Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 General Committees

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

This statutory instrument represents an important development in the obligations on platforms regulated under the Online Safety Act to protect people from encountering illegal content online. The OSA was enacted by the last Government with the primary aim of safeguarding children and removing serious illegal material from the internet. Tackling the most harmful content, such as that which is the subject of today’s discussion, goes to the heart of the Online Safety Act’s aims. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore welcome and support the draft regulations.

The experiences and opportunities offered by the online world change rapidly. It is right that legislators are responsive when new risks emerge or when certain types of unlawful content proliferate on the internet. Under the last Government, the OSA amended the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise several forms of sexual misconduct and abusive behaviour online. The new offences included cyber-flashing and the sharing of or threatening to share intimate images without consent. The amendments were made to keep pace with novel threats and forms of abuse, the victims of which are too often women and girls.

Baroness Bertin’s independent review of pornography, which was published in February this year, highlighted the damaging impact on victims of intimate image abuse, ranging from physical illness to mental health effects such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts. The effects of cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse on victims is severe. It is therefore right that this statutory instrument brings cyber-flashing within the scope of the priority offences in schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act, while retaining as a priority offence the sharing of or threatening to share intimate images.

We also strongly support the addition as a priority offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, which is the other important component of this statutory instrument. Desperate people who contemplate self-harm need early intervention and support, not encouragement to self-harm. Under this SI, regulated services will be obliged to proactively remove the material when they become aware of it on their platforms and take measures to prevent it from appearing in the first place. One can only wonder why it has taken so long to get to this position. I am sure we will have a unanimous view not only in the House but in society of the importance of removing such material.

The regulations will work only if they are adopted by the industry and subject to rigorous oversight, coupled with enforcement when platforms fail in their obligations. That is a necessity, and why we had to introduce the Online Safety Act in the first place. It is right that Government regulators should look to identify obstacles to the implementation of the OSA and take action where necessary. Since the introduction of Ofcom’s protection of children codes in the summer, important questions have arisen around the use of virtual private networks to circumvent age verification, as well as data security and privacy in the age-verification process.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

On that point, does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that we need to give some thought to the rise of chatbots and their nefarious activity, especially where they encourage self-harm or encourage children to do worse?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question on a very important point, which was raised just last week in Department for Science, Innovation and Technology questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, also raised questions about the importance of the scope of regulations for chatbots.

The Government seem all over the place as to whether the large language models, as we understand them, regulate the content that comes into scope. Given the response we received last week, it would be helpful to have some clarity from the Minister. Does he believe that LLMs are covered by the OSA when it comes to encouraging self-harm material? If there is a gap, what is he going to do about it? I recognise that he is commissioning Ofcom to look at the issue, but in his view, right now, is there a gap that will need someone to fix it? What are his reflections on that? This is increasingly becoming a priority area that we need to resolve. If there is a gap in legislation, we need to get on and sort it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The update in the regulations will bring us closer to achieving the Government’s commitments to improve online safety and strengthen protection for women and girls online. We believe that updating the priority offences list with the new cyber-flashing and self-harm content offences is the correct, proportionate and evidence-led approach to tackling this type of content, and it will provide stronger protections for online users.

I will now respond to the questions asked in the debate; I thank Members for the tone and substance of their contributions. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, raised the use of VPNs. As I mentioned previously in the House, apart from an initial spike we have seen a significant levelling-off in the usage of VPNs, which points to the likely effectiveness of the age-assurance measures. We have commissioned further evidence on that front, and I hope to bring that to the House’s attention at the earliest opportunity.

The question of chatbots was raised by the shadow Minister, by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Let me first clarify what I previously mentioned in the House: the legislation covers not only chatbots that allow user-to-user engagement but those that involve one-to-AI engagement and live search. That is extensive coverage of chatbots—both those types are within scope of the Online Safety Act.

