Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for introducing this group. I will speak particularly to the amendment in my name but before I do so, I want to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness and with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is a matter of regret that we are not simultaneously looking at an AI Bill. I worry that this Bill has to take a lot of the weight that an AI Bill would otherwise take, but we will come to that in a great deal more detail in later groups.

I will address the two amendments in this group in reverse order. Amendment 5 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham would remove Clause 13, which makes provision for the Secretary of State or the Treasury to give financial assistance to decision-makers and enforcers—that is, in essence, to act as a financial backstop. While I appreciate the necessity of guaranteeing the stability of enforcers who are public authorities and therefore branches of state, I am concerned that this has been extended to decision-makers. The Bill does not make the identity of a decision-maker clear. Therefore, I wonder who exactly we are protecting here. Unless those individuals or bodies or organisations can be clearly defined, how can we know whether we should extend financial assistance to them?

I raised these concerns in Committee and the Minister assured us at that time that smart data schemes should be self-financing through fees and levies as set out in Clauses 11 and 12 and that this provision is therefore a back-up plan. If that is indeed the case and we are assured of the self-funding nature of smart data schemes, then what exactly makes this necessary? Why must the statutory spending authority act as a backstop if we do not believe there is a risk it will be needed? If we do think there is such a risk, can the Minister elaborate on what it is?

I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which would require data traders to supply customers with information that has been used by AI to build a profile on them. While transparency and explainability are hugely important, I worry that the mechanism proposed here will be too burdensome. The burden would grow linearly with the scale of the models used. Collating and supplying this information would, I fear, increase the cost of doing business for traders. Given AI’s potential to be an immense asset to business, helping generate billions of pounds for the UK economy—and, by the way, I rather approve of the boosterish tone and think we should strive for a great deal more growth in the economy—we should not seek to make its use more administratively burdensome for business. Furthermore, since the information is AI-generated, it is going to be a guess or an assumption or an inference. Therefore, should we require companies to disclose not just the input data but the intermediate and final outputs? Speaking as a consumer, I am not sure that I personally would welcome this. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses.

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their proposed amendments and continued interest in Part 1 of this Bill. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the definition of customer data is purposefully broad. It encompasses information relating to a customer or a trader and the Government consider that this would indeed include inferred data. The specific data to be disclosed under a smart data scheme will be determined in the context of that scheme and I reassure the noble Baroness that there will be appropriate consultation before a smart data scheme is introduced.

I turn to Amendment 5. Clause 13 provides statutory authority for the Secretary of State or the Treasury to give financial assistance to decision-makers, enforcers and others for the purpose of meeting any expense in the exercise of their functions in the smart data schemes. Existing and trusted bodies such as sector regulators will likely be in the lead of the delivery of new schemes. These bodies will act as decision-makers and enforcers. It is intended that smart data schemes will be self-financing through the fees and levies produced by Clauses 11 and 12. However, because of the nature of the bodies that are involved, it is deemed appropriate for there to be a statutory spending authority as a backstop provision if that is necessary. Any spending commitment of resources will, of course, be subject to the usual estimates process and to existing public sector spending controls and transparency requirements.

I hope that with this brief explanation of the types of bodies involved, and the other explanations, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw Amendment 1 and that noble Lords will not press Amendment 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group and for bringing these important and sometimes very difficult matters to the attention of the House. I will address the amendments slightly out of order, if I may.

For digital verification services to work, the information they have access to and use to verify documents must be accurate; this is, needless to say, critical to the success of the entire scheme. Therefore, it is highly sensible for Amendment 8 to require public authorities, when they disclose information via the information gateway, to ensure that it is accurate and reliable and that they can prove it. By the same measure, Amendment 6, which requires the Secretary of State to assess whether the public authorities listed are collecting accurate information, is equally sensible. These amendments as a pair will ensure the reliability of DVS services and encourage the industry to flourish.

