomes report, published on 12 December, specifically referenced the process of web scraping. The report outlined:

“Web scraping for generative AI training is a high-risk, invisible processing activity. Where insufficient transparency measures contribute to people being unable to exercise their rights, generative AI developers are likely to struggle to pass the balancing test”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The Minister said there is a power to amend, but she has not said whether she thinks that would be desirable. Is the power to be used only if we are found not to be data-adequate because the immigration exemption does not apply across the board? That is, will the power be used only if we are forced to use it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that, as he knows, we are very hopeful that we will have data adequacy so that issue will not arise. I will write to him to set out in more detail when those powers would be used.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her offer of a meeting. I could tell from the nods of my co-signatories that that would indeed be very welcome and we would all like to come. I was interested in the quote from the ICO about scraping. I doubt the Minister has it to hand, but perhaps she could write to say what volume of enforcement action has been taken by the ICO on behalf of data rights holders against scraping on that basis.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes, it would be helpful if we could write and set that out in more detail. Obviously the ICO’s report is fairly recent, but I am sure he has considered how the enforcement would follow on from that. I am sure we can write and give more details.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I wish to make three points. First, the critical question is: are our laws adequate to pass the adequacy test? Normally, when you go in for a legal test, you check that your own house is in order. I am therefore slightly disappointed by the response to Amendment 125. Normally one has the full-scale medical first, rather than waiting until you are found to be ill afterwards.

Secondly, I listened to what the Minister said about my Amendment 87 and the difference between what rights are protected by the charter and the much greater limitation of the ECHR, normally simply to do with the extent to which they apply horizontally to private individuals. I will look at her answer, but at first sight it does not seem right to me that, where you have fundamental rights, you move to a second stage of rights—namely, the rights under the Data Protection Act.

Thirdly, I want to comment on the whole concept of data communities and data trusts. This is an important area, and it takes me back to what I said last time: this legislation really needs trying to reduce to principles. I am going to throw out a challenge to the very learned people behind the Minister, particularly the lawyers: can they come up with something intelligible to the people who are going to do this?

This legislation is ghastly; I am sorry to say that, but it is. It imposes huge costs on SMEs—not to say on others, but they can probably afford it—and if you are going to get trust from people, you have to explain things in simple principles. My challenge to those behind the Minister is: can they draft a Clause 1 of the Bill to say, “The principles that underpin the Bill are as follows, and the courts are to interpret it in accordance with those principles”? That is my challenge—a challenge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, points out, to be ambitious and not to sit in a tepid bath. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for their amendments and consideration of this policy area. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I save some of the points I shall make on web crawling and intellectual property for the later group, which is specifically on that topic.

Amendments 92 and 93 from the noble Viscount are about the new disproportionate effort exemption in Article 13. I can reassure noble Lords that this exemption applies only when data is collected directly from the data subject, so it cannot be used for web crawling, which is, if you like, a secondary activity. I think that answers that concern.

Amendments 101 and 105, also from the noble Viscount, are about the changes to the existing exemption in Article 14, where data is collected from other sources. Noble Lords debated this issue in the previous group, where Amendments 97 and 99 sought to remove this exemption. The reassurances I provided to noble Lords in that debate about the proportionality test being a case-by-case exercise also apply here. Disproportionate effort cannot be used as an excuse; developers must consider the rights of the data subject on each occasion.

I also draw noble Lords’ attention to another quote from the ICO itself, made when publishing its recent outcome reports. I know I have already said that I will share more information on this. It says:

“Generative AI developers, it’s time to tell people how you’re using their information”.


The ICO is on the case on this issue, and is pursuing it.

On Amendment 137 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, and other noble Lords, I fully recognise the importance of organisations receiving clear guidance from regulators, especially on complex and technical issues. AI is one such issue. I know that noble Lords are particularly conscious of how it might affect children, and I am hearing the messages about that today.

As the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State already has the power to request statutory codes such as this from the regulator. The existing power will allow us to ensure the correct scope of any future codes, working closely with the ICO and stakeholders and including noble Lords here today, and I am happy to meet them to discuss this further. The Government are, naturally, open to evidence about whether new statutory codes should be provided for by regulations in future. Although I appreciate the signal this can send, at the moment I do not believe that a requirement for codes on this issue is needed in this legislation. I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government are taking this issue seriously.

Amendment 211A from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is about prohibiting the processing of people’s names, facial images, voices or any physical characteristics for AI training without their consent. Facial images and other physical characteristics that can be used to identify a person are already protected by the data protection legislation. An AI developer processing such data would have to identify a lawful ground for this. Consent is not the only option available, but I can reassure the noble Lord that there are firm safeguards in place for all the lawful grounds. These include, among many other things, making sure that the processing is fair and transparent. Noble Lords will know that even more stringent conditions, such as safeguards applying in relation to race, sexual orientation and any biometric data that can be used to identify someone as types of a special category of data are also covered.

Noble Lords tried to tempt me once again on the timetable for the AI legislation. I said as much as I could on that when we debated this in the last session, so I cannot add any more at this stage.

I hope that reassures noble Lords that the Bill has strong protections in place to ensure responsible data use and reuse, and, as such, that they feel content not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I understand the point that the Secretary of State has the power, but does he have the intention? We are seeking an instruction to the ICO to do exactly this thing. The Secretary of State’s intention would be an excellent compromise all round to activate such a thing, and to see that in the Bill is the point here.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Discussions with the ICO are taking place at the moment about the scope and intention of a number of issues around AI, and this issue would be included in that. However, I cannot say at the moment that that intention is specifically spelled out in the way that the noble Baroness is asking.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

This has been a wide-ranging debate, with important contributions from across the Committee. I take some comfort from the Minister’s declaration that the exemptions will not be used for web crawling, but I want to make sure that they are not used at the expense of the privacy and control of personal data belonging to the people of Britain.

That seems particularly so for Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was particularly taken by her pointing out that children’s data privacy had not been taken into account when it came to AI, reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, telling us about the importance of the Bill. She said it was paramount to protect children in the digital age and reminded us that this is the biggest breakthrough of our lifetime and that children need protecting from it. I hope very much that there will be some successful meetings, and maybe a government amendment on Report, responding to these passionate and heartfelt demands. On that basis, I sincerely hope the Minister will meet us all and other noble Lords to discuss these matters of data privacy further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their comments and contributions. I shall jump to Amendments 159 and 159A, one of which is in my name and both of which are concerned with cookie paywalls. I am not sure I can have properly understood the objection to cookie paywalls. Do they not simply offer users three choices: pay money and stay private; share personal data and read for free; or walk away? So many times, we have all complained about the fact that these websites harvest our data and now, for the first time, this approach sets a clear cash value on the data that they are harvesting and offers us the choice. The other day somebody sent me a link from the Sun. I had those choices. I did not want to pay the money or share my data, so I did not read the article. I feel this is a personal decision, supported by clear data, which it is up to the individual to take, not the Government. I do not think we should take away this choice.

Let me turn to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendment 161 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas is, if I may say so, a thoughtful amendment. It would allow pension providers to communicate information on their product. This may mean that the person who will benefit from that pension does not miss out on useful information that would benefit their saving for retirement. Given that pension providers already hold the saver’s personal data, it seems to be merely a question of whether this information is wanted; of course, if it is not, the saver can simply opt out.

Amendment 162 makes an important point: many charities rely on donations from the public. Perhaps we should consider bringing down the barriers to contacting people regarding fundraising activities. At the very least, I am personally not convinced that members of the public have different expectations around what kinds of organisation can and cannot contact them and in what circumstances, so I support any step that simplifies the—to my mind—rather arbitrary differences in the treatment of business and charity communications.

Amendment 104 certainly seems a reasonable addition to the list of what might constitute “unreasonable effort” if the information is already public. However, I have some concerns about Amendments 98 and 100 to 103. For Amendment 98, who would judge the impact on the individual? I suspect that the individual and the data controllers may have different opinions on this. In Amendment 100, the effort and cost of compliance are thorny issues that would surely be dictated by the nature of the data itself and the reason for providing it to data subjects. In short, I am concerned that the controllers’ view may be more subjective than we would want.

On Amendment 102, again, when it comes to providing information to them,

“the damage and distress to the data subjects”

is a phrase on which the subject and the controller will almost inevitably have differing opinions. How will these be balanced? Additionally, one might presume that information that is either damaging or distressing to the data subjects should not necessarily be withheld from them as it is likely to be extremely important.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have covered a range of issues in our debate on this grouping; nevertheless, I will try to address each of them in turn. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for their Amendments 95, 96, 98, 100, 102 to 104 and 106 regarding notification requirements.

First, with regard to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I say that although the Government support the use of public data sources, transparency is a key data protection principle. We do not agree that such use of personal data should remove or undermine the transparency requirements. The ICO considers that the use and sale of open electoral register data alone is likely not to require notification. However, when the data is combined with data from other sources, in order to build an extensive profile to be sold on for direct marketing, notification may be proportionate since the processing may go beyond the individual’s reasonable expectations. When individuals are not notified about processing, it makes it harder for them to exercise their data subject rights, such as the right to object.