There may be further gaps in the Act that pertain to aspects of the risks that Members have raised, and the Secretary of State has commissioned further work to ensure that we keep up with fast-changing technology. A number of the LLMs in question are covered by the Act, given the parameters that I have just defined. Of course, we will continue to review the situation, as both scope and risk need to evolve together.

[Dr Spencer]

I hope the Minister takes this in a constructive spirit. Concerns have been raised across the House as to the scope of the OSA when it comes to LLMs and the different types and variations of chatbots, which are being used by many people right now. Is he not concerned that he as the Minister, and his Department, are not able to say at the Dispatch Box whether they believe LLMs are completely covered in the scope of the OSA? Has he received legal advice or other advice? How quickly will he be able to give a definitive response? Clearly, if there is a gap, we need to know about it and we need to take action. It surely puts the regulator and the people who are generating this technology in an invidious position if even Her Majesty’s Government think there is a lack of clarity, as he put it, on the scope of the applicability of the OSA to new technologies.

[Kanishka Narayan]

Let me be clear: there is no lack of clarity in the scope of the Bill. It is extremely clear to a provider whether they are in scope or not. If they have user-to-user engagement on the platform, they are in scope. If they have live search, which is the primary basis in respect of many LLMs at the moment, they are in scope. There is no lack of clarity from a provider point of view. The question at stake is whether the further aspects of LLMs, which do not involve any of those areas of scope, pose a particular risk.

A number of incidents have been reported publicly, and I will obviously not comment on individual instances. The Online Safety Act does not focus on individual content-takedown instances and instead looks at a system. Ofcom has engaged firms that are very much in scope of the Act already. If there are further instances of new risks posed by platforms that are not currently within the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will of course review its scope and make sure we are moving fast in the light of that information.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked about child sexual abuse material. I was very proud that we introduced amendments last week to the Crime and Policing Bill to make sure that organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation are engaged, alongside targeted experts, particularly the police, in spotting CSAM content and risk way before AI models are released. In that context, we are ensuring that the particular risks posed by AI to children’s safety are countered before they escalate.

On the question about Ofcom’s spending and capacity more generally to counter the nature of the risk, the spending cap at Ofcom allows it to enforce against the offences that we deem to be priority offences. In part, when we make the judgment about designating offences as a priority, we make a proportionate assessment about whether we believe there is both severity and the capacity context for robust enforcement. I will continue to review that situation as the nature of the offences changes.

Finally, I am glad that the Government have committed throughout to ensure that sexually explicit non-consensual images, particularly deepfakes, are robustly enforced against. That remains the position. I hope the Committee agrees with me on the importance of updating the priority offences in the Online Safety Act as swiftly as possible. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 General Committees

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As always, Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome this statutory instrument, which establishes alternative routes to achieve cyber-security compliance for manufacturers of products within the scope of the product security and telecommunications infrastructure regime. It serves to remove non-tariff barriers to trade in digital products and devices with our strategic partners in Asia—Singapore and Japan.

I recently visited Japan with the British-Japanese all-party parliamentary group, supported by the Japan Society, to strengthen UK-Japanese relations. It was a fantastic visit. It is not yet declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but it will be in due course and Members should refer to my entry if interested.

Regulations such as these build on and complement the strong free-trade foundation established by the last Government through their negotiation of UK accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership trade bloc and other bespoke bilateral trade agreements with Japan. I am glad the Minister welcomed the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. I think he said it was a world-leading piece of legislation. Given that it was put together by the previous Government, I am glad that he has demonstrated today the same wisdom as his predecessor. I very much welcome him to his place.

Several significant cyber-attacks recently have demonstrated the need for Government and industry alike to increase their cyber-resilience without delay. It is becoming increasingly evident that our cyber-security is a vital component of our national security. We are yet to have sight of the Government’s cyber-security and resilience Bill, which we understand will be targeted at supply chains and providers of digital services to our critical industries. We also eagerly await the Government’s national cyber-security strategy, which they have said will be published by the end of this year.

