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.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Ben Spencer Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and to speak to the new clauses and amendments. This is an ambitious piece of legislation, which will enable us to harness data—the currency of our digital age—and use it in a way that drives the economy and enhances the delivery of public services. Since its original inception under the Conservatives in the last Parliament, the Bill has also become the platform for tackling some of the most pressing social and technological issues of our time. Many of these are reflected in the amendments to the Bill, which are the subject of debate today.

I start with new clause 20. How do we regulate the interaction of AI models with creative works? I pay tribute to the work of many Members on both sides of this House, and Members of the other place, who have passionately raised creatives’ concerns and the risks posed to their livelihoods by AI models. Conservative Members are clear that this is not a zero-sum game. Our fantastic creative and tech industries have the potential to turbocharge economic growth, and the last Government rightly supported them. The creative and technology sectors need and deserve certainty, which provides the foundation for investment and growth. New clause 20 would achieve certainty by requiring the Government to publish a series of plans on the transparency of AI models’ use of copyrighted works, removing market barriers for smaller AI market entrants and digital watermarking and, most important of all, a clear restatement of the application of copyright law to AI-modelling activities.

I cannot help but have a sense of déjà vu in relation to Government new clause 17: we are glad that the Government have acted on several of the actions we called for in Committee, but once again they have chosen PR over effective policy. Amid all the spin, the Government have in effect announced a plan to respond to their own consultation—how innovative!

What is starkly missing from the Government new clauses is a commitment to make it clear that copyright law applies to the use of creative content by AI models, which is the primary concern raised with me by industry representatives. The Government have created uncertainty about the application of copyright law to AI modelling through their ham-fisted consultation. So I offer the Minister another opportunity: will he formally confirm the application of copyright law to protect the use of creative works by AI, and will he provide legal certainty and send a strong signal to our creative industries that they will not be asked to pay the price for AI growth?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Minister for making that statement at the Dispatch Box. As he knows, we need to have that formally, in writing, as a statement from the Government to make it absolutely clear, given that the consultation has muddied the waters.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I said that in my speech, and I have said it several times in several debates previously.

[Dr Spencer]

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said why there remains uncertainty among creatives about the application of copyright in this area. Is that not why we need to move this forward?

I now turn to Government amendment 34 and others. I congratulate my noble Friend Baroness Owen on the tremendous work she has done in ensuring that clauses criminalising the creation of and request for sexually explicit deepfake images have made it into the Bill. I also thank the Government for the constructive approach they are now taking in this area.

[Chris Bryant]

I should have said earlier that, as the shadow Minister knows, in Committee we changed the clause on “soliciting” to one on “requesting” such an image, because in certain circumstances soliciting may require the exchange of money. That is why we now have the requesting offence.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Minister for his clarification and reiteration of that point, and again for his work with colleagues to take forward the issue, on which I think we are in unison across the House.

New clause 21 is on directions to public authorities on recording of sex data. One does not need to be a doctor to know that data accuracy is critical, particularly when it comes to health, research or the provision of tailored services based on protected characteristics such as sex or age. The accuracy of data must be at the heart of this Bill, and nowhere has this been more high-profile or important than in the debate over the collection and use of sex and gender data. I thank the charity Sex Matters and the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Lucas for the work they have done to highlight the need for accurate data and its relevance for the digital verification system proposed in the Bill.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The recent decision by the Supreme Court that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex at birth, regardless of whether someone holds a gender recognition certificate or identifies as of a different gender, has already left many trans people feeling hurt and unseen. Does the shadow Minister agree with me that any ID and digital verification service must consider trans people, not risk making them more likely to feel that their country is forgetting who they are?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will shortly come on to the impact on all people of the decision of the Supreme Court. Our new clause’s focus and scope are simple. The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that public bodies must collect data on biological sex to comply with their duties under the Equality Act. The new clause ensures that this data is recorded and used correctly in accordance with the law. This is about data accuracy, not ideology.

New clause 21 is based in part on the work of Professor Alice Sullivan, who conducted a very important review, with deeply concerning findings on inaccurate data collection and the conflation of gender identity with biological sex data. She found people missed off health screening, risks to research integrity, inaccurate policing records and management through the criminal justice system, and many other concerns. These concerns present risks to everyone, irrespective of biological sex, gender identity or acquired gender. Trans people, like everyone else, need health screening based on their biological sex. Trans people need protecting from sexual predators, too, and they have the right to dignity and respect.

The Sullivan report shows beyond doubt that the concerns of the last Government and the current Leader of the Opposition were entirely justified. The Government have had Professor Sullivan’s report since September last year, but the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has still not made a formal statement about it or addressed the concerns raised, which is even more surprising given its relevance to this Bill. The correction of public authority data on sex is necessary and urgent, but it is made even more critical by the implementation of the digital verification services in the Bill.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the shadow Minister is making an important point on the Sullivan review and the Supreme Court judgment, but there are conversations in Government and with Labour Members to ensure that the Supreme Court judgment and the Sullivan review are implemented properly across all Departments, and I hope to work with the Government on that.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and for all the work that she and colleagues on both sides of the House are doing in this area. I hope that the findings of the Sullivan report are implemented as soon as possible, and part of that implementation would be made possible if Members across the House supported our new clause.

For the digital verification services to be brought in, it is important that the data used to inform them is accurate and correct. Digital verification could be used to access single-sex services, so it needs to be correct, and if sex and gender data are conflated, as we know they are in many datasets, a failure to act will bring in self-ID by the back door. To be clear, that has never been the legal position in the UK, and it would conflict with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Our new clause 21 is simple and straightforward. It is about the accurate collection and use of sex data, and rules to ensure that data is of the right standard when used in digital verification services so that single-sex services are not undermined.

New clause 19 is on the Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR. What can or should children be permitted to consent to when using or signing up to online platforms and social media? How do we ensure children are protected, and how do we prevent harms from the use of inappropriate social media itself, separate from the content provided? How do we help our children in a world where social media can import the school, the playground, the changing room, the influencer, the stranger, the groomer, the radical and the hostile state actor all into the family home?

Our children are the first generation growing up in the digital world, and they are exposed to information and weaponised algorithms on a scale that simply did not exist for their parents. In government, we took measures to improve protections and regulate harmful content online, and I am delighted to see those measures now coming into force. However, there is increasing evidence that exposure to inappropriate social media platforms is causing harm, and children as young as 13 may not be able to regulate and process this exposure to such sites in a safe and proportionate way.

I am sure every Member across the House will have been contacted by parents concerned about the impact of social media on their children, and we recognise that this is a challenging area to regulate. How do we define and target risky and inappropriate social media platforms, and ensure that education and health tech—or, indeed, closed direct messaging services—do not fall within scope? How effective are our provisions already, and can age verification be made to work for under-16s? What ids are available to use? What will the impact of the Online Safety Act 2023 be now that it is coming into force? What are the lessons from its implementation, and where does it need strengthening? Finally, how do we support parents and teachers in educating and guiding children so they are prepared to enter the digital world at whatever age they choose and are able to do so?

The Government must take action to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place for our children, not through outright bans or blanket restrictions but with an evidence-based approach that takes into account the recent legal changes and need for effective enforcement, including age verification for under-16s. Too often in this place we focus on making more things illegal rather than on the reasons for lack of enforcement in the first place. There is no point in immediate restrictions if they cannot be implemented.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I agree with all the points the shadow Minister is making about keeping our children safe online, so why does new clause 19 only commit to a review of the digital age of data consent and raising the age from 13 to 16 for when parental consent is no longer required? Why does he not support the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 that would start to implement this change? We can still, through implementation, do all the things the hon. Gentleman proposes to do, so why the delay?

[Dr Spencer]

There are a few issues with new clause 1. One is the scope in terms of the definition of networking services and ensuring platforms such as WhatsApp are not captured within it. Looking at new clause 19, there are challenges to implementing in this area. There is no point in clicking our fingers and saying, “Let’s change the age of digital consent,” without understanding the barriers to implementation, and without understanding whether age verification can work in this context. We do not want to create a system and have people just get around it quite simply. We need the Government to do the work in terms of setting it up so that we can move towards a position of raising the age from 13 to 16.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The press have obviously been briefed by Conservatives that the Conservatives are pushing for a ban on social media for under-16s, but it seems that what is actually being suggested is a review of the digital age of consent with a view to perhaps increasing it to 16. The two positions are very different, and I wonder whether the tough talk in the press matches what is actually being proposed by the Opposition today.

[Dr Spencer]

I have been very clear on this, and it is important in such a complex area to look at the detail and nuance of the challenges around—(Interruption.) Well, it is very easy to create a new clause where we click our fingers and say, “Let’s make this more illegal; let’s bring in x, y or z restriction.” As a responsible Opposition, we are looking at the detail and complexities around implementing something like this. [Interruption.] I have been asked a few questions and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) might want to listen to the rationale of our approach.

