Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, given the hour, I will try to be as brief as possible. I will start by speaking to the amendments tabled in my name.

Amendment 142 seeks to prevent the Information Commissioner’s Office sending official notices via email. Official notices from the ICO will not be trivial: they relate to serious matters of data protection, such as monetary penalty notices or enforcement notices. My concern is that it is all too easy for an email to be missed. An email may be filtered into a spam folder, where it sits for weeks before being picked up. It is also possible that an email may be sent to a compromised email address, meaning one that the holder has lost control of due to a hacker. These concerns led me also to table Amendment 143, which removes the assumption that a notice sent by email had been received within 48 hours of being sent.

Additionally, I suspect I am right in saying that a great many people expect official correspondence to arrive via the post. I wonder, therefore, whether there might be a risk that people ignore an unexpected email from the ICO, concerned that it might well be a scam or a hack of some description. I, for one, am certainly deeply suspicious of unexpected but official-looking messages that arrive. I believe that official correspondence which may have legal ramifications should really be sent by post.

On some of the other amendments tabled, Amendment 135A, which seeks to introduce a measure from the DPDI Bill, makes provision for the introduction of a statement of strategic priorities by the Secretary of State that sets out the Government’s data protection priorities, to which the commissioner must have regard, and the commissioner’s duties in relation to the statement. Although I absolutely accept that this measure would create more alignment and efficiency in the way that data protection is managed, I understand the concerns that it would undermine the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office. That in itself, of course, would tend to bear on the adequacy risk.

I do not support the stand part notices on Clauses 91 and 92. Clause 91 requires the Information Commissioner to prepare codes of practice for the processing of data, which seems a positive measure. It provides guidance to controllers, helping them to control best practice when processing data, and is good for data subjects, as it is more likely that their data will be processed in an appropriate manner. As for Clause 92, which would effectively increase expert oversight of codes of practice, surely that would lead to more effective codes, which will benefit both controllers and data subjects.

I have some concerns about Amendment 144, which limits the Information Commissioner to sending only one reprimand to a given controller during a fixed period. If a controller or processor conducts activities that infringe the provisions of the GDPR and does so repeatedly, why should the commissioner be prevented from issuing reprimands? Indeed, what incentives does that give for people to commit a minor sin and then a major one later?

I welcome Amendment 145, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which would ensure that the ICO’s annual report records activities and action taken by the ICO in relation to children. This would clearly give the commissioner, parliamentarians and the data and tech industry as a whole a better understanding of how policies are affecting children and what changes may be necessary.

Finally, I turn my attention to many of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seek to remove the involvement of the Secretary of State from the functions of the commissioner and transfer the responsibility from government to Parliament. I absolutely understand the arguments the noble Lord advances, as persuasively as ever, but I am concerned even so that the Secretary of State for the relevant department is the best person to work with the commissioner to ensure both clarity of purpose and rapidity of decision-making.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we sometimes forget, because the results are often so spectacular, the hard work that has had to happen over the years to get us to where we are, particularly in relation to the Online Safety Act. It is well exemplified by the previous speaker. He put his finger on the right spot in saying that we all owe considerable respect for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others. I helped a little along the way. It is extraordinary to feel that so much of this could be washed away if the Bill goes forward in its present form. I give notice that I intend to work with my colleagues on this issue because this Bill is in serious need of revision. These amendments are part of that and may need to be amplified in later stages.

I managed to sign only two of the amendments in this group. I am sorry that I did not sign the others, because they are also important. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for not spotting them early enough to be able to do so. I will speak to the ones I have signed, Amendments 88 and 135. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that we will be able to see some movement on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned the way in which the wording on page 113 seems not only to miss the point but to devalue the possibility of seeing protections for children well placed in the legislation. New Clause 120B(e), which talks of

“the fact that children may be less aware of the risks and consequences associated with processing of personal data and of their rights in relation to such processing”,

almost says it all for me. I do not understand how that could possibly have got through the process by which this came forward, but it seems to speak to a lack of communication between parts of government that I hoped this new Government, with their energy, would have been able to overcome. It speaks to the fact that we need to keep an eye on both sides of the equation: what is happening in the online safety world and how data that is under the control of others, not necessarily those same companies, will be processed in support or otherwise of those who might wish to behave in an improper or illegal way towards children.