Adding other factors to the list of what constitutes a “disproportionate effort” for notification is unnecessary given that the list is already non-exhaustive. The “disproportionate effort” exemption must be applied according to the safeguards of the wider data protection framework. According to the fairness principle, controllers should already account for whether the processing meets the reasonable expectations of a data subject. The data minimisation and purpose limitation principles also act as an important consideration for data controllers. Controllers should continue to assess on a case-by-case basis whether they meet the threshold for the existing exemptions to notify; if not, they should notify. I hope that this helps clarify our position on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

When does the Minister anticipate that the ICO will produce that report?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I do not have the detail of all that. Obviously, the call for views has only recently gone out and he will need time for consideration of the responses. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the ICO is on the case on this matter. If we can provide more information, we will.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

May I ask the Minister a hypothetical question? If the ICO believes that these are not desirable, what instruments are there for changing the law? Can the ICO, under its own steam, so to speak, ban them; do we need to do it in primary legislation; or can it be done in secondary legislation? If the Minister cannot answer now, perhaps she can write to me.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Of course I will write to the noble Lord. It will be within the ICO’s normal powers to make changes where he finds that they are necessary.

I move to Amendment 160, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to create a new exemption for advertising performance cookies. There is a balance to strike between driving growth in the advertising, news and publishing sectors while ensuring that people retain choice and control over how their data is used. To exempt advertising measurement cookies, we would need to assess how intrusive these cookies are, including what they track and where data is sent. We have taken a delegated power so that exemptions to the prohibition can be added in future once evidence supports it, and we can devise appropriate safeguards to minimise privacy risks. In the meantime, we have been actively engaging with the advertising and publishing sectors on this issue and will continue to work with them to consider the potential use of the regulation-making power. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is work in progress.

Amendment 161, also from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, aims to extend the soft opt-in rule under the privacy and electronic communications regulations to providers of auto-enrolment pension schemes. The soft opt-in rule removes the need for some commercial organisations to seek consent for direct marketing messages where there is an existing relationship between the organisation and the customer, provided the recipient did not object to receiving direct marketing messages when their contact details were collected.

The Government recognise that people auto-enrolled by their employers in workplace pension schemes may not have an existing relationship with their pension provider, so I understand the noble Lord’s motivations for this amendment. However, pension providers have opportunities to ask people to express their direct mail preferences, such as when the customer logs on to their account online. We are taking steps to improve the support available for pension holders through the joint Government and FCA advice guidance boundary review. The FCA will be seeking feedback on any interactions of proposals with direct marketing rules through that consultation process. Again, I hope the noble Lord will accept that this issue is under active consideration.

Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would create an equivalent provision to the soft opt-in but for charities. It would enable a person to send electronic marketing without permission to people who have previously expressed an interest in their charitable objectives. The noble Lord will recall, and has done so, that the DPDI Bill included a provision similar to his amendment. The Government removed it from that Bill due to the concerns that it would increase direct marketing from political parties. I think we all accepted at the time that we did not want that to happen.

As the noble Lord said, his amendment is narrower because it focuses on communications for charitable purposes, but it could still increase the number of messages received by people who have previously expressed an interest in the work of charities. We are listening carefully to arguments for change in this area and will consider the points he raises, but I ask that he withdraws his amendment while we consider its potential impact further. We are happy to have further discussions on that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I apologise to the Minister for intervening on her when I have not spoken earlier in this debate, but I was reassured by what she just said on Amendment 162. Remarks made by other noble Lords in this debate suggest both that members of the public might not object to charities having the same access rights as businesses and that the public do not necessarily draw a distinction between businesses and charities. As a former chairman of the Charity Commission, I can say that that is not what is generally found. People have an expectation of charities that differs from what they would expect by way of marketing from businesses. In considering this amendment, therefore, I urge the Minister to think carefully before deciding what action the Government should take.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for that very helpful intervention. If she has any more information about the view of the Charity Commission, we would obviously like to engage with that because we need to get this right. We want to make sure that individuals welcome and appreciate the information given to them, rather than it being something that could have a negative impact.

I think I have covered all the issues. I hope those explanations have been of some reassurance to noble Lords and that, as such, they are content not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

May I just follow up by asking one quick question? I may be clutching at straws here but, in responding to the amendments in my name, she stated what the ICO believes rather than what the Government believe. She also said that the ICO may think that further permission is required to ensure transparency. I understand from the Data & Marketing Association that users of this data have four different ways of ensuring transparency. Would the Minister agree to a follow-up meeting to see whether there is a meeting of minds with what the Government think, rather than the ICO?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am very happy to talk to the noble Baroness about this issue. She asked what the Government’s view is; we are listening very carefully to the Information Commissioner and the advice that he is putting together on this issue.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the answers the noble Baroness gave to my amendments. I will study carefully what she said in Hansard, and if I have anything further to ask, I will write to her.

--- Later in debate ---

All of this depends, though, on a genuinely robust and effective definition of what kind of human input is required. Without Amendment 118, data subjects may find themselves in a situation where they have requested intervention by a human being only to realise that the person doing so does not have sufficient knowledge to understand the nature of the problem nor the power to rectify any problems should they be identified, rendering the whole process not very far from pointless. That said, I will not press my amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a really profound and significant debate on these issues; it has been really helpful that they have been aired by a number of noble Lords in a compelling and articulate way. I thank everybody for their contributions.

I have to say at the outset that the Government want data protection rules fit for the age of emerging technologies. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether we are addressing issues of the past or issues of the future. We believe that the balance we have in this Bill is exactly about addressing the issues of the future. Our reforms will reduce barriers to the responsible use of automation while clarifying that organisations must provide stringent safeguards for individuals.

I stress again how seriously we take these issues. A number of examples have been quoted as the debate has gone on. I say to those noble Lords that examples were given where there was no human involved. That is precisely what the new provisions in this Bill attempt to address, in order to make sure that there is meaningful human involvement and people’s futures are not being decided by an automated machine.

Amendment 110 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight, seeks to clarify that, for human involvement to be meaningful, it must be carried out by a competent person. Our reforms make clear that solely automated decisions lack meaningful human involvement. That goes beyond a tick-box exercise. The ICO guidance also clarifies that

“the human involvement has to be active and not just a token gesture”;

that right is absolutely underpinned by the wording of the regulations here.

I turn next to Amendment 111. I can assure—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I was listening very carefully. Does “underpinned by the regulations” mean that it will be underpinned?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes. The provisions in this Bill cover exactly that concern.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The issue of meaningful human involvement is absolutely crucial. Is the Minister saying that regulations issued by the Secretary of State will define “meaningful human involvement”, or is she saying that it is already in the primary legislation, which is not my impression?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Sorry—it is probably my choice of language. I am saying that it is already in the Bill; it is not intended to be separate. I was talking about whether solely automated decisions lack meaningful human involvement. This provision is already set out in the Bill; that is the whole purpose of it.

On Amendment 111, I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that controllers using solely automated processing are required to comply with the data protection principles. I know that he was anticipating this answer, but we believe that it captures the principles he proposes and achieves the same intended effect as his amendment. I agree with the noble Viscount that data protection is not the only lens through which AI should be regulated, and that we cannot address all AI risks through the data protection legislation, but the data protection principles are the right ones for solely automated decision-making, given its place in the data protection framework. I hope that that answers his concerns.

On Amendment 112, which seeks to prohibit solely automated decisions that contravene the Equality Act 2010, I assure the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight, that the data protection framework is clear that controllers must adhere to the Equality Act.

Amendments 113 and 114 would extend solely automated decision-making safeguards to predominantly automated decision-making. I assure the noble and learned Lord Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that the safeguards in Clause 80 are designed to protect individuals where meaningful human involvement is lacking. Predominantly automated decision-making will already include meaningful human involvement and therefore does not require these additional safeguards.

On Amendments 114A and 115A, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, many noble Lords have spoken in our debates about the importance of future-proofing the legislation. These powers are an example of that: without them, the Government will not have the ability to act quickly to update protections for individuals in the light of rapid technology developments.

I assure noble Lords that the regulation powers are subject to a number of safeguards. The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner and have regard to other relevant factors, which can include the impact on individuals’ rights and freedoms as well as the specific needs and rights of children. As with all regulations, the exercise of these powers must be rational; they cannot be used irrationally or arbitrarily. Furthermore, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that one of the powers means that his Amendment 123 is not necessary, as it can be used to describe specifically what is or is not meaningful human involvement.

Amendment 115A, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, would remove the reforms to Parts 3 and 4 of the Data Protection Act, thereby putting them out of alignment with the UK GDPR. That would cause confusion and ambiguity for data subjects.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again as we go along but, a sentence or so ago, the Minister said that the definition in Amendment 123 of meaningful human involvement in automated decision-making was unnecessary. The amendment is designed to change matters. It would not be the Secretary of State who determined the meaning of meaningful human involvement; in essence, it would be initiated by the Information Commissioner, in consultation with the Secretary of State. So I do not quite understand why the Minister used “unnecessary”. It may be an alternative that is undesirable, but I do not understand why she has come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary. I thought it was easier to challenge the points as we go along rather than at the very end.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we would say that a definition in the Bill is not necessary because it is dealt with case by case and is supplemented by these powers. The Secretary of State does not define meaningful human involvement; it is best done case by case, supported by the ICO guidance. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

That is slightly splitting hairs. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, might want to comment because he wanted to delete the wording that says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that … there is, or is not, to be taken to be meaningful human involvement”.