One question is how to define social media. Direct messaging services such as WhatsApp and platforms such as YouTube fall in the scope of social media. There are obviously social media platforms that I think all of us are particularly concerned about, including Snapchat and TikTok, but by changing the age of digital consent we do not want to end up capturing lower-risk social media platforms that we recognise are clearly necessary or beneficial, such as education technology or health technology platforms. And that is before we start looking at whether age verification can work, particularly in the 13-to-16 age group.

[Chris Bryant]

Sorry, I am getting a bit lost. Does the Minister think, and does the Conservative party think, that the digital age of consent should rise from 13 to 16 or not?

[Dr Spencer]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I point out to Mr Bryant that Dr Ben Spencer is the shadow Minister.

[Dr Spencer]

I think that was wishful thinking by the Minister in this debate.

Our new clause says that we need to look at the desirability of raising the digital age of consent for data processing from 13 to 16 in terms of its impact particularly on issues such as the social and educational development of children, but also the viability of doing so in terms of the fallout and the shaking out of the Online Safety Act and with regard to age verification services. Should there then be no evidence to demonstrate that it is unnecessary, we would then raise the digital age of consent to 13 to 16. It might be the case that, over the next six months, the shaking out of the Online Safety Act demonstrates that this intervention is not necessary. Perhaps concerns around particular high-risk social media platforms will change as technology evolves. We are saying that the Government should do the work with a view to raising the age in 18 months unless there is evidence to prove the contrary. [Interruption.] I have made this crystal clear, and if the Minister would choose to look at the new clause, rather than chuckling away in the corner, he might see the strategy we are proposing.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. As ever, he is extremely polite in his presentation and in his dealing with interventions, but I am not sure that he dealt with my intervention, which was basically asking whether the Conservative party position is as it has briefed to the press—that it wishes to ban social media for under-16s—or that it wishes to have a review on raising the age of data consent. It cannot be both.

[Dr Spencer]

I say again that the position is that, following a careful look at the evidence regarding the desirability and validity of doing so—taking into account findings regarding the impact and implementation of the Online Safety Act and age verification and how one defines social media, particularly high-risk platforms—unless there is direct evidence to show that raising the age from 13 to 16 is unnecessary, which there may be, then we should raise it from 13 to 16. If that has not provided clarity, the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to intervene on me again and I will try and explain it a third time, but I think Members have got a grasp now.

This new clause will also tackle some of the concerns at the heart of the campaign for Jools’ law, and I pay tribute to Ellen Roome for her work in this area. I am very sympathetic to the tragic circumstances leading to this campaign and welcome the additional powers granted to coroners in the Bill, but I know that they do not fully address Ellen Roome’s concerns. The Government need to explain how they can be sure that data will be retained in the context of these tragedies, so that a coroner will be able to make sure, even if there are delays, that it can be accessed. If the Minister could provide an answer to that in his winding-up speech, and detail any further work in the area, that would be welcome.

On parental access to children’s data more broadly, there are difficult challenges in terms of article 8 rights on privacy and transparency, especially for children aged 16 to 17 as they approach adulthood. Our new clause addresses some of these concerns and would also put in place the groundwork to, de facto, raise the digital age of consent for inappropriate social media to 16 within 18 months, rendering the request for parental access to young teenage accounts obsolete.

I urge colleagues across the House to support all our amendments today as a balanced, proportionate and effective response to a generational challenge. The Bill and the votes today are an opportunity for our Parliament, often referred to as the conscience of our country, to make clear our position on some of the most pressing social and technological issues of our time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Spencer]

It has been a pleasure to hear the speeches of Members from across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who spoke with passion about the protection of copyright in AI. I suspect that my right hon. Friend is looking forward to seeing the back of the Bill, and hoping that it does not return in a future iteration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke of the importance of ensuring that data does not fall victim to hostile states and hostile state actors. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke with knowledge and authority about this important issue, and the challenges and practicalities involved in ensuring that we get it right for our children.

I will return to the three themes that we have put forward. The Minister has repeatedly given assurances on the application of copyright with regard to AI training, but the Secretary of State created uncertainty by saying in the AI copyright consultation:

“At present, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is disputed.”

When we create that level of uncertainty, we need at least an equal level of clarity to make amends, and that is partly what our new clause 20 calls for: among other things, a formal statement from the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise. I do not see why it is a challenge for the Government to put that forward and deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I would just like to clarify that we have thought long and hard about this Bill, along with many organisations and charities, to get it right.

[Dr Spencer]

That is good to hear.

[Max Wilkinson]

I will try a third time, because we tried earlier. The Conservatives have clearly briefed the press that they are angling for a ban on social media for under-16s—it has been reported in multiple places. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether that is the Conservatives’ position or not?

[Dr Spencer]

For the fourth time, and as I have said, new clause 19 would effectively create a de facto position whereby there are restrictions on the use of inappropriate social media services by children. It seeks to tackle the challenges of implementation, age verification and the scope of social media. It says that there needs to be work to make sure that we can actually do so and that, when we can, we should move in that direction, unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is not needed, such as with the shaking out of the Online Safety Act.

Finally, I return to new clause 21. Sadly, it has been widely misrepresented. The laws in this area are clear: the Equality Act puts in place obligations in relation to protected characteristics. The Supreme Court says that “sex” means biological sex, and that public authorities must collect data on protected characteristics to meet their duties under the Equality Act. The new clause would put that clear legal obligation into effect, and build in data minimisation principles to preserve privacy. There would be no outing of trans people through the new clause, but where public authorities collect and use sex data, it would need to be biological sex data.

[Chris Bryant]

As ever, it is good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. If I do not manage to get to any of the individual issues that have been raised, and to which people want answers, I am afraid that is because of a shortness of time, and I will seek to write to them. I thank the officials who helped to put the Bill together, particularly Simon Weakley—not least because he not only did this Bill, but all the previous versions in the previous Parliament. He deserves a long-service medal, if not something more important.

I will start with the issues around new clauses 1, 11, 12 and 13, and amendment 9. The Government completely share the concern about the vulnerability of young people online, which lots of Members have referred to. However, the age of 13 was set in the Data Protection Act 2018—I remember, because I was a Member at the time. It reflects what was considered at the time to be the right balance between enabling young people to participate online and ensuring that their data is protected. Some change to protecting children online is already in train. As of last month, Ofcom finalised the child safety codes, a key pillar of the Online Safety Act. Guidance published at the same time started a three-month period during which all in-scope services likely to be accessed by children will be required to assess the risk of harm their services pose to them.

From July, the Act will require platforms to implement measures to protect children from harm, and this is the point at which we expect child users to see a tangible, positive difference to their online experiences. I wish it had been possible for all this to happen earlier— I wish the Act had been in a different year—but it is the Act it is. The new provisions include highly effective age checks to prevent children encountering the most harmful content, and adjusting algorithms to reduce the exposure to harmful content. Services will face tough enforcement from Ofcom if they fail to comply.

The Act very much sets the foundation for protecting children online. The Government continue to consider further options in pursuit of protecting children online, which is why the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology commissioned a feasibility study to understand how best to investigate the impact of smartphones and social media on children’s wellbeing. This will form an important part of our evidence base.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in this very well-attended, knowledgeable and thoughtful debate. Given that so many Members have taken part, I can only make some brief remarks.

I want to focus on principles, which came up quite a few times throughout this debate. In a complex area, it is principles that help us get through. It seems to be tradition in this debate to say happy birthday to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith)—he will be clipping this so that it can go out on his social media. He spoke with knowledge and passion, and there is not much to disagree with in what he said. He also mentioned what I see as the core principles—transparency; the ability to enforce copyright; the ability to demonstrate where data comes from, so that we can see who owns it and what the root trace is; and a technological solution linked to that, in terms of demonstrating data ownership.

I also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, who reiterated this week, importantly, that all companies need property rights to be enforced, and that these two are not mutually exclusive. I thank her for her extensive work in this area to push forward this debate.

The previous Government were committed to the UK being at the cutting edge of tech and creative industries, and we remain committed to that in Opposition. We have heard the concerns of the creative industries loud and clear, but we do not believe that there is anything to be gained by treating the emergence of AI as some sort of zero-sum game, where one industry wins and another fails. It should not be an either/or. This needs to be mutually inclusive, not mutually exclusive, and we believe that it is possible to achieve that.

This is a challenging and complex area to get right. Solving this problem is not simple, particularly if we look at what is happening internationally and at extra-jurisdictional issues. Quite simply, other areas have not fixed this either. If there was a straightforward solution for this problem, it would be in process right now. It is important to recognise that from the outset, and to recognise the challenge facing the Minister in fixing the problem, but I have ambition for him. I believe that he can fix it, and I look forward to him doing so over the course of the next year. It is in this direction that we as Opposition want to take things forward.

We believe that getting this area of policy right will mean focusing on some key principles. Most importantly, there should be proportionate transparency in our AI industries about how they use creative content to train their models and generate content. That should be combined with recognition and enforceability of creative rights. The development of technology in the form of a readily accessible digital watermark will be instrumental in helping creatives protect their work online. Start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises in our growing AI industries need to be supported to develop their models in a way that respects the rights of creatives. In that regard, the AI opportunities action plan identified the need to unlock public and private datasets to enable innovation and attract international talent and capital.