However, what attracts significantly less public attention is the routine and widespread cyber-risk to consumers of internet-connectable devices in their homes and pockets, such as smartphones, wearable health devices and home sound systems. The last Government recognised that risk and the UK’s consumer connectable product security regime was brought into effect in April 2024. The changes were intended to reduce consumer exposure to cyber-threats and raise the baseline of product security.

Diversifying the supply chain and the market for internet-connectable products has benefits for price competition, product choice and consumer confidence. It also reduces over-reliance on exports from individual states in an era of increasing geopolitical tensions. Charles Parton, senior research fellow in international security at the Royal United Services Institute, has highlighted the multifaceted risks of over-reliance on Chinese cellular internet of things modules, or CIMs. Those are hardware components that enable internet of things devices to connect to the internet via cellular networks, and they are essential for devices that need remote connectivity without relying on wi-fi or wired networks. Chinese products already have more than 50% of the international market for those components. While the use of CIMs is widespread, the option of purchasing products from strategic partners with common security concerns and goals is likely to assist in improving consumers’ ability to choose the most secure products.

For the reasons that I have stated, we are supportive of the regulations. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a couple of questions. What assessment was undertaken to determine the equivalence of the Japanese and Singaporean regimes? Can the Government quantify, either in value or in volume, the trade that the regulations are expected to deliver in the first year, if not in coming years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kanishka Narayan]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will address first the questions that were asked.

I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for his warm welcome. On the question of how assurances were sought about the equivalence of the Japanese and Singaporean standards, the maturity of those standards and the time for which the countries have been implementing them have been particularly material assurances. Japan and Singapore have aligned their security requirements and labelling schemes to the globally accepted ETSI EN 303 645 standard, which happens to be the same standard that underpins the UK’s PSTI regime. Therefore, products that have a valid label issued by Japan or Singapore will meet the security requirements specified in our regime. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, as the regulator of the regime as a whole, is equipped with a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and will continue to keep under review any mutual recognition agreements.

Of course the Government recognise the strategic importance of the European Union as the UK’s largest trading partner, and we will explore opportunities to reduce technical barriers to trade in the security space in that context, too.

On the question of benefits, my understanding is that we have had representations from a number of small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, about how this measure will open up export markets in Japan and Singapore, allow Japanese and Singaporean firms to trade, and ensure that British consumers can benefit. I do not have a number to give, but I hope very much that we will see the benefits of that freer flow of trade in connected devices very soon.

On the cyber-security context, more everyday products than ever before are connected to the internet, ranging from smart TVs to fitness trackers and voice assistants. From April 2024 to March 2025, we surveyed the participation of consumers and found that 96% of folks personally owned and used a smartphone, 76% a smart TV, and 68% a laptop computer. It is now very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected device in the scope of these regulations; less than 1% of people reported that they did not own a smartphone, laptop, desktop PC, tablet, games console, smart printer or smart TV.

This growing connectivity brings convenience but also new risks. The Government have taken action to ensure that UK consumers and businesses purchasing consumer connectable products are better protected from the risk of cyber-attacks, fraud or even, in the most serious cases, physical danger. The cyber-security regulatory landscape is evolving, with countries around the world, including Japan and Singapore, introducing similar regimes. The UK must remain agile and forward-looking to maintain its leadership in this space. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cyber-security, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade.

By recognising Japanese and Singaporean IOT labelling schemes, we are reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, supporting UK businesses to expand internationally and enabling Japanese and Singaporean manufacturers to bring compliant products to our market more efficiently. This measure is a practical step forward in delivering the Government’s mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It also complements our efforts to harmonise security standards across major economies, in partnership with Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary, via the global cyber-security labelling initiative. With forecasts suggesting that the global IOT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating more than £1.1 trillion in annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister has referred a few times to cyber-security strategy. Can he update us on when we will see the Government’s cyber-security and resilience Bill?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I am afraid that I cannot commit to a legislative timeline, but we want to move very fast on the Bill and are looking for the right opportunity in Parliament to introduce it.