He certainly will determine—or is able to determine, at least—whether or not there is human involvement. Surely, as part of that, there will need to be consideration of what human involvement is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Secretary of State can help describe specific cases in the future but, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Knight, the ICO guidance will clarify some of that. There will be prior consultation with the ICO before that guidance is finalised, but if noble Lords are in any doubt about this, I am happy to write and confirm that in more detail.

Amendment 115 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Lucas and Lord Knight, and Amendment 123A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to ensure that individuals are provided with clear and accessible information about solely automated decision-making. The safeguards set out in Clause 80, alongside the wider data protection framework’s safeguards, such as the transparency principle, already achieve this purpose. The UK GDPR requires organisations to notify individuals about the existence of automated decision-making and provide meaningful information about the logic involved in a clear and accessible format. Individuals who have been subject to solely automated decisions must be provided with information about the decisions.

On Amendment 116 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I reassure noble Lords that Clause 69 already provides a definition of consent that applies to all processing under the law enforcement regime.

On Amendment 117 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, the noble Lords, Lord Markham, and my noble friend Lord Knight, I agree with them on the importance of protecting the sensitive personal data of children by law enforcement agencies, and there is extensive guidance on this issue. However, consent is rarely used as the basis for processing law enforcement data. Other law enforcement purposes, such as the prevention, detection and investigation of crime, are quite often used instead.

I will address Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and Amendment 123B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, together, as they focus on obtaining human intervention for a solely automated decision. I agree that human intervention should be carried out competently and by a person with the authority to correct a wrongful outcome. However, the Government believe that there is currently no need to specify the qualifications of human reviewers as the ICO’s existing guidance explains how requests for human review should be managed.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the crux of this machinery is solely automated decision-making as a binary thing—it is or it is not—and, therefore, that the absolute key to it is making sure that the humans involved are suitably qualified and finding some way to do so, whether by writing a definition or publishing guidelines?

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

On the question of qualification, the Minister may wish to reflect on the broad discussions we have had in the past around certification and the role it may play. I gently her take her back to what she said on Amendment 123A about notification. Does she see notification as the same as a personalised response to an individual?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Noble Lords have asked several questions. First, in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, I think I am on the same page as him about binary rather than muddying the water by having degrees of meaningful intervention. The ICO already has guidance on how human review should be provided, and this will be updated after the Bill to ensure that it reflects what is meant by “meaningful human involvement”. Those issues will be addressed in the ICO guidance, but if it helps, I can write further on that.

I have forgotten the question that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked me. I do not know whether I have addressed it.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

In her response the Minister said “notification”. Does she see notification as the same as “personalised response”?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My understanding is that it would be. Every individual who was affected would receive their own notification rather than it just being on a website, for example.

Let me just make sure I have not missed anyone out. On Amendment 123B on addressing bias in automated decision-making, compliance with the data protection principles, including accuracy, transparency and fairness, will ensure that organisations take the necessary measures to address the risk of bias.

On Amendment 123C from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I reassure him that the Government strongly agree that employment rights should be fit for a modern economy. The plan to make work pay will achieve this by addressing the challenges introduced by new trends and technologies. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Knight that although we have to get this right, there are opportunities for a different form of work, and we should not just see this as being potentially a negative impact on people’s lives. However, we want to get the balance right with regard to the impact on individuals to make sure that we get the best rather than the possible negative effects out of it.

Employment rights law is more suitable for regulating the specific use of data and technology in the workplace rather than data protection law in isolation, as data protection law sets out general rules and principles for processing that apply in all contexts. Noble Lords can rest assured that we take the impact on employment and work very seriously, and as part of our plan to make work pay and the Employment Rights Bill, we will return to these issues.

On Amendments 119, 120, 121 and 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Knight, the Government share the noble Lords’ belief in the importance of public sector algorithmic transparency, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us, we had a very good debate on this last week. The algorithmic transparency recording standard is already mandatory for government departments and arm’s-length bodies. This is a cross-government policy mandate underpinned by digital spend controls, which means that when budget is requested for a relevant tool, the team in question must commit to publishing an ATRS record before receiving the funds.

As I said on Friday, we are implementing this policy accordingly, and I hope to publish further records imminently. I very much hope that when noble Lords see what I hope will be a significant number of new records on this, they will be reassured that the nature of the mandation and the obligation on public sector departments is working.

Policy routes also enable us to provide detailed guidance to the public sector on how to carry out its responsibilities and monitor compliance. Examples include the data ethics framework, the generative AI framework, and the guidelines for AI procurement. Additionally, the data protection framework already achieves some of the intended outcomes of these amendments. It requires organisations, including public authorities, to demonstrate how they have identified and mitigated risks when processing personal data. The ICO provides guidance on how organisations can audit their privacy management and ensure a high level of data protection compliance.

I know I have given a great deal of detail there. If I have not covered all the points that the noble Lords have raised, I will write. In the meantime, given the above assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister wrote to me about Amendment 115. I have done my best before and after to study Clause 80 to understand how it provides the safeguards she describes, and have failed. If she or her officials could take the example of a job application and the responses expected from it, and take me through the clauses to understand what sort of response would be expected and how that is set out in the legislation, I would be most grateful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to write.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed and careful response to all the amendments. Clearly, from the number of speakers in this debate, this is one of the most important areas of the Bill and one that has given one of the greatest degrees of concern, both inside and outside the Committee. I think the general feeling is that there is still concern. The Minister is quite clear that the Government are taking these issues seriously, in terms of ADM itself and the impact in the workplace, but there are missing parts here. If you add all the amendments together—no doubt we will read Hansard and, in a sense, tick off the areas where we have been given an assurance about the interpretation of the Bill—there are still great gaps.

It was very interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, had to say about how the computer said “no” as he reached the gate. A lot of this is about communications. I would be very interested if any letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was copied more broadly, because that is clearly one of the key issues. It was reassuring to hear that the ICO will be on top of this in terms of definitions, guidance, audit and so on, and that we are imminently to get the publication of the records of algorithmic systems in use under the terms of the algorithmic transparency recording standard.

We have had some extremely well-made points from the noble Viscounts, Lord Colville and Lord Camrose, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Knight and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am not going to unpack all of them, but we clearly need to take this further and chew it over before we get to Report. I very much hope that the Minister will regard a will write letter on stilts as required before we go very much further, because I do not think we will be purely satisfied by this debate.

The one area where I would disagree is on treating solely automated decision-making as the pure subject of the Clause 80 rights. Looking at it in the converse, it is perfectly proper to regard something that does not have meaningful human involvement as predominantly automated decision-making. I do not think, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that this does muddy the waters. We need to be clearer about what we regard as being automated decision-making for the purpose of this clause.

There is still quite a lot of work to do in chewing over the Minister’s words. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; let me consider it a marker for future discussion.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for coming to my rescue there.

I turn to the Clause 81 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would remove Clause 81 from the Bill. Section 62 of the Data Protection Act requires law enforcement agencies to record their processing activities, including their reasons for accessing and disclosing personal information. Entering a justification manually was intended to help detect unauthorised access. The noble Lord was right that the police do sometimes abuse their power; however, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, that the reality is that anyone accessing the system unlawfully is highly unlikely to record that, making this an ineffective safeguard.

Meanwhile, the position of the National Police Chiefs’ Council is that this change will not impede any investigation concerning the unlawful processing of personal data. Clause 81 does not remove the strong safeguards that ensure accountability for data use by law enforcement that include the requirement to record time, date, and where possible, who has accessed the data, which are far more effective in monitoring potential data misuse. We would argue that the requirement to manually record a justification every time case information is accessed places a considerable burden on policing. I think the noble Lord himself said that we estimate that this clause may save approximately 1.5 million policing hours, equivalent to a saving in the region of £42.8 million a year.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

There were some raised eyebrows.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes, we could not see the noble Lord’s raised eyebrows.

Turning to Amendment 124, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for raising this important issue. While I obviously understand and welcome the intent, I do not think that the legislative change is what is required here. The Information Commissioner’s Office agrees that the Data Protection Act is not a barrier to the sharing of personal data between the police and the CPS. What is needed is a change in the operational processes in place between the police and the CPS that are causing this redaction burden that the noble Baroness spelled out so coherently.

We are very much aware that this is an issue and, as I think the noble Baroness knows, the Government are committed to reducing the burden on the police and the Home Office and to exploring with partners across the criminal justice system how this can best be achieved. We absolutely understand the point that the noble Baroness has raised, but I hope that she could agree to give space to the Home Office and the CPS to try to find a resolution so that we do not have the unnecessary burden of redaction when it is not necessary. It is an ongoing discussion—which I know the noble Baroness knows really—and I hope that she will not pursue it on that basis.