We tabled a series of pragmatic amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill in Committee that would have committed the Secretary of State to putting in place a plan to achieve those important aims within a reasonable period after the conclusion of the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI. We understand that the Government have received in excess of 11,500 consultation responses from stakeholders, which they are in the process of analysing. Given the concern that their original plans caused in our creative industries, we welcome the Minister’s announcement, following the closure of the consultation, that the Government have taken a second look at their preferred approach to regulating the sector. In particular, we welcome the renewed emphasis on the need for increased transparency about how models are trained, so that creatives can enforce their rights. This is a key area that has come up throughout the debate, and we called on the Government to set out an informed plan in Committee on the data Bill.

We appreciate that the impact of AI on intellectual property requires proper and careful consideration. We will work constructively to support the creation of policy and plans in this fundamentally important area. If we get it right, there will be tremendous economic and societal benefits to growing our AI sector and supporting our creative sector to continue to thrive. It is time for the Government to be clear about their plans, in order to create certainty for the AI and creative industries about the way forward and help promote an environment of confidence, paving the way for investment and growth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Tragically, flaws in data and its processing are posing grave risks to women and girls. The Sullivan report exposed serious failings in the collection and use of biological sex data, which is often being replaced with gender identity. The report highlighted the risk that poses to the safe delivery of health services, policing and security. The Health Secretary has already shown leadership on this issue, but to date the Secretary of State has remained silent. When did he first have sight of the Sullivan report, and when does he intend to act on it?

BioNTech UK: Financial Assistance

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.

With businesses warning that they are cutting investment because of the actions of this Government, the Confederation of British Industry warning in January that investment is at its lowest level since 2009 outside of the pandemic, and AstraZeneca recently pulling £450 million of investment because of the actions of this Government, it is reassuring to see today’s motion. Of course, this investment was secured at the global investment summit under the Conservatives, which makes sense.

We, of course, welcome BioNTech’s investment, and we welcome that the Government have continued our support. In the interest of scrutiny, can the Minister outline the negotiations with BioNTech on the subsidy, and whether BioNTech raised concerns about the poor investment environment that this Government have created, including with the increase in employer national insurance contributions?

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

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

The draft Electronic Communications (Network and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025 provides for the calculation of a penalty relating to a designated vendor direction. A designated vendor direction is a power provided for by section 105Z1 of the Communications Act 2003, as inserted through the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. That power is intended to ensure that our critical telecoms networks are secure and protected from foreign state interference. We support the measures being taken forward today through this technical statutory instrument.

In 2022, a designated vendor direction was sent to 35 telecommunications companies to ban the installation of Huawei kit from new 5G installations; remove it from the network core by the end of 2023; remove it from 5G networks entirely by the end of 2027; limit it to 35% of the full-fibre access network by the end of October 2023; and remove it from sites significant to national security by 28 January 2023. Will the Minister update the Committee as to the progress on each of the four latter criteria for each of the 35 providers that received the notice?

I understand that BT did not meet some of those statutory deadlines. Does the Minister expect it to be fined and, if so, when and how much? Does he expect other companies to be enforced against? What work is he doing to ensure that Huawei kit is being removed at pace to meet the 2027 deadline? Can he update us on that? Does he intend to review the 35% threshold in relation to full-fibre access? Given the current geopolitical environment, what assessments has he made of other providers in our telecoms supply chain, and can he update us on current providers of interest?

Huawei kit is not limited to telecoms infrastructure. Can the Minister update us as to the Government’s position on Huawei and its security risks? Were our concerns regarding Huawei raised during the Government’s recent engagement with China, including with regard to the domestic import of high-tech Chinese-made consumer goods such as electric vehicles? Finally, what assessment has the Minister made of the risks that emerging new technologies, including the large language model DeepSeek, which is based in China, may pose to domestic and commercial users? Do the Government intend to provide guidance on that?

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

It may assist the Committee to know that, when there is no great controversy about a clause and all I am doing is reminding people what is in the clause and the explanatory notes, I will move that the clause stand part formally. We are now starting to discuss part 5 of the Bill, which relates to GDPR. This clause is completely and utterly self-explanatory.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Turner. This part of the Bill relates to GDPR. Although there are some amendments that we will debate later, it makes sensible and long-overdue clarifications with regard to GDPR and the interaction with data protection, particularly through some updates to the use of secondary data for scientific research, which I suspect we will discuss when we come to the next clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Meaning of research and statistical purposes

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 67, page 75, line 26, leave out

“and that is conducted in the public interest”.

This amendment removes words from new paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the UK GDPR (meaning of processing for the purposes of scientific research). The words were inserted at Report stage in the Lords.

The UK has a proud tradition of innovative research. Our researchers are at the forefront in fields from quantum computing to medicine—for example, leading on pioneering vaccine development during the covid-19 pandemic. Scientific research can bring life-changing benefits to our society and economy. Given that importance, the UK data protection framework contains certain accommodations for processing personal data for research purposes while maintaining key safeguards. The clause, as proposed by their lordships, would require an up-front public interest test for processing to be considered as scientific research and eligible for these accommodations. We disagree with that.

We agree with wanting to avoid misuse of the term “scientific research”, but as the Royal Society has said clearly, the reasonableness test that is now in the Bill provides adequate protection against that. The new test, provided by the Lords, would also be at odds with the internationally recognised Frascati definition, which does not mention an up-front public interest test.

Such a test would be a new burden on many researchers. The Royal Society is concerned that that could have a negative effect on the conduct of research. The Government agree and are especially concerned about the impact on basic and curiosity driven research. The public benefits from such research may not be known at the time, yet with hindsight may be overwhelming. Many of the great discoveries in scientific history, from penicillin to the electron, originated from research that had no anticipated public interest benefit. No one could know how valuable they would be to us now. Even the mRNA-based vaccines that saved millions of lives during the covid-19 pandemic drew on curiosity-driven research that for years had had no practical applications.

That is research that we should be supporting, not stifling. An up-front public interest test could have a chilling effect on it, which is not in the long-term public interest. Our amendment would therefore remove the public interest test inserted by their lordships.

[Dr Spencer]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s remarks on the Government’s position on the public interest test, which was extensively debated in the other place. I have a great deal of sympathy with what their lordships were trying to achieve in parts of that amendment. We are talking about the secondary use of data for scientific research and, as I understand it, the public interest test is used in other types of scientific research tests—for example, with public health data. Therefore this is not something which is completely alien to the concept of defining scientific research. However, I do concede there is an issue with how one can define scientific research.

I think what people are nervous about—particularly in some of the conversations I have around this new definition of scientific research for use for secondary data processing—is this being hijacked by artificial intelligence data companies as a way of getting around some of the challenges with using big datasets for which they do not necessarily have licensing arrangements. I know we are going to come on to that later in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain his thoughts and considerations about removing this public interest test. How would that interact with some of the concerns about AI and data use?

From a personal perspective, my concept of scientific research has an altruistic component to it. At least with the scientific research with which I was involved, the whole point was that it was information that is shared freely. Clearly there are challenges and considerations on which one needs to focus when it comes to research being done for commercial benefit. I know part of the debate in the other place was about commercial versus non-commercial research. It is important that scientific research can be commercial. In fact, it must be. However, I appreciate that there is a sentiment that their lordships were putting forward as part of the test.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address, first, some of the concerns around AI companies and secondly how we can capture the essence of scientific research so that when people are do secondary data analysis it is done properly. When it comes to the audit component, a lot of this data analysis is people marking their own homework. Some of the data is not going through human rights committees and being scrutinised in that sense. What assurances can the Minister give that the process will operate properly and that research that is scientific will be legitimately so once these clauses are passed?

[Chris Bryant]

First, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are other areas where there is a public interest test. In those other areas it is actually very narrow, however. The public interest test is currently only applied to research using special category data under schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and public health data. It is quite specific. This is why we are nervous about extending the test across the whole of data protection. It is appropriate, we think, to have that extra protection for those particularly sensitive areas, but we think it would be disproportionate to make all researchers meet that standard, regardless of the type of data they are using.

The hon. Gentleman mentions AI companies, and the matter was of course raised in the Lords. It is worth reminding the Committee that the clause narrows rather than expands the definition of scientific research. As the provisions of the Bill make clear, web scrapers seeking to reuse personal data for purposes such as training AI models must have a lawful basis. Before even considering the meaning of scientific research, a web scraper would need to pass the balancing test to use the legitimate interest ground. The Information Commissioner’s Office outcomes report, published last year, emphasised that:

“Web scraping for generative AI training is a high-risk, invisible processing activity. Where insufficient transparency measures contribute to people being unable to exercise their rights, generative AI developers are likely to struggle to pass the balancing test.”

In other words, AI companies should not be doing precisely that which he is concerned they would.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister says that the changes in the clause narrow the scientific test. That certainly was not my understanding and I would be grateful if he could clarify. Currently, under scientific research, only three criteria can be used under GDPR: statistical purposes, archiving, and genealogical-type purposes. The clause expands secondary data use under GDPR quite substantially.

