Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I have sat through every stage of the Bill and not uttered a word. I have been absorbing the debate, and I am still puzzled as to why the Government are not willing to reach agreement with some of the wonderful statements being made.

I have two issues to reflect on. The first is that the creative arts have had a fantastic campaign, but it would be a mistake to think that this is only about the creative arts; it is to do with any property right where copyright is involved. The first to fall would probably be the creative arts, but anybody who is protected by copyright will be affected by AI in one way or another, unless you follow the wonderful wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The second point is one for the Government to reflect on. They need to remember the words of Francis Pym, the first Foreign Secretary in Mrs Thatcher’s Government. They had a very big majority, and he dared to suggest to the Iron Lady that big majorities never make for good government. Why? Because you can rely on even those who do not listen to the debate to turn up and vote for your side. You know what happened to Francis Pym? He lost his job. How much will the Labour Government reflect on the experience of Francis Pym?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I once again declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, and once again give the staunch support of these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion A1. She made an incontestable case once again with her clarion call.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others in saying that we are not in new territory. I have a treasured cartoon on my wall at home that relates to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill as long ago as 2001, showing Secretary of State Alan Milburn recoiling from ping-pong balls. Guess who was hurling the ping-pong balls? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, that notable revolutionary, and I were engaging in rounds of parliamentary ping-pong—three, I think. Eventually, compromises were reached and the Bill received Royal Assent in April 2001.

What we have done today and what we are going to do today as a House is not unprecedented. There is strong precedent for all Benches to work together on ping-pong to rather good effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, what we are proposing today will not, in the words of the Minister, “collapse” the Bill: it will be the Government’s choice what to do when the Bill goes back to the Commons. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I am afraid that he is wrong. It was not a manifesto commitment; there is no Salisbury convention that can be invoked on this occasion. It has nothing at all to do with data adequacy except that the Government feel that they have to get the Bill through in order to get the EU Commission to start its work. If anything, the Bill makes data adequacy more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that I agree with almost everything he said: everything he said was an argument for the noble Baroness’s amendment. Once again, as ever, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as I so often do on these occasions. I regard him as the voice of reason, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has to say.

Compromise is entirely within the gift of the Government. The Secretary of State should take a leaf out of Alan Milburn’s book. He did compromise on an important Bill in key areas and saw his Bill go through. I am afraid to say that the letter that Peers have received from the Minister is simply a repeat of her speech on Monday, which was echoed by Minister Bryant in the Commons yesterday. The Government have tabled these new amendments, which reflect the contents of that letter. Despite those amendments, however, the Government have not offered a concession to legislate for mandated transparency provisions within the Bill, which has been the core demand of the Lords amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the reasons set out in the speeches we have heard today.

In the view of these Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, other Members of this House, and countless creatives have made the absolutely convincing case for a transparency duty which would not prejudge the outcome of the AI and copyright consultation. We have heard the chilling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, about US policy in this area and about the attitude of the big tech companies towards copyright. We are at a vital crossroads in how we ensure the future of our creative industries. In the face of the development of AI and how it is being trained, we must take the right road, and I urge the Government to settle now.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, given where we are, I will speak very briefly, but I will make just two points. First, I think it is worth saying that the uncertainty surrounding where we are with AI and copyright is itself damaging, not just to the creative sector, not just to AI labs and big tech in general, but to all those who will themselves be impacted by the Bill’s many other provisions. Overall, I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this is an important Bill whose original conception did not even address AI and copyright. It carried very important and valuable provisions—as the Minister pointed out in her opening remarks—on digital verification services, smart data schemes, the national underground asset register and others. These can genuinely drive national productivity. Indeed, that is why my party proposed them when we were in government. It is, therefore, deeply frustrating that the Government have not yet found a way forward on this, and I am afraid that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The way the Government have gone about this has been reprehensible: I think that is the word I would use.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Secondly, the Secretary of State is very anxious to find a compromise and a way forward that protects the creative industries—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is very selectively quoting from what the Secretary of State had to say. The Secretary of State did change his position and acknowledged that existing copyright law is very certain. However, he went on to say that the law was not fit for purpose. That is an absolute giveaway in the circumstances. Whose agenda is he pursuing, in that case? Big tech’s?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.

Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, may I also trespass on your patience? I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, live on my royalties. The AI companies have—very irritatingly—bought only one of my 20 books; they paid about £3,000, and so, as you can imagine, I am very keen that they should buy the other 19.

It strikes me that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to organise a register system or licence system—it has only just happened in the United States, with regard to Amazon buying out New York Times back copies—whereby there is no threat or danger of republication but all that is happening is the information is mined by these companies. Such a system surely can and should happen.

The reason I am supporting the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is that at the very least it will embarrass future Secretaries of State when they have to come to the House and essentially admit they have undermined one of the great British inventions. For 300 years, the law of copyright has been helping and driving creativity in this country.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I offer the unequivocal and steadfast support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which introduces Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D.

It is absolutely clear that the noble Baroness’s speeches become better and more convincing the more we go on. Indeed, the arguments being made today for these amendments become better and more convincing as time goes on. I believe we should stand firm, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said.

Time and time again, we all have had to address the narrative stated in the consultation paper and repeated by Ministers suggesting there is uncertainty or a lack of clarity in existing UK copyright law regarding AI training. We have heard that the Secretary of State has just recently acknowledged that the existing copyright law is “very certain”, but as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, he has also stated that

“it is not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1234.]

That makes the narrative even worse than saying that copyright law is uncertain.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has rightly asserted, we do not need to change copyright law. It is the view of many that existing law is clear and applies to the commercial use of copyrighted works for AI training. The issue is not a deficient law but rather the ability to enforce it in the current AI landscape. As the noble Baroness has also profoundly put it—I have got a number of speeches to draw on, as you can see—what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The core problem is a lack of transparency from AI developers: without knowing what copyrighted material has been used to train models and how it was accessed, creators and rights holders are unable to identify potential infringements and pursue appropriate licensing or legal action.

In striking down previous Lords amendments, the Government have suggested that this House was at fault for using the wrong Bill. They have repeatedly claimed that it is too soon for transparency and too late to prevent stealing, and they have asserted that accepting the Lords transparency amendment would prioritise one sector over another. But that is exactly what the Government are doing. They have suggested an expert working group, an economic impact assessment, a report on the use of copyright, and then, I think, a report on progress in what the noble Baroness the Minister had to say. But, as many noble Lords have said today, none of that gives us the legislative assurance —the certainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, put it—that we need in these circumstances.

The Government have objected to being asked to introduce regulations because of financial privilege, and now, it seems—I can anticipate what the noble Baroness the Minister is going to say—are objecting to the requirement to bring forward a draft Bill with this amendment. But the Government are perfectly at liberty to bring forward their own amendment allowing for transparency via regulations, a much more expeditious and effective route that the House has already overwhelmingly supported. Transparency is the necessary foundation for a functioning licensing market, promotes trust between the AI sector and the creative industries, and allows creators to be fairly compensated when their work contributes value to AI models.

The Government have asked for a degree of trust for their plans. This amendment, while perhaps less than creators deserve—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described it as the bare minimum—is a step that would help earn that trust. It is this Government who can do that, and I urge them to heed the words of their own Back-Benchers: the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Rooker and Lord Brennan, all asked the Government to find a compromise.

I urge all noble Lords, in the face of a lack of compromise by the Government, to support Motion A1.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the third round of ping-pong, as many noble Lords have observed, I will speak very briefly. If the noble Baroness the Minister has not by now understood how strongly noble Lords on all sides of the House feel about this issue, it may be too late anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has made an increasingly powerful case for the Government to act in defence of the rights of copyright owners, and we continue to call on the Government to listen. We have of course discussed this at great length. The noble Baroness has tabled a new Motion which would require Ministers to make a Statement and bring forward a draft Bill. Given that the Minister has expressed her sympathy for the concerns of your Lordships’ House previously, surely this new Motion would be acceptable to the Government as a pathway toward resolving the problem, and we again urge the Government to accept it.

However, whatever choice the Government make—I do not think anyone could claim that any part of this is an easy problem, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey pointed out—many of us are frustrated by the absence of agility, boldness and imagination in their approach. That said, speaking at least from the Front Bench of a responsible Opposition, we take the view that we cannot engage further in protracted ping-pong. We are a revising Chamber, and, although it is right to ask the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong, we feel we must ultimately respect the will of the elected Chamber.

Ofcom: Protection of Children Codes

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Viscount has raised an important issue. Ofcom has recognised that live-streaming can pose specific risks to children and will consult on proposals to reduce these risks, alongside a number of other measures. It will publish this consultation before the Summer Recess. The Act and Ofcom’s codes are clear: services are required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children encountering primary priority content, including pornography. That will extend to live-streaming services that allow pornography.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my ombudsman interest as set out in the register. The SLSC questioned, quite rightly, how practical it is for children to complain about harmful content and noted that it was unclear what further action children could take if a complaint was rejected by a service provider. How will Ofcom and the Government ensure that complaint mechanisms are truly practical, accessible and designed with a children-first approach? What independent recourse will children have if their complaints about harmful content are rejected by service providers?

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement and for defining what genuine scientific research is. I hope very much that the AI companies, when using this extraordinary exemption, will listen to the Government, and that the Government will ensure that the policy is enforced. The trust of the people of this country would be lost if they felt that their data was being reused by AI companies simply for product enrichment and profit, rather than for genuine scientific research. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their parties’ support.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction to the three Motions in this group.

On these Benches, we welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. However, as Ministers have stressed—and we agree—it is paramount that we work through the implications of this judgment carefully and sensitively. As we have previously discussed, the EHRC is currently updating its statutory guidance.

Ministers have previously given assurances that they are engaged in appropriate and balanced work on data standards and data accuracy, and we accept those assurances. They have given a further assurance today about how the digital verification services framework will operate. We rely on those ministerial assurances. In summary, we believe that the previously proposed amendments were premature in the light of the EHRC guidance and that they risk undermining existing data standards work. On that basis, we support the Minister in her Motions A and D.

Turning to Motion B, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will not press his Amendment 43B at this stage, as he intends to accept the assurances given by Ministers. We have consistently supported the noble Viscount’s efforts to ensure that scientific research benefiting from the Bill’s provisions for data reuse is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks. The Government have given significant assurances in this area. We understand that their position is that the Bill does not alter the existing legal definition or threshold for what constitutes scientific research under UK GDPR. The Bill does not grant any new or expanded permissions for the reuse of data for scientific research purposes, and, specifically, it does not provide blanket approval for using personal data for training AI models under the guise of scientific research. The use of personal data for scientific research remains subject to the comprehensive safeguards of UK GDPR, including the requirement for a lawful basis, the adherence to data protection principles and the application of the reasonableness test, which requires an objective assessment.