I will address Amendments 126 to 129 together. These amendments seek to remove parts of Schedule 8 to avoid divergence from EU legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposes instead to remove existing parts of Section 73 of the Data Protection Act 2018. New Section 73(4)(aa), introduced by this Bill, with its bespoke path for personal data transfers from UK controllers to international processors, is crucial. In the modern age, where the use of such capabilities and the benefits they provide is increasing, we need to ensure that law enforcement can make effective use of them to tackle crime and keep citizens safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response on this group, which was, again, very detailed. There is a lot to consider in what she had to say, particularly about the clauses beyond Clause 81. I am rather surprised that the current Government are still going down the same track on Clause 81. It is as if, because the risk of abuse is so high, this Government, like the previous one, have decided that it is not necessary to have the safeguard of putting down the justification in the first place. Yet we have heard about the Sarah Everard police officers. It seems to me perverse not to require justification. I will read further what the Minister had to say but it seems quite extraordinary to be taking away a safeguard at this time, especially when the Minister says that, at the same time, they need to produce logs of the time of the data being shared and so on. I cannot see what is to be gained—I certainly cannot see £42 million being saved. It is a very precise figure: £42.8 million. I wonder where the £800,000 comes from. It seems almost too precise to be credible.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I emphasise that we believe the safeguards are there. This is not a watering down of provisions. We are just making sure that the safeguards are more appropriate for the sort of abuse that we think might happen in future from police misusing their records. I do not want it left on the record that we do not think that is important.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

No. As I was saying, it seems that the Minister is saying that there will still be the necessity to log the fact that data has been shared. However, it seems extraordinary that, at the same time, it is not possible to say what the justification is. The justification could be all kinds of things, but it makes somebody think before they simply share the data. It seems to me that, given the clear evidence of abuse of data by police officers—data of the deceased, for heaven’s sake—we need to keep all the safeguards we currently have. That is a clear bone of contention.

I will read what else the Minister had to say about the other clauses in the group, which are rather more sensitive from the point of view of national security, data sharing abroad and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I wanted to rise to my feet in time to stop the noble Viscount leaping forward as he gets more and more excited as we reach—I hope—possibly the last few minutes of this debate. I am freezing to death here.

I wish only to add my support to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on Amendment 145. It is much overused saw, but if it is not measured, it will not get reported.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the issues before us in this group. I begin with Amendment 134 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I can confirm that the primary duty of the commissioner will be to uphold the principal objective: securing an appropriate level of data protection, carrying out the crucial balancing test between the interests of data subjects, controllers and wider public interests, and promoting public trust and confidence in the use of personal data.

The other duties sit below this objective and do not compete with it—they do not come at the expense of upholding data protection standards. The commissioner will have to consider these duties in his work but will have discretion as to their application. Moreover, the new objectives inserted by the amendment concerning monitoring, enforcement and complaints are already covered by legislation.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas for Amendment 135A. The amendment was a previous feature of the DPDI Bill but the Government decided that a statement of strategic priorities for the ICO in this Bill is not necessary. The Government will of course continue to set out their priorities in relation to data protection and other related areas and discuss them with the Information Commissioner as appropriate.

Amendment 142 from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, would remove the ICO’s ability to serve notices by email. We would argue that email is a fast, accessible and inexpensive method for issuing notices. I can reassure noble Lords that the ICO can serve a notice via email only if it is sent to an email address published by the recipient or where the ICO has reasonable grounds to believe that the notice will come to the attention of the person, significantly reducing the risk that emails may be missed or sent to the wrong address.

Regarding the noble Viscount’s Amendment 143, the assumption that an email notice will be received in 48 hours is reasonable and equivalent to the respective legislation of other regulators, such as the CMA and Ofcom.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 144 concerning the ICO’s use of reprimands. The regulator does not commonly issue multiple reprimands to the same organisation. But it is important that the ICO, as an independent regulator, has the discretion and flexibility in instances where there may be a legitimate need to issue multiple reprimands within a particular period without placing arbitrary limits on that.

Turning to Amendment 144A, the new requirements in Clause 101 will already lead to the publication of an annual report, which will include the regulator’s investigation and enforcement activity. Reporting will be categorised to ensure that where the detail of cases is not public, commercially sensitive investigations are not inadvertently shared. Splitting out reporting by country or locality would make it more difficult to protect sensitive data.

Turning to Amendment 145, with thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree with the importance of ensuring that the regulator can be held to account on this issue effectively. The new annual report in Clause 101 will cover all the ICO’s regulatory activity, including that taken to uphold the rights of children. Clause 90 also requires the ICO to publish a strategy and report on how it has complied with its new statutory duties. Both of these will cover the new duty relating to children’s awareness and rights, and this should include the ICO’s activity to support and uphold its important age-appropriate design code.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 163 to 192 to Schedule 14, which establishes the governance structure of the information commission. The approach, including the responsibilities conferred on the Secretary of State, at the core of the amendments follows standard corporate governance best practice and reflects the Government’s commitment to safeguarding the independence of the regulator. This includes requiring the Secretary of State to consult the chair of the information commission before making appointments of non-executive members.

Amendments 165 and 167A would require members of the commission to be appointed to oversee specific tasks and to be from prescribed fields of expertise. Due to the commission’s broad regulatory remit, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate or helpful for the legislation to set out specific areas that should receive prominence over others. The Government are confident that the Bill will ensure that the commission has the right expertise on its board. Our approach safeguards the integrity and independence of the regulator, draws clearly on established precedent and provides appropriate oversight of its activities.

Finally, Clauses 91 and 92 were designed to ensure that the ICO’s statutory codes are consistent in their development, informed by relevant expertise and take account of their impact on those likely to be affected by them. They also ensure that codes required by the Secretary of State have the same legal effect as pre-existing codes published under the Data Protection Act.

Considering the explanations I have offered, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Lucas, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. If I speak for four minutes, that will just about fill the gap, but I hope to speak for less than that.

The Minister’s response was very helpful, particularly the way in which she put the clarification of objectives. Of course, this is shared with other regulators, where this new growth duty needs to be set in the context of the key priorities of the regulator. My earlier amendment reflected a nervousness about adding innovation and growth duties to a regulator, which may be seen to unbalance the key objectives of the regulator in the first place, but I will read carefully what the Minister said. I welcome the fact that, unlike in the DPDI Bill, there is no requirement for a statement of strategic priorities. That is why I did not support Amendment 135A.

It is somewhat ironic that, in discussing a digital Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, decided to go completely analogue, but that is life. Maybe that is what happens to you after four and a half hours of the Committee.

I do not think the Minister covered the ground on the reprimands front. I will read carefully what she said about the annual report and the need for the ICO—or the commission, as it will be—to report on its actions. I hope, just by putting down these kinds of amendments on reprimands, that the ICO will take notice. I have been in correspondence with the ICO myself, as have a number of organisations. There is some dissatisfaction, particularly with companies such as Clearview, where it is felt that the ICO has not taken adequate action on scraping and building databases from the internet. We will see whether the ICO becomes more proactive in that respect. I was reassured, however, by what the Minister said about NED qualifications and the general objective on the independence of the regulator.

There is much to chew on in what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to a very insightful debate. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, to her new role chairing the board of the new digital centre of government. I am sure she will have a great contribution to make in debates of this kind. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing forward the Bill.

The Government understand the intent of the Bill, in particular on the safe, responsible and transparent use of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems in the public sector. However, for reasons I will now outline, the Government would like to express reservations about the noble Lord’s Bill.

The Government of course believe that such systems have a positive role to play in the public sector. As many noble Lords have said, they can improve services, unlock new insights, deliver efficiencies and give citizens back their time. However, they must be used in ways that maintain public trust. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, highlighted some shocking examples of where threats of bias and racism, for example, have undermined public trust, and these issues need to be addressed.

We know that transparency is a particularly important driver of rebuilding that trust and delivering fairness. That is what the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard, or ATRS, aims to address. The noble Lord asked about its status in government. The ATRS is now mandatory for all government departments. This mandate was agreed in cross-government policy. The ATRS is also recommended by the Data Standards Authority for use across the broader public sector, and the standards will become publicly available on GOV.UK.

The initial groundwork to comply with this mandate is complex, particularly for large organisations. They must identify and assess algorithmic tools from across multiple functions, engaging many individuals and multidisciplinary teams. However, I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Knight and other noble Lords that a number of these records have now been completed under the mandatory rollout, and the Government will publish them in the coming weeks.

The ATRS complements the UK’s data protection framework, which provides protections for individuals when their personal data is processed. The technology-neutral approach of the data protection framework means that its principles, including accuracy, security, transparency and fairness, apply to the processing of personal data regardless of the technology used.

The framework provides additional protections for solely automated decision-making which has a legal or significant effect on individuals. It places a requirement on organisations to provide stringent safeguards for individuals where this type of processing takes place, so that they are available when they matter most. These rules apply to all organisations, including the public sector.

I agree, though, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there are specific responsibilities for clarifying and building our trust relationship with the state. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Knight that we have to be particularly sensitive about how we handle protections at work, given their significance to the individuals involved. To ensure that these rules are effective in the light of emerging technologies and changing societal expectations, the Government have introduced reforms to these rules in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently in Committee in the Lords. I have been engaging with noble Lords on this topic and look forward to further debates on these issues next week.