I would like to consider the nature of accurate information, especially regarding an individual’s biological sex. It is possible for an individual to change their recorded sex on their driving licence or passport, for example, without going through the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Indeed, a person can change the sex on their birth certificate if they obtain a GRC, but many would argue that changing some words on a document does not change the reality of a person’s genome, physical presentation and, in some cases, medical needs, meaning that the information recorded does not accurately relate to their sex. I urge the Minister to consider how best to navigate this situation, and to acknowledge that it is crucially important, as we have heard so persuasively from the noble Earl, Lord Errol, and my noble friends Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Lucas, that a person’s sex is recorded accurately to facilitate a fully functioning DVS system.

The DVS trust framework has the potential to rapidly transform the way identities and information are verified. It should standardise digital verification services, ensure reliability and build trust in the concept of a digital verification service. It could seriously improve existing, cumbersome methods of verifying information, saving companies, employers, employees, landlords and tenants time and money. Personally, I have high hopes of its potential to revolutionise the practices of recruitment. I certainly do not know many people who would say no to less admin. If noble Lords are minded to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support them with respect to Amendments 6 and 8.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think it is a mistake to regard this as part of some culture war struggle. As I understand it, this is about accuracy of data and the importance, for medical and other reasons, of maintaining accurate data.

All the benefits of DVS cannot be to the detriment of data privacy and data minimisation. Parliament is well-practised at balancing multiple competing concepts and doing so with due regard to public opinion. Therefore, Amendment 7 is indeed a sensible idea.

Finally, Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to review whether an offence of false use of identity documents created or verified by a DVS provider is needed. This is certainly worth consideration. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will require DVS providers to take care that their services are not being used with criminal intent, and I am quite sure that DVS service providers do not want to facilitate crimes. However, the history of technology is surely one of high-minded purposes corrupted by cynical practices. Therefore, it seems prudent for the Secretary of State to conduct a review into whether creating this offence is necessary and, if it is, the best way that it can be laid out in law. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this and other matters.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot, for their amendments and interest in the important area of digital verification services. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his support for this being such an important thing to make life easier for people.

I will go in reverse order and start with Amendment 9. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for reconsidering his stance since Committee on the outright creation of these offences. Amendment 9 would create an obligation for the Secretary of State to review the need for digital identity theft offences. We believe this would be unnecessary, as existing legislation—for example, the Fraud Act 2006, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 2018—already addresses the behaviour targeted by this amendment.

However, we note the concerns raised and confirm that the Government are taking steps to tackle the issue. First, the Action Fraud service, which allows individuals to report fraud enabled by identity theft, is being upgraded with improved reporting tools, increased intelligence flows to police forces and better support services for victims. Secondly, the Home Office is reviewing the training offered to police officers who have to respond to fraud incidents, and identifying the improvements needed.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising these significant issues. While I share some of the concerns expressed, I find myself unable—at least for the moment—to offer support for the amendments in their current form.

Amendment 17 seeks to remove the powers granted to the Secretary of State to override primary legislation and to modify aspects of UK data protection law via statutory instrument. I agree with the principle underpinning this amendment: that any changes to data protection law must be subject to appropriate scrutiny. It is essential that parliamentary oversight remains robust and meaningful, particularly when it comes to matters as sensitive and far-reaching as data protection.

However, my hesitation lies in the practical implications of the amendment. While I sympathise with the call for greater transparency, I would welcome more detail on how this oversight mechanism might work in practice. Would it involve enhanced scrutiny procedures or a stronger role for relevant parliamentary committees? I fear that, without this clarity, we risk creating uncertainty in an area that requires, above all, precision and confidence.

The Minister’s Amendment 18 inserts specific protections for children’s personal data into the UK GDPR framework. The Government have rightly emphasised the importance of safeguarding children in the digital age. I commend the intention behind the amendment and agree wholeheartedly that children deserve special protections when it comes to the processing of their personal data.