The collection of assurances given during several stages of the Bill provides reassurance against the risk that commercial activities, such as training AI models purely for private gain, could improperly benefit from exemptions intended for genuine scientific research serving the public good. I very much hope that the Minister can reaffirm these specific points and repeat those assurances.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are progressing workstreams focused on the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets in a holistic and measured manner, as I have described in previous debates. We welcome the Supreme Court ruling, and are now working hard to consider those findings and the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator, which will help.

I reiterate that the trust framework requires DVS providers to comply with data protection legislation, including the data accuracy principle, where they use and share personal data. That includes the creation of reusable digital identities, as well as one-off checks. If they fail to comply with these requirements, they could lose their certification. This means that the sex information listed on a passport—which, as we all know, could be a combination of biological sex, legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and gender identity—cannot be used to verify biological sex.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked whether a person can have different genders appearing on different documents. Yes, you could have both genders appearing on different documents, but they could not be used to prove biological sex.

I should say to noble Lords that there is a requirement for all this information to be recreated, reused and rechecked each time. In response to noble Lords who asked about historic data, the data will be renewed and checked under the new information that is now available.

In the majority of cases where DVS are used, there will not be a need to verify biological sex, as we have noted before, because many DVS requirements do not ask that question. Data sharing under the power created in Clause 45 will involve new processing of data, which must be in compliance with the data accuracy principle: that is, it must be accurate for the purpose for which the information will be used. Of particular relevance, given that public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes, is the fact that data accuracy principles require that the personal data must not be misleading.

With regard to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about supplementary codes of practice, I can confirm that the trust framework already includes requirements on data accuracy for DVS providers. That framework will, of course, be updated from time to time.

On scientific research, let me repeat my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for his contribution on this issue. I am glad that he was reassured by my remarks that we have been able to come to an agreeable resolution. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Lord Clement-Jones, that there has to be an ethical basis to those standards, and that point is absolutely well made.

On that basis, I hope I have reassured noble Lords. I commend the Motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society.

I express the extremely strong support of all on these Benches for Motion C1, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I agree with every speech that we have heard so far in today’s debate—I did not hear a single dissenting voice to the noble Baroness’s Motion. Once again, I pay tribute to her; she has fought a tireless campaign for the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of the Bill.

I will be extremely brief, given that we want to move to a vote as soon as possible. The House has already sent a clear message by supporting previous amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, and I hope that the House will be as decisive today. As we have heard this afternoon, transparency is crucial. This would enable the dynamic licensing market that is needed, as we have also heard. How AI is developed and who it benefits are two of the most important questions of our time—and the Government must get the answer right. As so many noble Lords have said, the Government must listen and must think again.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, it is probably redundant to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her tenacity and determination to get to a workable solution on this, because it speaks for itself. It has been equally compelling to hear such strong arguments from all sides of the House and all Benches—including the Government Benches—that we need to find a solution to this complex but critical issue.

Noble Lords will recall that, on these Benches, we have consistently argued for a pragmatic, technology-based solution to this complex problem, having made the case for digital watermarking both in Committee and on Report. When we considered the Commons amendments last week, we worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to find a wording for her amendment which we could support, and were pleased to be able to do so and to vote with her.

It is important that the Government listen and take action to protect the rights of creatives in the UK. We will not stop making the case for our flourishing and important creative sector. We have put that case to Ministers, both in your Lordships’ House and at meetings throughout the passage of the Bill. As a responsible Opposition, though, it is our view that we must be careful about our approach to amendments made by the elected House. We have, I hope, made a clear case to the Government here in your Lordships’ House and the Government have, I deeply regret to say, intransigently refused to act. I am afraid that they will regret their failure to take this opportunity to protect our creative industries. Sadly, there comes a point where we have to accept that His Majesty’s Government must be carried on and the Government will get their Bill.

Before concluding, I make two final pleas to the Minister. First, as others have asked, can she listen with great care to the many artists, musicians, news organisations, publishers and performers who have called on the Government to help them more to protect their intellectual property?

Secondly, can she find ways to create regulatory clarity faster? The process that the Government envisage to resolve this issue is long—too long. Actors on all sides of the debate will be challenged by such a long period of uncertainty. I understand that the Minister is working at pace to find a solution, but not necessarily with agility. I echo the brilliant point made by my noble friend Lady Harding that agility and delivering parts of the solution are so important to pick up the pace of this, because perfect is the enemy of good in this instance. When she gets up to speak, I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the timeline that she envisages, particularly for the collaboration of DSIT and DCMS.

This is a serious problem. It continues to grow and is not going away. Ministers must grip it with urgency and agility.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, I am authorised to speak on Motion 43A, as someone with regular day-to-day experience of scientific research. Since I started my PhD in 1981, I have had the privilege of spending more than half my working life doing scientific research in the UK—the last 20 years working with very sensitive patient data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in collaboration with medtech, AI and pharmaceutical companies.

This research has required me to become familiar with many three-letter and four-letter acronyms. Noble Lords will know about DBS, but they might not know about RSO, TRO, HRA, LREC, MREC, CAG, and IRAS, to name just a few. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical colleagues to fill in integrated research application system—IRAS—forms. IRAS is used to apply for Health Research Authority—HRA—approval for research projects involving the NHS, social care or the criminal justice system. I have appeared before not only medical research ethics committees, or MRECs, which test whether a research protocol is scientifically valid and ethical, but local research ethics committees, or LRECs, which consider the suitability of individual researchers and local issues.

I was involved in a research project which reused data acquired from patients on a Covid isolation ward during the first two waves of the pandemic. That research project sought to understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical-grade wearables we used to monitor these high-risk patients during Covid. It took our research team more than 18 months to obtain the relevant permissions to reuse the data for our proposed analysis. Our application was reviewed by the Confidentiality Advisory Group—CAG—which provides independent expert advice on the use of confidential patient information without consent for research and non-research purposes. CAG already considers whether accessing the confidential data is justified by the public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to decide whether to grant access to the confidential data.

The existing provisions in this country to allow access to data for research purposes are stringent, and it is entirely right that they should be. The UK is respected the world over for the checks and balances of its research governance. The relevant safeguards already exist in the current legislation. Adding a further public interest test will only increase the amount of bureaucracy that will inevitably be introduced by the research services offices, or RSOs, and the translational research offices, or TROs, of our universities, which are very good at doing this.

The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves, and some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment, I am afraid, will have the unintended consequence of having a negative impact on research in this country, so I cannot support it.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this group of amendments, but I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Viscounts for introducing their amendments so clearly.

I acknowledge that Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are considerably less prescriptive than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons to introduce new Clause 21, which seemed to require public authorities to comb through every record to rectify data, went significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, and potentially failed to account for the privacy afforded to GRC holders under the Gender Recognition Act. However, the Liberal Democrats will abstain from votes on the noble Viscount’s amendments for several key reasons.

Our primary reason is the need to allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised. I thought the Minister made his case there. The EHRC is currently updating its code of practice, as we have heard, to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act, with the aim of providing it to the Government by the end of June. This guidance, as I understand it, is intended specifically to support service providers, public bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in the light of the judgment. The EHRC is undertaking a public consultation to understand how the practical implications can best be reflected. These amendments, in our view, are an attempt to jump the gun on, second-guess or at the least pre-empt the EHRC’s code of practice.

On these Benches, we believe that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards should be informed by the official guidance and implemented consistently in a coherent and workable manner. We should allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised, ensuring that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards are informed by its advice and implemented consistently across public authorities in a coherent and workable manner. We have concerns about workability and clarity. Although the amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are less prescriptive than previous similar proposals in the Commons tabled by Dr Spencer, we have concerns about their practical implementation. Questions arise about how public authorities would reliably ascertain biological sex if someone has a gender recognition certificate and has updated their birth certificate. I have long supported same-sex wards in the NHS, but I do not believe that these amendments are helpful in pursuing clarity following the Supreme Court judgment. We heard what the Minister had to say about passports.

I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment, but there are clearly implications, both practical and legal, to be worked out, such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I thought he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the right result. I agree that data needs to be accurate, and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend. In summary, we will be abstaining. We believe that the EHRC process needs to conclude and provide comprehensive guidance, while also reflecting concerns about the workability and appropriateness of specific legislative interventions on data standards at this time.

I move on to Amendment 43B, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This amendment may not reinstate the precise wording

“conducted in the public interest”

that we previously inserted in this House, but it would introduce safeguards that seek to address the same fundamental concerns articulated during our debate on Report. It does two important things.

First, it provides a definition of “scientific research”, clarifying it as

“creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge”.

This directly addresses the concerns raised on Report that the line between product development and scientific research is often blurred, with developers sometimes positing efforts to increase model capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish genuine research from purely commercial activity cloaked as such.

Secondly, and critically, Amendment 43B would require:

“To meet the reasonableness test”


already present in the Bill,

“the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards”.

This requirement seeks to embed within the reasonableness test the principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement on Report and is the same as the amendment put forward by the chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, Chi Onwurah MP, which ties the definition to the definition in the OECD’s Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development:

“creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of humankind, culture and society—and to devise new applications of available knowledge”.

The Frascati framework is used worldwide by Governments, universities and research institutions to report R&D statistics, inform science policy and underpin R&D tax credit regimes, and it serves as a common language and reference point for international comparisons and policy decisions related to scientific research and innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the very purposes we previously identified for the public interest test: ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends, addressing harmful applications, and alignment with standards.

Amendment 43B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is a thoughtful and necessary counter-proposal. It is Parliament’s opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust and responsible conduct, rooted in established frameworks, must remain central to the definition of scientific research that benefits from data re-use exceptions.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, had to say in his very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, cuts across all the things that he wants to see in the outcomes of research.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, I simply ask him this question: does he recall the situation only some 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation, when there were overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both Houses of Parliament on two occasions, and when, finally, a Private Member’s Bill was brought, which would have abolished IVF in this country? Had that happened, of course, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have made a colossal difference not only to our knowledge of embryo growth, but our knowledge of development, ageing, the development of cancer and a whole range of things that we never expected from human embryology. I beg the noble Lord to consider that.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I have had a misspent not-so-youth over the past 50 years. As a lawyer, when I read the wording in the amendment, I cannot see the outcome that he is suggesting. This wording does not cut across anything that he has had to say. I genuinely believe that. I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat, but I do not believe this wording is such a threat.

I also understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, had to say, but an awful lot of that was about the frustration and some of the controls over health data. That does not apply in many other areas of scientific research. The Frascati formula is universal and well accepted. The noble Viscount made an extremely good case; we should be supporting him.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C, and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C. I reiterate that this Government have been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex for equalities legislation. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says, it is critically important that the Government work through the effect of this ruling with care, sensitivity and in line with the law.

When it comes to public sector data, we must work through the impacts of this judgment properly. This would involve considering the scope of the judgment and the upcoming EHRC guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has indicated that it will be updating its statutory code of practice for services, public functions and associations in light of this ruling, which will include some of the examples raised this afternoon, including by my noble friend Lady Hayter.

Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has submitted its updated draft. It is right that the Government and, indeed, Parliament fully consider this guidance alongside the judgment itself before amending the way that public authorities collect, hold and otherwise process data—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the EHRC ruling.