The Government are confident that these reforms strike the right balance between ensuring that organisations can make the best use of automated decision-making technology to support economic growth, productivity and service delivery, while maintaining high data protection standards and public trust. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for their specific insights, which will help us finesse our policies on these issues as we go forward.

We recognise that our approach to technology can sometimes be too fragmented across the public sector. To help address this, the Government are establishing a revitalised digital centre of government, with further details to be announced shortly. This transformation is being overseen by a digital inter-ministerial group which will be a powerful advocate for digital change across government, setting a clear expectation on when standards such as the ATRS must be adopted. This combination of the ATRS policy mandate and the establishment of the digital centre are moving us towards a “business as usual” process for public sector bodies to share information about how and why they use algorithmic tools.

I turn to the key proposals in the noble Lord’s Bill. The Bill would require public authorities to complete a prescribed algorithmic impact assessment, and an algorithmic transparency record, prior to deployment of an algorithmic or automated decision-making system. Public authorities would be required to give notice on a public register when decisions are made wholly or partly by such systems, and to give affected individuals meaningful information about these decisions. Further provisions include monitoring and validating performance, outcomes and data; mandatory training; prohibition of the procurement of certain systems and redress. The technical scope of the Bill is broadly similar to that of the ATRS.

The ATRS was deliberately made mandatory via cross-government policy rather than legislation in the first instance. This was to enable better testing and iteration of the ATRS; that ethos still applies. Since the introduction of the policy mandate for the ATRS, we have seen significant progress towards adoption. We are confident that the foundations are in place for a smooth ongoing approach to government algorithmic transparency, delivered from the new digital centre.

Completing and publishing ATRS records also has benefits beyond transparency. A field on risks and mitigations enables references to other resources, such as data protection impact assessment. A field on alternative solutions asks how the tool owners know this tool was the right one to deploy, and indeed, whether an algorithmic tool was necessary. As such, the ATRS encourages a holistic view of how the impact of the tool has been considered, and potential negative outcomes avoided, overlapping considerably with the requirements of an algorithmic impact assessment, as the noble Lord has proposed. As such, we do not believe that legislation for either mandatory transparency records or AIAs for public authorities is necessary at this time.

As I set out earlier, under the data protection framework, individuals already have the right to specific safeguards where they have been subject to solely automated decisions with legal or significant effects on them. These safeguards include the right to be told about a decision, the right to obtain human intervention and the right to challenge the decision. Our reforms under the Data (Use and Access) Bill specifically provide that human involvement must be meaningful. This is to prevent cursory human involvement being used to rubber-stamp decisions as having had meaningful involvement.

Where an individual believes that there has been a failure in compliance with data protection legislation, they can bring a complaint to the independent data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO has the authority to investigate and impose significant penalties for non-compliance, providing robust safeguards against misuse of personal data. Therefore, proposals by the noble Lord are also broadly covered under the data protection framework.

The data protection framework also requires organisations to carry out data protection impact assessments prior to any processing likely to result in a high risk to data protection and to the rights and freedoms of individuals to mitigate against such risks.

To summarise, the Government believe that transparency in public sector algorithmic and automated decision-making is crucial both to building public trust and to accelerating innovation. Meaningful transparency should not merely identify the existence of such systems but also discuss their purpose and effectiveness. The ATRS provides an established and effective mechanism to deliver this transparency.

The Government are also committed to maintaining the UK’s strong data protection framework while delivering on the DSIT Secretary of State’s priorities of accelerating innovation, technology for good, and modern digital government through the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is quite right to identify the need to upskill civil servants. That has certainly been identified within my department and it is part of the need to upskill everyone for the future. Everyone in the existing generation and the next will need those skills to fulfil the exciting technological opportunities that we will have in the future, so we all have a responsibility to upskill our skills.

We look forward to continuing to engage with noble Lords on these important issues as we develop our approach, and to the many other chances we will have, starting with our debates on Monday. I look forward to those debates. If I have missed anything out—I know the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked some specific questions at the end—I will follow-up in writing.

Post Office: Capture System

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to overturn the convictions of sub-postmasters or former Post Office employees convicted in relation to the Capture system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the important work that the noble Lord has done in campaigning for justice for the postmasters—and indeed his ongoing work on that issue.

We were concerned to learn about the issues outlined in the Kroll report, which related to the Capture system. However, the report did not comment on whether the convictions were unsafe. As the noble Lord will know, the Government are committed to responding to the report, and that response will be published next week. In the meantime, convictions in relation to the Capture software are being reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commissions. The UK Government and the Post Office are assisting them with their requests for information, and I encourage all those who believe they have been wrongly convicted to contact the CCRC.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is now clear from the Kroll report that the Minister referred to that the Post Office’s behaviour in relation to the Capture system was just as bad as its behaviour in relation to Horizon. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board—I declare an interest as a member of it—wrote to the Lord Chancellor in November saying that there was no difference between the Horizon victims and the Capture victims on the question of whether they should have their convictions overturned.

Might the Government consider an alternative approach, which might not offend the understandable concerns of those who do not like the idea of Parliament overturning judicial decisions? Earlier this year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who I see in his place, proposed such an alternative arrangement, which involved the judges in an appropriate way. Perhaps we can take the opportunity of reducing the evidential requirements to take a case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. The proposal for the Horizon cases from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, related to the Lord Chancellor taking a power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal, and putting in place a statutory presumption that any convictions are unsafe unless there is evidence to the contrary. As noble Lords will know, this would represent a significant departure from existing appeals processes, and any further exploration of such an approach would need careful consideration, not just for this case but potentially for others. That is not to say we are dismissing it; it would be under review. I emphasise that, unlike Horizon, we do not yet have evidence that the flaws in the Capture system resulted in wrongful convictions. In fact, the Kroll report is clear on this point, stating:

“Kroll does not provide comment on whether any convictions arising from sub-postmasters using Capture could be considered unsafe”.


Part of the problem with the Kroll report is that because it related to the 1990s it had some difficulty in getting the documentation to assess whether that was the case.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, can I ask Ministers to be absolutely sure that there is no cover-up, as happened so scandalously with Horizon? Surely the plight of the sub-postmasters under Capture, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said, is exactly the same as under Horizon, except that the convicted Capture sub-postmasters were badly treated more than 20 years ago and have suffered ever since without any redress. All that time, the accounting officer for the Post Office was a Civil Service Permanent Secretary and the Government had their own appointee on the Post Office board. Will Ministers ensure that these sub-postmasters get the justice denied to them for so long and are not forced to go to court to do so?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will bear with us, because we are coming back with a response on the Capture system next week, so I am sorry I am not able to answer on the detail of that. On the current ownership and governance arrangements, we are committed to a Green Paper looking at those relationships between the Post Office and the Government. It will be published in the early part of next year and will address issues about the involvement and representation on the board that my noble friend has raised.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, as my name has been mentioned on two occasions already, it is perhaps apt that I should say something. I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, has done in this field. He was good enough to pay an undeserved tribute to some of the work I did in the background as well. I fear, on this occasion, that in praying in aid the scheme I proposed for the Horizon problem, to deal with a constitutional solipsism, we are not yet there with Capture.

Does the Minister agree that, in our constitutional arrangements, the separation of powers and rule of law suggest that courts should deal with wrongful convictions, and overturn them if they are established as such? Does she also agree that in this instance it is much better to wait for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer some cases to the Court of Appeal, which will then deal with them by looking at all the facts, evidence and arguments and, if there are problems, quash the convictions?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord raises important issues of law. He will know that the Law Commission is already looking at the law relating to criminal appeals and is due to report next year. That review includes consideration of the CCRC’s role and the statutory tests it applies. The Government will carefully consider any recommendations.

To return briefly to the Capture system, the Court of Appeal is yet to overturn any convictions relating to the use of Capture. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is already considering five potential cases and it is right and proper, in these circumstances, that we let the CCRC and the SCCRC finish conducting those reviews.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is appalling that the key information for the Kroll report forensic investigation into Capture, which pre-dates Horizon, was provided only the day before the report was submitted to government; it did not change the report. Kroll has found that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that Capture had caused these accounting shortfalls.

