EU Technological Sovereignty Package

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The AI Security Institute is one of the pre-eminent institutions in the UK in AI development and the transformations we are seeing. It works very closely with other AI security institutes. I think it was only two weeks back that it was meeting other similar institutions, developing common standards and approaches to assessment, which is one of the important ways that we keep a baseline across the globe for how we should appraise frontier models as they are developed.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, when the Government support a UK sovereign AI fund, will UK government investment be focused on models trained only on properly sourced and remunerated material?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The AI sovereign fund invests in companies based in the UK. They must adhere to UK law, including UK copyright law, for those investments made in the UK.

Artificial Intelligence: Legislation

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The UK’s approach is to develop our sovereign capabilities. We are investing in infrastructure and in AI growth zones. We are working to ensure that everyone in this country benefits from the potential of AI and are upskilling 10 million workers. In respect of the regulatory environment, AI can be adopted in many different areas: it can advance drug discovery, or it can support teachers in classrooms so that they have more face-to-face time with pupils. It is right to take a context-specific regulatory approach.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, the Government have recognised that greater transparency about AI model training data would help rights holders to assert their rights. Can the Minister tell the House why she has not committed in principle to statutory transparency requirements for commercial AI developers?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We set out our approach in March in respect of the issues around copyright and AI. We acknowledged that the approach we had taken previously in respect of the proposals we had put forward did not command the support of the creative industry or the technology industry—or indeed of noble Lords. We have set out a plan to take all that forward over the summer and beyond.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome much of the Bill. It could not be more important in a world in which warfare is not just physical but digital. It is essential as part of our national security that our Government step in to protect us from such attacks.

Most noble Lords, I think, welcome the list of bodies to be regulated in Part 2. I am very glad that data centres, large load controllers and specified management services have been brought within the scope of the Bill. After all, the Government celebrated the huge investments of AWS and DC01UK in data centres. It is important that they are now covered by the Bill as an essential part of our national security.

There has obviously been an attempt to future-proof the Bill against the fast-changing world of tech. At the beginning of Part 3, Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State enormous and flexible powers to designate what is essential activity for the economy of the United Kingdom and the day-to-day functioning of society. This flexibility is then reinforced in Clause 43 in Part 4, which gives powers to issue directions to regulated persons and to decide what should be reported and to whom it should be reported.

My fear is that the Bill does not go far enough to address the present threats, let alone the future ones. Noble Lord after noble Lord has raised concerns about the failure to mention AI in the Bill at all. I, too, was at the terrifying meeting mentioned by my noble friend Lady Kidron, which was held earlier this month, by the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy and the Centre for Long-Term Resilience. They guided us through the world of software vulnerabilities and patches. In the arms race that is the search for software vulnerabilities, it is a fight between the attacker and the defender to find the flaw first. Even then, the rollout of patches to downstream defenders can be slow and leave them open to further attacks.

Having absorbed these concerns, we were then told about automated AI attacks, in which an automated AI agent can carry out all the steps of a cyber attack on its own as an autonomous operator. AI agents no longer need skilled labour to develop an attack—expertise can be rented from AI systems—and the attacks can vary in their approach and learn from each failure so that initial defences can be breached once again.

The AI Security Institute found that, between December 2005 and December 2006, a single hacker weaponised the Claude and GPT-4.1 systems to bypass safety guardrails and develop 400 attack scripts. The breach exposed the personal data of 195 million citizens in Mexico, including their tax and electoral registers. At the very least, if data centres can be added in at a later stage in the shaping of the Bill, frontier AI models operating in this country can and should be added in as well. They need to be protected from attack by foreign agents and rivals.

I am aware that, as Ministers have often said, regulation can be an obstacle to new start-ups. If that is the case, there needs to be a threshold on the size of the frontier AI models that would need to abide by the demands of the Bill. There also needs to be in the Bill a new clause in which AI frontier providers are designated as essential models.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was right: I am going to repeat what other noble Lords have said. The Bill leaves lacunae over large sectors of the economy, which I am sure most noble Lords regard as essential services. The Bill must include critical manufacturing and retail, both of which suffered devastating cyber attacks in the past few months. Many noble Lords have mentioned the huge attack on Marks & Spencer. Noble Lords only have to imagine the effect on the country if there were successful attacks on one or two of our big supermarket chains. The result would throw the national food supply chain into crisis. Surely supermarkets, which provide much of our nation’s food and other services, need to be considered very carefully for coming within the scope of the Bill.