At the very least, what is in these amendments needs to be brought into the Bill. In fact, other additions may need to be made. I shall certainly keep my eye on it.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing forward amendments in what is a profoundly important group. For all that data is a cornerstone of innovation and development, as we have often argued in this Committee, we cannot lose sight of our responsibility to safeguard the rights and welfare of our children.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and applaud the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his temerity and for offering a variety of choices, making it even more difficult for my noble friend to resist it.

It has puzzled me for some time why the Government do not wish to see a firm line being taken about digital theft. Identity theft in any form must be the most heinous of crimes, particularly in today’s world. This question came up yesterday in an informal meeting about a Private Member’s Bill due up next Friday on the vexed question of the sharing of intimate images and how the Government are going to respond to it. We were sad to discover that there was no support among the Ministry of Justice officials who discussed the Bill with its promoter for seeing it progress any further.

At the heart of that Bill is the same question about what happens when one’s identity is taken and one’s whole career and personality are destroyed by those who take one’s private information and distort it in such a way that those who see it regard it as being a different person or in some way involved in activities that the original person would never have been involved in. Yet we hear that the whole basis on which this digital network has been built up is a voluntary one, and the logic of that is that it would not be necessary to have the sort of amendments that are before us now.

I urge the Government to think very hard about this. There must be a break point here. Maybe the meeting that has been promised will help us, but there is a fundamental point about whether in the digital world we can rely on the same protections that we have in the real world—and, if not, why not?

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I have nothing but the deepest respect for their diligence, and indeed wisdom, in scrutinising all three flavours of the Bill as it has come out, and for their commitment to strengthening the legislative framework against fraud and other misuse of digital systems. However, I have serious reservations about the necessity and proportionality of the amendments under consideration, although I look forward to further debates and I am certainly open to being convinced.

Amendments 51 and 52 would introduce criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, for the misuse of trust marks. While the protection of trust marks is vital for maintaining public confidence in digital systems, I am concerned that introducing custodial sentences for these offences risks overcriminalisation. The misuse of trust marks can and should be addressed through robust civil enforcement mechanisms. Turning every such transgression into a criminal matter would place unnecessary burdens on, frankly, an already strained justice system and risks disproportionately punishing individuals or small businesses for inadvertent breaches.

Furthermore, the amendment’s stipulation that proceedings could be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Secretary of State is an important safeguard, yet it underscores the high level of discretion required to enforce these provisions effectively, highlighting the unsuitability of broad criminalisation in this context.

Amendment 53 seeks to expand the definition of identity documents under the Identity Documents Act 2010 to include digital identity documents. While the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, makes a persuasive case, the proposal raises two concerns. First, it risks pre-emptively criminalising actions before a clear and universally understood framework for digital identity verification is in place. The technology and its standards are still evolving, and it might be premature to embed such a framework into criminal law. Secondly, there is a risk that this could have unintended consequences for innovation in the digital identity sector. Businesses and individuals navigating this nascent space could face disproportionate legal risks, which may hinder progress in a field critical to the UK’s digital economy.

Amendment 54 would introduce an offence of knowingly or recklessly providing false information in response to notices under Clause 51. I fully support holding individuals accountable for deliberate deception, but the proposed measure’s scope could lead to serious ambiguities. What constitutes recklessness in this context? Are we inadvertently creating a chilling effect where individuals or businesses may refrain from engaging with the system for fear of misinterpretation or error? These are questions that need to be addressed before such provisions are enshrined in law.