Back in May, when we were discussing the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, I asked questions about Capture on three separate occasions. I was told that it was completely different and there was absolutely no connection. It now appears there is a connection. Regardless of the route to justice, will the Government undertake to move as speedily as they can, not just to overturn these cases but to provide redress to these postmasters and staff?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. There is a difference between Horizon and the Capture system. The Capture system was not networked to a central system like Horizon was, which meant the data in Capture could not be accessed or manipulated from elsewhere. However, notwithstanding that, we are looking at whether there have been miscarriages of justice. I am sorry to say this, but perhaps the noble Baroness should wait for the report we will produce next week. I feel frustrated saying this today, but I know noble Lords will understand how the machinery of government works. I hope to come back with clearer news next week.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

More broadly, can the Minister tell us what safeguards are being put in place to ensure that no authority, public or private, can act with unchecked power similar to that exercised by the Post Office during the Horizon case?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this; it is an issue that relates not just to the Post Office and Horizon. We are very aware of that and are looking at whether other actions should be taken on a more general basis. It is at the top of our list of concerns, and I hope we will be able to come back with more information on that.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister not accept that in the case of Capture, as Horizon, justice delayed is justice denied? Dewi Lewis, the sub-postmaster in Penrhyndeudraeth, is the son of my late agent, Maldwyn Lewis. He had to sell his house to bail out his son, hoping to avoid further prosecution. Is it not necessary to make maximum speed with these cases to avoid such circumstances?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: speed is of the essence. No postmaster who suffered from either of these schemes should have to wait longer than is absolutely necessary. We are doing everything we can to speed up the payments for the Horizon scheme, and we are working very quickly on the Capture scheme to see whether there are major issues we need to take on immediately. We moved quickly to conclude and publish the results of the independent investigation into Capture. As I say, we are committed to publishing a response this month, which will now be next week. We are moving quickly on this. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and none of us wants to see anyone waiting longer than they should to get justice in what are some terrible cases.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I start by thanking all noble Lords who spoke for their comments and fascinating contributions. We on these Benches share the concern of many noble Lords about the Bill allowing the use of data for research purposes, especially scientific research purposes.

Amendment 59 has, to my mind, the entirely right and important intention of preventing misuse of the scientific research exemption for data reuse by ensuring that the only purpose for which the reuse is permissible is scientific research. Clearly, there is merit in this idea, and I look forward to hearing the Minister give it due consideration.

However, there are two problems with the concept and definition of scientific research in the Bill overall, and, again, I very much look forward to hearing the Government’s view. First, I echo the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Markham. Almost nothing in research or, frankly, life more broadly, is done with only one intention. Even the most high-minded, curiosity-driven researcher will have at the back of their mind the possibility of commercialisation. Alongside protecting ourselves from the cynical misuse of science as a cover story for commercial pursuit, we have to be equally wary of creating law that pushes for the complete absence of the profit motive in research, because to the extent that we succeed in doing that, we will see less research. Secondly—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made this point very powerfully—I am concerned that the broad definition of scientific research in the Bill might muddy the waters further. I worry that, if the terminology itself is not tightened, restricting the exemption might serve little purpose.

On Amendment 62, to which I have put my name, the same arguments very much apply. I accept that it is very challenging to find a form of words that both encourages research and innovation and does not do so at the expense of data protection. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s view. I am also pleased to have signed Amendment 63, which seeks to ensure that personal data can be reused only if doing so is in the public interest. Having listened carefully to some of the arguments, I feel that the public interest test may be more fertile ground than a kind of research motivation purity test to achieve that very difficult balance.

On Amendment 64, I share the curiosity to hear how the Minister defines research and statistical processes —again, not easy but I look forward to her response.

Amendment 65 aims to ensure that research seeking to use the scientific research exemption to obtaining consent meets the minimum levels of scientific rigour. The aim of the amendment is, needless to say, excellent. We should seek to avoid creating opportunities which would allow companies—especially but not uniquely AI labs—to cloak their commercial research as scientific, thus reducing the hoops they must jump through to reuse data in their research without explicit consent. However, Amendment 66, tabled in my name, which inserts the words:

“Research considered scientific research that is carried out as a commercial activity must be subject to the approval of an independent ethics committee”,


may be a more adaptive solution.

Many of these amendments show that we are all quite aligned in what we want but that it is really challenging to codify that in writing. Therefore, the use of an ethics committee to conduct these judgments may be the more agile, adaptive solution.

I confess that I am not sure I have fully understood the mechanism behind Amendments 68 and 69, but I of course look forward to the Minister’s response. I understand that they would essentially mean consent by failing to opt out. If so, I am not sure I could get behind that.

Amendment 130 would prevent the processing of personal data for research, archiving and statistical purposes if it permits the identification of a living individual. This is a sensible precaution. It would prevent the sharing of unnecessary or irrelevant information and protect people’s privacy in the event of a data breach.

Amendment 132 appears to uphold existing patient consent for the use of their data for research, archiving and statistical purposes. I just wonder whether this is necessary. Is that not already the case?

Finally, I turn to the Clause 85 stand part notice. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am not, I am afraid, at a point where I can support this. There need to be safeguards on the use of data for this purpose; I feel that Clause 85 is our way of having them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon. I look forward to what I am sure will be some excellent debates.

We have a number of debates on scientific research; it is just the way the groupings have fallen. This is just one of several groupings that will, in different ways and from different directions, probe some of these issues. I look forward to drilling down into all the implications of scientific research in the round. I should say at the beginning—the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is absolutely right about this—that we have a fantastic history of and reputation for doing R&D and scientific research in this country. We are hugely respected throughout the world. We must be careful that we do not somehow begin to demonise some of those people by casting aspersions on a lot of the very good research that is taking place.

A number of noble Lords said that they are struggling to know what the definition of “scientific research” is. A lot of scientific research is curiosity driven; it does not necessarily have an obvious outcome. People start a piece of research, either in a university or on a commercial basis, and they do not quite know where it will lead them. Then—it may be 10 or 20 years later—we begin to realise that the outcome of their research has more applications than we had ever considered in the past. That is the wonderful thing about human knowledge: as we build and we learn, we find new applications for it. So I hope that whatever we decide and agree on in this Bill does not put a dampener on that great aspect of human knowledge and the drive for further exploration, which we have seen in the UK in life sciences in particular but also in other areas such as space exploration and quantum. Noble Lords could probably identify many more areas where we are increasingly getting a reputation for being at the global forefront of this thinking. We have to take the public with us, of course, and get the balance right, but I hope we do not lose sight of the prize we could have if we get the regulations and legislation right.

Let me turn to the specifics that have been raised today. Amendments 59 and 62 to 65 relate to scientific provisions, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others have commented on them. I should make it clear that this Bill is not expanding the meaning of “scientific research”. If anything, it is restricting it, because the reasonableness test that has been added to the legislation—along with clarification of the requirement for research to have a lawful basis—will constrain the misuse of the existing definition. The definition is tighter, and we have attempted to do that in order to make sure that some of the new developments and technologies coming on stream will fall clearly within the constraints we are putting forward in the Bill today.

Amendments 59 and 62 seek to prevent misuse of the exceptions for data reuse. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the existing provisions for research purposes already prevent the controller taking advantage of them for any other purpose they may have in mind. That is controlled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much, but is she not concerned by the preliminary opinion from the EDPS, particularly that traditional academic research is blurrier than ever and that it is even harder to distinguish research which generally benefits society from that which primarily serves private interest? People in the street would be worried about that and the Bill ought to be responding to that concern.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I have not seen that observation, but we will look at it. It goes back to my point that the provisions in this Bill are designed to be future facing as well as for the current day. The strength of those provisions will apply regardless of the technology, which may well include AI. Noble Lords may know that we will bring forward a separate piece of legislation on AI, when we will be able to debate this in more detail.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a very important debate about one of the most controversial areas of this Bill. My amendments are supported across the House and by respected civic institutions such as the Ada Lovelace Institute. I understand that the Minister thinks they will stifle scientific research, particularly by nascent AI companies, but the rights of the data subject must be borne in mind. As it stands, under Clause 67, millions of data subjects could find their information mined by AI companies, to be reused without consent.

The concerns about this definition being too broad were illustrated very well across the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that it was too broad and must recognise that AI development will be open to using data research for any AI purposes and talked about his amendment on protecting children’s data, which is very important and worthy of consideration. This was supported by my noble friend Lady Kidron, who pointed out that the definition of scientific research could cover everything and warned that Clause 67 is not just housekeeping. She quoted the EDPS and talked about its critical clarification not being included in the transfer of the scientific definition into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked what in the Bill has changed when you consider how much has changed in AI. I was very pleased to have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, who warned against the abuse and misuse of data and the broad definition in this Bill, which could muddy the waters. He supported the public interest test, which would be fertile ground for helping define scientific data.

Surely this Bill should walk the line in encouraging the AI rollout to boost research and development in our science sector. I ask the Minister to meet me and other concerned noble Lords to tighten up Clauses 67 and 68. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I share the confusion of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about the groupings. If we are not careful, we are going to keep returning to this issue again and again over four or five groups.

With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I think that we are all very much on the same page here. On the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that we meet to discuss the precise issue of the definition of “scientific research”, this would be extremely helpful; the noble Baroness and I do not need to repeat the concerns.

I should declare an interest in two respects: first, my interests as regards AI, which are set out on the register; and, secondly—I very much took account of what the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, had to say—I chair the council of a university that has a strong health faculty. It does a great deal of health research and a lot of that research relies on NHS datasets.

This is not some sort of Luddism we are displaying here. This is caution about the expansion of the definition of scientific research, so that it does not turn into something else: that it does not deprive copyright holders of compensation, and that it does not allow personal data to be scraped off the internet without consent. There are very legitimate issues being addressed here, despite the fact that many of us believe that this valuable data should of course be used for the public benefit.