The draft regulations are a significant step in achieving our goal for cyber-security. I look forward to continuing this work and building on the momentum we have established.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 General Committees

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Thank you for your guidance at the start of the debate. Given the narrow scope of this SI, I will make some very brief introductory remarks about the Online Safety Act before going into the detail of the SI.

Nearly two years ago, under the last Government, the groundbreaking Online Safety Act was enacted with the purpose of protecting people online. Rightly, the strongest protections in the Act were designed for children. Every day, children are subjected to harmful content affecting their views of society, relationships and themselves. The Online Safety Act is an essential tool to address that. It has faced much opposition and still faces challenges today, but it provides the template for the most robust online safety framework in the world. It is a measure that I am very proud of, but we must now work to ensure that the provisions are implemented and enforced effectively.

Realising the essential protections built into the Online Safety Act is dependent on high levels of industry compliance. I hope that we will have future opportunities to debate the wider provisions of the Act, including the effectiveness of age verification and the definition of “harmful content”, but today we rightly focus on fees and enforcement. The draft regulations set the parameters for how we define and calculate companies’ turnover in order then to then calculate both fees and maximum penalties, should they be incurred. The SI is therefore very technical in scope, but important.

The Act requires that Ofcom’s operating costs for the online safety regime are covered by providers of regulated services through a fees regime, and it is vital that that is apportioned fairly. Fines are powerful sanctions available to Ofcom, but they must be proportionate to the company and the scale and breadth of the infringement, so that companies in breach of their duties under the Act can be held to account in a way that will not only penalise non-compliance but encourage a material change in operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Why are the Government ignoring the advice of the AI opportunities action plan to encourage the start-up and scaling of tech businesses in the UK and instead favouring market-dominant corporations from abroad over our own domestic businesses when awarding Government contracts?

[Chris Bryant]

We are not.

Pride Month

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am proud to speak in today’s debate on Pride Month; it is the first time I have done so. I also enjoy the distinction of being the first straight man to become a member of LGBT Conservatives, which involved a special resolution to approve my membership. Hopefully that will be the first and last constitutional conundrum for which I am responsible in my political career.

Today, I want to speak of my incredible pride that, more than 10 years ago, a Conservative coalition Government passed legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. Today, around 167,000 people are living in same-sex marriages, with all the happiness, challenges and life-enriching complexity that involves. I am proud of that because the Conservative party is the party of family, and the party of rights and duties, freedoms and responsibilities—the freedom for people to love whoever they choose, and the freedom to honour that love by making a lifelong commitment to another person, with all the responsibilities for mutual care, support and home building that entails.

Children enjoy the best outcomes when they are raised in stable, loving homes. While marriage is not always a guarantee of stability, it is a good indicator and supporter of it. Data from the UK longitudinal household survey shows that cohabiting parents were 3.4 times more likely to split up during any given one-year period compared with married parents, across income groups. The benefits of making a commitment and raising a family are not just for the children of those families. Taking on family responsibilities gives people meaning and purpose, making them more productive as they work to put the people they have taken responsibility for ahead of themselves.

In saying this, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the single parents and cohabiting couples, both same sex and heterosexual, who do a heroic job every day for their families. Quite frankly, as a married parent myself, I do not know how single parents manage it and I pay tribute to them. All parents should be acknowledged and appreciated for the daily acts of care and sacrifice that they make for their children—our future. Just because other models can and do work, we should not stop striving to support the institution of marriage as the foundational building block of our society. Society benefits from stable families where children can be supported to thrive and become citizens who contribute to not only their family lives, but their communities.

I am pleased and proud to belong to a party that championed the rights of same-sex marriage and brought it into law. Our laws and policies should incentivise commitment to family life for all couples, regardless of sexuality. I am proud that because of decisions in this place, so many people can marry the person they love today.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It feels like we are going from “Groundhog Day” to “Lost in Translation” because the Government clearly are not getting the message.

Today I will try something different and tell the House a story—the story of this debate:

A story was read in the deep dark wood,

AI saw the book, and the book looked good.