[Chris Bryant]

If an area of research does not currently count as scientific research, it will not do so under the Bill. Researchers will benefit from having a clearer definition in legislation that reflects the language buried in the recitals and the current ICO guidance. We believe that improving clarity will reduce uncertainty, the risk of misinterpretations and misapplication of the law. The Government will of course monitor the reform’s impact and how researchers navigate the data protection framework. We think that will help us better understand if further changes are required.

The fundamental point is that their lordships inserted a public interest line that we are seeking to take out. They inserted it because they believed it would mean that no data would be used in a way that did not lead to eventual good outcomes. The truth is that when someone starts a piece of research based on curiosity they might have no idea what the final outcome will be. That is an important part of how most researchers work, whether in a commercial or non-commercial setting. That is why the Royal Society has unambiguously stated that if we retain their lordships’ public interest provision, it will have a chilling effect on research in the UK. That is why I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Dr Spencer]

The matter turns on how we define public interest. I appreciate the concerns about the clause. Being a scientific purist, I could argue that even blue-sky research could be justified as in the public interest, provided that we all benefit from the fruits of that knowledge when it is shared. Notwithstanding that point, I will go back to the Minister’s comment. I understand that the point of the clause is to expand the definition of scientific research from the currently narrow criteria under GDPR, so there will be research that is currently not scientific research that will be permitted as a consequence of the clause.

[Chris Bryant]

I will try one more time to persuade the hon. Member, but I will be repeating myself. The Government are not expanding the meaning of scientific research. The Bill’s definition is completely in line with present ICO guidance, which states that commercial organisations can also carry out scientific research. Scientific research conducted by commercial organisations can have a life-changing impact, as many hon. Members have noted, but the definition does not cover any commercial activity: it only includes activities that could reasonably be viewed as scientific research.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Lawfulness of processing

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

As we have several provisions here, it might be worth me making some comments. Clause 80 strikes the right balance between helping organisations to make the most of emerging technologies that drive up economic growth and productivity, while maintaining public confidence. Organisations will be able to make decisions that have significant effects for individuals based solely on automated processes in wider circumstances than presently, but they must implement stringent safeguards.

Those safeguards include individuals’ right to challenge and obtain human intervention if they are not satisfied with the decision. Where law enforcement agencies process personal data for a law enforcement purpose, they will be able to apply an exemption to the safeguards in very limited circumstances, such as to safeguard national security. Where that happens, a human must reconsider that decision as soon as reasonably practicable after it is taken, and that review must be meaningful. For the intelligence services, where entirely automated decision making is used, we are making clarifications to provide greater confidence to controllers and the public.

Schedule 6 contains minor and consequential amendments to UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Those amendments repeal and replace references to the current rules on automated decision making with the reformed rules in clause 80 of the Bill to provide legal clarity.

On new clauses 1, 4 and 24, the Government’s algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, enables public authorities to publish information on how and why they are using algorithmic tools. That includes a description of the human role in the wider operational process of which the tool is part. More than 50 ATRS records are now published in the repository, with more to follow shortly. Where these amendments seek to ensure that such tools are evaluated, the blueprint for modern digital government, which was laid in Parliament in January, makes it clear that part of its role will be to offer specialist assurance support, including a service to rigorously test models and products before release. I hope this provides reassurance to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.

I will address new clauses 7 and 26 together, as they intend to achieve the same effect. I would again like to reassure hon. Members—I am trying to offer a lot of reassurance to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for North Norfolk—that the data protection framework has stringent safeguards in place for solely automated decision making. The UK GDPR transparency obligations already require organisations to notify individuals about the existence of solely automated decision making and to provide meaningful information about the logic involved.

Under our reforms, after a decision has been made, organisations must also provide data subjects with information about that decision. These information requirements enable individuals to exercise the safeguards I mentioned earlier, and are in addition to the wider transparency requirements of the framework. The safeguards in the reformed article 22 are unnecessary for partly automated decision making, since these decisions already include meaningful human involvement by definition.

When it comes to high-risk decisions, there are already additional requirements for processing that can result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, including automated decision making. Controllers must carry out an impact assessment for such processing activities and consult the Information Commissioner’s Office where such an assessment indicates a high risk to individuals in the absence of effective measures. That process ensures that potential risks are identified and addressed. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and for North Norfolk feel that they do not need to press their new clauses to a vote.

[Dr Spencer]

This is a really interesting set of clauses. The debate that we are having, and that they had in the other place, on automated decision making is particularly interesting.

Of course, automated decision making is here. It is everywhere in every part of our lives. I was just looking at the Spotify app on my phone, and my daylist suggested that I start off by listening to Front Line Assembly, which is an industrial metal band. It is probably because, going into the data Bill Committee on a Tuesday morning, I need something to get me started.

[Chris Bryant]

Don’t get me started.

[Dr Spencer]

Ah, the temptation.

The point about automated decision making is that decisions can be made about people without their involvement, which can have substantial consequences, particularly when decisions are made in the public sector. Of course, automated decision making takes place all the time, day in and day out. We saw it on a huge scale during the covid pandemic when people had to sign up to universal credit, as there were checks on people’s basic characteristics and assets to assess their eligibility. Those decisions had quite a substantial impact on people, but the data points were actually quite simple and straightforward. As I understand it, no particular concern was raised about automated decision making in that context, apart from a few examples where people’s circumstances were remarkably unique.

The purpose of the Bill is to scale up, particularly when it comes to AI and more sophisticated decision making. We think the new clauses seek to place onerous and unnecessary obligations on Government bodies and public authorities. New clause 1, among other things, would require public bodies to give notice on a public register for each and every function they perform where automated decision making is used. New clause 4 would oblige the Secretary of State to put in place and maintain a public register of all semi-automated or fully automated decision-making tools used by public authorities in relation to individuals, with public bodies being precluded from using such tools in advance of their registration.

New clause 7 would provide service users with a range of powers to request information from data controllers in relation to the workings of wholly or partly automated decisions, and to purportedly high-risk decisions. I am amazed by the provisions suggested in new clauses 7 and 26 by the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and for North Norfolk. They seem to give quite extensive discretionary powers to the Secretary of State to define high-risk decisions and regulate them accordingly. I was surprised to see the extent of the powers handed over to the Secretary of State by these new clauses.

The new clauses are especially burdensome and unnecessary, given the widespread use of automated decision making for initial assessments in the Department for Work and Pensions, as I alluded to earlier. Automated decision making is a subject of significant debate, and clause 80 includes more safeguarding measures in proposed new article 22C of the UK GDPR. Those safeguards include requirements on data controllers to provide information to data subjects about significant decisions being taken through solely automated processing, the right to contest those decisions and the right to seek human intervention at the request of the data subject.

Our view is that clause 80, as drafted, provides a proportionate approach to the protection of individual rights, and that these tools will help with potential speed and, importantly, efficiency gains, which I mentioned earlier with regard to the use of automated decision making for universal credit in the response to covid. The basic functions of Government and public authorities rely on widespread automated decision making.

[Victoria Collins]

I like to think that the Liberal Democrats are aligned on automated decision making and AI being an exciting opportunity for this country, but it is a fundamental shift. It is our job as a constructive Opposition to put forward proposals for consideration, so that there is proper scrutiny and ideas to ensure we take the public with us. All our proposals are made in that light.

Behind these decisions are real people’s lives. I have a family in Wheathampstead who are desperate for a social home to fit their family life. I have someone from Tring—I will call him John—who says he has been systematically failed since high school. His universal credit claim was closed because he did not upload the correct documents, and he feels that a lack of human understanding of why he was unable to do so was a barrier to getting the help he needed. Another case involves HMRC, with a constituent being taxed on pension income he is not actually receiving—it was only after hours of support from my team and the Department that we were able to turn his case around.

The point is that it will be very difficult for people to fix errors that result from automated decision making if there is not enough transparency. We have to get that balance right. The Secretary of State’s power to define crucial terms such as “meaningful human involvement” and “similarly significant effect” creates uncertainty and the potential for watering down protections.

Clause 80 seeks to update the safeguards around automated decision making, but organisations such as Justice and the Open Rights Group have real worries that it weakens those vital safeguards by broadening the scope for purely automated decisions. Furthermore, the considerable powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend or set aside the safeguards through secondary legislation create a concerning lack of parliamentary oversight.

It is with these reservations in mind, and as a constructive Opposition, that we tabled these new clauses. New clause 1 would place a clear requirement on public sector organisations regarding the use of algorithmic automated decision making. It would demand public notice of their use and the provision of meaningful and personalised explanations to affected individuals about how and why a decision was made. I have already raised some cases that the provision would impact, and I am sure we all have similar cases in our inboxes. New clause 1 directly tackles the concerns about transparency and the right to an explanation—a principle that the Liberal Democrats firmly believe in.