It is worth noting that this is a government amendment to their own Bill. While Governments amending their own legislation is not unprecedented—the previous Government may have indulged in the practice from time to time—it is a practice that can give rise to questions. I will leave my comments there; obviously it is not ideal, but these things happen.

Finally, Amendment 21, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mirrors Amendment 17 in seeking to curtail the Secretary of State’s powers to amend primary legislation via statutory instrument. My earlier comments on the importance of parliamentary oversight apply here. As with Amendment 17, I am of course supportive of the principle. The delegation of such significant powers to the Executive should not proceed without robust scrutiny. However, I would appreciate greater clarity on how this proposed mechanism would function in practice. As it stands, I fear that the amendment raises too many questions. If these concerns could be addressed, I would be most grateful.

In conclusion, these amendments raise important points about the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament, as well as the protection of vulnerable individuals in the digital sphere. I look forward to hearing more detail and clarity, so that we can move forward with confidence.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 18 is similar to government Amendment 40 in the previous group, which added an express reference to children meriting specific protection to the new ICO duty. This amendment will give further emphasis to the need for the Secretary of State to consider the fact that children merit specific protection when deciding whether to use powers to amend the list of recognised legitimate interests.

Turning to Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I understand the concerns that have been raised about the Secretary of State’s power to add or vary the list of recognised legitimate interests. This amendment seeks to remove the power from the Bill.

In response to some of the earlier comments, including from the committees, I want to make it clear that we have constrained these powers more tightly than they were in the previous data Bill. Before making any changes, the Secretary of State must consider the rights and freedoms of individuals, paying particular attention to children, who may be less aware of the risks associated with data processing. Furthermore, any addition to the list must meet strict criteria, ensuring that it serves a clear and necessary public interest objective as described in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR.

The Secretary of State is required to consult the Information Commissioner and other stakeholders before making any changes, and any regulations must then undergo the affirmative resolution procedure, guaranteeing parliamentary scrutiny through debates in both Houses. Retaining this regulation-making power would allow the Government to respond quickly if future public interest activities are identified that should be added to the list of recognised legitimate interests. However, the robust safeguards and limitations in Clause 70 will ensure that these powers are used both sparingly and responsibly.

I turn now to Amendment 21. As was set out in Committee, there is already a relevant power in the current Data Protection Act to provide exceptions. We are relocating the existing exemptions, so the current power, so far as it relates to the purpose limitation principle, will no longer be relevant. The power in Clause 71 is intended to take its place. In seeking to reassure noble Lords, I want to reiterate that the power cannot be used for purposes other than the public interest objectives listed in Article 23.1 of the UK GDPR. It is vital that the Government can act quickly to ensure that public interest processing is not blocked. If an exemption is misused, the power will also ensure that action can be swiftly taken to protect data subjects by placing extra safeguards or limitations on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

There is a requirement. Going back to the issue of principles, which was discussed earlier on, one of the existing principles—which I am now trying to locate and cannot—is transparency. I expect that we would make as much of the information public as we can in order to ensure good decision-making and assure people as to how the decisions have been reached.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords and the Minister for their comments and contributions to what has been a fascinating debate. I will start by commenting on the other amendments in this group before turning to those in my name.

First, on Amendments 28 and 29, I am rather more comfortable with the arrangements for meaningful human intervention set out in the Bill than the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. For me, either a decision has meaningful human intervention or it does not. In the latter case, certain additional rights kick in. To me, that binary model is clear and straightforward, and could only be damaged by introducing some of the more analogue concepts such as “predominantly”, “principally”, “mainly” or “wholly”, so I am perfectly comfortable with that as it is.

However, I recognise that puts a lot of weight on to the precise meaning of “meaningful human involvement”. Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would require the Secretary of State to produce a definition of “meaningful human involvement” in ADM in collaboration with the ICO, seems to take on some value in those circumstances, so I am certainly more supportive of that one.