“Where are you heading to, original tome?

Come here with me, and I’ll give you a home.”

“That’s awfully sweet of you, but no,

I’m meeting my author, and they say where I go.

Now I like you, and I don’t want to cause strife

But they made me with love and words shaped by life.

So if we’re to partner, please do ask them first,

To not would be naughty,” he said with lips pursed.

Perhaps I owe Julia Donaldson an apology, while also thanking her for the national treasure that is “The Gruffalo”—I look forward to the third book in the series. We did not use AI, which was useless, to draft it, just the skills of one of my team members Jacqui Gracey—human skill, talent and transparency over sources and work.

Transparency is fundamental to protect creative endeavours. No one can doubt that the Minister has done his best to demonstrate the enduring nature of the creative spirit in the face of adversity and to avoid committing to a timescale and to legislating on transparency. This week, it is a new parliamentary working group. Last week, it was reviews. Next week, it may even be a citizens’ assembly, but the creative industries are not buying it. Our noble colleagues in the other place are not buying it. Members of Opposition parties, and indeed some Members on his own Benches, are not buying it. They are not buying it because the Government have lost the confidence of their stakeholders that they would bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content—AI companies need to buy it.

It is this loss of confidence in the Government’s will to take decisive action that means that nothing short of a commitment to bring forward legislation will be enough to allay the fears of the creative industries.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for his creativity in his speech. The heart of the debate is whether creatives are asked before we steal their material or style, but also that they are remunerated for that. That is a commitment we have heard from the Minister and from the Secretary of State in his media performances on the weekend. This problem predates this year. It dates back to stuff being stolen over a considerable number of years. Why did the last Government not take any initiative to ensure that creatives receive their just rewards for their creativity?

[Dr Spencer]

What the last Government did not do is release a consultation that had a ministerial foreword to say that the position of copyright was uncertain. What they did not do was say their preferred option was opt-out, which spooked the creative industry and caused all these problems in the first place. It is this Government’s ham-fisted approach that caused so many of the problems that they are now trying and failing to fix. The Government have played a large part in creating this problem.

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. The last Government did not do anything on this issue, basically because they did not understand what was going on, and the little they did understand about some of the threats from AI, they did not care. As he asked the Labour Benches to do yesterday, the hon. Gentleman should apologise for the last Government’s inaction over the past few years because a lot of this is down to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should allow the hon. Member to respond to the first intervention before he takes a second.

[Dr Spencer]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, this is clearly a tricky area to legislate—I have said that at the Dispatch Box and in Committee many times—but what is not helping is the uncertainty that has been created throughout the debate, whether it is the position of copyright law, preferred third options or the status of opt-out, which is how we got into this pickle in the first place.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

There seems to be mass amnesia breaking out across the Chamber because the last Government did do something on this: they set up a working group between AI companies and the creative industries.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

No, the AI companies walked away. We are almost at risk of recreating history by this Government wanting to set up exactly the same working group and thinking that by doing the same thing again, the outcome will somehow be different.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is also trying to break us out of the groundhog day that we seem to have found ourselves in.

The Lords amendment does not fetter the Government’s policy options, nor does it prescribe how proportionate transparency should be achieved. It simply puts a line in the sand for the Government to act on this hugely important issue.

To return to the AI and the Gruffalo,

So on went the story through the deep dark wood

To be loved by its readers, as a good book should.

Yet the AI pondered, as it wanted it now.

“I’ll simply just scrape it”, the AI did avow.

When he was musing, he stumbled across

The author reclining on a patch of green moss.

They had glasses and notebooks and ideas galore.

They had printed five books, but were working on more.

Their eyes came to meet—they were in for a fight.

Both wanted the story, but who was right?

The answer is both, if reasonably sought

For content, not stolen, but licensed or bought.

Be clear what you’re taking, be transparent and true,

And recognise the content and its real value.