New clause 4 proposes the creation of a publicly accessible register of AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector. New clause 7 seeks to empower individuals by granting them the right to request comprehensive information on decisions based wholly or partly on automated processes that have a legal or similarly significant effect on them. This aligns with the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to ensuring accountability and redress.

New clause 24 proposes the establishment of a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make or materially influence decisions. These measures would help to promote transparency and enable public scrutiny, which is something that this House and its Members are here to do, either through legislation or for our constituents on a daily basis. It is important that we ask questions about these increasingly influential technologies.

Finally, new clause 26 would reinforce the right to an explanation by requiring data controllers to provide, on request, clear explanations of high-risk AI decisions. We need to ensure that meaningful human involvement remains central.

The new clauses are not intended to stifle innovation, but to ensure that the evolution of data use is guided by principles of fairness, transparency and accountability. We must ensure that data truly is the new gold for everyone, and that individuals’ rights and protections are not devalued in the process. Indeed, innovation is often better promoted by guidelines. The new clauses represent our commitment to ensuring that clause 80 truly modernises our data laws without sacrificing the fundamental safeguards that protect everyone, including the people behind those decisions. I thank the Minister for his consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge thinks I was trying to calumniate him earlier by suggesting that he does not pay for his music, but I was not making that suggestion at all.

Clause 81 amends article 25 of the UK GDPR to strengthen the obligations for providers of information society services likely to be accessed by children, such as social media platforms and streaming services, by requiring them to actively consider the protection of children’s data when designing their services, and to ensure that appropriate organisational and technical measures are in place to safeguard young users.

The clause sets out the higher protection matters that ISS providers must consider when designing their services, including how best to protect and support children when processing their personal data. The duty also requires data controllers to consider the fact that children merit specific protection because they may be less aware of the risks and their rights, and the fact that children’s needs vary with age and development. When considering how to comply with the new duty, ISS providers will be greatly aided by the age-appropriate design code issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which sets out comprehensive guidance for ISS providers on using personal data in a way that complies with data protection principles and respects the best interests of children.

New clause 21, in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, would in effect increase the age of consent for social media from 13 to 16. I am happy to listen to her comments, but much of this was debated in Friday morning’s private Member’s Bill debate—I think that is partly what led her to table the new clause—and in the Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago. I am happy to respond to her comments, but we will be resisting her new clause.

[Dr Spencer]

At the heart of new clause 21 is the aim to restrict access to certain social media platforms by children under the age of 16. I am very sympathetic to the motivations of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.

[Victoria Collins]

I just want to clarify that the new clause is about the age of data consent, not access to social media. I will cover that in my speech, but I want to ensure that is clear.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. Nevertheless, I think there is an overlap with the debate that took place in the Chamber last Friday on the ballot Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which has been dubbed the safer phones Bill. We all took part in that debate.

During Friday’s debate, I highlighted the mounting research and evidence on the harm to adolescents’ mental health from social media platforms. Policy in this area needs to be developed based on the best data and evidence. In that regard, we also need to learn from the roll-out of the Online Safety Act 2023 and the implementation of Ofcom’s guidance on putting in place age assurance in relation to particular types of content and data.

I welcome reports that the Government intend to commission the chief medical officer to review the harms associated with this area. It is disappointing that the Minister did not give a firm commitment on that from the Dispatch Box last Friday. Will he take the opportunity to do so today?

[Victoria Collins]

I start with the young people at the heart of this. We have indeed debated this time and again, and it is important that we keep that going. I have been on a Safe Screens tour, speaking to young people across Harpenden and Berkhamsted—from Ashlyns school in Berkhamsted to St George’s school in Harpenden, and beyond. Girl guides have spoken to me of their concerns about online bullying and harmful content. When I visited local schools on my Safe Screens tour, young men told me that social media has shown them extreme content that they do not want to see, and despite their efforts to block or ban it, the algorithm brings it back. Young women have told me of their worries about the growing misogyny in online content. Together, young women and men alike have talked about the impact on their body image, bullying and the amount of time sucked up by social media—time they want to spend doing other things.

There is mounting evidence of the negative effects of our children’s exposure to an unsafe online environment. Every day, we hear the concerns of parents, the anxieties of teachers and, crucially, the voices of young people themselves, all crying out for action to ensure their safety online and calling for stronger regulation of their online experience. I realise that the Online Safety Act is moving forward, but it will not go far enough.

This is a matter of profound importance for the wellbeing of our nation’s children and young people. The digital world is now the fabric of our lives and the lives of young people—it is where they learn, connect and seek entertainment—and yet, as the digital landscape expands, so do the risks they face. As 5Rights highlights,

“the enormous potential of technology can only be realised when it is designed with children in mind”.

Parliament now has an opportunity, perhaps even an obligation, to help shape that technology. It is disappointing that the safer phones Bill was watered down, so we have tabled new clause 21 as a crucial step to strengthen protections for young people in the digital age. It seeks to bring UK data law in line with many of our European neighbours, by raising the minimum age at which internet companies can collect, process and store a user’s data without explicit parental consent to 16.

New clause 21 is not about banning children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. It is important that the responsibility lies with the social media companies to ensure that online spaces are age-appropriate, and to manage content and features. This new clause is a targeted and proportionate measure to require online services to change fundamentally how they handle children’s data. This crucial change will necessitate restricting the pervasive and often harmful influence of algorithms to make the platforms inherently less addictive and ultimately foster a more child-friendly digital environment.

It is imperative that digital technology is designed with the best interests of our children and young people at heart, ensuring that their rights and privacy are upheld—not as an afterthought, but with safety by design and by default. Furthermore, new clause 21 underscores the fundamental principle that the responsibility for managing content and features must remain firmly with the social media companies. We call for the establishment of robust digital standards to ensure that platforms prioritise child safety and privacy as their default setting, rather than as an optional extra.

Our duty to protect children online, however, cannot end with new clause 21. We call on the Government to take further action, such as explicitly recognising and treating children’s use of social media as a critical public health issue, thoroughly examining international best practice, identifying innovative solutions to the challenges we face, and developing evidence-based policies that will demonstrably improve online safety for children. I welcome the Government’s proposal last week to introduce a cross-Government safer screens taskforce to look at research into the multifaceted impact of social media on children’s wellbeing.

This is not an overnight phenomenon. Last year marked 20 years since Facebook was created and 18 years since the smartphone was launched. We now face mounting calls from young people, parents and teachers. Now is the time for greater action on the gaps left by the Online Safety Act. I urge the Government to recognise the urgent need for decisive action and to support new clause 21. This is a pivotal opportunity to strengthen protections for young people online and to cultivate a digital world where they can thrive, not merely navigate potential harms. Let us work together across party lines to ensure a safer and brighter digital future for all our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I rise to speak primarily to new clause 27. The Government are committed to the independence of the regulator, which will continue to be accountable to Parliament. The Bill does not introduce a statement of strategic priorities, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted seems to suggest in her new clause, nor does the Secretary of State issue discretionary guidance to the regulator. Neither the Bill nor existing legislation provides for the Secretary of State to amend or reject a code of practice. I therefore do not see that this new clause is necessary.

[Dr Spencer]

I have a specific point on the text of new clause 27. We do not support this curtailment of powers, particularly in this context. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consult as a matter of course in carrying out his duties, whatever they are, and a specific requirement to consult the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, notwithstanding its prowess and stature, would be inoperable.

[Victoria Collins]

For us, the amendment is again in the spirit of ensuring proper scrutiny. However, I welcome the Minister’s comments and am happy not to press it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 93 and 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Regulations under this Part: Parliamentary procedure and consultation

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 95(1) relates to artificial intelligence and copyright and the related reporting requirement on the Information Commissioner. I will set out our fuller reasoning on copyright shortly, but for now, I merely state that we believe that now is not the right time to place an additional reporting obligation on the Information Commissioner in the Bill. Government amendment 22 would therefore remove subsection (1), which was added to the Bill on Report in the Lords.

Subsection (2) requires the Information Commissioner to publish key performance indicators. The Government take the performance and accountability of UK regulators seriously. Regulators undertake important functions across our economy and society, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is no exception, so it is important that Parliament and other stakeholders have the right means to hold them to account. Publishing such metrics is best practice and a transparent way of providing measurable analysis of the ICO’s performance year on year. This forms part of a package of additional reporting requirements, alongside those in clause 91 and the report on regulatory action in clause 102, which we will discuss later. Together, they will increase understanding and transparency about priorities, performance and enforcement activities.

Clauses 135 to 139 are in this group, although we will vote on them later. They set out further requirements regarding copyright and AI, and I urge that they do not stand part of the Bill. These clauses require regulations to be made to ensure compliance with copyright law by web crawlers and general AI models, and transparency about the use of web crawlers and the works they scrape. There is also an enforcement requirement for the Information Commissioner, and provision on a review of technical solutions.

The Committee well knows, because I have mentioned it several times, that I agree with many of the points raised in debate on the clauses and the importance of transparency for rights holders in the creative industries. It was one of the key principles in the consultation we published on copyright and AI that closed on 25 February. We want genuine transparency about what is used in training AI, alongside rights holders’ control of their work and appropriate access to training material for AI. However, although I accept the intention behind the amendments—that is, clauses 135 to 139, which were added in the Lords—we do not believe that the Bill, which is a data measure, is the right vehicle for action.