As for Amendments 34 and 35 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, I absolutely recognise the value and potential of efficacy; I agree it is a very valuable term. I have more faith in the rollout and use of the ATRS but on a non-statutory basis, believing, as I do, that this would allow it to continue to develop in an agile and adaptive manner. I welcome the Minister’s words on this subject, and for now I remain comfortable that the ATRS is the direction forward for that.

I turn to the amendments in my name. I thank all noble Lords and, indeed, the Minister for their comments and contributions regarding Amendments 31 and 32. I very much take the Minister’s point that definitions of consent feature elsewhere in the Bill. That reduces my concern somewhat.

However, I continue to strongly commend Amendment 26 to the House. I believe it will foster innovation while protecting data rights. It is popular with the public and with private sector stakeholders. It will bring about outcomes that we all want to see in AI safety without stifling this new and exciting technology. In the absence of an AI Bill—and possibly even in the presence of one—it is the only AI-specific legislation that will be around. It is important somehow to get those AI principles in the Bill, at least until an AI Bill comes along. With this in mind, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 41 aims to establish a code of practice for the use of children’s data in the development of AI technologies. In the face of rapidly advancing AI, it is, of course, crucial that we ensure children’s data is handled with the utmost care, prioritising their best interests and fundamental rights. We agree that AI systems that are likely to impact children should be designed to be safe and ethical by default. This code of practice will be instrumental in guiding data controllers to ensure that AI development and deployment reflect the specific needs and vulnerabilities of children.

However, although we support the intent behind the amendment, we have concerns, which echo concerns on amendments in a previous group, about the explicit reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and general comment 25. I will not rehearse my comments from earlier groups, except to say that it is so important that we do not have these explicit links to international frameworks, important as they are, in UK legislation.

In the light of this, although we firmly support the overall aim of safeguarding children’s data in AI, we believe this can be achieved more effectively by focusing on UK legal principles and ensuring that the code of practice is rooted in our domestic context.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 33, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for Amendment 41, and for their thoughtful comments on AI and automated decision-making throughout this Bill’s passage.

The Government have carefully considered these issues and agree that there is a need for greater guidance. I am pleased to say that we are committing to use our powers under the Data Protection Act to require the ICO to produce a code of practice on AI and solely automated decision-making through secondary legislation. This code will support controllers in complying with their data protection obligations through practical guidance. I reiterate that the Government are committed to this work as an early priority, following the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The secondary legislation will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, which means it will be scrutinised by Peers and parliamentarians.

I can also reassure the noble Baroness that the code of practice will include guidance about protecting data subjects, including children. The new ICO duties set out in the Bill will ensure that where children’s interests are relevant to any activity the ICO is carrying out, it should consider the specific protection of children. This includes when preparing codes of practice, such as the one the Government are committing to in this area.

I understand that noble Lords will be keen to discuss the specific contents of the code. The ICO, as the independent data protection regulator, will have views as to the scope of the code and the topics it should cover. We should allow it time to develop those thoughts. The Government are also committed to engaging with noble Lords and other stakeholders after Royal Assent to make sure that we get this right. I hope noble Lords will agree that working closely together to prepare the secondary legislation to request this code is the right approach instead of pre-empting the exact scope.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned edtech. I should add—I am getting into a habit now—that it is discussed in a future group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—as ever—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling Amendment 37 in their names. It would introduce a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to carry out an impact assessment of this Act and other changes to the UK’s domestic and international frameworks relating to data adequacy before the European Union’s reassessment of data adequacy in June this year.

I completely understand the concerns behind tabling this amendment. In the very worst-case scenario, of a complete loss of data adequacy in the assessment by the EU, the effect on many businesses and industries in this country would be knocking at the door of catastrophic. It cannot be allowed to happen.