Then there’s no monster nor bad guy, just an allegorical rhyme

And a plea to listen and take action in time.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I hope that the shadow Minister sought permission to misappropriate Julia Donaldson’s wonderful work. It is hardly an example that any of us should follow.

We are back here again. I put on record my thanks to Government Front Benchers for their engagement on this issue. It was particularly welcome to see the Secretary of State, in his appearance on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, take such a human approach to recognising the concern that exists in the creative industries and give a commitment to the nation about the seriousness of what comes from this place.

I also welcome the Minister’s comments that the creative and tech sectors will be involved in the next phase of this work, because that is essential. However, I would like to stress two further points. First, that involvement must reflect the breadth of the creative industries, from music and publishing to games, film and beyond—the necessary mix of expertise. That means the creative sector rights holders and business affairs professionals being involved, alongside the tech experts who understand the complexities of data flows, metadata structures, and the practicalities of any opt-out system or tech solution that is to be developed, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s clarification that the Government no longer have a preferred position.

We look forward to the consultation and its findings being open and transparent, because while all the creative sectors share in the value of copyright as a principle that is tech and sector neutral, the way that commercial licensing models develop in practice will differ, and it is not for the Government to second-guess that. That is not a problem; in fact, it is a good thing. The emergence of bespoke commercial partnerships is precisely how the Government can achieve their objective of driving effective licensing, but to get there, we need sector-specific insight and specialist input, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome the commitment to include Back Benchers, stakeholders and leaders of industry.

Crucially, the Government must consult and liaise with all of us on the formation of these groups, including their terms of reference—this cannot be presented again as a fait accompli. Too often, we hear of officials thinking or mulling things over, but not sharing what those thoughts are or what the implications of their latest thought could be. With the best will in the world, they cannot know the business as clearly as industry does. I believe that the prospects for both industries have improved as a result of this ping-pong process and the arguments we have been having, both in this House and in the other place.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Back again, and it feels a bit like groundhog day. I must confess that I am a Bill Murray fan, and I think “Groundhog Day” is a great movie. However, I realise that some Members on both sides of the House may not have been born when it was released, which makes me feel a little old, so I will explain a little of the plot. A weatherman set in his ways is sent to a town in Pennsylvania to report on groundhog day, and finds himself in a time loop in which he lives the same day over and over again. In due course, that leads to despair, but eventually he learns that this gives him the opportunity to learn from his mistakes—the time loops can be seen as a blessing or an opportunity, not a curse—and through this he grows, develops and changes. He then breaks out of the time loop to live happily ever after.

We will be stuck in groundhog day on this Bill until the Government realise that the Lords amendments are not a nuisance, but an opportunity, and that they need to listen to the concerns and change course. The noble Lords in the House in which this Bill started have made clear the risk to creatives from AI companies taking their data, and the importance of fairness and transparency. We on the Opposition Benches and Members on both sides of the House have raised similar concerns, but we do not have the numbers yet. In Parliament, it is not sufficient to win the vote; it is also necessary to win the argument, and the Government have lost this argument.

Copyright law is a toothless instrument if the lack of transparency about the use of creative content in AI models continues. The lack of transparency renders the enforcement of rights elusive, and the Government are apparently happy for this to persist on an open-ended basis. While the Government’s direction of travel remains uncertain, everyone loses out. Creatives continue to lose out when their work is exploited without payment. Firms in the AI industry, especially smaller ones, cannot get out of the starting blocks, let alone play their part in turbocharging our tech economy. The Government continue to risk the confidence of both these key industries, with the chilling effect on investment that this entails.

Of course, we are sensitive to the constitutional principles, and noble Lords were very mindful of that topic in their speeches in the other place. The Minister is right that it is almost unprecedented for the other place to return to a Bill so many times. However, rather than use this as a reason to try to push through the Bill, the Government need to listen to that evidence of the strength of feeling. We all know that the Government will have to respond to these concerns, and their position will have to change.