I set out in my opening speech that this Government take the issue of data accuracy seriously. That is why, as I outlined, there are numerous existing work streams addressing the way in which sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed across the public sector.

The digital verification services amendments that we have discussed today are misplaced, because the Bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content of data used by digital verification services. Instead, the Bill enables people to do digitally what they can do physically. It is for organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their circumstances, and how they go about doing that. Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically would cause further confusion.

While this Government understand the intention behind the amendments, the concerns regarding the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator and the specific requirements of public authorities. It is very unlikely that the digital verification services would be used for many of the cases specifically raised by or with many noble Lords. We expect DVS to be used primarily to prove things like one’s right to work or one’s age, address or professional educational qualifications.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by, in effect, indiscriminately and indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. I raise the example that has been brought up several times, and again by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: it is not relevant for the French passport officer to know your biological sex. That is not the purpose of the passport.

We acknowledge, however, that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including those of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, regarding information being shared under Clause 45 but without presenting issues that could cut across existing or prospective legislation and guidance. I remind the House that the data accuracy principle is already included in law. The principle requires that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used. Again, there are workstreams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and indeed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked why it was not accurate for 15 years and what that means about our reliance on this accuracy. I am afraid the fact is that it was accurate for 15 years because there was a muddle about what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex, but that is the case now. In response to the question of whether you could end up with two different sources of digital verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion 49A from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will also address claims that we have heard repeatedly in these debates: that transparency for AI data is technically unfeasible. This claim, forcefully pushed by technology giants such as Google, is not only unsupported by evidence but deliberately misleading.

As someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts, and as a member of DACS—the Design and Artists Copyright Society—I have witnessed first-hand how creators’ works are being exploited without consent or compensation. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, in both his email to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs to the Secretary of State. Although I deeply respect their expertise and commitment to innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion-dollar tech corporations.

The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible have been thoroughly debunked. The LAION dataset already meticulously documents over 5 billion images, with granular detail. Companies operate crawler services on this dataset to identify images belonging to specific rights holders. This irrefutably demonstrates that transparency at scale is not only possible but already practised when it suits corporate interests.

Let us be clear about what is happening: AI companies are systematically ingesting billions of copyrighted works without permission or payment, then claiming it would be too difficult to tell creators which works have been taken. This is theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as inevitable technological progress.

The claim from the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups while sparing US technology giants is entirely backwards. Transparency would actually level the playing field by benefiting innovative British companies while preventing larger firms exploiting creative works without permission. I must respectfully suggest that concerns about potential harm to AI start-ups should be balanced against the devastating impact on our creative industries, thousands of small businesses and individual creators whose livelihoods depend on proper recognition and compensation for their work. Their continued viability depends fundamentally on protecting intellectual property rights. Without transparency, how can creators even begin to enforce these rights? The question answers itself.

This is not about choosing between technology and creativity; it is about ensuring that both sectors can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. Transparency is not an obstacle to innovation; it is the foundation on which responsible, sustainable innovation is built.

Google’s preferred approach would reverse the fundamental basis of UK copyright law by placing an unreasonable burden on rights holders to opt out of having their work stolen. This approach is unworkable and would, effectively, legalise mass copyright theft to benefit primarily American technology corporations.

Rather than waiting for a consultation outcome that may take years, while creative works continue to be misappropriated, Motion 49A offers a practical step forward that would benefit both sectors while upholding existing law. I urge the House to support it.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, really has opened the floodgates to expressions of support for human creativity. I thank her for tabling her Motion. I also thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position and their support for the creative industries.

I suppose I straddle the world of AI and creativity as much as anybody in this House. I co-founded the All-Party Group on Artificial Intelligence and I have been a member of the All-Party Group on Intellectual Property for many years. That is reflected in my interests, both as an advisor to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation, and as the newly appointed chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I declare those interests, which are more than merely formal.

The subject matter of the amendments in this group is of profound importance for the future of our creative industries and the development of AI in the UK: the critical intersection of AI training and copyright law, and, specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described, the rapid development of AI, particularly large language models, relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training. This has brought into sharp focus the way copyright law applies to such activity. It was impossible to miss the letter over the weekend from 400 really important creatives, and media and creative business leaders urging support for her Motion 49A. Rights holders, from musicians and authors to journalists and visual artists, are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material to train AI models, often without permission or remuneration, as we have heard. They seek greater control over their content and remuneration when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater transparency.

Like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of this Bill in her tabling of a series of crucial amendments. Her original amendments on Report, passed in this House but deleted by the Government in the Commons and then retabled in the Commons on Report by my honourable friends, aimed to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of generative AI. The core argument behind Amendment 49B, which encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, is that innovation in the AI field should not come at the expense of the individuals and industry creating original content.

The central plank of the noble Baroness’s proposals, and one these Benches strongly support, is the requirement for transparency from AI developers regarding the copyrighted material used in their training data. Her Amendment 49B specifically requires the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out strict transparency requirements for web crawlers and general-purpose AI models. This would include disclosing the identity and purpose of the crawlers used, identifying their owners and, crucially, keeping records of where and when copyrighted material is gathered. This transparency is vital for ensuring accountability and enabling copyright holders to identify potential infringements and enforce their rights.

The Minister described the process in the consultation on AI and copyright, published last December. That consultation proposed a text and data mining exception that would allow AI developers to train on material unless the rights holder expressly reserved their rights or opted out. The arguments against this proposed opt-out mechanism are compelling; they have been made by many noble Lords today and have been voiced by many outside, as we have heard. This mechanism shifts the burden on to creators to police the use of their work and actively opt out, placing an undue responsibility on them.

This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively rewarding the widespread harvesting or scraping of copyrighted material that has occurred without permission or fair remuneration. The Government’s proposed text and data-mining exception, which it appears that they are no longer proposing—as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify the Government’s position and confirm that that is indeed the case—risks harming creative sectors for minimal gain to a small group of global tech companies and could erode public trust in the AI sector. As the noble Baroness observed, this approach is selling the creative industries down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency proposed by the Government are insufficient. Clear legal obligations are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said everything I was going to say and more and better, so I want just to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, and to say that I too have witnessed her forensic fight over the last few months. I hugely admire her for it, and I congratulate her on getting this far. I absolutely share all the concerns that both noble Baronesses have expressed. Just in case I do not have the opportunity again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extraordinary work and campaigning.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of non-consensual images, first with her Private Member’s Bill and then with amendments to this Bill. She has fought it with huge skill and determination, and, rightly, she has pushed it to the wire in wanting the most robust offence and tightest defences possible. I thank the Minister for his flexibility that he has shown so far—with the emphasis on “so far”.

The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward represent a compromise, given the strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General that the defence of “reasonable excuse” is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR and that, therefore, the whole Bill risks being non-compliant if that is not contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal brick wall, despite an excellent opinion from Professor Clare McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney-General’s case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of big tech companies to red team their models on images used without consent. That is a rather peculiar basis. Why cannot the big tech companies use images with consent? They would then be red teaming in a rather different and more compliant way.

AI: Child Sexual Abuse Material

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right that we have to keep the technology up to date, and of course we are endeavouring to do that. I should say that UK law applies to AI-generated CSAM in the same way as to real child sexual abuse. Creating, possessing or distributing any child sex abuse images, including those generated by AI, is illegal. Generative AI child sexual abuse imagery is priority illegal content under the Online Safety Act in the same way as real content. However, she is quite right: we have to keep abreast of the technology. We are working at pace across government to make sure that we have the capacity to do that.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, and the IWF have both called for a total ban on apps which allow nudification, where photos of real people are edited by AI to make them appear naked. The commissioner has been particularly critical about the fact that such apps

“go unchecked with extreme real-world consequences”.

Will the Government act and ban these AI-enabled tools outright?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are actively looking at options to address nudification tools, and we hope to provide an update shortly. It is a matter that we take seriously. If such tools are used to create child sexual abuse material, UK law is clear that creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated using nudification tools, is already illegal, regardless of whether it depicts a real child or not.

Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand 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, the Government take the security of public telecoms seriously. As noble Lords know, the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 17 November 2021. The Act established powers to introduce a new telecommunications security framework and introduced new vendor security powers. It is these vendor security powers that are relevant to this statutory instrument.

The Act allows the Secretary of State to issue a designation notice to a vendor whose presence in the UK networks poses national security risks, and designated vendor directions to public communications providers placing controls on their use of equipment or services by a designated vendor. The Act also gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a penalty on a public communications provider that does not comply with a designated vendor direction issued to it. That penalty can be up to 10% of a provider’s turnover. The Act states that the Secretary of State must set out rules for how they intend to calculate a provider’s turnover. That includes what relevant business the Secretary of State will take into account when calculating that turnover.

The Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order 2003 sets out rules for Ofcom to calculate a provider’s turnover when it contravenes conditions set under the Communications Act 2003. The statutory instrument makes changes to the 2003 order so that rules in that legislation apply when calculating turnover for the purposes of determining a penalty for enforcement of designated vendor directions. It also defines what is to be treated as a network service facility or business by reference to which the calculation of turnover is to be made.

The Secretary of State could have relied on the 2003 order for the purposes of enforcement of a designated vendor direction. However, this SI removes any ambiguity and provides legal certainty and absolute clarity on the rules that apply. Turnover will be calculated in line with accounting practices and principles generally accepted in the United Kingdom and will be limited to the amount derived by that provider after the deduction of relevant taxes.

In conclusion, this is a narrowly focused but important statutory instrument through which we are ensuring legal certainty and clarity. It makes clear the Secretary of State’s approach to calculating turnover, which will underpin any decision to penalise a provider in relation to the designated vendor directions. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this draft statutory instrument; it was brief and to the point. These penalties will be able to reach 10% of turnover or £100,000 per day for continuing breaches, so getting the calculations right is crucial. However, I have some concerns about the SI, the first of which is about timing.

I do not understand why we are looking at a three-year gap between the enabling powers and the calculation rules. The Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, which I worked on, was presented to this House as urgent legislation to protect critical national infrastructure, yet here we are, in 2025, only now establishing how to calculate penalties for breaches in the way set out in this SI. During this period, we have had enforcement powers without the ability to properly determine penalties. As I understand it, tier 1 providers had to comply by March 2024, yet the penalty calculation mechanism will not be in place until this year—no doubt in a few weeks’ time.

Secondly, there is the absence of consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum cites the reason as the SI’s “technical nature”, but these penalties—I mentioned their size—could have major financial implications for providers. The telecoms industry has complex business structures and revenue streams. Technical expertise from the industry could have helped to ensure that these calculations are practical and comprehensive. The technical justification seems remarkably weak, given the impact these rules could have. For example, the current definition of “relevant business” for these calculations focuses on traditional network and service provision, but modern telecoms companies often have diverse revenue streams. There is no clear provision for new business models or technologies. How will we handle integrated service providers? What about international revenues? The treatment of associated services needs clarification.