However, introducing a requirement to assess the impact of the Bill on the European Union data adequacy decision requires us to speculate on EU intentions in a public document, which runs the risk of prompting changes on its part or revealing our hand to it in ways that we would rather not do. It is important that we do two things: understand our risk, without necessarily publishing it publicly; and continue to engage at ministerial and official level, as I know we are doing intensively. I think the approach set out in this amendment runs the risk of being counterproductive.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his contribution. I agree with them on the value and importance placed on maintaining our data adequacy decisions from the EU this year. That is a priority for the Government, and I reassure those here that we carefully considered all measures in the light of the EU’s review of our adequacy status when designing the Bill.

The Secretary of State wrote to the House of Lords European Affairs Committee on 20 November 2024 on this very point and I would be happy to share this letter with noble Lords if that would be helpful. The letter sets out the importance this Government place on renewal of our EU adequacy decisions and the action we are taking to support this process.

It is important to recognise that the EU undertakes its review of its decisions for the UK in a unilateral, objective and independent way. As the DSIT Secretary of State referenced in his appearance before the Select Committee on 3 December, it is important that we acknowledge the technical nature of the assessments. For that reason, we respect the EU’s discretion about how it manages its adequacy processes. I echo some of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.

That being said, I reassure noble Lords that the UK Government are doing all they can to support a swift renewal of our adequacy status in both technical preparations and active engagement. The Secretary of State met the previous EU Commissioner twice last year to discuss the importance of personal data sharing between the UK and EU. He has also written to the new Commissioner for Justice responsible for the EU’s review and looks forward to meeting Commissioner McGrath soon.

I also reassure noble Lords that DSIT and the Home Office have dedicated teams that have been undertaking preparations ahead of this review, working across government as needed. Those teams are supporting European Commission officials with the technical assessment as required. UK officials have met with the European Commission four times since the introduction of the Bill, with future meetings already in the pipeline.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. These proposals aim to transfer jurisdiction from courts to tribunals; to establish a new right of appeal against decisions made by the Information Commissioner; and to grant the Lord Chancellor authority to implement tribunal procedure rules. I understand and recognise the noble Lord’s intent here, of course, but I have reservations about these amendments and urge caution in accepting them.

The suggestion to transfer jurisdiction from courts to tribunals raises substantial concerns. Courts have a long-standing authority and expertise in adjudicating complex legal matters, including data protection cases. By removing these disputes from the purview of the courts, the risk is that we undermine the depth and breadth of legal oversight required in such critical areas. Tribunals, while valuable for specialised and expedited decisions, may not provide the same level of rigorous legal analysis.

Cases such as those cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—Killock and another v the Information Commissioner and Delo v the Information Commissioner—demonstrate to me the intricate interplay between data protection, administrative discretion and broader legal principles. It is questionable whether tribunals, operating under less formal procedures, can consistently handle such complexities without diminishing the quality of justice. Further, I am not sure that the claim that this transfer will streamline the system and reduce burdens on the courts is fully persuasive. Shifting cases to tribunals does not eliminate complexity; it merely reallocates it, potentially at the expense of the detailed scrutiny that these cases demand.

I turn to the right of appeal against the commissioner’s decisions. Although the introduction of a right of appeal against these decisions may seem like a safeguard, it risks creating unnecessary layers of litigation. The ICO already operates within a robust framework of accountability, including judicial review for cases of legal error or improper exercise of discretion. Adding a formal right of appeal risks encouraging vexatious challenges, overwhelming the tribunal system and diverting resources from addressing genuine grievances.

I think we in my party understand the importance of regulatory accountability. However, creating additional mechanisms should not come at the expense of efficiency and proportionality. The existing legal remedies are designed to strike an appropriate balance, and further appeals risk creating a chilling effect on the ICO’s ability to act decisively in protecting data rights.

On tribunal procedure rules and centralised authority, the proposed amendment granting the Lord Chancellor authority to set tribunal procedure rules bypasses the Tribunal Procedure Committee, an independent body designed to ensure that procedural changes are developed with judicial oversight. This move raises concerns about the concentration of power and the erosion of established checks and balances. I am concerned that this is a case of expediency overriding the principles of good governance. While I acknowledge that consultation with the judiciary is included in the amendment, it is not a sufficient substitute for the independent deliberative processes currently in place. The amendment risks undermining the independence of our legal institutions and therefore I have concerns about it.