We must ensure that our legislative framework is fit for purpose, upholds the principles of justice and balances enforcement with fairness. The amendments proposed, while they clearly have exactly the right intentions, risk, I fear, undermining these principles. They introduce unnecessary criminal sanctions, create uncertainty in the digital identity space and could discourage good-faith engagement with the regulatory system. I therefore urge noble Lords to carefully consider the potential consequences of these amendments and, while expressing gratitude to the noble Lords for their work, I resist their inclusion in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it occurred to me when the noble Lord was speaking that we had lost a valuable member of our Committee. This could not be the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who was speaking to us just then. It must have been some form of miasma or technical imposition. Maybe his identity has been stolen and not been replaced. Normally, the noble Lord would have arrived with a short but punchy speech that set out in full how the new scheme was to be run, by whom, at what price, what its extent would be and the changes that would result. The Liberal future it may have been, but it was always delightful to listen to. I am sad that all the noble Lord has asked for here is a modest request, which I am sure the noble Baroness will want to jump to and accept, to carry out a review—as if we did not have enough of those.

Seriously, I once used the service that we have been talking about when my father-in-law died, and I found it amazing. It was also one that I stumbled on and did not know about before it happened. Deaths did not happen often enough in my family to make me aware of it. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I felt that it should have done much more than what it did, although it was valuable for what it did. It also occurred to me, as life moved on and we produced children, that there would be a good service when introducing a new person—a service to tell you once about that, because the number of tough issues one has to deal with when children are born is also extraordinary and can be annoying, if you miss out on one—particularly with the schooling issues, which are more common these days than they were when my children were being born.

I endorse what was said, and regret that the amendment perhaps did not go further, but I hope that the Minister when she responds will have good news for us.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for raising the possibility that we are in the presence of a digital avatar of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is a scary thought, indeed.

The amendment requires a review of the operation of the Tell Us Once programme, which seeks to provide a simpler mechanism for citizens to pass information regarding births and deaths to the Government. It considers whether the pioneering progress of Tell Us Once could be extended to non-public sector holders of data. When I read the amendment, I was more cynical than I am now, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had to say. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that we do not necessarily need another review—but now that I have heard about it, it feels a better suggestion than I thought it was when reading about it.

I worry that expanding this programme to non-public sector holders of data would be a substantial undertaking; it would surely require the Government to hold records of all the non-public sector organisations that have retained and processed an individual’s personal data. First, I am not sure that this would even be possible—or practicable, anyway. Secondly, I am not sure that it would end up being an acceptable level of state surveillance. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response but I am on the fence on this one.

Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2024

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 28th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with a comment that I hope will not be taken badly by either my noble friend the Minister or the large number of civil servants who have been involved in this Bill over the years. Colleagues may recall that the Bill took seven years to pass through the various processes and procedures of Parliament, including initial Green Papers and White Papers and then scrutiny by the Joint Select Committee, of which my noble friend opposite was also a member, and it seems slightly surprising and a bit odd that we are dealing with what seems to be an administrative oversight so late in the process. I do not expect a serious response from the Minister on that, but I wanted to put on the record that we are still very much aware of the fact that legislation has its faults and sometimes needs to be corrected, and we should perhaps be humble in expecting that the material we finally agree in Parliament is indeed the last word on things.

Having said that, I think I follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this point: the subsequent legal analysis, which has identified a potential gap in provision on this instrument, tries to tidy it up but, in doing so, has left me a bit confused. I simply ask the Minister to make it clear to me when she responds that I am reading it correctly. The worry that has been exposed by this subsequent legal analysis is about the sharing of information when Ofcom is using its powers to address issues with the companies with which it has an engagement. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that companies are taking their burden of making sure that the Bill works in practice. There may be a deficiency in terms of what the Secretary of State has separate powers to do, but my confusion is that the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Secretary of State has several key functions relating to the implementation of the framework under the”


Online Safety Act. It is obviously sensible, therefore, that the sharing of information that Ofcom gathers is available for that. But is that all the powers of the Secretary of State or only the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the Online Safety Act? The Explanatory Memorandum says:

“If Ofcom were not able to share business information relating to these areas”—


that is, the areas directly affected by the Online Safety Act—

“there is a risk that implementation and review of the framework could be delayed or ineffective”.