We received more than 11,000 detailed and heartfelt responses to our public consultation on AI and copyright. Many set out specific views on transparency, technical standards and a range of the questions that we asked in the consultation. We are taking care to read each response. Although we believe that action needs to be taken on transparency and web crawlers, as well as other issues relating to AI and copyright, it is only right that we carefully consider all the viewpoints and evidence before acting. We have heard loud and clear the message that stakeholders do not want us to rush to legislate on this topic, and we intend to heed this message. Yesterday the Secretary of State met representatives of the creative industries and repeated that point.

The engagement will not end with this consultation. I have already stated our intention to create working groups to move the conversation forward, including on technical solutions. Industry often comes up with the best ideas, so I want to harness that, whether it is greater transparency about AI training or standards on web crawlers, metadata and watermarking. Whatever the solution, we want to be confident in its efficacy and, critically, in its simplicity and accessibility. We have said repeatedly that we will not move forward in this sphere unless we are confident we can give rights holders greater control over the use of their works. Once we have analysed the responses to the consultation, we will publish proposals. Clauses 135 to 139, which were added to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords, should not stand part of the Bill.

Opposition new clauses 17 to 20 also relate to AI and copyright. I am grateful for the way in which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, has advanced these suggestions. These new clauses would require the Secretary of State to issue a statement on the application of UK copyright law to the activities of web crawlers and artificial intelligence models. One of the new clauses sets out the possibility of this being a copyright notice, issued by the Intellectual Property Office. They also require the Secretary of State to produce two reports, one of which should include a plan for transparency regarding the use of copyright materials with AI; the other should be on access to data and how to reduce market entry barriers for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises. Finally, they would require the Secretary of State to publish a technical standard for a machine-readable digital watermark, which would allow rights holders to label their content for the purposes of licensing.

As the House is aware, these amendments relate to matters that are at the heart of the government’s approach to AI and copyright. Indeed, the recently closed consultation sought views precisely on these issues. I commend my Conservative colleagues on the spirit of these amendments, but ask that they not be pressed at this time. I hope we can have further discussions on how we move forward on Report. While the amendments may indeed offer useful steps for the Government to take in solving issues of AI and copyright, proper analysis and policy development is likely to take longer than the proposed timeframes included in the clauses, given the 11,000 responses we received to the consultation. In addition, we would not wish to pre-empt the consultation, which some of these proposed clauses may do.

That said, I hope that I can discuss the issues raised by the amendments further with Members from both Opposition parties, to discuss whether we might be able to agree on similar proposals as we move forward. As I say, we take these issues seriously. As I am the Minister for Creative Industries and a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, I take a special interest in this and agree with the spirit of what these amendments seek to achieve, but I ask that new clauses 17 to 20 not be pressed at this stage.

[Dr Spencer]

Equally I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has conducted this debate. It is an important one, which has captured the focus of a great many people, not only those in the creative and AI sectors whose livelihoods absolutely depend on us getting this right, but all of us who love and benefit from the products of the UK creative industries.

I will discuss clauses 135 to 139, which the Government are seeking to remove, before I speak to the new clauses that stand in my name and those of other Opposition Members. While there are problems with clauses 135 to 139, they do reflect the creative industries’ well founded and much publicised concerns about the manner in which AI developers conduct data mining activities to train their models and for generative activities. I should declare an interest; I recently attended the Brit awards with my wife with support from the British Phonographic Industry, so I received hospitality in the last couple of weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

And are hated by others.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister can interpret that how he wishes. We must ensure that our creative industry is supported to thrive while harnessing the technological and economic benefits of growing our domestic AI capability. The amendments in this area from the other place touch broadly on a number of important principles, which we support. They include the application of copyright law to data mining and AI-generative activity, which is covered in clause 135; the need for high transparency in how AI models are trained and the materials used for that purpose; and the importance of identifying sound technical solutions so that copyrighted content can be identified by web crawlers and AI models excluded from training and generative activity.

However, these matters and their solutions are complex from technological, legal and societal perspectives. We totally recognise the challenges of legislating in this area. Our international counterparts face the same challenges in trying to strike an effective balance between supporting our AI industries and supporting our creative sector. It is not a zero-sum game. There is clear scope for collaboration and mutual benefit if we get this approach right. As the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), stated in the Chamber, creative industries are telling us that the Government’s solution—set out in their consultation as their preferred option—is “not fit for purpose”. We need to engage carefully with the feedback received from industry stakeholders to come up with the right solutions in this area.

As the Minister mentioned, new clauses 17 to 20 recognise that putting together a specific plan in great detail on how to solve this problem needs to be done by chewing through the information from the ongoing consultation and through extensive engagement with the people who are actually going to do this stuff and the people who will be affected by it. In effect, the proposals are end-point clauses, about the world we want to see in the future, where our AI and creative sector can work together and we get all the benefits from both. It is where we want to get to. It is a bit less about putting together the journey plan of how we get there, with the exception of the fact that the Government need to crack on and sort this out—[Interruption.] Well, he’s the Minister. It comes with the job.

New clause 17 is intended to require the Government to confirm the application of existing copyright law to creative content mined by AI web crawlers and models in the same way that it would apply to other offline content. The Opposition feel that there is no ambiguity about the application of copyright law in this context. However, the Government have consistently suggested, in their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence and elsewhere, that the legal position is unclear. In effect, that has created ambiguity and given rise to significant concern and objection from the creative sector. It deters smaller AI enterprises and start-ups from developing their products.

Running counter to that is the near existence of a possible future opt-out. I have heard evidence that AI companies are now thinking, “Let’s hang on before we buy licensed content, because we might get it for free anyway if this applies going forward.” If the aim was to give confidence to the AI sector, as was dealt with by the consultation, that has not happened either.

Clarity is needed for both the creative and AI industries, but not in the form of a wholesale exemption from copyright law for development and generative activity undertaken by AI models. The Government should make a clarificatory statement about the existing application of copyright law in this area. That certainty is the foundation block of sound policy aimed at supporting the creative industries to harness the economic value of their work, so I commend new clause 17 to the Committee.

New clause 18 requires the Government within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to put forward proportionate and effective measures to ensure transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, development and generative activities of AI models, with emphasis on the proportionate and effective nature of the measures. At a high level, ensuring transparency in this area will help to ensure that information is available for rights holders to discern where and how their work has been used, and seek payment for the use of their work where appropriate.

New clause 18 seeks to address the widespread concerns of creative rights holders that they do not know when their material is being used, which acts as a block to any form of enforcement of their rights or licensing going forward. However, the approach to transparency must be proportionate. In particular, transparency obligations should not be so onerous that they stifle the market for AI start-ups and smaller enterprises in their infancy, when these entities should form the lifeblood of our future technological economy. One could envisage a situation where, if we get the legislation on this wrong, the recording and storing of information that has created a model, in its extreme triviality, could in effect become a bigger dataset than the set used in the first place— hence the focus on the importance of proportionate and effective measures.

The timing of the action to be taken by the Secretary of State under the new clause—within three months of Royal Assent—is intended to give the Secretary of State a proper opportunity to consider the feedback of the creative and AI industries and other stakeholders received under the recently concluded consultation on copyright and AI. I am ambitious for the Minister and the Government. I know he slightly deprecated his ability to get on and try to put something together, but I have faith in him to drive this forward. The feedback should help to formulate a plan that is both effective and workable, so I commend new clause 18 to the Committee.

New clause 19 requires the Secretary of State within three months of Royal Assent to lay before Parliament a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises, specifically in relation to access to data to train their models. The Government’s now concluded consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence specifies that one of its key aims is to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK.

The AI opportunities action plan commissioned by the Government made a series of recommendations relating to the need to unlock public and private datasets to enable innovation by UK start-ups and researchers in order to attract international talent and capital. Although the imbalance in access to resources between established companies and start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises is in the nature of markets, failing to address that in this context risks reinforcing a situation where AI development activity remains the preserve of a relatively small number of established operators. I am thinking particularly of those that have been able to set up now, using datasets that have not had to comply with whatever provisions will eventually be put in place to regulate this area.

The Prime Minister indicated in his response to the action plan that DSIT would look at how to take this policy area forward. New clause 19 calls on the Government to put their money where their mouth is, and come up with a proper plan to turbocharge not only growth in our AI sector, but diversity and competition among operators of all sizes, by coming up with a plan to reduce the barriers to market entry that the accessibility of data presents.

Given the increasing adoption and use of AI by digital Government and the mechanisms of the state, it is critical for our national security and our national resilience to have a functioning domestic AI market that we can draw on for our use. The timescale for the Secretary of State to publish his report provides an opportunity for industry and stakeholder feedback to be taken into account when developing effective plans. For those reasons, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.