I would love to end this speech with a literary quote suited to the substance of the debate, and I envy the Minister’s ability always to bring flair to our discussions across the Dispatch Box. Instead, I will fall back on a political one from the 38th American President, Gerald Ford:

“Compromise is the oil that makes governments go.”

The Government should meet the Lords on the compromise they have offered, put oil in the engines of our creative and AI industries, and bring an end to this groundhog day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was not in fact a point of order. He will be aware that the programme motion has already been agreed to by the House.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time.

Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities. It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.

It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge.

Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.”

Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament.

For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop.

The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise. It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Over the course of debating the Bill, it has become customary to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, particularly Baroness Owen for her work on deepfakes and others who have campaigned boldly in that area.

I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 49B. We have been clear that supporting the creative and AI sectors is not a zero-sum game; we need to support both sectors. Through their ham-fisted consultation on copyright and AI, the Government have raised great concern throughout the creative sector, and the resulting attempts to amend this Bill have been in response to the mess they have created. In Committee and on Report, we set out a series of amendments that focused on the outcome—not the process—for a solution in this area. Those amendments focused on ensuring that the position in law of copyright in this area was clear, on the need for proportionate and effective transparency, on removing barriers to start-ups, and on facilitating technological solutions via digital watermarking.

In one of the many interventions on the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) mentioned the importance of implementing digital watermarking. He referred to it as a response to deepfakes, but it also has relevance to technical solutions, and it strikes me as quite odd that the Minister went on to cover broadly the same topics in his opening remarks, despite pointing out to my right hon. Friend that those topics were not relevant to the ongoing debate. That indicates how confused the treatment of this area in the Bill has become, and the need for clarity.

I pay tribute to Viscount Camrose, Lord Parkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), Baroness Kidron, and others in this House and in the other place, for their work on amendments to reach a resolution in this area. We had sympathy with earlier versions of those amendments, but also concerns about their workability and prescriptiveness. We have worked with Baroness Kidron to get to a position that we can now support; we believe that solutions need to incorporate the principles of transparency and proportionality. The amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is more reasonable than doing nothing.

I find it astounding that the main criticism that the Minister has made of Lords amendment 49B is that it has a run-in period prior to implementation and that people are calling for things to happen now. That is an odd way of approaching legislating. As the Opposition, we are working with other parties, among others, to try to find a solution to get the Minister out of a hole. I hope that Members across the House support the amendment.

Moving on to digital verification services, I welcome the Lords’ disagreement with amendments 32 and 52, and support their amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C on sex data accuracy, which received the support of Members in the other place. As my noble Friend Viscount Camrose said in his speech, it was necessary to re-table amended versions of the clauses on data accuracy previously secured in the other place because our new clause 21 was not in scope for debate in the Lords. The Lords amendments are technical and complex, so if you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to new clause 21 to explain for the benefit of Members how things have evolved over time.

Our new clause 21 would have compelled public authorities to correct the datasets they hold in relation to sex and to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex in accordance with the legal definition set out in the Supreme Court’s judgment: biological sex. It would also have allowed public authorities to collect data on acquired sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate where that is relevant and lawful. It would have imposed no new obligations on the correction of data held by public authorities—the obligation already exists under article 5(1)(d) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation—but would simply have put in place a timescale for correcting data on sex. We know from the findings of the Sullivan review that that correction is much needed and long overdue.

To address a misconception, new clause 21 was silent on how sex is recorded in physical and digital forms of identity for those holding a gender recognition certificate. That is a sensitive issue for the 8,500 holders of GRCs in the UK, and we hope that much-needed clarity in this area will be given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its guidance due to be laid before Parliament next month. It will be up to the Secretary of State to make rules as to how that guidance is implemented in digital verification services. However, that issue, while important, does not affect the clear obligation that already exists in law to record data on sex accurately.