One of the key themes—this is perhaps where we come back on to the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—may be public benefit, which we need to reintroduce so that we really understand that scientific research for public benefit is the purpose we want this data used for.

I do not think I need to say much more: this issue is already permeating our discussions. It is interesting that we did not get on to it in a major way during the DPDI Bill, yet this time we have focused much more heavily on it. Clearly, in opposition, the noble Viscount has seen the light. What is not to like about that? Further discussion, not least of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, further down the track will be extremely useful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel we are getting slightly repetitive, but before I, too, repeat myself, I should like to say something that I did not get the chance to say the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others: I will write, we will meet—all the things that you have asked for, you can take it for granted that they will happen, because we want to get this right.

I say briefly to the noble Baroness: we are in danger of thinking that the only good research is health research. If you go to any university up and down the country, you find that the most fantastic research is taking place in the most obscure subjects, be it physics, mechanical engineering, fabrics or, as I mentioned earlier, quantum. A lot of great research is going on. We are in danger of thinking that life sciences are the only thing that we do well. We need to open our minds a bit to create the space for those original thinkers in other sectors.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was saying that the defence always goes to space or to medicine, and we are trying to ascertain the product development that is not textiles, and so on. I have two positions in two different universities; they are marvellous places; research is very important.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am glad we are on the same page on all that.

I now turn to the specifics of the amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Holmes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his contribution. As I said in the previous debate, I can reassure all noble Lords that if an area of research does not count as scientific research at the moment, it will not under the Bill. These provisions do not expand the meaning of scientific research. If noble Lords still feel unsure about that, I am happy to offer a technical briefing to those who are interested in this issue to clarify that as far as possible.

Moreover, the Bill’s requirement for a reasonableness test will help limit the misuse of this definition more than the current UK GDPR, which says that scientific research should be interpreted broadly. We are tightening up the regulations. This is best assessed on a case-by- case basis, along with the ICO guidance, rather than automatically disqualifying or passing into our activity sectors by approval.

Scientific research that is privately funded or conducted by commercial organisations can also have a life-changing impact. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, was talking earlier about health; issues such as the development of Covid vaccines are just one example of this. It was commercial research that was absolutely life-saving, at the end of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Can the Minister say whether this will be a Bill, a draft Bill or a consultation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We will announce this in the usual way—in due course. I refer the noble Lord to the King’s Speech on that issue. I feel that noble Lords want more information, but they will just have to go with what I am able to say at the moment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Perhaps another aspect the Minister could speak to is whether this will be coming very shortly, shortly or imminently.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Let me put it this way: other things may be coming before it. I think I promised at the last debate that we would have something on copyright in the very, very, very near future. This may not be as very, very, very near future as that. We will tie ourselves in knots if we carry on pursuing this discussion.

On that basis, I hope that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance not to press their amendments.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

I thank your Lordships for this interesting debate. I apologise to the Committee for degrouping the amendment on copyright, but I thought it was important to establish from the Minister that there really was no effect on the copyright Act. I am very reassured that she has said that. It is also reassuring to hear that there will be more of an opportunity to look at this issue in greater detail. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount to the sceptics’ club because he has clearly had a damascene conversion. It may be that this goes too far. I am slightly concerned, like him, about the bureaucracy involved in this, which slightly gives the game away. It could be seen as a way of legitimising commercial research, whereas we want to make it absolutely certain that that research is for the public benefit, rather than imposing an ethical board on every single aspect of research which has any commercial content.

We keep coming back to this, but we seem to be degrouping all over the place. Even the Government Whips Office seems to have given up trying to give titles for each of the groups; they are just called “degrouped” nowadays, which I think is a sign of deep depression in that office. It does not tell us anything about what the different groups contain, for some reason. Anyway, it is good to see the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, kicking the tyres on the definition of the research aspect.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am not quite sure about the groupings, either, but let us go with what we have. I thank noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his amendments. I hope I am able to provide some reassurance for him on the points he raised.

As I said when considering the previous group, the Bill does not expand the definition of scientific research. The reasonableness test, along with clarifying the requirement for researchers to have a lawful basis, will significantly reduce the misuse of the existing definition. The amendment seeks to reduce the potential for misuse of the definition of scientific research by commercial companies using AI by requiring scientific researchers for a commercial company to submit their research to an ethics committee. As I said on the previous group, making it a mandatory requirement for all research may impede studies in areas that might have their own bespoke ethical procedures. This may well be the case in a whole range of different research areas, particularly in the university sector, and in sectors more widely. Some of this research may be very small to begin with but might grow in size. The idea that a small piece of start-up research has to be cleared for ethical research at an early stage is expecting too much and will put off a lot of the new innovations that might otherwise come forward.

Amendment 80 relates to Clause 71 and the reuse of personal data. This would put at risk valuable research that relies on data originally generated from diverse contexts, since the difference between the purposes may not always be compatible.

Turning to Amendment 67, I can reassure noble Lords that the concept of broad consent is not new. Clause 68 reproduces the text from the current UK GDPR recitals because the precise definition of scientific research may become clear only during later analysis of the data. Obtaining broad consent for an area of research from the outset allows scientists to focus on potentially life-saving research. Clause 68 has important limitations. It cannot be used if the researcher already knows the specific purpose—an important safeguard that should not be removed. It also includes a requirement to give the data subject the choice to consent to only part of the research processing, if possible. Most importantly, the data subject can revoke their consent at any point. I hope this reassures the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and he feels content to withdraw his amendment on this basis.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their remarks and support, and the Minister for her helpful response. Just over 70% of scientific research in the UK is privately funded, 28% is taxpayer funded and around 1% comes through the charity sector. Perhaps the two most consequential scientific breakthroughs of the last five years, Covid vaccines and large language models, have come principally from private funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, opened his speech he said that he hoped that noble Lords would be made of strong stuff while he worked his way through it. I have a similar request regarding my response: please bear with me. I will address these amendments slightly out of order to ensure that related issues are grouped together.

The Schedule 4 stand part notice, and Amendments 73 and 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would remove the new lawful ground of “recognised legitimate interests” created by Clause 70 and Schedule 4 to the Bill. The aim of these provisions is to give data controllers greater confidence about processing personal data for specified and limited public interest objectives. Processing that is necessary and proportionate to achieve one of these objectives can take place without a person’s consent and without undertaking the legitimate interests balancing test. However, they would still have to comply with the wider requirements of data protection legislation, where relevant, ensuring that the data is processed in compliance with the other data protection principles.

I say in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest will apply from the date of commencement and will not apply retrospectively.

The activities listed include processing of data where necessary to prevent crime, safeguarding national security, protecting children or responding to emergencies. They also include situations where a public body requests that a non-public body share personal data with it to help deliver a public task that is sanctioned by law. In these circumstances, it is very important that data is shared without delay, and removal of these provisions from the Bill, as proposed by the amendment, could make that harder.

Amendment 74, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Scriven, would prevent health data being processed as part of this new lawful ground, but this could have some unwelcome effects. For example, the new lawful ground is designed to give controllers greater confidence about reporting safeguarding concerns, but if these concerns relate to a vulnerable person’s health, they would not be able to rely on the new lawful ground to process the data and would have to identify an alternative lawful ground.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about which data controllers can rely on the new lawful ground, it would not be available to public bodies such as the NHS; it is aimed at non-public bodies.

I reassure noble Lords that there are still sufficient safeguards in the wider framework. Any processing that involves special category data, such as health data, would also need to comply with the conditions and safeguards in Article 9 of the UK GDPR and Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018.

Amendment 78A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would remove the new lawful ground for non-public bodies or individuals to disclose personal data at the request of public bodies, where necessary, to help those bodies deliver their public interest tasks without carrying out a legitimate interest balance test. We would argue that, without it, controllers may lack certainty about the correct lawful ground to rely on when responding to such requests.

Amendment 76, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would remove the powers of regulations in Clause 70 that would allow the Secretary of State to keep the list of recognised legitimate interests up to date. Alternatively, the noble Lord’s Amendment 78 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement every time he added a new processing activity to the list, setting out its purpose, which controllers it was aimed at and for how long they can use it. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have already taken steps to tighten up these powers since the previous Bill was considered by this House.

Any new processing activities added would now also have to serve

“important objectives of … public interest”

as described in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR and, as before, new activities could be added to the list only following consultation with the ICO and other interested parties. The Secretary of State would also have to consider the impact of any changes on people’s rights and have regard to the specific needs of children. Although these powers are likely to be used sparingly, the Government think it important that they be retained. I reassure the Committee that we will be responding to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee within the usual timeframes and we welcome its scrutiny of the Bill.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 77 seeks to make it clear that organisations should also be able to rely on Article 6.1(f) to make transfers between separate businesses affiliated by contract. The list of activities mentioned in Clause 70 is intended to be illustrative only and is drawn from the recitals to the UK GDPR. This avoids providing a very lengthy list that might be viewed as prescriptive. Article 6.1(f) of the UK GDPR is flexible. The transmission of personal data between businesses affiliated by contract may constitute a legitimate interest, like many other commercial interests. It is for the controller to determine this on a case-by-case basis.