I understand that, unlike the finance, telecom and digital sectors, the manufacturing and retail sectors do not have a regulator. Nevertheless, Clause 24 allows for flexibility in this space, so I support the calls from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for a cross-sectoral regulator. Perhaps the Government need to set up a second tier of essential service sectors that should be preparing to be brought within the scope of the Bill. In the longer term, it might be important to ensure that they are building the highest resilience to AI-powered cyber attacks.

This work must further strengthen resilience at board level. It cannot be left to AI departments to work out resilience on their own. I suggest that the Minister makes further changes to the UK Corporate Governance Code straightaway so that more responsibility for reporting incidents is taken at board level. The Minister is in a unique position to do this, being the Digital Economy Minister and having previously been in the DBT.

My other area of concern about the Bill is the importance of co-ordinating the reporting of cyber attacks, especially AI cyber attacks, to build cyber resilience. There should be an extensive list of sectors that are brought into scope, as the EU legislation has suggested. It is terrifying that so many of the automated AI attacks are what the industry calls “misalignments”, meaning that their outcome is not what the original design of the model had intended. Not only do they create outcomes that were not the original intention of the creators of the model but those creators do not even know that these misalignments have taken place.

I know that the Government have created the Cyber Resilience Pledge for our FTSE 350 companies, which means that they will sign up to the NCSC’s early cyber attack alerts and recommend a Cyber Essentials suppliers kit. The Government have put aside £90 million for resilience centres to give advice against attacks on SMEs. However, these all depend on voluntary responses by the affected companies. The Government need to mandate a reporting requirement so that effective defences can be rolled out across the economy.

I understand the flexibility on reporting given by Clause 43, but this country is confronted with the prospect of automated AI attacks. It is essential that the widest range of reporting of these attacks is included in the Bill. There must also be a mechanism for mandating the co-ordination of reporting these attacks. The Government must ensure that information about the attacks is brought together and that advice is co-ordinated on how to build a defence against those attacks. The information is crucial for AI frontier model companies to know that their agents are creating misalignments and for downstream companies affected by the attacks to build secure defences. The essential reporting on attacks needs to be brought together by the NCSC or the AISI. The Bill then must ensure that there is a cross-cutting regulator in the longer term.

The Bill recognises that we live in an ever more dangerous digital world. The introduction of autonomous AI into the digital world will affect us all and could do so to a disastrous degree. I call on the Government to ensure that AI is in the Bill, both in the sectors in scope and in the reporting requirements for these and other sectors. Failure to do so will open our country to attacks which will devastate our economy and our society for years to come.

Employment: Artificial Intelligence

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

On investment in the regions, the Government are supporting huge investment in AI through AI growth zones and through investment in people, with the £10 million jobs boost and £187 million to support young people and those returning to work to get the skills that they need. These programmes are developed centrally and delivered in partnership with local organisations and civil society. We are investing in infrastructure and we are investing in people.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I am concerned about the adverse effect that AI is having on employment in the creative sector. The Communications and Digital Committee, in its recent report on AI and copyright, recommended protections against both unauthorised digital replicas and harmful AI outputs in the style of a creator’s work. The consultation that the Government announced in March appears to cover only digital replicas. Will the Minister tell the House whether she will address harmful “in the style of” outputs?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is right that we have a programme of work looking at digital replicas. We will be consulting on that. The fact that there are many who are affected by this—musicians, politicians and everyday citizens—means that it is an extensive piece of work. I will take back his question on the precise remit of this consultation and reply to him.