Thirdly, the implementation sequence is an issue. We are being asked to approve penalty calculations before seeing the enforcement guidelines. There is no impact assessment, so we cannot evaluate potential consequences. I understand that the post-implementation review is not scheduled until 2026, and there is no clear mechanism for adjusting the framework if problems emerge. The interaction with the existing penalty regime needs clarification.

There are also technical concerns that need some attention. The switch from “notified provider” to “person” in the 2003 order, as a result of this SI, needs rather more explanation. The calculation method for continuing breaches is not fully detailed, there is no specific provision for group companies or complex corporate structures and the treatment of joint ventures and partnerships remains unclear.

Finally, I hope that, in broad terms, the Minister can give us an update on progress on the removal of equipment covered by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That was mandated by the Act; I know it is under way but it is not yet complete.

This is about not merely technical calculations but creating an effective deterrent to the telecoms industry, while ensuring fair and practical enforcement of important security measures. Getting these rules right is essential for both national security and our telecoms sector. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important SI forward today and for setting it out so clearly and briefly. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a range of interesting points: in particular, the point on timing was well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers on that. This instrument seeks to implement provisions relating to the enforcement of designated vendor directions—DVDs—which form part of the broader framework established under the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That Act, introduced under the previous Government, was designed to strengthen the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunications networks, particularly in response to emerging national security risks.

We all know only too well that one of the most prominent issues at the forefront of this framework has been the removal of high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, from UK telecommunications infrastructure. Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s 5G rollout has long been a point of debate, with growing concerns about national security risks tied to its equipment. This SI therefore provides a mechanism for enforcing the penalties that may be applied to public communications providers —PCPs—that fail to comply with the DVDs to ensure that the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure remains secure from undue foreign influence.

The primary change introduced by this SI is the formalisation of the penalties regime for public communications providers that fail to comply with the conditions outlined in DVDs. It establishes a framework for calculating and enforcing penalties that may be imposed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State retains discretion in imposing penalties, but they must be applied in a proportionate manner. In considering penalties, the severity of the breach, the culpability of the provider and the broader implications for the sector must all be taken into account. The aim is to ensure compliance with DVDs while protecting the integrity of the UK’s national infrastructure.

However, while the objectives of this instrument are understood, this debate offers a good opportunity to scrutinise some of the specifics a little, particularly with regard to the proportionality of penalties and the potential economic consequences for the sector. It is with that in mind that I shall raise questions in just three areas regarding the provisions set out in this instrument.

First, the SI grants the Secretary of State significant discretion in the imposition of penalties. Of course, we recognise the value of flexibility here, but there is legitimate concern that this discretion may result in inconsistent enforcement across different public communications providers. Can the Minister assure us that transparency and accountability will be maintained throughout this process? How will the Government ensure that the application of penalties is fair and consistent, particularly when considering the varying size and scope of telecoms providers?

Further to this, can the Minister clarify how the penalties will be calculated? I echo the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, particularly in cases where a breach does not pose an immediate or severe national security threat. Do the Government anticipate that penalties will be tiered with lesser fines for breaches that do not substantially compromise national security? Can the Minister further explain how such decisions will be communicated to the public and to industry to ensure transparency?

Secondly, providers are required to remove Huawei equipment from the UK’s 5G networks by 2027. This is, of course, a significant and costly task for telecom providers. Given these financial challenges, will the penalties for non-compliance take into account the costs already incurred by providers in replacing Huawei’s technology? Will the penalties be adjusted to reflect the substantial financial burden that these providers are already facing in removing Huawei equipment from their networks? Thirdly, where PCPs have been issued with a DVD, this can be a long and demanding process. How are the Government going to keep track of progress? What progress reports can be shared with Parliament and the public?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. We believe that legislative certainty is important, which is why we are seeking to resolve potential ambiguity by making this instrument at the earliest opportunity. This SI will ensure that important decisions on national security, specifically the enforcement of national security powers introduced by the Telecommunications (Security) Act, have clear rules underpinning them.

I will now have a go at answering the questions raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the three-year gap and why the SI was not taken forward earlier. I should thank Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee clerks for asking for clarification on the operability of the regime. The system has not been inoperable for four years. The Secretary of State can and has used their powers to monitor compliance with a direction under the current rules. The Secretary of State could have taken enforcement action without this SI being in place. The 2003 order could have applied for the purpose of enforcement of a designated vendor direction. However, there is some ambiguity concerning whether the rules set out in the 2003 order can apply to the enforcement of a designated vendor direction. This could have left enforcement action imposing a penalty on a provider vulnerable to legal challenge. We are therefore making an SI to ensure that there is legal certainty and clarity when penalties are imposed, and that position was set out in a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee clarifying that.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked about the lack of consultation, but this is a technical clarification for rules that were already in operation. He asked about how turnover would be calculated. It will be done in conformity with the accounting practices and principles that are generally accepted in the United Kingdom. The turnover will be limited to the amount derived by that provider from the relevant business after deduction of sales rebates, value added tax and other taxes directly related to turnover. If the provider’s relevant business consists of two or more undertakings that each prepare accounts, then the turnover should be calculated by adding together the turnover of each undertaking. Any aid granted by a public body to a provider should be included in the calculation of turnover if the provider is a recipient of the aid and if that is directly linked to the carrying out by that provider of the relevant business. The business activities to be included in the turnover calculation for a provider are as follows: the provision of public electronic communications network; the provision of the public electronic communication of services; and the making available of facilities that are associated with facilities by reference to such a network or service.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the removal of equipment and the progress report on that. Using the powers provided by the Telecommunications (Security) Act, the former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport issued a designation notice to Huawei and a designated vendor direction to 35 providers in October 2022. The direction gives 12 specific requirements for telecom providers’ use of Huawei equipment. The previous Secretary of State decided that these legal controls on the use of Huawei equipment or services were necessary and proportionate to the national security risks they were designated to mitigate. The UK is now on a path towards the complete removal of Huawei from its 5G networks by the end of 2027.

The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked whether the application was being applied in a fair and consistent way. I would say that this was an evidence-based decision, reflecting the national security risk. The designation notice issued to Huawei set out the reasons why the use of its equipment is viewed as a national security risk; it includes concerns about, among other things, corporate control, cybersecurity and engineering quality. This action builds on long-standing advice from the National Cyber Security Centre and the Government on the use of Huawei equipment in UK public tele- communications networks.

The noble Viscount asked about the cost to business of removing this equipment. The Government have estimated that the removal of Huawei equipment due to the designated vendor directions will cost providers up to £2 billion in total.

The noble Viscount also asked how the Secretary of State monitors compliance with a direction. The Communications Act 2003, as amended by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, provides the Secretary of State with powers enabling the monitoring and enforcement of requirements imposed in designated vendor directions. The Secretary of State is responsible for determining compliance with a direction, based on evidence provided by the industry and Ofcom. The Secretary of State may give Ofcom a direction requiring Ofcom to monitor providers’ progress in complying with the direction and to report to the Secretary of State to inform their assessment of compliance. The former Secretary of State received Ofcom’s report in spring 2024 on the removal of Huawei from relevant providers’ core network functions, and that ongoing appraisal continues.

I hope that I have answered all the questions that were asked. If I have not answered on something that is very technical, I can write to noble Lords, of course. In the meantime, I hope noble Lords agree on the importance of introducing this instrument to ensure legislative certainty and therefore agree that enforcement through these powers should be introduced as swiftly as possible.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Is the Minister confident that the 2027 deadline will be met; that no vendor, purchaser or telecoms company will be caught by the Act; that no fines will be levied; and that what we are talking about today is, therefore, entirely theoretical?

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

While the Minister is working on her answer, perhaps she could include in that something about how progress against the delivery of these objectives will be reported to Parliament, potentially —and, indeed, to the public.

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

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations do not impose duties available under the parent Act on small, high-risk platforms where harmful content, often easily accessible to children, is propagated; calls on the Government to clarify which smaller platforms will no longer be covered by Ofcom’s illegal content code and which measures they will no longer be required to comply with; and calls on the Government to withdraw the Regulations and establish a revised definition of Category 1 services.”

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to see the Minister back in her place. I thank her for her introduction to this statutory instrument. Her disappointment at my tabling this regret amendment is exceeded only by my own disappointment at the SI. However, I hope that she will provide the antidote to the Government’s alarming tendency to pick unnecessary fights on so many important issues—a number of them overseen by her department.

Those of us who were intimately involved with its passage hoped that the Online Safety Act would bring in a new era of digital regulation, but the Government’s and Ofcom’s handling of small but high-risk platforms threatens to undermine the Act’s fundamental purpose of creating a safer online environment. That is why I am moving this amendment, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who are present and to those taking part.

The Government’s position is rendered even more baffling by their explicit awareness of the risks. Last September, the Secretary of State personally communicated concerns to Ofcom about the proliferation of harmful content, particularly regarding children’s access. Despite this acknowledged awareness, the regulatory framework remains fundamentally flawed in its approach to platform categorisation.

The parliamentary record clearly shows that cross-party support existed for a risk-based approach to platform categorisation, which became enshrined in law. The amendment to Schedule 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—I am very pleased to see her in her place—specifically changed the requirement for category 1 from a size “and” functionality threshold to a size “or” functionality threshold. This modification was intended to ensure that Ofcom could bring smaller, high-risk platforms under appropriate regulatory scrutiny.

Subsequently, in September 2023, on consideration of Commons amendments, the Minister responsible for the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—I am pleased to see him in his place—made it clear what the impact was:

“I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her continued engagement on the issue of small but high-risk platforms. The Government were happy to accept her proposed changes to the rules for determining the conditions that establish which services will be designated as category 1 or 2B services. In making the regulations, the Secretary of State will now have the discretion to decide whether to set a threshold based on either the number of users or the functionalities offered, or on both factors. Previously, the threshold had to be based on a combination of both”.—[Official Report, 19/9/23; col. 1339.]


I do not think that could be clearer.

This Government’s and Ofcom’s decision to ignore this clear parliamentary intent is particularly troubling. The Southport tragedy serves as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of inadequate online regulation. When hateful content fuels violence and civil unrest, the artificial distinction between large and small platforms becomes a dangerous regulatory gap. The Government and Ofcom seem to have failed to learn from these events.

At the heart of this issue seems to lie a misunderstanding of how harmful content proliferates online. The impact on vulnerable groups is particularly concerning. Suicide promotion forums, incel communities and platforms spreading racist content continue to operate with minimal oversight due to their size rather than their risk profile. This directly contradicts the Government’s stated commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and protecting children from harmful content online. The current regulatory framework creates a dangerous loophole that allows these harmful platforms to evade proper scrutiny.

The duties avoided by these smaller platforms are not trivial. They will escape requirements to publish transparency reports, enforce their terms of service and provide user empowerment tools. The absence of these requirements creates a significant gap in user protection and accountability.

