Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Grand Committee

Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee and 9th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bells.

Clause 67: Meaning of research and statistical purposes

Amendment 59

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 60 to add to our discussion and establish some further clarity from the Minister on the impact of widening the scope of the interpretation of scientific research to include commercial and private activities. I thank her for her letter of 27 November to all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, a copy of which was placed in the Lords Library; it provides some reassurance that scientific research activities must still pass a reasonableness test. However, I move this probing amendment out of concern that the change in definition may have unintended consequences for copyright law. It is vital that we do not just look at this Bill in isolation but consider the wider impact that changing definitions and interpretations will have on other aspects of legislation.

Research activities are identified under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Some researchers require access to and reproduction of data and copyright-protected material for research purposes. Under Section 29A, researchers can avail themselves of an exemption from copyright which allows data mining and analysis of copyright-protected works for non-commercial research only, without permission from the copyright holder. The UK copyright framework is popularly known as the “gold standard” internationally, as it carefully balances the rights of copyright holders with the need for certain uses to take place, such as non-commercial research, educational uses and those that protect free speech. That balance is fragile, and we must be very careful not to disrupt it unintentionally.

The previous Government sought to widen Section 29A of the Act by allowing text and data mining of copyright-protected works for commercial purposes, but this recommendation was quickly reversed when the Government considered that the decision was made without appropriate evidence. That was a sensible move. The current Government are still due to consult with stakeholders on the exemption to the law, against the backdrop of AI companies using copyright-protected works for training large language models without permission or fair pay. Given the global presence of AI, it is expected that this consultation will consider how the UK policy on copyright works within an international context. Therefore, while the Government are carefully considering this, we must ensure that we do not fast forward to a conclusion before that important work has taken place.

If the Minister can confirm that this definition has no impact on existing copyright law, I will happily withdraw this amendment. However, if there are potential implications on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, I would urge the Minister to table her own amendment to explicitly preserve the current definition of “scientific research” within that Act. This would ensure that we maintain legal clarity while the broader international considerations are fully examined. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 61 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on these amendments. I very much support Amendment 60 as introduced. I was delighted to hear the Minister tell the Grand Committee that the Government are coming forward with an AI Bill. I wonder if I might tempt her into sharing a bit more detail with your Lordships on when we might see that Bill or indeed the consultation. Will it be before Santa or sometime after his welcome appearance later this month?

We touched on a number of areas related to Amendment 65A in the previous group. This demonstrates the importance of and concern about Clause 67, as so many amendments pertain to it. I ask the Minister whether a large language model that comes up with medically significant conclusions but, prior to that, gained a considerable amount of that data from scraping, would be fine within Clause 67 as drafted.

Similarly, there are overriding and broader reuse possibilities from the drafting as set out. Again, as has already been debated, scientific research has a clear meaning in many respects. That clarity very much comes when you add public interest and ethics. Could a model that has taken vast quantities of others’ data without consent and—nodding more towards Amendment 60 —without remuneration and consent still potentially fit within the definition of “scientific research”?

In many ways, we are debating these points around data in the context of scientific research, but we could go to the very nub or essence of the issue. All that noble Lords are asking, in their many eloquent and excellent ways, is whose data is it, to what purpose is it being put and have those data owners been consented, respected and, where appropriate—particularly when it comes to IP and copyrighted data—remunerated? This is an excellent opportunity to expand on the earlier debate on Clause 67. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Grand Committee

Relevant documents: 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee and 9th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Clause 1: Customer data and business data

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 4 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 5 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whom I do not see with us. Would the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, like to move it on his behalf?

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

I am grateful. I do not know about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I wonder whether I might speak to Amendments 34 and 48.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord be prepared to move Amendment 5 first? He need not necessarily speak to it at any length. That said, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is now with us, so the problem is solved.

Amendment 5

Moved by

Accounting Standards (Prescribed Bodies) (United States of America and Japan) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Grand Committee

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

That completes the business before Grand Committee this afternoon. I wish a happy Easter to one and all.

Committee adjourned at 5.53 pm.

Register of Overseas Entities (Penalties and Northern Ireland Dispositions) Regulations 2023

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate—not just now but in the past.

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the register is robust and effective at tackling the use of UK property to launder money. These regulations provide mechanisms that ensure the register operates effectively. A clear and effective procedure for the imposition and enforcement of penalties will serve as a deterrent against non-compliance and bad actors, as well as punishing guilty parties, including by potentially imposing charges over their land.

The provisions relating to the dispositions in Northern Ireland extend the same treatment to the entirety of the UK. They allow the registration of land, where it would otherwise be prohibited, for the benefit of those who act in good faith, and ensures that their interests are not affected by the actions of non-compliant overseas entities.

The points that noble Lords have discussed today highlight the necessity of the measures contained in these regulations. I will try to address some of these now. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised a number of extremely important issues, and I will take them in the order I wrote them down.

On the question of proper funding for Companies House, there are two elements of funding, which total a maximum of about £83 million in any one period; that should certainly be enough. I think one can see from the work it has already achieved that it has made great strides. I am not saying the work is finished, but it has made great strides towards achieving the whole purpose of the register and, through that, giving the registrar the leeway to concentrate on the people who have not yet fully complied.

On the continuous rate of compliance, I think we last met here on about 2 May. Since then, Companies House has had 600 more applications for compliance. That rate of about 100 a week is continuing, so the process is working.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl, but there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.