Artificial Intelligence: Legislation

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I agree that this is an urgent issue, and it is changing day by day. The urgency is reflected in the work that has already taken place through the Online Safety Act, the Data (Use and Access) Act and, of course, the Crime and Policing Bill. But the need to get the legislation right for a more widespread AI Bill is important and has to be taken with due consideration. It would be very wrong to try to rush this. A consultation that brings in all the relevant parties will be launched, and that will be the time when we can make sure that we get this absolutely right.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, at the Bletchley AI safety summit, major AI companies, such as Google, signed a voluntary agreement that they would not release AI frontier models without a safety card explaining how they had been tested and by whom. However, in March this year, Google released its Gemini 2.5 model without such a safety card. Does the Minister agree that examples such as this only add pressure for AI models safety testing to be put on a statutory basis?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

We do agree that the issue of safety in AI is very important. That is why we formed the AI Security Institute, which is busy working with companies around the world, testing their models, bringing their models in, working out where the vulnerabilities are, working in a way that allows those companies to build in the safety requirements that are needed, and, importantly, working with other AI safety and security institutes around the world. They have between them formed a group that is looking at these very issues. This is something we will be very vigilant on. It is something the world needs to be vigilant on as these models rapidly advance.

Artificial Intelligence: Regulation

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

As the noble Lord points out, getting regulation right here is good for investment and good for business. We are taking the approach of regulation by the existing regulators for the use of AI. We intend to bring forward legislation which allows us to safely realise the enormous benefits of AI in the frontier space. Of course, in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, some of the issues the noble Lord raised are already addressed.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, last week, the Startup Coalition of AI companies told a House of Commons Joint Committee that the Government should support a full commercial text and data mining model for AI training which would get rid of all copyright licensing for commercial AI training in the UK. Does the Minister support this suggestion?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

As I think I have made clear on several occasions at this Dispatch Box, we do not support that position. We believe that there needs to be control for creators; we need much better transparency in the system, and there needs to be access to use those images for AI. Those three things go hand in hand.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble, Lord Black, for daring to respond to the wonderful speech that opened the debate; I thought I might come in immediately afterwards, but I was terrified by it, so I decided that I would shelter on these Benches and gather my strength before I could begin to respond.

I feel that I have to speak because I am a member of the governing party, which is against these amendments. However, I have signed up to them because I have interests in the media—which I declare; I suppose I should also declare that I have a minor copyright, but that is very small compared with the ones we have already heard about—and because I feel very strongly that we will get ourselves into even more trouble unless action is taken quickly. I have a very clear view of the Government’s proposals, thanks to a meeting with my noble friend the Minister yesterday, where he went through, in detail, some of the issues and revealed some of the thinking behind them; I hope that he will come back to the points he made to me when he comes to respond.

There is no doubt that the use of a copyright work without the consent of the copyright owner in the United Kingdom is an infringement, unless it is “fair dealing” under UK copyright law. However, because of the developments in technology—the crawlers, scrapers and GAI that we have been hearing about—there is a new usage of a huge number of copyright works for the training of algorithms. That has raised questions about whether, and if so how, such usage has to be legislated for as “fair dealing”—if it is to be so—or in some other way, if there is indeed one.

It is right, therefore, for the Government to have required the IPO to carry out a consultation on copyright and AI, which we have been talking about. However, given the alarm and concern evident in the creative sector, we certainly regret the delay in bringing forward this consultation and we are very concerned about its limited scope. Looking at it from a long way away, it seems that this is as much a competition issue as it is a copyright issue. It seems to me and to many others, as we have heard, that the IPO, by including in the consultation document a proposed approach described as an “exception with rights reservation”, has made a very substantial mistake.

This may just be a straw-person device designed to generate more responses, but, if so, it was a bad misjudgement. Does it not make the whole consultation exercise completely wasteful and completely pointless to respond to? When my noble friend the Minister comes to respond, I hope that he, notwithstanding that proposed approach, will confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is a genuine consultation and that all the possible options outlined by the IPO—and any other solutions brought forward during the consultation—will be properly considered on their merits and in the light of the responses to the consultation.

What the creative industries are telling us—they have been united and vehement about this issue, as has already been described, in a way that I have never seen before—is that they must have transparency about what material is being scraped, the right to opt in to the TDMs taking place and a proper licensing system with fair remuneration for the copyright material used. The question of whether the GAI developers should be allowed to use copyright content, with or without the permission of the copyright owner, is a nuanced one, as a decision either way will have very wide-ranging ramifications. However, as we have heard, this issue is already affecting the livelihood of our creative sector—the one that, also as we have heard, we desperately need if we are to support a sustainable creative economy and provide the unbiased information, quality education and British-based entertainment that we all value and want to see flourish.