Perhaps the most damning is the contradiction between the Government’s Draft Statement of Strategic Priorities for Online Safety, published last November, which emphasises effective regulation of small but risky services, and their and Ofcom’s implementation of categorisation thresholds that explicitly exclude these services from the highest level of scrutiny. Ofcom’s advice expressly disregarded—“discounted” is the phrase it used—the flexibility brought into the Act via the Morgan amendment, and advised that regulations should be laid that brought only large platforms into category 1. Its overcautious interpretation of the Act creates a situation where Ofcom recognises the risks but fails to recommend for itself the full range of tools necessary to address them effectively.

This is particularly important in respect of small, high-risk sites, such as suicide and self-harm sites, or sites which propagate racist or misogynistic abuse, where the extent of harm to users is significant. The Minister, I hope, will have seen the recent letter to the Prime Minister from a number of suicide, mental health and anti-hate charities on the issue of categorisation of these sites. This means that platforms such as 4chan, 8chan and Telegram, despite their documented role in spreading harmful content and co-ordinating malicious activities, escaped the full force of regulatory oversight simply due to their size. This creates an absurd situation where platforms known to pose significant risks to public safety receive less scrutiny than large platforms with more robust safety measures already in place.

The Government’s insistence that platforms should be “safe by design”, while simultaneously exempting high-risk platforms from category 1 requirements based solely on size metrics, represents a fundamental contradiction and undermines what we were all convinced—and still are convinced—the Act was intended to achieve. Dame Melanie Dawes’s letter, in the aftermath of Southport, surely gives evidence enough of the dangers of some of the high-risk, smaller platforms.

Moreover, the Government’s approach fails to account for the dynamic nature of online risks. Harmful content and activities naturally migrate to platforms with lighter regulatory requirements. By creating this two-tier system, they have, in effect, signposted escape routes for bad actors seeking to evade meaningful oversight. This short-sighted approach could lead to the proliferation of smaller, high-risk platforms designed specifically to exploit these regulatory gaps. As the Minister mentioned, Ofcom has established a supervision task force for small but risky services, but that is no substitute for imposing the full force of category 1 duties on these platforms.

The situation is compounded by the fact that, while omitting these small but risky sites, category 1 seems to be sweeping up sites that are universally accepted as low-risk despite the number of users. Many sites with over 7 million users a month—including Wikipedia, a vital source of open knowledge and information in the UK—might be treated as a category 1 service, regardless of actual safety considerations. Again, we raised concerns during the passage of the Bill and received ministerial assurances. Wikipedia is particularly concerned about a potential obligation on it, if classified in category 1, to build a system that allows verified users to modify Wikipedia without any of the customary peer review.

Under Section 15(10), all verified users must be given an option to

“prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service”.

Wikipedia says that doing so would leave it open to widespread manipulation by malicious actors, since it depends on constant peer review by thousands of individuals around the world, some of whom would face harassment, imprisonment or physical harm if forced to disclose their identity purely to continue doing what they have done, so successfully, for the past 24 years.

This makes it doubly important for the Government and Ofcom to examine, and make use of, powers to more appropriately tailor the scope and reach of the Act and the categorisations, to ensure that the UK does not put low-risk, low-resource, socially beneficial platforms in untenable positions.

There are key questions that Wikipedia believes the Government should answer. First, is a platform caught by the functionality criteria so long as it has any form of content recommender system anywhere on UK-accessible parts of the service, no matter how minor, infrequently used and ancillary that feature is?

Secondly, the scope of

“functionality for users to forward or share regulated user-generated content on the service with other users of that service”

is unclear, although it appears very broad. The draft regulations provide no guidance. What do the Government mean by this?

Thirdly, will Ofcom be able to reliably determine how many users a platform has? The Act does not define “user”, and the draft regulations do not clarify how the concept is to be understood, notably when it comes to counting non-human entities incorporated in the UK, as the Act seems to say would be necessary.

The Minister said in her letter of 7 February that the Government are open to keeping the categorisation thresholds under review, including the main consideration for category 1, to ensure that the regime is as effective as possible—and she repeated that today. But, at the same time, the Government seem to be denying that there is a legally robust or justifiable way of doing so under Schedule 11. How can both those propositions be true?

Can the Minister set out why the regulations, as drafted, do not follow the will of Parliament—accepted by the previous Government and written into the Act—that thresholds for categorisation can be based on risk or size? Ofcom’s advice to the Secretary of State contained just one paragraph explaining why it had ignored the will of Parliament—or, as the regulator called it, the

“recommendation that allowed for the categorisation of services by reference exclusively to functionalities and characteristics”.

Did the Secretary of State ask to see the legal advice on which this judgment was based? Did DSIT lawyers provide their own advice on whether Ofcom’s position was correct, especially in the light of the Southport riots?

How do the Government intend to assess whether Ofcom’s regulatory approach to small but high-harm sites is proving effective? Have any details been provided on Ofcom’s schedule of research about such sites? Do the Government expect Ofcom to take enforcement action against small but high-harm sites, and have they made an assessment of the likely timescales for enforcement action?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

That this House regrets that the Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024, laid before the House on 13 November 2024 (SI 2024/1124), did not involve consultation on Option 0A, which will result in inequitable treatment of performers on sound recordings based on their nationality.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will start by saying that I am delighted that the Minister is treating this as one of her first engagements back in the House; how flattering to have her here at this time of day for a regret Motion. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Minister, Feryal Clark, who has taken the trouble to engage. Time will tell whether that engagement bears fruit, as we will see.

We on these Benches agree with Equity—the actors’ union—and the Musicians’ Union that this statutory instrument should be withdrawn due to several significant concerns regarding its fairness, its consultation process and its potential impact on performers, particularly those from the United States. The key arguments against the statutory instrument revolve around the implementation of option 0A, which maintains the status quo for producers of sound recordings while extending public performance rights to foreign performers only if their producer is a UK national or based in a country that is a signatory to the Rome convention, thereby excluding performers from countries that are not signatories, such as the United States. This option was not explicitly consulted on, and it creates an inequitable system of remuneration for performers.

The consultation presented four options, numbered 0 to 3, but option 0A emerged after the consultation. The Government have acknowledged that option 0A is a new option. However, the Government’s claim that they carefully considered all views is wrong, as a key policy option was developed and implemented without input from key stakeholders. Impacted organisations were not given an opportunity to formally submit their views on option 0A. As such, this lack of consultation raises concerns about the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process, and in fact undermines it.

As I have mentioned, option 0A creates a system where some foreign performers receive public performance rights based on national treatment, while others, specifically US performers, are denied those rights, based on the principle of material reciprocity. This means that US performers will not receive equitable remuneration for their work in the UK, even though their recordings are being used. US producers will continue to enjoy protection and equitable remuneration in the UK, while US performers on the same recordings are denied these rights. This disparity is difficult to justify and is clearly discriminatory.

It will also extend public performance rights to some additional foreign performers who will qualify through their producer, regardless of whether their nation offers material reciprocity to UK performers. The situation is further complicated by the fact that performers from countries such as Australia and New Zealand, which also do not offer material reciprocity to UK performers, will still receive public performance rights in the UK. This inconsistency makes the policy arbitrary and unjust. The Government’s approach effectively singles out US performers for less favourable treatment.

The Government further justifies their position by arguing that expanding performers’ rights would negatively impact the UK music sector. The Government’s decision to not expand performers’ eligibility is partly based on the argument that UK affiliates of overseas record labels retain a significant proportion of the revenues attributable to foreign rights holders. Specifically, the British Phonographic Industry, BPI, claimed that UK labels retain 30% of the revenues collected in the UK on behalf of foreign affiliates, and that any reduction in revenues for US record labels would mean less money for the UK music sector.

Little evidence for this claim has been made and the Musicians’ Union disputes it, arguing that this paints an “exaggerated, bleak picture”, that the UK and US operations remain financially separate in practice, and that it cannot find any workings in the BPI’s redacted submission to the consultation. This suggests that the Government’s financial justification is based on flawed information, not solid evidence. Smaller independent record companies have, by contrast, expressed that the current situation is unfair and supported option 1, which would expand performers’ eligibility for remuneration.

The Government also claim that denying US performers public performance rights is intended to encourage the US to adopt material reciprocity. However, the revised economic impact assessment acknowledges that this is unlikely to influence US policy. In the view of Equity, a more effective strategy would be to offer US performers rights for a limited term, such as 10 years, and then use that as leverage to negotiate material reciprocity with the US Government. This approach would provide US performers with fair compensation while creating an incentive for the US to reciprocate. The current strategy effectively withholds remuneration from performers as a negotiating tactic, while a more effective strategy will still guarantee that performers get paid for their work.

The Government’s policy is intended to ensure that UK law meets its international obligations under the Rome convention and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. However, the implementation of option 0A undermines the spirit of these treaties by creating a system of unequal treatment for performers based on their nationality. Equity believes that all foreign performers in countries that qualify for public protection rights should benefit from the same level of protection. It considers the current approach to be unethical, and we agree. As a matter of principle, performers should be remunerated for their work. This option leaves some performers benefiting from national treatment, ignoring lack of material reciprocity, while US performers are denied remuneration on the basis of material reciprocity.

The Government have stated that the current statutory instrument corresponds closely to option 0, which was the status quo option. However, the Intellectual Property Office itself stated in its revised impact assessment that

“Parliament has passed the CPTPP Act. The CPTPP Act contains measures that will, when it comes into force (expected in December 2024), expand eligibility for performers’ rights generally, in a way that approximates the effects of Option 1. Doing nothing therefore now means allowing the law to change in a way similar to that set out in Option 1, rather than maintaining the effect of existing law”.

Therefore, the Government’s claim that they are maintaining the status quo is actually incorrect, because the status quo is already changing due to the CPTPP Act, which has now come into effect. The Government are claiming to maintain the status quo, but that status quo is already changing due to that legislation.

Equity, SAG-AFTRA, the Musicians’ Union and PPL have all raised concerns regarding the Government’s proposed course of action. This statutory instrument should be withdrawn due to a flawed consultation, the unfair treatment of US performers, the disputed financial claims, its ineffective approach to achieving material reciprocity, the ethical concerns and the contradictions with existing legislation. The Government should reconsider their approach, consult on both option 0A and option 1 and implement a system that provides equitable remuneration for all performers. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this regret Motion. I will be brief, not least because the noble Lord has covered the ground so well. I too thank the Minister, Feryal Clark at DSIT, for our meeting with her on Monday on this issue. I also thank Equity for its briefing on this and for alerting us to this concern. I very much welcome the Minister back to her place.

Ultimately, this is about fairness and consistency—or, perhaps more to the point, unfairness and inconsistency —and about mutual benefits, which this Government should strive toward in every area of our dealings with others, not least in the case of the arts and creative industries. I have become a great believer in the word “mutual”. I prefer it now over “reciprocal”, which the public grasp less, I think—they find it too abstract. But we all understand, or have a better chance of understanding, what “mutual benefits” means. For example—forgive me if I digress slightly—a new poll finds that over 80% of the public are in favour of mutual free movement in Europe, because that becomes something that is immediately understandable, while of course some of us have been banging the drum for reciprocity for years and not getting very far. The language we use to describe these things is hugely important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I do not doubt her motives at all; it is just the outcome that we are not happy with. I thank those who have spoken in favour of this regret Motion. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about US session musicians, who are an important aspect of this. Clearly, they are being discriminated against if they are working with musicians from countries that are reciprocating and paying our musicians. This seems to be unfairly singling out those session musicians in those circumstances.