These amendments overall, while presented as technical fixes, and certainly I recognise the problem and the intent, would have far-reaching consequences for our data protection framework. The vision of my party for governance is one that prioritises stability, legal certainty and the preservation of integrity. We must avoid reforms that, whatever their intent, introduce confusion or inefficiency or undermine public trust in our system. Data protection is, needless to say, a cornerstone of our modern economy and individual rights. As such, any changes to its governance must be approached with the utmost care.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 108, 146 to 153 and 157, and I am grateful for the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.

The effect of this group of amendments would be to make the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper-tier Tribunal responsible for all data protection cases. They would transfer ongoing as well as future cases out of the court system to the relevant tribunals and, as has been alluded to, may cause more confusion in doing so.

As the noble Lord is aware, there is currently a blend of jurisdiction under the data protection legislation for both tribunals and courts according to the nature of the proceedings in question. This is because certain types of cases are appropriate to fall under tribunal jurisdiction while others are more appropriate for court settings. For example, claims by individuals against organisations for breaches of legal requirements can result in awards of compensation for the individuals and financial and reputational damage for the organisations. It is appropriate that such cases are handled by a court in conformance with their strict procedural and evidential rules. Indeed, under the Killock and Delo examples, it was noted that there could be additional confusion in that ability to go between those two possibilities if you went solely to one of the tribunals.

On the transfer of responsibility for making tribunal procedural rules from the Tribunal Procedure Committee to the Lord Chancellor, we think that would be inappropriate. The committee is comprised of legal experts appointed or nominated by senior members of the judiciary or the Lord Chancellor. This committee is best placed to make rules to ensure that tribunals are accessible and fair and that cases are dealt with quickly and efficiently. It keeps the rules under constant review to ensure that they are fit for purpose in line with new appeal rights and the most recent legislative changes.

Amendment 151 would also introduce a statutory appeals procedure for tribunals to determine the merits of decisions made by the Information Commissioner. Data subjects and controllers alike can already challenge the merits of the Information Commissioner’s decisions by way of judicial review in a way that would preserve the discretion and independence of the Information Commissioner’s decision-making, so no statutory procedure is needed. The Government therefore believe that the current jurisdictional framework is well-balanced and equitable, and that it provides effective and practical routes of redress for data subjects and controllers as well as appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance by organisations. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

These four technical government amendments do not, we believe, have a material policy effect but will improve the clarity and operation of the Bill text.

Amendment 133 amends Section 199 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which provides a definition of “personal data” for the purposes of bulk personal datasets. This definition cross-refers to Section 82(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018, which is amended by Clauses 88 and 89 of the Bill, providing for joint processing by the intelligence services and competent authorities. This amendment will retain the effect of that cross-reference to ensure that processing referred to in Section 199 of the IPA remains that done by an intelligence service.

Amendment 136 concerns Clause 92 and ICO codes of practice. Clause 92 establishes a new procedure for panels to consider ICO codes of practice before they are finalised. It includes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to disapply or modify that procedure for particular codes or amendments to them. Amendment 136 will enable the power to be used to disapply or modify the panel’s procedure for specific amendments or types of amendments to a code, rather than for all amendments to it.

Finally, Amendments 213 and 214 will allow for changes made to certain immigration legislation and the Online Safety Act 2023 by Clauses 55, 122 and 123 to be extended via existing powers in those Acts, exercisable by Orders in Council, to Guernsey and the Isle of Man, should they seek this.

I beg to move.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments brief as these are all technical amendments to the Bill. I understand that Amendments 133 and 136 are necessary for the functioning of the law and therefore have no objection. As for Amendment 213, extending immigration legislation amended by Clause 55 of this Bill to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man, this is a sensible measure. The same can be said for Amendment 214, which extends the provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amended by this Bill, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or the Isle of Man.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount.