I accept the general point, but, to pull up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is this an open invitation for Ofcom to share information that does not relate to its powers in relation to the Online Safety Act with the Secretary of State and, therefore, something for the Secretary of State to take on as a result of a slightly uncertain way of doing it? Are there are any restrictions to this power as set out in that paper? I could mention other points where it comes up, but I think my point is made.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also touched on the point that this is a power for Ofcom to share with the Secretary of State responsible for Ofcom, which is fair enough, but, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out:

“There are also certain functions relating to definitions conferred on Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland departments”—


presumably now Ministers—which may also be “relevant persons” of the Act, but we are not given much on that, except that

“these are unlikely to require business information for their exercise”.

I would like a bit more assurance on that. Again, that might be something for which the department is not prepared and I am quite happy to receive a letter on it, but my recollection from the discussions on the Online Safety Bill in this area, particularly in relation to Gaelic, was that there were quite a lot of powers that only Scottish Ministers would be able to exercise, and therefore it is quite possible that business activities which would not be UK-wide in their generality and therefore apropos of the Secretary of State might well be available to Ofcom to share with Scottish Ministers. If it is possible to get some generic points about where that is actually expected to fall, rather than simply saying that it is unlikely to require business information, I would be more satisfied with that.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this instrument so clearly. It certainly seems to make the necessary relatively simple adjustments to fill an important gap that has been identified. Although I have some questions, I will keep my remarks fairly brief.

I will reflect on the growing importance of both the Online Safety Act and the duty we have placed on Ofcom’s shoulders. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the long-standing consequential nature of the creation of Ofcom and the Communications Act were well made in this respect. The necessary complexity and scope of the work of Ofcom, as our online regulator, has far outgrown what I imagine was foreseeable at the time of its creation. We have given it the tasks of developing and enforcing safety standards, as well as issuing guidance and codes of practice that digital services must follow to comply with the Act. Its role includes risk assessment, compliance, monitoring and enforcement, which can of course include issuing fines or mandating changes to how services operate. Its regulatory powers now allow it to respond to emerging online risks, helping to ensure that user-protection measures keep pace with changes in the digital landscape.

In recognising the daily growing risk of online dangers and the consequent burdens on Ofcom, we of course support any measures that bring clarity and simplicity. If left unaddressed, the identified gap here clearly could lead to regulatory inefficiencies and delays in crucial processes that depend on accurate and up-to-date information. For example, setting appropriate fee thresholds for regulated entities requires detailed knowledge of platform compliance and associated risks, which would be challenging to achieve without full data access. During post-implementation reviews, a lack of access to necessary business information could hamper the ability to assess whether the Act is effectively achieving its safety objectives or whether adjustments are needed.

That said, I have some questions, and I hope that, when she rises, the Minister will set out the Government’s thinking on them. My first question very much picks up on the point made—much better than I did—by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It is important to ensure that this instrument does not grant unrestricted access to business information but, rather, limits sharing to specific instances where it is genuinely necessary for the Secretary of State to fulfil their duties under the Act. How will the Government ensure this?

Secondly, safeguards, such as data protection laws and confidentiality obligations under the Communications Act 2003, must be in place to guarantee that any shared information is handled responsibly and securely. Do the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already in place?

Thirdly, in an environment of rapid technology change, how do the Government plan to keep online safety regulation resilient and adaptive? I look forward to hearing the Government’s views on these questions, but, as I say, we completely welcome any measure that increases clarity and simplicity and makes it easier for Ofcom to be effective.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 28th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I started my discussion on the previous instrument on a slightly negative note. I want to change gear completely now and say how nice it is to see the first of the SIs relating to the Online Safety Act come forward. I welcome that.

Having said that, may I inquire what the Government’s intention is in relation to the Parkinson rule? I think I am correct in saying that we wish to see in place an informal but constant process by the Government when they bring forward legislation under the Online Safety Act, which would be offered to the standing committees so that they could comment and make advice available to Ministers before the Secretary of State finally approved any such legislation. This would primarily be concerned with the codes of practice, but this is exactly the sort of issue, well exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, where there is still some concern about the previous Government’s approach to this Bill.