Finally, new clause 20 requires the publication of a technological standard. I hope that the previous three new clauses are relatively uncontroversial, and I particularly hope that this new clause is the most uncontroversial of all. It is based on an amendment that was moved by my noble Friend Viscount Camrose in the other place, but which was withdrawn on receipt of reassurances from the Minister. The new clause requires the Government to publish a technological standard for machine-readable watermarks for the purpose of identifying the licensed content when it is encountered by web crawlers and AI models.

The development of such a standard would greatly enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their work, and to support enforcement of creative rights by creating a record of where and how content has been used. The development of a technological standard will be incredibly useful, even if the Government decide to take forward the flawed opt-out proposals and even if they are not ultimately adopted. This technological standard would be used in whatever situation we find ourselves in over the next few years in this industry.

This proposal would provide web crawlers and AI models with clear signposting that the content is not available for training or generative activity. Where that is properly deployed and observed by AI models, it will reduce the need for rights holders to take action to seek compensation for infringement of their copyright. The new clause does not ask the Government to commit to a specific solution, and nor should it, but it requires them to commit to identifying such a solution within a reasonable period. Let the industry sort it out. One of the challenges that has been going through my mind when exploring this area is why, from a point of principle, the market has not fixed this in the first place, and why we are where we are now in trying to resolve these issues. The new clause will promote transparency and certainty for the creative and AI industries, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Victoria Collins]

I have found these discussions among Members across the House about AI and copyright to be a delightful exchange about the creative industries that we love. I understand the Minister’s comments about there being different spaces for that debate and that this may not be the place for that, but I would like to speak to the new clauses that were proposed in the other House.

To highlight one of the creative industries that I love, this weekend I went to The Rex cinema in Berkhamsted, one of the best cinemas in the world—if any Members want to come, they are all very welcome. Sitting there, watching “A Complete Unknown”— about Bob Dylan and his songs—in a local movie theatre reminded me just how important it is to ensure that the creative industries can maintain their creativity, because it speaks to our soul and our society. They are beyond machine learning. They are humans who actually understand us and help to tell our stories in different ways.

That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed new clauses 135 to 139 that were tabled in the other place. We also welcome the consultation from the Government and are pleased to hear that there have been over 11,000 responses. Members will find responses from us in there, because we wanted to make sure that the Liberal Democrats made representations at every stage. It is disappointing that the change that the Government have set out means there is an “opt in by default” provision, and the message has come across from the creative industries that they are calling for an open consultation, so we can make sure that their views are heard. We support their voices being heard and, indeed, striking that balance where the creative industries can work with innovation, as they have been. This is about getting that right. We are proud of those industries in the UK. We must work together and truly listen to those thousands of voices up and down this country. That is what we stand for, and we will support the Government moving forward in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

It is also true that many creative industries use AI all the time, either as part of their business processes or as part of the actual creative process, whether by editing a song so that it can use voices of people who are no longer with us, through CGI, by dubbing films, or through a whole series of different things. Indeed, I was really struck when I went to Stratford last week to see a magnificent production of “Edward II” at the Royal Shakespeare theatre. They are talking there about creating a new video game that is based on “Macbeth”, called “Lili”, and, of course, that will use a lot of artificial intelligence. A lot of tech companies are part of the creative industry, so I honestly do not think that these are two worlds that are completely apart.

[Dr Spencer]

I am tempted, because we both clearly share a love for the Sugababes, to just draw a reference to that. Of course, the creative industries also have quite a lot of experience of using other creative materials licensed from other producers. For the Sugababes song “Freak Like Me”, I am fairly sure that the sample is directly taken from Gary Numan’s “Are ‘Friends’ Electric?”, and presumably they came to some sort of arrangement in organising that. This sharing of data is not unusual for the creative sector.

[Chris Bryant]

I have often wondered whether Kylie’s song “Padam Padam” is a reference to Edith Piaf’s “Padam padam…” because they are also quite similar. This is, of course, a well traversed space for people working in the copyright sphere: trying to make sure that people are not passing off or using other people’s work without permission. The economic and moral rights of rights holders are well established in UK law. We started the process of legislating for that in 1709, under Queen Anne. Dickens had an ambition to make sure that people could not just take copies of his books to America and sell them for free without any payment to him, which is part of why we ended up with an international copyright regime. We do not want to undermine that.

Transparency is key, and it was one of the elements that we put into our consultation. We need to be careful about precisely how that transparency works out. The hon. Gentleman referred to proposed new clause 18, which he wants us to do something on within three months. As ambitious as he may be for me, that is a remarkably short period of time for parliamentary drafting. After all, a version of the Bill was first introduced four years ago, yet it still does not have Royal Assent. He refers to the terms “proportionate and effective” in that proposed new clause. To go back to “Hamlet”, aye, there’s the rub. What do proportionate and effective mean, and how do you balance the two? Different sectors will have difficult and competing sets of agendas and we may, in some shape or other, have to arbitrate.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no one, anywhere in the world, has come to a proper settled position on this issue. In the United States of America, for instance, a lot of AI companies have been relying on fair use, under the slightly different copyright system there, but the most recent federal case found in favour of Reuters against an AI company—the court said that scraping material was not fair use. The EU has not yet fully developed its proposals and has not decided how to implement its transparency requirements. It could be argued that that is one reason why there has not been much additional licensing, which was one of the EU’s declared goals.

There is also the question of how to enforce transparency. The clause—in a provision tabled by the admirable Baroness Kidron—specifically gives that enforcement power to the Information Commissioner. I am not sure that is the right place to put that power, or that the Information Commissioner has the expertise or resources for it. Undoubtedly, if there are to be new transparency requirements, we must have some form of enforcement.

All those things suggest to me that it is not right to put this power as an addendum to this Bill. The matter should be seen in the round, after a consultation, and there should be a proper primary legislation process, which may not happen for another 12 to 18 months, or even two years. I do not know.

The Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology, and myself, are keen to get to a place where there is more licensing of copyrighted material by AI companies. I do not think anybody expects that the labour of others should be handed over to third parties without recompense or control. That, in itself, is not simple. It might be simple for the Design & Artists Copyright Society to do all the licensing for artists and photographers, but how could that be done for people who works as individuals, rather than as part of a collecting society? That is another set of issues that need to be addressed.

I know there are places in the world where one can buy an AI-generated book, and it might be perfectly readable. We might all have authors who we think have worked in that way in the past. But when I read a book, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, I want to know that it has a human involved in it. Human creativity is a vital part of what renders that process of creativity so important. I think of humans as fundamentally social beings. One of the worst things that can be done to a human being is to put them in solitary confinement, because that denies our fundamental social being. What is so special about all the creative industries is that they enable a connection from human being to human being. I am passionate about not losing that or the value inherent in that.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 96 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clauses 104 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 109 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clauses 113 to 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden.)

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 52, in schedule 14, page 242, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) The appointment of the Chair of the Information Commission must be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment seeks to strengthen the regulator’s independence by subjecting key appointments to Parliamentary approval.

Schedule 14.

Clauses 118 to 120 stand part.

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

I rise to speak to clause 117, the first clause in part 6, on reforming the information commission. Part 6 sets out provisions to abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office and transfer its functions to a new body, the information commission, with a chief executive and board of directors. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the fact that the Government are substantially taking forward some measures on reform of the ICO envisaged in previous iterations of this Bill, including the previous Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Indeed, the ICO has said that the changes under the Bill will bring its governance structure into line with that of comparable regulators. Given some of the challenges and opportunities that our data-driven economy will present, the new information commission must be set up in the right way to perform its regulatory functions as effectively as possible.

There is no doubt that the scope of the information commission’s role will grow, commensurate with the changes brought in by the Bill—for example, the obligation to have regard, in the performance of its role, to factors such as promoting innovation and competition. We are supportive of those aims, but it would be helpful if the Minister could briefly address some of the concerns raised by my noble Friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in the other place, particularly the Minister’s strategy for ensuring that the information commission is provided with clarity as to its responsibilities and obligations when it comes to economic growth, and how he will ensure that that remains consistent with the information commission’s primary functions relating to data protection.

[Victoria Collins]

I will speak only briefly about amendment 52, but I would like to think that after all the Liberal Democrat interventions today, no one will have any doubt that we take data very seriously. I realise that we have outlined a lot of proposals, but they are all in the spirit of helping to shape the data vision and of saying how important we feel it is. Amendment 52 is about the questioning of scrutiny. I am happy not to press the amendment, but again it is important to make sure we have trust in line with innovation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 121 and schedule 15 make clear that information standards published under section 250 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022, will include standards relating to information technology or IT services used, or intended to be used, in connection with the processing of information related to the provision of health and adult social care in England.

For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a standardised way using common specifications, which goes to some of the points made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk in quoting Government publications. These provisions are an important step towards creating a modern health and adult social care service, where systems are integrated and staff have quicker access to patient data, freeing up time that can be spent with patients.