My noble friend Lady Featherstone talked about fair play and the risk of US retaliation. The Government may have the right motives, but I do not think they have quite come to terms with what a US Administration might do in this regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, rightly said that any system needs to have the confidence of those who are supposed to benefit from it. I thought that his injunction to tread carefully in these circumstances was very important.

I do not propose to put this Motion to a vote; the SI has already gone through on the negative procedure. However, we are not wholly reassured. I very much hope that the Government will initiative a dialogue with Equity. When I raised with Minister Clark whether they had actually met Equity to discuss this SI, it was interesting that they had not. There are other issues that Equity would, I am sure, very much want to talk about, such as synthesisation of performances, in relation to AI—that is probably another area. It seemed rather extraordinary that a Labour Government had not properly engaged with Equity in the last six months. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to take that back to the department and reinforce the desire to meet with Equity and the Musicians’ Union.

The Government have been unduly influenced by the figures from the BPI. I do not recognise the figures that the Minister maintained about the income which would be forgone if another option had been taken. As I said when I introduced the Motion, those figures are very much disputed by the MU. We have not seen any real workings that prove that that would be the loss of income, but we can argue the toss on that.

I very much hope that the Government will at least take back from this regret Motion that in producing an option at the last minute, however creative it may be—I would not deny that creativity is a useful thing to have in the department—you can be slightly overly creative if you are not consulting on a particular option. I thought it was a neat piece of speechwriting but not necessarily to be desired. It is the kind of thing that would go to judicial review if a commercial organisation was involved in this SI. If this was BT, or another major telecom company, disputing an SI in which an option had not been consulted on, they would take this kind of thing to court. As it happens, this is about artists and unions, so they are not going to do that; they are going to go through the political process. I welcome that, but it nevertheless shows the fragility of the decision that has been taken in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

138: After Clause 92, insert the following new Clause—
“Code on processing personal data in education where it concerns a child or pupil(1) The Information Commissioner must consult on, prepare and publish a Code of Practice on standards to be followed in relation to the collection, processing, publication and other dissemination of personal data concerning children and pupils in connection with the provision of education services in the United Kingdom, within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, the Education (Scotland) Act 1996, and the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986; and on standards on the rights of those children as data subjects which are appropriate to children’s capacity and stage of education.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the rights of data subjects must include—(a) measures related to responsibilities of the controller, data protection by design and by default, and security of processing,(b) safeguards and suitable measures with regard to automated decision-making, including profiling and restrictions,(c) the rights of data subjects including to object to or restrict the processing of their personal data collected during their education, including any exemptions for research purposes, and(d) matters related to the understanding and exercising of rights relating to personal data and the provision of education services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Commission to consult on, prepare and publish a Code of Practice on standards to be followed in relation to the collection, processing, publication and other dissemination of personal data concerning children and pupils in connection with the provision of education services in the UK.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, unusually, I rise to move an amendment, Amendment 138. For the second time in Committee, I find myself heading a group when I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will be much better qualified to introduce the subject. Indeed, she has an amendment, Amendment 141, which is far preferable in many ways to mine.

Amendment 138 is designed to ensure that the Information Commissioner produces a code of practice specific to children up to the age of 18 for the purposes of UK law and Convention 108, and pupils as defined by the Education Act 1996, who may be up to the age of 19 or, with special educational needs, up to 25 in the education sector. The charity Data, Tech & Black Communities put it this way in a recent letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones:

“We recently completed a community research project examining the use of EdTech in Birmingham schools. This project brought us into contact with over 100 people … including parents, school staff and community members. A key finding was the need to make it easier for those with stewardship responsibility for children’s data, to fulfil this duty. Even with current data protection rights, parents and guardians struggle to make inquiries (of schools, EdTech companies and even DfE) about the purpose behind the collection of some of their children’s data, clarity about how it is used (or re-used) or how long data will be retained for. ‘Opting out’ on behalf of their children can be just as challenging. All of which militates against nuanced decision-making about how best to protect children’s short and long-term interests … This is why we are in support of an ICO Code of Practice for Educational Settings that would enable school staff, parents and learners, the EdTech industry and researchers to responsibly collect, share and make use of children’s data in ways that support the latter’s agency over their ‘digital selves’ and more importantly, will support their flourishing”.


The duties of settings and data processers and rights appropriate to the stage of education and children’s capacity needs clarity and consistency. Staff need confidence to access and use data appropriately within the law. As the UNCRC’s General Comment No. 16 (2013) on State Obligations Regarding the Impact of the Business Sector on Children’s Rights set out over a decade ago,

“the realization of children’s rights is not an automatic consequence of economic growth and business enterprises can also negatively impact children’s rights”.

The educational setting is different from only commercial interactions or in regard to the data subjects being children. It is more complex because of the disempowered environment and its imbalance of power between the authority, the parents and the child. The additional condition is the fact that parents’ and children’s rights are interlinked, as exemplified in the right to education described in UDHR Article 26(3), which states:

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”


A code is needed because the explicit safeguards are missing that the GDPR requires in several places but were left out of the UK Data Protection Act 2018 drafting. Clause 80 of the Bill—“Automated decision-making”—does not address the necessary safeguards of GDPR Article 23(1) for children. Furthermore, removing the protections of the balancing test under the recognised legitimate interest condition will create new risks. Clauses on additional further processing or changes to purpose limitation are inappropriately wide without child-specific safeguards. The volume, sensitivity and intrusiveness of identifying personal data collection in educational settings only increases, while the protections are only ever reduced.

Obligations specific to children’s data, especially

“solely automated decision-making and profiling”

and exceptions, need to be consistent with clear safeguards by design where they restrict fundamental freedoms. What does that mean for children in practice, where teachers are assumed to be the rights bearers in loco parentis? The need for compliance with human rights, security, health and safety, among other standards proportionate to the risks of data processing and respecting the UK Government’s accessibility requirements, should be self-evident and adopted in a code of practice, as recommended in the five rights in the Digital Futures Commission’s blueprint for educational data governance.

The Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2022-2027) and the UNCRC General Comment No. 25 on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment make it clear that

“children have the right to be heard and participate in decisions affecting them”.

They recognise that

“capacity matters, in accordance with their age and maturity. In particular attention should be paid to empowering children in vulnerable situations, such as children with disabilities.”

Paragraph 75 recognises that surveillance in educational settings should not take place without the right to object and that teachers need training to keep up with technological developments.

Participation of young people themselves has not been invited in the development of this Bill and the views of young people have not been considered. However, a small sample of parent and pupil voices has been captured in the Responsible Technology Adoption Unit’s public engagement work together with the DfE in 2024. The findings back those of Defend Digital Me’s Survation poll in 2018 and show that parents do not know that the DfE already holds named pupil records without their knowledge or permission and that the data is given away to be reused by hundreds of commercial companies, the DWP, the Home Office and the police. It stated:

“There was widespread consensus that work and data should not be used without parents’ and/or pupils’ explicit agreement. Parents, in particular, stressed the need for clear and comprehensive information about pupil work and data use and any potential risks relating to data security and privacy breaches.”


A code of practice is needed to explain the law and make it work as intended for everyone. The aims of a code of practice for educational settings would be that adherence to a code creates a mechanism for controllers and processors to demonstrate compliance with the legislation or approve certification methods. It would give providers confidence in consistent and clear standards and would be good for the edtech sector. It would allow children, parents, school staff and systems administrators to build trust in safe, fair and transparent practice so that their rights are freely met by design and default.

Further, schools give children’s personal data to many commercial companies during a child’s education—not based on consent but assumed for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest. A code should clarify any boundaries of this lawful basis for commercial purposes, where it is an obligation on parents to provide the data and what this means for the child on reaching maturity or after leaving the educational setting.

Again, a code should help companies understand “data protection by design and default” in practice, and appropriate “significant legal effect”, the edges of “public interest” in data transfers to a third country, and how special categories of data affect children in schools. A code should also support children and families in understanding the effect of the responsibilities of controllers and processes for the execution or limitation of their own rights. It would set out the responsibilities of software platforms that profile users’ metadata to share with third parties, or of commercial apps signed up for in schools that offer adverts in use.

I hope that I have explained exactly why we believe that a code of conduct is required in educational settings. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support and have added my name to Amendment 138 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I will also speak to Amendment 141 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

Both these amendments propose a code of practice to address the use of children’s data in the context of education. Indeed, they have much in common. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I have much in common with what he said. I associate myself entirely with his remarks and hope that mine will build on them. Both the amendments point to the same problem that children’s data is scandalously treated in our schools and educators need support; this is a persistent and known failure that both the DfE and the ICO have failed to confront over a period of some years.

Amendment 141 seeks to give a sense of exactly what an education code should cover. In doing so, it builds on the work of the aforementioned Digital Futures for Children centre at the LSE, which I chair, the work of Defend Digital Me, the excellent work of academics at UCL, and much of the work relating to education presented to the UN tech envoy in the course of drafting the UN global digital compact.

Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause would require the ICO to prepare a code of practice in connection with the provision of education. Subsection (2) sets out what the ICO would have to take into account, such as that education provision includes school management and safeguarding as well as learning; the different settings in which it takes place; the need for transparency and evidence of efficacy; and all the issues already mentioned, including profiling, transparency, safety, security, parental involvement and the provision of counselling services.

Subsection (3) would require the ICO to have regard to children’s entitlement to a higher standard of protection—which we are working so hard in Committee to protect—their rights under the UNCRC and their different ages and stages of development. Importantly, it also refers to the need and desire to support innovation in education and the need to ensure that the benefits derived from the use of UK children’s data accrue to the UK.

Subsection (4) lists those whom the commissioner would have to consult, and subsection (5) sets out when data processors and controllers would be subject to the code. Subsection (6) proposes a certification scheme for edtech services to demonstrate compliance with UK GDPR and the code. Subsection (7) would require edtech service and product providers to evidence compliance—importantly, transferring that responsibility from schools to providers. Subsection (8) simply defines the terms.

A code of practice is an enabler. It levels the playing field, sets terms for innovators, creates sandbox or research environments, protects children and supports schools. It offers a particularly attractive environment for developing the better digital world that we would all like to see, since schools are identifiable communities in which changes and outcomes could be measured.

--- 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 ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s Committee proceedings. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as an adviser to Socially Recruited, an AI business. In moving Amendment 156A, I will also speak to Amendment 156B, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for co-signing them.

We live in extraordinarily uncertain times, domestically and internationally. In many ways, it has always been thus. However, things are different and have accelerated, not least in the last two decades, because of the online environment and the digital selves that we find ourselves interacting with in a world that is ever changing moment by moment. These amendments seek to update an important statute that governs critical elements of how cybersecurity professionals in this nation seek to keep us all safe in these extraordinarily difficult times.