If I recall, this rule was in one of the later amendments brought in towards the end of the process. Rather unlike the earlier stuff, which was seven years in the making, this was rushed through in rather less than seven weeks as we got to the end of discussions on the Online Safety Bill. To get the deal that we all, across the political parties, hoped would happen, and so that the country would benefit from the best possible Act we could get out of the process, there were a number of quite late changes, including the question about deepfake issues, which was not given quite the scrutiny that it could have had. Of course, we are now receiving discussion and debate on those issues, and it is important that we understand them and the process that the Government will take to try to resolve them.

This question of having consent was hotly debated by those who led on it during the time the Bill was before your Lordships’ House. I felt the arguments very clearly came out in favour of those who argued that the question of consent, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, really is not relevant to this. The offence is caused by the circulation of material, and the Act should contain powers sufficient for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that Ofcom, in exercising its regulatory functions, has the powers to take down this material where it is illegal.

There are two issues tied up in that. I think all of us who have spoken in this debate are concerned that we have not really got to the end of the discussion on this, and we need to have more. Whether through the Private Member’s Bill that we will hear about in December or not, the Government need to get action on that. They need to consult widely with the committees, both in the Commons and here, to get the best advice. It may well be that we need further debate and discussion in this House to do so.

Having said that, the intention to clarify what exactly is legal lies at the heart of the Online Safety Act. The Act will not work and benefit the country if we go back to the question of legal but harmful. The acid test for how the material is to be treated by those who provide services to this country has to be whether it is legal. If it is illegal, it must be taken down, and there must be powers and action specifically for that to happen. It is unfortunate that, if material is not illegal, it is a matter not for the Government or Parliament but for the companies to ensure that their terms of service allow people to make judgments about whether they put material on their platforms. I hope that still remains the Government’s position. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also start on a positive note and welcome the ongoing focus on online safety. We all aim to make this the safest country in the world in which to be online. The Online Safety Act is the cornerstone of how all of us will continue to pursue this crucial goal. The Act imposed clear legal responsibilities on social media platforms and tech companies, requiring them actively to monitor and manage the content they host. They are required swiftly to remove illegal content and to take proactive measures to prevent harmful material reaching minors. This reflects the deep commitment that we all share to safeguarding children from the dangers of cyberbullying, explicit content and other online threats.

We must also take particular account of the disproportionate harm that women and girls face online. The trends regarding the online abuse and exploitation that disproportionately affect female users are deeply concerning. Addressing these specific challenges is essential if we are to create a truly safe online environment for everyone.

With respect to the Government’s proposed approach to making sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, this initiative will require social media companies promptly to remove such content from their platforms. This aims to curb the rise in abuse that has been described as “intolerable”—I think rightly—by the Secretary of State. The intent behind this measure is to prevent generations becoming “desensitised” to the devastating effects of online abuse.

Although this appears to signal a strong stance against online harm, it raises the question of what this designation truly accomplishes in practical terms. I am grateful to the Minister for setting this out so clearly. I am not entirely sure that I altogether followed the differences between the old offences and the new ones. Sharing intimate images without consent is already illegal under current laws. Therefore, can we not say that the real issue lies in the absence not of legal provision but of effective enforcement of existing regulation? We have to ensure that any changes we make do not merely add layers of complexity but genuinely strengthen the protections available to victims and improve the responsiveness of platforms in removing harmful content.

With these thoughts in mind, I offer five questions. I apologise; the Minister is welcome to write as necessary, but I welcome her views whether now or in writing. First, why is it necessary to add the sharing of intimate images to the list of priority offences if such acts are already illegal under existing legislation and, specifically, what additional protections or outcomes are expected? The Minister gave some explanation of this, but I would welcome digging a little deeper into that.

Secondly, where consent is used as a defence against the charge of sharing intimate images, what are the Government’s thoughts on how to protect victims from intrusive cross-examination over details of their sexual history?

Thirdly, with respect to nudification technology, the previous Government argued that any photoreal image was covered by “intimate image abuse”—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, touched on this issue well. Is there any merit in looking at that again?

Fourthly, I am keen to hear the Government’s views on my noble friend Lady Owen’s Private Member’s Bill on nudification. We look forward to debating that in December.

Fifthly, and lastly, what role can or should parents and educators play in supporting the Act’s objectives? How will the Government engage these groups to promote online safety awareness?