We understand the need to ensure that the companies that want access to high-quality data and copyright material to train their AI models respect, and will be happy to abide by, any new copyright or competition regulations that may be required. However, the proposals we have heard about today—the ones that would come from the consultation, if we have to delay—will probably be very similar to the amendments before the House, which are modest and fair. We should surely not want to work with companies that will not abide by such simple requirements.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 44A and the consequential amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, whose speech has, I think, moved the whole Committee across all Benches.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 34 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and will speak to my own Amendment 35, which amends it. When an algorithm is being used to make important decisions about our lives, it is vital that everyone is aware of what it is doing and what data it is based on. On Amendment 34, I know from having had responsibility for algorithmic decision support tools that users are very interested in how recent the data it is based on is, and how relevant it is to them. Was the algorithm derived from a population that included people who share their characteristics? Subsection (1)(c)(ii) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 34 refers to regular assessment of the data used by the system. I would hope that this would be part of the meaningful explanation to individuals to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in subsection (1)(b).

Amendment 35 would add to this that it is vital that all users and procurers of such a system understand its real-world efficacy. I use the word “efficacy” rather than “accuracy” because it might be difficult to define accuracy with regard to some of these systems. The procurer of any ADM system should want to know how accurate it is using realistic testing, and users should also be aware of those findings. Does the system give the same outcome as a human assessor 95% or 60% of the time? Is that the same for all kinds of queries, or is it more accurate for some groups of people than others? The efficacy is really one of the most important aspects and should be public. I have added an extra line that ensures that this declaration of efficacy would be kept updated. One would hope that the performance of any such system would be monitored anyway, but this ensures that the outcomes of such monitoring are in the public domain.

In Committee, the Minister advised us to wait for publication of the algorithmic transparency records that were released in December. Looking at them, I think they make clear the much greater need for guidance and stringency in what should be mandated. I will give two short examples from those records. For the DBT: Find Exporters algorithm, under “Model performance” it merely says that it uses Brier scoring and other methods, without giving any actual results of that testing to indicate how well it performs. It suggests looking at the GitHub pages. I followed that link, and it did not allow me in. The public have no access to those pages. This is why these performance declarations need to be mandated and forced to be in the public domain.

In the second example, the Cambridgeshire trial of an externally supplied object detection system just cites the company’s test data, claiming average precision in a “testing environment” of 43.5%. This does not give the user a lot of information. Again, it links to GitHub pages produced by the supplier. Admittedly, this is a trial, so perhaps the Cambridgeshire Partnership will update it with its real-world trial data. But that is why we need to ensure annual updates of performance data and ensure that that data is not just a report of the supplier’s claims in a test environment.

The current model of algorithmic transparency records is demonstrably not fit for purpose, and these provisions would help put them on a much firmer footing. These systems, after all, are making life-changing decisions for all of us and we all need to be sure how well they are doing and put appropriate levels of trust in them accordingly.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 36 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I also support Amendments 26, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 35. The Government, in their AI Statement last week, said that ADM will be rolled out across the public sector in the coming months and years. It will increase productivity and provide better public services to the people of this country.

However, there are many people who are fearful of their details being taken by an advanced computer, and a decision which could affect their lives being made by that computer. Surely the days of “computer says no” must be over. People need to know that there is a possibility of a human being involved in the process, particularly when dealing with the public sector. I am afraid that my own interactions with public sector software in various government departments have not always been happy ones, and I have been grateful to be able to appeal to a human.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Colville of Culross]

14: Clause 67, page 75, line 10, after “scientific” insert “and that is conducted in the public interest”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that to qualify for the scientific research exception for data reuse, that research must be in the public interest. This requirement already exists for medical research, but this amendment would apply it to all scientific research wishing to take advantage of the exception.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kidron and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for adding their signatures to my Amendment 14. I withdrew this amendment in Committee, but I am now asking the Minister to consider once again the definition of “scientific research” in the Bill. If he cannot satisfy me in his speech this evening, I will seek the opinion of the House.