Undersea Cables

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The detection of breaks is done from land, but the ability to repair them is through an agreement with the commercial companies, which pay into a fund that allows a ship to be on 24/7 standby to provide protection. That is paid for by the companies that put the cables in place.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, we of course recognise and share the Government’s and House’s concern about increased Russian military activity around these undersea cables. I was pleased that the Minister a couple of times referenced the risk assessments going on, but can he tell the House a little more and expand on his earlier answers about those risk assessments? How do they take place and how often do they occur?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The national risk assessment is undertaken regularly and led by the Cabinet Office. In this instance, DSIT is the department responsible for the risk to the cables overall, but it is in collaboration with the MoD, the Cabinet Office and others, particularly in relation to assessing risks other than those that I have outlined.

Satellites: Adverse Effects on Astronomy

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

This is a critical question. The Royal Institute of Navigation has recently—in fact, today—launched a paper on how to prepare for this. It is something that all critical national infrastructure will be urged to look at, to have a plan for what would happen in the event of GPS failure. There is a longer-term question about the alternatives to space-based navigation and there is active work going on in the UK on terrestrial approaches, including the use of quantum systems to try to get a robust secondary approach to PNT.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, now that over 70 nations have their own space agency, how will the Government pursue the widest and most effective possible international co-operation in support of Astra Carta’s aim,

“to care for the infinite wonders of the universe”?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

There is a series of international collaborations in place. We are a member of the European Space Agency. A large proportion of the £1.9 billion of the UK Space Agency money goes to the European Space Agency and our collaborators there. We also spend through the MoD and through UKRI. We are members of the UN bodies that deal with the question of a sustainable space sector and space environment. The space environment is increasingly important and needs attention. We will continue to raise this question at the UN bodies.

Artificial Intelligence: Regulation

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

That is an area that of course comes under several other parts of regulation already. It is also an area where there are massive changes in the way that these models perform. If one looks at GPT-4 versus GPT-3—I know it is not facial recognition, but it gives an indication of the types of advances—it is about twice as good now as it was a year ago. These things are moving fast and there is indeed a need to understand exactly how facial recognition technology is valid and where it has problems in recognition.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, the supply chain for the development of the more advanced AI systems is, in almost every case, highly global in nature. That means that it becomes quite straightforward for AI developers to offshore their activities from any jurisdiction whose regulations they might prefer not to follow. This being the case, do the Government agree that the regulations for AI development, as distinguished mostly from use, are going to have to be global in nature? If the Government agree with that, how is it reflected in their plans for AI regulation going forward?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The noble Viscount makes an important point. This will be global; there is no question about it. Therefore, there needs to be some degree of interoperability between different regions in terms of the regulations put in place. At the moment, as I said, of the two most advanced, the US is the biggest AI nation in the world and is developing a regulation along similar lines to ours, we believe. The EU is of course the most regulated place in the world for AI and we need to work out, in consultation over the next months, how to make sure that we work out where the areas of interoperability will lie.

Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Viscount Camrose and Lord Vallance of Balham

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The convention sets out activities in the life cycle of AI systems, and they should not infringe our values of human rights, democratic processes and the effectiveness of democratic institutions or the rule of law. It applies to the public sector, to the public sector when using the private sector, and there is an obligation to consider how private sector activities can be taken into account when this is implemented in a national framework.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, international bodies currently working on AI safety and regulation include the UN, UNESCO, the ITU, the G7, the G20 and the GPI, among several others. Do the Government agree that although each of these groups is crucial and has a very important role to play in creating safe and well-regulated AI globally, they will be successful only to the extent that they are effectively co-ordinated? If so, what steps are the Government taking to bring that about?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

We are in active discussion with all those partners. As we consider an AI Act, we will work closely with partners in the US and elsewhere and apply it only to the limited number of companies at the very forefront of AI, to those models of tomorrow which carry particular risk and, again, where guard-rails have been asked for.