Lords amendments 32C and 32B, and disagreement with amendment 32, would compel the Secretary of State to examine whether the public authorities that will act as data sources for the digital verification services system ascertain sex data reliably in accordance with biological sex and, where lawful and relevant, with sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That would prevent inaccurate sex data from being entrenched and proliferated in the digital verification services system. Lords amendments 52B and 52C, and disagreement with amendment 52, would give the Secretary of State the power to define in a data dictionary sex data as biological sex and, where relevant, sex as recorded on a gender recognition certificate. That could then be applied across the digital verification services system, the register of births and deaths, and other circumstances where public authorities record personal data. The amendments are critical for correcting our compromised datasets on sex and would ensure that poor-quality and inaccurate data does not undermine digital verification services.

To be clear, if our amendments do not make it into the Bill, self-ID will be brought forward through the back door, risking the protections that single-sex spaces offer to everyone. Self-ID is not and never has been the position in UK law. I do not understand why the Government are resisting these measures. Digital verification systems need to be trustworthy to deliver the benefits intended by the Bill. If they are not trustworthy, the system will fail. I therefore commend these vital and much-needed amendments to the House.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Let me join others in expressing my gratitude for the work of many Members, especially in the other place—in particular, Baroness Owen and Baroness Kidron—but also across this House. There has been a great deal of cross-party work, including much constructive discussion on many elements of the Bill with the Minister. Today, though, I will refer specifically to Lords amendment 49B.

I am lucky enough to represent a part of Hertfordshire that is woven into British creativity, from Graham Greene of Berkhamsted, whose masterpiece “Brighton Rock” shaped our cultural consciousness, to Eric Morecambe of Harpenden, whose partnership in Morecambe and Wise brought joy to millions, while the music of the Devines from Berkhamsted gets us up and dancing, and local artists such as Mary Casserley and Andrew Keenleyside paint our daily lives in ways that bring perspective, colour and joy in a way that only artists can achieve. Our landscapes in Ashridge and Aldbury have inspired film-makers from Disney to the producers of the Harry Potter films, and our pubs have been featured in films including “Bridget Jones”.

Today, this creative legacy faces an unprecedented threat. The current situation is more than just alarming; it is threatening the essence of our national identity and our creative economy. We hear concerns about resources for protecting our creative sector, but those arguments miss a crucial point: our creative industries, combined, contribute £126 billion to our economy, employ 2.4 million people, and are growing significantly faster than the wider economy. The question is not whether we can afford to protect these industries, but whether we can afford not to. When we invest in enforcing copyright protections, we are also investing in safeguarding one of Britain’s greatest economic assets and our competitive advantage on the world stage.

The transparency provisions in Lords amendment 49B are essential and proportionate. They apply proportionately to businesses of different sizes, while ensuring that our creative powerhouse can continue to thrive and, indeed, work hand in hand with technology. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, not exploitation. Let me make it clear that this is not about resisting technology, but about recognising value and safeguarding innovation—and that brings me back home to Berkhamsted.

In the heart of my constituency sits the British Film Institute National Archive, one of the largest and more significant film collections in the world, comprising over 275,000 titles and 20,000 silent films dating back to 1894. It is a living memory of our national story, told on screen. Would we allow anyone to walk into the BFI and take whatever they liked? Would we let them scan, copy and republish those works without permission or compensation? Of course not. So I ask the Minister, why would we allow the same thing to happen in the digital world?

This is a defining moment. We can build an AI-powered future that respects and rewards creativity, or we can allow short-term interests to strip-mine the work of generations. The question before us today is simple: will we stand for a future when technology and creativity flourish together, or will we allow the foundations of our cultural life and economic prosperity to be hollowed out for short-term gain? I urge the Government to stand up for our creators, stand up for transparency, and stand up for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Accurate data is important, particularly in the public sector—we will be voting on this later today. How will the Secretary of State measure his planned productivity improvements? How will he define success, and over what time period?

[Peter Kyle]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are deploying technology to deliver productivity gains across Whitehall, which are starting now. We are investing heavily through the digital centre that we created in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and working intensively with Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We have already identified billions of pounds-worth of savings, which will be put to use within Government without delay for the benefit of citizens.