I have been worried about the safeguards for defining scientific research since the Bill was published. This amendment will require that the research should be in “the public interest”, which I am sure most noble Lords will agree is a laudable aim and an important safeguard. This amendment has been looked at in the context of the Government’s recent announcements on turning this country into an AI superpower. I am very much a supporter of this endeavour, but across the country there are many people who are worried about the need to set up safeguards for their data. They fear data safety is threatened by this explosion of AI and its inexorable development by the big tech companies. This amendment will go some way to building public trust in the AI revolution.

The vision of Donald Trump surrounded at his inauguration yesterday by tech billionaires, most of whom have until recently been Democrats, puts the fear of God into me. I fear their companies are coming for our data. We have some of the best data in the world, and it needs to be safeguarded. The AI companies are spending billions of dollars developing their foundation models, and they are beholden to their shareholders to minimise the cost of developing these models.

Clause 67 gives a huge fillip to the scientific research community. It exempts research which falls within the definition of scientific research as laid out in the Bill from having to gain new consent from data subjects to reuse millions of points of data.

It costs time and money for the tech companies to get renewed consent from data holders before reusing their data. This is an issue we will discuss further when we debate amendments on scraping data from creatives without copyright licensing. It is clear from our debates in Committee that many noble Lords fear that AI companies will do what they can to avoid either getting consent or licensing data for use in scraping data. Defining their research as scientific will allow them to escape these constraints. I could not be a greater supporter of the wonderful scientific research that is carried out in this country, but I want the Bill to ensure that it really is scientific research and not AI development camouflaged as scientific research.

The line between product development and scientific research is often blurred. Many developers posit efforts to increase model capabilities, efficiency, or indeed the study of their risks, as scientific research. The balance has to be struck between allowing this country to become an AI superpower and exploiting its data subjects. I contend that this amendment will go far to allay public fears of the abuse and use of their data to further the profits and goals of huge AI companies, most of which are based in the United States.

Noble Lords have only to look at the outrage last year at Meta’s use of Instagram users’ data without their consent to train the datasets for its new Llama AI model to understand the levels of concern. There were complaints to regulators, and the ICO posted that Meta

“responded to our request to pause and review plans to use Facebook and Instagram user data to train generative AI”.

However, so far, there has been no official change to Meta’s privacy policy that would legally bind it to stop processing data without consent for the development of its AI technologies, and the ICO has not issued a binding order to stop Meta’s plans to scrape users’ data to train its AI systems. Meanwhile, Meta has resumed reusing subjects’ data without their consent.

I thank the Minister for meeting me and talking through Amendment 14. I understand his concerns that, at a public interest threshold, the definition of scientific research will create a heavy burden on researchers, but I think it is worth the risk in the name of safety. Some noble Lords are concerned about the difficulty of defining “public interest”. However, the ICO has very clear guidelines about what public interest consists of. It states that

“you should broadly interpret public interest in the research context to include any clear and positive public benefit likely to arise from that research”.

It continues:

“The public interest covers a wide range of values and principles about the public good, or what is in society’s best interests. In making the case that your research is in the public interest, it is not enough to point to your own private interests”.


The guidance even includes further examples of research in the public interest, such as

“the advancement of academic knowledge in a given field … the preservation of art, culture and knowledge for the enrichment of society … or … the provision of more efficient or more effective products and services for the public”.

This guidance is already being applied in the Bill to sensitive data and public health data. I contend that if these carefully thought-through guidelines are good enough for health data, they should be good enough for all scientific data.

This view is supported in the EU, where

“the special data protection regime for scientific research is understood to apply where … the research is carried out with the aim of growing society’s collective knowledge and wellbeing, as opposed to serving primarily one or several private interests.”

The Minister will tell the House that the data exempted to be used for scientific research is well protected—that it has both the lawfulness test, as set out in the UK GDPR, and a reasonableness test. I am concerned that the reasonableness test in this Bill references

“processing for the purposes of any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or privately funded and whether carried out as a commercial or non-commercial activity”.