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 was introduced to defend telephony exchanges at a time when 0.5% of us were online. If that was the purpose of the Act—the statute when passed—that alone would suggest that it needs an update. Who among us would use our smartphone if we had had it for 34 years? Well, we could not—the iPhone has been around only since 2007. This whole world has changed profoundly in the last 20 years, never mind the last 34. It is not just that the Act needs to be updated because it falls short of how society and technology have changed in those intervening years; it needs, desperately and urgently, to be updated because it is currently putting every citizen in this nation at risk for want of being amended. This is the purpose of Amendments 156A and 156B.

The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is not only out of date but inadvertently criminalising the cybersecurity professionals we charge with the job of keeping us all safe. They oftentimes work, understandably, under the radar, behind not just closed but locked doors, doing such important work. Yet, for want of these amendments, they are doing that work, all too often, with at least one hand tied behind their back.

Let us take just two examples: vulnerability research and threat intelligence assessment and analysis. Both could find that cybersecurity professional falling foul of the provisions of the CMA 1990. Do not take my word for it: look to the 2024 annual report of the National Cyber Security Centre, which rightly and understandably highlights the increasing gap between the threats we face and its ability, and the ability of the cybersecurity professionals community, to meet those threats.

These amendments, in essence, perform one simple but critical task: to afford a legal defence for legitimate cybersecurity activities. That is all, but it would have such a profound impact for those whom we have asked to keep us safe and for the safety they can thus deliver to every citizen in our society.

Where is the Government’s work on updating the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in this respect? Will the Government take this opportunity to accept these amendments? Do they believe that these amendments would provide a materially positive benefit to our cybersecurity professionals and thus to our nation, and, if so, why would they not take this first opportunity to enact these amendments to this data Bill?

It is not time; it is well over time that these amendments become part of our law. If not now, when? If not these amendments, which amendments? If they do not accept these amendments, what will the Government say to all those people who will continue to be put in harm’s way for want of these protective provisions being passed? It is time to pass these amendments and give our cybersecurity professionals the tools they need. It is time, from the legislative perspective, to keep them safe so that they can do the self-same thing for all of us. It is time to cyber up. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I was delighted to see these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. He, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I, along with many other parliamentarians, have long argued for changes to the Computer Misuse Act. For context, the original Act was created largely in response to a famous incident in which professional hackers and a technology journalist broke into British Telecom’s Prestel system in the mid-1980s. The Bill received Royal Assent in June 1990, barely two months after Tim Berners-Lee and CERN made the world wide web publicly available for the first time. Who remembers Prestel? Perhaps this is the wrong House in which to ask that question.

As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, explained, there is no statutory public interest defence in the Act. This omission creates a legal risk for cybersecurity researchers and professionals conducting legitimate activities in the public interest. The Post Office Horizon scandal demonstrated how critical independent computer system investigation is for uncovering systemic problems and highlighted the need for protected legal pathways for researchers and investigators to examine potentially flawed systems.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is here for this set of amendments. His Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review explicitly recommends incorporating such a defence to provide stronger legal protections for cybersecurity researchers and professionals engaged in threat intelligence research. This recommendation was rooted in the understanding that such a defence would have, it said,

“a catalytic effect on innovation”

within the UK’s cybersecurity sector, which possesses “considerable growth potential”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly but strongly to support my noble friend Lord Holmes. The CyberUp campaign has been banging this drum for a long time now. I remember taking part in the debates in another place on the Computer Misuse Act 34 years ago. It was the time of dial-up modems, fax machines and bulletin boards. This is the time to act, and it is the opportunity to do so.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we ought to be mindful and congratulate the noble Lord on having been parliamentarian of the year as a result of his campaigning activities.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, it has taken 34 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Just to follow up, have the Government formally responded to the original review from the noble Lord, Lord Vallance? That would be very helpful as well, in unpacking what were clearly extremely well-informed recommendations. It should, no doubt, be taken extremely seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Yes, the Government accepted the recommendations in full.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down or stands up or whatever the appropriate phrase should be, I very much hope that, since the previous Government gave that indication, this Government will take that as a spur to non-glacial progress. I hope that at least the speed might get up to a number of miles per hour before too long.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate and, indeed, the Minister for her thoughtful response. We find ourselves in a position of extraordinary good fortune when it comes to these and many other amendments, not least in the area of artificial intelligence. We had a first-class report from the then Sir Patrick Vallance as CSA. It is not often in life that in a short space of time one is afforded the opportunity in government of bringing much of that excellent work into being through statute, regulation, codes and other guidance. I await further steps in this area.

There can barely be, in many ways, a more serious and pressing issue to be addressed. For every day that we delay, harms are caused. Even if the Government were only to do this on their growth agenda, much spoken of, this would have an economic benefit to the United Kingdom. It would be good to meet the Minister between Committee and Report to see if anything further can be done but, from my perspective and others, we will certainly be returning to this incredibly important issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to just make one comment on this group. I entirely agree with everything that has been said and, in particular, with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but the one that I want to single out—it is why I am bothering to stand up—is Amendment 197, which says that the Secretary of State “must” implement this measure.

I was heavily scarred back in 2017 by the Executive’s refusal to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act in order to protect our children from pornography. Now, nearly eight years later, they are still not protected. It was never done properly, in my opinion, in the then Online Safety Bill either; it still has not been implemented. I think, therefore, that we need to have a “must” there. We have an Executive who are refusing to carry out the issue from Parliament in passing the legislation. We have a problem, but I think that we can amend it by putting “must” in the Bill. Then, we can hold the Executive to account.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the trouble with this House is that some have long memories. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, reminded us all to look back, with real regret, at the Digital Economy Act and the failure to implement Part 3. I think that that was a misstep by the previous Government.

Like all of us, I warmly welcome the inclusion of data access provisions for researchers studying online safety matters in Clause 123 of the Bill. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, this was very much unfinished business from the Online Safety Act. However, I believe that, in order for the Bill to be effective and have the desired effect, the Government need to accept the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. In terms of timeframe, the width of research possible, enforceability, contractual elements and location, they cover the bases extremely effectively.

The point was made extremely well by the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Russell, that we should not have to rely on brave whistleblowers such as Frances Haugen. We should be able to benefit from quality researchers, whether from academia or elsewhere, in order to carry out this important work.

My Amendment 198B is intended as a probing amendment about the definition of researchers under Clause 123, which has to be carefully drawn to allow for legitimate non-governmental organisations, academics and so on, but not so widely that it can be exploited by bad actors. For example, we do not want those who seek to identify potential exploits in a platform to use this by calling themselves “independent researchers” if they simply describe themselves as such. For instance, could Tommy Robinson seek to protect himself from liabilities in this way? After all, he called himself an “independent journalist” in another context when he clearly was not. I hope that when the Government come to draw up the regulations they will be mindful of the need to be very clear about what constitutes an independent or accredited researcher, or whatever phrase will be used in the context.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 203 and, in particular, Amendments 211G and 211H from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I have little to add to what I said on Friday. I confess to my noble friend the Minister that, in my speech on Friday, I asked whether this issue would be in scope for this Bill, so maybe I gave the noble Baroness the idea. I pay tribute to her agility in being able to act quickly to get this amendment in and include something on audio, following the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir.

I hope that the Minister has similar agility in being able to readjust the Government’s position on this. It is right that this was an urgent manifesto commitment from my party at the last election. It fits entirely with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s efforts around violence against women and girls. We should accept and grab this opportunity to deliver quickly by working with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and others between now and Report to bring forward an amendment to the Bill that the whole House will support enthusiastically.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, we have had some powerful speeches in this group, not least from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Owen, who drafted important amendments that respond to the escalating harms caused by AI-generated sexual abuse material relating to children and adults. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would make it an offence to use personal data or digital information to create digital models or files that facilitate the creation of AI or computer-generated child sexual abuse material. As she outlined and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, confirmed, it specifically would become an offence to create, train or distribute generative AI models that enable the creation of computer-generated CSAM or priority legal content; to train AI models on CSAM or priority illegal content; or to possess AI models that produce CSAM or priority legal content.

This amendment responds to a growing problem, as we have heard, around computer-generated sexual abuse material and a gap in the law. There is a total lack of safeguards preventing bad actors creating sexual abuse imagery, and it is causing real harm. Sites enabling this abuse are offering tools to harm, humiliate, harass, coerce and cause reputational damage. Without robust legal frameworks, victims are left vulnerable while perpetrators operate with impunity.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, mentioned the Internet Watch Foundation. In its report of July, One Step Ahead, it reported on the alarming rise of AI-generated CSAM. In October 2023, in How AI is Being Abused to Create Child Sexual Abuse Imagery, it made recommendations to the Government regarding legislation to strengthen legal frameworks to better address the evolving landscape of AI-generated CSAM and enhance preventive measures against its creation and distribution. It specifically recommended:

“That the Government legislates to make it an offence to use personal data or digital information to create digital models or files that facilitate the creation of AI or computer-generated child sexual abuse material”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, tabled such an amendment to the previous Bill. As she said, she was successful in persuading the then Government to accept it; I very much hope that she will be as successful in persuading this Government to accept her amendment.

Amendments 211G and 211H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, are a response to the extraordinary fact that one in 14 adults has experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales; that rises to one in seven among young women. Research from Internet Matters shows that 49% of young teenagers in the UK aged between 13 and 16—around 750,000 children—said that they were aware of a form of image-based abuse being perpetrated against another young person known to them.

We debated the first of the noble Baroness’s amendments, which is incorporated in her Bill, last Friday. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight; I did not find the Government’s response at all satisfactory. I hope that, in the short passage of time between then and now, they have had time to be at least a little agile, as he requested. UK law clearly does not effectively address non-consensual intimate images. It is currently illegal to share or threaten to share non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, but creating them is not yet illegal; this means that someone could create a deepfake image of another person without their consent and not face legal consequences as long as they do not share, or threaten to share, it.

This amendment is extremely welcome. It addresses the gap in the law by criminalising the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes. It rightly targets deepfakes due to their rising prevalence and potential for harm, particularly towards women. Research shows that 98% of deepfake videos online are pornographic, with 99% featuring women and girls. This makes it an inherently sexist problem that is a new frontier of violence against women—words that I know the noble Baroness has used.

I also very much welcome the new amendment not contained in her Bill, responding to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, said at its Second Reading last Friday about including audio deepfakes. The words “shut down every avenue”, which I think were used by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, are entirely apposite in these circumstances. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said on Friday, I hope that the Government will accept both these amendments and redeem their manifesto pledge to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, whether audio or video.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support these amendments. I declare an interest as an owner of written copyright in the Good Schools Guide and as a father of an illustrator. In both contexts, it is very important that we get intellectual property right, as I think the Government recognised in what they put out yesterday. However, I share the scepticism of those who have spoken as to whether the Government’s ideas can be made to work.