I will now address the group of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, concerning the purpose limitation principle, specifically Amendments 83 to 86. This principle limits the ways that personal data collected for one purpose can be used for another, but Clause 71 aims to provide more clarity and certainty around how it operates, including how certain exemptions apply.

Amendment 84 seeks to clarify whether the first exemption in proposed new Annexe 2 to the UK GDPR would allow personal data to be reused for commercial purposes. The conditions for using this exemption are that the requesting controller has a public task or official authority laid down in law that meets a public interest objective in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR. As a result, I and the Government are satisfied that these situations would be for limited public interest objectives only, as set out in law.

Amendments 85 and 86 seek to introduce greater transparency around the use of safeguarding exemptions in paragraph 8 of new Annexe 2. These conditions are drawn from the Care Act 2014 and replicated in the existing condition for sensitive data processing for safeguarding purposes in the Data Protection Act 2018. I can reassure the Committee that processing cannot occur if it does not meet these conditions, including if the vulnerability of the individual no longer exists. In addition, requiring that an assessment be made and given to the data subject before the processing begins could result in safeguarding delays and would defeat the purpose of this exemption.

Amendment 83 would remove the regulation-making powers associated with this clause so that new exceptions could not be added in future. I remind noble Lords that there is already a power to create exemptions from the purpose limitation principle in the DPA 2018. This Bill simply moves the existing exemptions to a new annexe to the UK GDPR. The power is strictly limited to the public objectives listed in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR.

I now turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 89, which seeks to set conditions under which pseudonymised data should be treated as personal data. This is not necessary as pseudonymised data already falls within the definition of personal data under Article 4.1 of the UK GDPR. This amendment also seeks to ensure that a determination by the ICO that data is personal data applies

“at all points in that processing”.

However, the moment at which data is or becomes personal should be a determination of fact based on its identifiability to a living individual.

I turn now to Clause 74 stand part, together with Amendment 90. Noble Lords are aware that special categories of data require additional protection. Article 9 of the UK GDPR sets out an exhaustive list of what is sensitive data and outlines processing conditions. Currently, this list cannot be amended without primary legislation, which may not always be available. This leaves the Government unable to respond swiftly when new types of sensitive data are identified, including as a result of emerging technologies. The powers in Clause 74 enable the Government to respond more quickly and add new special categories of data, tailor the conditions applicable to their use and add new definitions if necessary.

Finally, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that would remove Schedule 7 from the Bill. This schedule contains measures to create a clearer and more outcomes-focused UK international data transfers regime. As part of these reforms, this schedule includes a power for the Secretary of State to recognise new transfer mechanisms for protecting international personal data transfers. Without this, the UK would be unable to respond swiftly to emerging developments and global trends in personal data transfers. In addition, the ICO will be consulted on any new mechanisms, and they will be subject to debate in Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.

I hope this helps explain the Government’s intention with these clauses and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. She covered quite a lot of ground and all of us will have to read Hansard quite carefully. However, it is somewhat horrifying that, for a Bill of this size, we had about 30 seconds from the Minister on Schedule 7, which could have such a huge influence on our data adequacy when that is assessed next year. I do not think anybody has talked about international transfers at this point, least of all me in introducing these amendments. Even though it may appear that we are taking our time over this Bill, we are not fundamentally covering all its points. The importance of this Bill, which obviously escapes most Members of this House—there are just a few aficionados—is considerable and could have a far-reaching impact.

I still get Viscount Camrose vibes coming from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

In this regard, I stress that we need clarity. The amendment calls for an explicit report from the Secretary of State to Parliament to ensure that both the OSA’s and this Bill’s provisions are aligned and do not create legal conflicts, particularly in data retention and privacy. Our goal should always be to create an online environment where children are protected from harm, but we must do so in a way that does not compromise their right to privacy or the integrity of data protection laws. It is a fine balance, and one that we must continue to examine and refine. The Government providing a report to Parliament on the interaction between these provisions will be a crucial step in ensuring that this balance is struck effectively.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have raised this important topic. I say at the outset that I appreciate and pay tribute to those who have worked on this for many years—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been a fantastic champion of these issues.

I also reassure noble Lords that these provisions are intended to build upon, and certainly not to undermine, the rights of children as they have previously been defined. We share noble Lords’ commitment to ensuring high standards of protection for children. That is why I am glad that the Bill, together with existing data protection principles, already provides robust protections for children. I hope that my response to these amendments shows that we take these issues seriously. The ICO also recognises in its guidance, after the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, that the duties and responsibilities to respect the rights of children extend in practice to private actors and business enterprises.

Amendment 82, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would exclude children’s personal data from the exemptions to the purpose limitation principles in Schedule 5 to the Bill. The new purposes are for important public interests only, such as safeguarding vulnerable individuals or children. Broader existing safeguards in the data protection framework, such as the fairness and lawfulness principles, also apply. Prohibiting a change of purpose in processing could impede important activities, such as the safeguarding issues to which I have referred.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would introduce a new duty requiring all data controllers to consider that children are entitled to higher protection than adults. We understand the noble Baroness’s intentions and, in many ways, share her aims, but we would prefer to focus on improving compliance with the current legislation, including through the way the ICO discharges its regulatory functions.

In addition, the proposed duty could have some unwelcome and unintended effects. For example, it could lead to questions about why other vulnerable people are not entitled to enhanced protections. It would also apply to organisations of all sizes, including micro-businesses and voluntary sector organisations, even if they process children’s data on only a small scale. It could also cause confusion about what they would need to do to verify age to comply with the new duty.

Amendment 94, also tabled by the noble Baroness, would ensure that the new notification exemptions under Article 13 would not apply to children. However, removing children’s data from this exemption could mean that some important research—for example, on the causes of childhood diseases—could not be undertaken if the data controller were unable to contact the individuals about the intended processing activity.

Amendment 135 would place new duties on the ICO to uphold the rights of children. The ICO’s new strategic framework, introduced by the Bill, has been carefully structured to achieve a similar effect. Its principal objective requires the regulator to

“secure an appropriate level of protection for personal data”.

This gives flexibility and nuance in the appropriateness of the level of protections; they are not always the same for all data subjects, all the time.

Going beyond this, though, the strategic framework includes the new duty relating to children. This acknowledges that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, children may be less aware of the risks and consequences associated with the processing of their data, as well of as their rights. As she pointed out, this is drawn from recital 38 to the UK GDPR, but the Government’s view is that the Bill’s language gives sufficient effect to the recital. We recognise the importance of clarity on this issue and hope that we have achieved it but, obviously, we are happy to talk further to the noble Baroness on this matter.

This duty will also be a consideration for the ICO and one to which the commissioner must have regard across all data protection activities, where relevant. It will inform the regulator’s thinking on everything from enforcement to guidance, including how work might need to be tailored to suit children at all stages of childhood in order to ensure that the levels of protection are appropriate.

Finally, regarding Amendment 196—

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I would like her to explain why only half of the recital is in the Bill and why the fact that children merit special attention is in the Bill. How can it possibly be that, in this Bill, we are giving children adequate protection? I can disagree with some of the other things that she said, but I would like her to answer that specific question.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

To be on the safe side, I will write to the noble Baroness. We feel that other bits in the provisions of the Bill cover the other aspects but, just to be clear on it, I will write to her. On Amendment 196 and the Online Safety Act—

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but I am slightly puzzled by the way in which that exchange just happened. I take it from what the Minister is saying that there is no dissent, in her and the Bill team’s thinking, about children’s rights having to be given the correct priority, but she feels that the current drafting is better than what is now proposed because it does not deflect from the broader issues that she has adhered to. She has fallen into the trap, which I thought she never would do, of blaming unintended consequences; I am sure that she will want to rethink that before she comes back to the Dispatch Box.

Surely the point being made here is about the absolute need to make sure that children’s rights never get taken down because of the consideration of other requirements. They are on their own, separate and not to be mixed up with those considerations that are truly right for the commissioner—and the ICO, in its new form—to take but which should never deflect from the way children are protected. If the Minister agrees with that, could she not see some way of reaching out to be a bit closer to where the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues being raised here, which is why I think I really should write: I want to make sure that whatever I say is properly recorded and that we can all go on to debate it further. I am not trying to duck the issue; this issue is just too important for me to give an off-the-cuff response on it. I am sure that we will have further discussions on this. As I say, let me put it in writing, and we can pick that up. Certainly, as I said at the beginning, our intention was to enhance children’s protection rather than deflect from it.

Moving on to Amendment 196, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords for raising this important issue and seeking clarity on how the provision relates to the categorisation of services in the Online Safety Act. These categories are, however, not directly related to Clause 122 of this Bill as a data preservation notice can be issued to any service provider regulated in the Online Safety Act, regardless of categorisation. A list of the relevant persons is provided in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 100(5) of the Act; it includes any user-to-user service, search service and ancillary service.

I absolutely understand noble Lords saying that these things should cross-reference in some way but, as far we are concerned, they complement each other, and that protection is currently in the Online Safety Act. As I said, I will write to noble Lords and am happy to meet if that would be helpful. In the meantime, I hope that the explanations I have given are sufficient grounds for noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.