Normally, a reasonableness test requires an expert in the context of that research to decide whether it is reasonable to consider it scientific. However, in this Bill, “reasonable” just means that an ordinary person in the street can decide whether the research is reasonable to be considered scientific. This must be a broadening of the threshold of the definition.

It seems “reasonable” in the current climate to ask the Government to include a public interest test before giving the AI companies extensive scope to reuse our data, without getting renewed consent, on the pretext that the work is for scientific research. In the light of possible deregulation of the sector by the new regime in America, it is beholden on this country to ensure that our scientific research is dynamic, but safe. If the Government can bring this reassurance then for millions of people in this country they will increase trust in Britain’s AI revolution. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Colville. He has made an excellent argument, and I ask noble Lords on the Government Benches to think about it very carefully. If it is good enough for health data, it is good enough for the rest of science. In the interest of time, I will give an example of one of the issues, rather than repeat the excellent argument made by my noble friend.

In Committee, I asked the Government three times whether the cover of scientific research could be used, for example, to market-test ways to hack human responses to dopamine in order to keep children online. In the Minister’s letter, written during Committee, she could not say that the A/B testing of millions of children to make services more sticky—that is, more addictive—would not be considered scientific, but rather that the regulator, the ICO, could decide on a case-by-case basis. That is not good enough.

There is no greater argument for my noble friend Lord Colville’s amendment than the fact that the Government are unable to say if hacking children’s attention for commercial gain is scientific or not. We will come to children and child protection in the Bill in the next group, but it is alarming that the Government feel able to put in writing that this is an open question. That is not what Labour believed in opposition, and it is beyond disappointing that, now in government, Labour has forgotten what it then believed. I will be following my noble friend through the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble Viscount is content to withdraw this amendment, given these reassurances and the concerns about a significant unintended consequence from going down this route.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful and impressed that the Minister has stepped into this controversial sphere of data management at such short notice. I wish his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a swift recovery.

I hope that noble Lords listened to the persuasive speeches that were given across the Benches, particularly from my noble friend Lady Kidron, with her warning about blurring the definition of scientific research. I am also grateful to the Opposition Benches for their support. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, thinks that I am threading the needle between research and public trust.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and understand that he is concerned by the heavy burden that this amendment would put on scientific research. I have listened to his explanation of the OECD Frascati principles, which define scientific research. I understand his concern that the rigorous task of demanding that new researchers have to pass a public interest test will stop many from going ahead with research. However, I repeat what I said in my opening speech: there has to be a balance between generating an AI revolution in this country and bringing the trust of the British people along with it. The public interest test is already available for restricted research in this field; I am simply asking for it to be extended to all scientific research.

I am glad that the reasonableness and lawfulness tests are built into Clause 67, but I ask for a test that I am sure most people would support—that the research should have a positive public benefit. On that note, I would like to seek the opinion of the House.

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Viscount Colville of Culross Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her input to date and on the important copyright issue. The question of market dominance is important. It is worth reflecting that Matt Clifford is an entrepreneur who deals with start-ups; the report is very strong on start-ups and what needs to be done to make sure that they are part of this, including what regulatory change needs to take place to encourage start-ups to do this. At the moment, it is quite difficult for them to navigate the system, including procurement. Government procurement is notoriously difficult for start-ups, and many of the specific aims of the plan pull that together to allow start-ups to access government procurement plans.

So there are very clear ambitions here to make this about growing an ecosystem of companies in this country, while recognising that many of the existing major companies, with which we will also have to work, are not here. Driving this forward will be a key task for DSIT right the way across government. It will need all-of-government activity, as outlined in the report.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the national data library, which is very welcome, but data in the library needs to be safe and its use carefully thought through. What role does the Minister think public interest thresholds should play in deciding what data is collected and how it should be used?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Noble Lords will hear much more about the national data library over the coming months, but it is important to recognise that data is valuable only if it is collected well, curated properly and is interoperable and accessible. We need to ensure that it is properly protected, both for individual privacy, which is the point the noble Lord raises, and to make sure that we get the appropriate valuation of the data and that that value flows back into the UK and into public services. These will all be key features of the national data library.