It is really important that we get this straight. For those of us operating at the small end of the scale, IP is under continual threat from established media. I write maybe 10 or a dozen letters a year to large media outfits reminding them of the borders, the latest to the Catholic Herald—it appears not even the 10 commandments have force on them. But what AI can do is a huge measure more difficult to deal with. I can absolutely see, by talking to Copilot, that it has gone through my paywall and absorbed the contents of the Good Schools Guide, but who am I supposed to go at for this? Who has actually done the trespassing? Who is responsible for it? Where is the ownership? It is difficult to enforce copyright, even by writing a polite letter to someone saying, “Please don’t do this”. The Government appear to propose a system of polite letters saying, “Oh dear, it looks as if you might have borrowed my copyright. Please, can you give it back?”

This is not practically enforceable, and it will not result in people who care about IP locating their businesses here. Quite clearly, we do not have ownership of the big AI systems, and it is unlikely that we will have ownership of them—all that will be overseas. What we can do is create IP. If we produce a system where we do not defend the IP that we produce, then fairly rapidly, those IP creators who are capable of being mobile will go elsewhere to places that will defend their IP. It is something that a Government who are interested in growth really ought to be interested in defending. I hope that we will see some real progress in the course of the Bill going through the House.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my AI interests as set out in the register. I will speak in support of Amendments 204, 205 and 206, which have been spoken to so inspiringly by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and so well by the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Lucas and Lord Hampton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Each demonstrated different facets of the issue.

I co-chair the All-Party Group on AI and chaired the AI Select Committee a few years ago. I wrote a book earlier this year on AI regulation, which had a namecheck from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, at Question Time, which I was very grateful for. Before that, I had a career as an IP lawyer, defending copyright and creativity, and in this House, I have been my party’s creative industries spokesperson. The question of IP and the training of generative AI models is a key issue for me.

This is the case not just in the UK but around the world. Getty and the New York Times are suing in the United States, as are many writers, artists and musicians. It was at the root of the Hollywood actors’ and writers’ strikes last year. It is one thing to use the tech—many of us are AI enthusiasts—but it is another to be at the mercy of it.

Close to home, the FT has pointed out, using the index published by the creator of an unlicensed dataset called Books3, published online, that it is possible to identify that over 85 books written by 33 Members of the House of Lords have been pirated to train AI models from household names, such as Meta, Microsoft and Bloomberg. Although it is absolutely clear that we know that the use of copyrighted works to train AI models is contrary to UK copyright law, the laws around the transparency of these activities have not caught up. As we have heard, as well as using pirated e-books in their training data, AI developers scrape the internet for valuable professional journalism and other media, in breach of both the terms of service of websites and copyright law, to train commercial AI models. At present, developers can do this without declaring their identity, or they may use IP scraped to appear in a search index for the completely different commercial purpose of training AI models.

How can rights owners opt out of something that they do not know about? AI developers will often scrape websites or access other pirated material before they launch an LLM in public. This means that there is no way for IP owners to opt out of their material being taken before its inclusion in these models. Once used to train these models, the commercial value, as we have heard, has already been extracted from IP scraped without permission, with no way to delete data from these models.

The next wave of AI models responds to user queries by browsing the web to extract valuable news and information from professional news websites. This is known as retrieval-augmented generation—RAG. Without payment for extracting this commercial value, AI agents built by companies such as Perplexity, Google and Meta will, in effect, free-ride on the professional hard work of journalists, authors and creators. At present, such crawlers are hard to block. There is no market failure; there are well-established licensing solutions. There is no uncertainty around the existing law; the UK is absolutely clear that commercial organisations, including gen AI developers, must license the data that they use to train their large language models.

Here, as the Government’s intentions become clearer, the political, business and creative temperature is rising. Just this week, we have seen the creation of a new campaign, the Creative Rights in AI Coalition—CRAIC —across the creative and news industries and, recently, Ed Newton-Rex reached more than 30,000 signatories from among creators and creative organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord has enormous experience in these areas and will be particularly aware of the legal difficulties in enforcing rights. Given what he said, with which I entirely agree—indeed, I agree with all the speakers in supporting these amendments—and given the extraordinary expense of litigating to enforce rights, how does he envisage there being an adequate system to allow those who have had their data scraped in the way that he describes to obtain redress or, rather, suitable remedies?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. He is anticipating a paragraph in my notes, which says that, although it is not set out in the amendments, robust enforcement of these provisions will be critical to their success. This includes oversight from an expert regulator that is empowered to issue significant penalties, including fines for non-compliance. There is a little extra work to do there, and I would very much like to see the Intellectual Property Office gain some teeth.

I am going to close. We are nearly at the witching hour, but it is clear that AI developers are seeking to use their lobbying clout—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned the Kool-Aid—to persuade the Government that new copyright law is required. Instead, this amendment would clarify that UK copyright law applies to gen AI developers. The creative industries, and noble Lords from across the House as their supporters, will rally around these amendments and vigorously oppose government plans for a new text and data- mining exception.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, if I may just interject, I have seen this happen not just in the Horizon scandal. Several years ago, the banks were saying that you could not possibly find out someone’s PIN and were therefore refusing to refund people who had had stuff stolen from them. It was not until the late Professor Ross Anderson, of the computer science department at Cambridge University, proved that they had been deliberately misidentifying to the courts which counter they should have been looking at, as to what was being read, and explained exactly how you could get the thing to default back to a different set of counters, that the banks eventually had to give way. But they went on lying to the courts for a long time. I am afraid that this is something that keeps happening again and again, and an amendment like this is essential for future justice for innocent people.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pity that this debate is taking place so late. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for his kind remarks, but my work ethic feels under considerable pressure at this time of night.

All I will say is that this is a much better amendment than the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put forward for the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and I very strongly support it. Not only is this horrifying in the context of the past Horizon cases, but I read a report about the Capture software, which is likely to have created shortfalls that led to sub-postmasters being prosecuted as well. This is an ongoing issue. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is reviewing five Post Office convictions in which the Capture IT system could be a factor, so we cannot say that this is about just Horizon, as there are the many other cases that the noble Baroness cited.

We need to change this common law presumption even more in the face of a world in which AI use, with all its flaws and hallucinations, is becoming ever present, and we need to do it urgently.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, having a system such as this would really focus the public sector on how we can generate more datasets. As I said earlier, education is an obvious one, but so is mobile phone data. All these companies have their licences. If a condition of the licence was that the data on how people move around the UK became a public asset, that would be hugely beneficial to policy formation. If we really understood how, why and when people move, we would make much better decisions. We could save ourselves huge amounts of money. We really ought to have this as a deep focus of government policy.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I have far too little time to do justice to this subject. We on these Benches welcome this amendment. It is entirely consistent with the sovereign health fund proposed by Future Care Capital and, indeed, with the proposals from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change on a similar concept called the national data trust. Indeed, this concept formed part of our Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last general election, so of course I support the amendment.

It would be very useful to hear more about the national data library, including on its purpose and operation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. I entirely agree with her that there is a great need for a sovereign cloud service or services. Indeed, the inability to guarantee that data on the cloud is held in this country is a real issue that has not yet been properly addressed.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of amendments. I have a 35-minute speech prepared. In moving Amendment 211B, I shall speak also to Amendments 211C to 211E. The reason for this group of amendments is to try to get an increased focus on the range of issues they touch on.

I turn to Amendment 211B first. It seems at least curious to have a data Bill without talking about data centres in terms of their power usage, their environmental impact and the Government’s view of the current PUE standard. Is it of a standard that they think gives the right measure of confidence to consumers and citizens across the country, in terms of how data centres are being operated and their impacts?

Similarly, on Amendment 211C, not enough consideration is given to supply chains. I am not suggesting that they are the most exciting subject but you have to go only one or two steps back in any supply chain to get into deep depths of opacity. With this amendment, I am seeking to gain more clarity on data supply chains and the role of data across all supply chains. Through the combination of data and AI, we could potentially enable a transformation of our supply chain in real time. That would give us so much more flexibility to try for economic benefits and environmental benefits. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I now move on to Amendment 211D. It is always a pleasure to bring AI into a Bill that really does not want to have AI in it. I am interested in the whole question of data input and output, not least with large language models. I am also interested in the Government’s view on how this interacts with the 1988 copyright Act. There may be some mileage in looking into some standards and approaches in this area, which would potentially go some way towards conditions of market access. We have some excellent examples to look at in other sectors of our economy and society, as set out in the amendment; I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.

I am happy that this group ends with Amendment 211E on the subject of public trust. In many ways, it is the golden thread that should run through everything when we talk about data; I wanted it to be the golden thread that ran through my AI regulation Bill. I always say that Clause 6 is the most important clause in that Bill because it goes to the question of public engagement and trust. Without that level of public engagement and trust, it does not matter how good the technologies are, how good the frameworks are or how good the chat around the data is. It might be golden but, if the public do not believe in it, they are not going to come and be part of it. The most likely consequence of this is that they will not be able to avail themselves of the benefits but they will almost certainly be saddled with the burdens. What these technologies enable is nothing short of a transformation of that discourse between citizen and state, with the potential to reimagine completely the social contract for the benefit of all.

Public engagement and public trust are the golden thread and the fuel for how we gain those economic, social and psychological benefits from the data. I will be very interested in the Minister’s response on what more could be done by the Government, because previous consultations, not least around some of these technologies, have been somewhat short of what we could achieve. With that #brevity and #our data, I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be #even shorter. Data centres and their energy consumption are important issues. I agree that at a suitable moment—probably not now—it would be very interesting to hear the Government’s views on that. Reports from UK parliamentary committees and the Government have consistently emphasised the critical importance of maintaining public trust in data use and AI, but sometimes, the actions of the Government seem to go contrary to that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in his call for essentially realising the benefits of AI while making sure that we maintain public trust.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for tabling this amendment. As we all appreciate, taking stock of the effects of legislation is critical, as it allows us to see what has worked and what has not. Amendment 221B would require the Secretary of State to launch a consultation into the implications of the provisions of the Bill on the power usage and energy efficiency of data centres. His Majesty’s Official Opposition have no objection to the amendment’s aims but we wonder to what extent it is actually possible. By what means or benchmark can we identify whether a spike in energy usage is specifically due to a provision from this legislation, rather than as a result of some other factor? I should be most grateful if my noble friend could provide further detail on this matter in his closing speech.

Regarding Amendment 211C, we understand that much could be learned from a review of all data regulations and standards pertaining to the supply chains for financial, trade, and legal documents and products, although we wonder if this needs to happen the moment this Bill passes. Could this review not happen at any stage? By all means, let us do it sooner rather than later, but is it necessary to set a date in statute?

Moving on to Amendment 221D, we should certainly look to regulate the AI large language model sector to ensure that there are standards for the input and output of data for LLMs. However, this must be done in a way that does not stifle growth in this emerging industry.

Finally, we have some concerns about Amendment 211E. A national consultation on the use of individuals’ data is perhaps just too broad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is often an education, and today is no exception. I had no idea what local environmental records centres were, so I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[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.