In previous debates, several Members have referred to physical records, and I have referred to one hospital in Doncaster that employs 42 members of staff solely to carry around physical records. There are still departments in many parts of the NHS in England that are producing more physical, handwritten notes every day of the week. That must be nonsense; it must make it more difficult for us to deliver connected services in future and it cannot be in the interests of the patient, because we would want the patient to be able to hold in their hand an app with everything that relates to their own medical health, almost like a medical passport of their own. That simply is not possible if all the different bits of the NHS in England cannot work together. Government amendment 14 is a technical change to ensure that any personal data processed in the exercise of the public censure power, set out in schedule 15, is subject to the relevant existing data protection legislation.

New clause 3 would require researchers to keep and publish records about the health and social care data that they have processed for research. There are already extensive transparency requirements for health data, and the Information Commissioner’s Office provides detailed advice to the public on their data rights. The law only allows confidential patient information to be used for research without consent when it has been approved by the Health Research Authority. There are detailed arrangements for this approval, based in law, and the transparency arrangements include published registers of approved applications showing what data is used for what purpose and by whom. I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted will accept that this means her new clause is not necessary.

[Dr Spencer]

This part of the Bill is a concatenation of different provisions relating to data, which is one of the reasons why I think the Bill is so glorious; it covers such a wide scope of things to sort out. I will speak to some of the deeper debates that we will have later, but I am quite glad to start off by speaking to clause 121. As a former doctor—my wife is a doctor too—I particularly welcome these provisions and the opportunity they provide to ensure that health data can be shared properly.

I would say to the Minister that the issue is not merely carrying around patient notes; certainly, in my experience the issue is whether patient notes turn up in the first place at all. As somebody who does not work in the health service any more, I see the other side, where the burden is quite often on the patient to provide their notes or to give information repeatedly that different parts of the system already have. That is a wholly inefficient way of doing things. One of the benefits of having the NHS set up as it is must surely be the ability to have coherent approaches to the sharing of data, so that we do not have this situation with notes.

It is not merely an inconvenience. Patients can be exposed to repeated tests and repeated imaging, all of which have a degree of iatrogenic harm and risk, plus delays to progressing. My former field of work was psychiatry, and the places where I worked were very quick to adopt electronic patient records, noting not only the importance of data sharing, but the risk of retraumatising people when repeated disclosures of traumatic events are required—in part, I worry, because that data is not shared as effectively as it could be.

I raised the point on Second Reading that changes in this area will need to be supported by ensuring that hospitals and healthcare settings have access to IT of sufficient quality to support the new systems. Can the Minister provide an update on his strategy—although I recognise it is not precisely his strategy; it is shared with the Department of Health and Social Care—on renewing NHS IT infrastructure and ensuring that the necessary kit is put in place so that the provisions can be rolled out to maximum advantage? This is about not merely the sharing of data, but the fact that faxing information is no longer required, and we must have the computer infrastructure necessary for data sharing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 124 delivers on the Labour manifesto commitments to further support coroners, and procurators fiscal in Scotland, to access information held by online services after a child’s death. This is a very sensitive issue, and we have tried to address it as such. The provision will require Ofcom, when informed by a coroner, to issue a data preservation notice to specified online service companies. That will help to ensure that those online service companies retain all the relevant data they have on a child so that it will be available on request should a coroner later require it as part of an inquest into a child’s death. The clause demonstrates the Government’s commitments to keeping children safe online and supporting families that have endured unimaginable losses. I am conscious that some might want us to go further; further to the conversation we had earlier, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion on that before we reach Report.

On new clause 29, I reassure the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted that there are already strong powers to ensure that companies comply with data preservation notices. Those include the power to issue fines for non-compliance of up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, and the ability to hold senior managers criminally liable for non-compliance. Those sanctions will help to ensure that online services comply with any notice issued under section 101 of the Online Safety Act 2023. Under a provision in that Act, the Secretary of State must already review the effectiveness of the Act’s regime, including the data preservation measures, between two and five years after it comes into force and must produce a report detailing his findings, which will then be laid in Parliament. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will not feel the need to press her new clause to a vote.

[Dr Spencer]

This is not the appropriate place to discuss new clause 30, but I hope that there will be ample opportunity on Report for further discussion of the broader issue, which is of great importance.

[Victoria Collins]

Clause 124 concerns the retention of information by internet service providers in the deeply tragic event of a child’s death. It rightly acknowledges the potential need to access such data for crucial investigations and to understand the circumstances surrounding such a loss. However, mere provision for data retention is insufficient without a mechanism to ensure its effective implementation in line with broader online safety efforts. That is why we have proposed new clause 29, which ensures Government oversight by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a compliance report within 12 months. The report will assess whether social media platforms, including category 1 services under the Online Safety Act 2023, are preserving data when needed for investigations, regulatory actions and legal proceedings. I appreciate the comments from the Minister.

Although it is not in this Bill, this is an opportunity to highlight the Liberal Democrat’s belief that category 1 services should not be linked to the size of online platforms alone and that platform functionality and other characteristics should determine whether a regulated provider is classed as category 1 or 2. We know that harmful content, abuse and illegal activity leave a digital footprint but, without enforcement, key evidence may be erased before authorities can act. The new clause ensures that platforms are held accountable, preventing data from being lost if needed. It is about not just policy, but ensuring that social media companies meet their legal obligations and that enforcement is transparent and effective. Once again, I appreciate the open discussion of these issues that the Minister has put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

Retention of biometric data and recordable offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I propose that the clause does not stand part of the Bill. Clause 140, which was tabled in the House of Lords, is a regulation-making power that would enable terms relating to core personal data attributes to be defined consistently across data held by public authorities. The intention behind this measure is that the power could be used to define the term “sex”. We seek to overturn this clause for the following reasons.

The Government believe that public sector data, including data about sex and gender, should continue to be collected based on the specific data requirements of those collecting the data, and their users, which differs across contexts. That is in line with the data minimisation principle set out in the data protection legislation. We do not think it is appropriate to have core personal data attributes defined in regulations in the way that is proposed.

Furthermore, setting out such definitions using secondary legislation could create confusion where terms are already defined in legislation, and so—depending on the approach taken—could cut across the existing definitions. For example, defining sex could cut across the existing legal framework and undermine protections in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.

I am, however, keen to reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the importance of harmonising data and have already commenced important work on standards across Government—via a cross-Government working group led by the Data Standards Authority—to define the core attributes of a person. Last year, the Office for Statistics Regulation published guidance on collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity, and in December 2024 the Government Statistical Service published a work plan for harmonised standards in this space.

The Government’s belief is that such matters are crucial and more appropriately considered holistically outside the Bill. The intention of the Bill is not to define or remark on the definitions of sex and gender, or other core personal data attributes. I therefore recommend that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Spencer]

As the Minister noted, the clause is a provision that was introduced in Committee in the other place, along with clause 28(3) and (4), and clause 45(6), which have now been removed from the Bill pursuant to our decisions in Committee.

Clause 140 aims to ensure the accuracy of data underpinning digital forms of verifying identity, and more broadly. To a degree, it is ironic that we live in a world where we have to debate data dictionaries when it comes to the definition of sex, but I think the point about data dictionaries more generally, over and above the focus on sex data in this debate, is nevertheless sound.

We are aware of the Government’s argument that the clauses inserted in the other place pertaining to data accuracy—in particular, clause 45(6)—are not compatible with certain provisions of the European convention on human rights and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to the Committee on that, among other matters, but I do not think that his explanation gives any rationale for the removal of clause 140.

We strongly disagree with the Government’s position for the reasons I set out last week, but I will not rehash those arguments now. Rather, I want to make a simple argument in favour of retaining the clause on data dictionaries that the Government intend to remove. Clause 140 grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations establishing the definitions and associated metadata for core personal data attributes. The Secretary of State may require that those definitions are used for, among other things, personal data recorded by public authorities, under subsection (1)(d), and the digital verification service, under subsection (1)(a).

My noble friend Lord Lucas compellingly stated the case in support of his data dictionary amendment in the other place, saying that

“if we are to live in a data-rich world, we really need a set of well-understood, good definitions for the basic information we are collecting.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 2025; Vol. 843, c. 237-238.]

It really is that simple: giving the Secretary of State the power to define those core personal data attributes so that a consistent approach can be taken across the board by public authorities and entities engaged in digital verification services.

My question for the Minister is, therefore: what is the objection to the Secretary of State having that power to clarify the meanings of those essential terms, which we need to define data attributes? A clear definition of data attributes, and in particular the meaning of sex, is a foundational building block that will help to ensure that the data we collect can be harnessed for good-quality research on which sound public policy decisions can be based.

In the other place, the DSIT Minister, the noble Lord Vallance of Balham, acknowledged the need for data to be “based in truth” and “consistent and clear”. However, he opposed this clause on the basis that the Government would prefer to consider the matter of data accuracy and consistency holistically, outside the scope of the Bill. In that regard, he pointed to ongoing research in the field, including the Sullivan review of data, stats and research on sex and gender, which was commissioned by the previous Conservative Government, and the findings of which this Government would like to take into account in developing their policies in the area.

I welcome the fact that the Government intend to take a closer look at the importance of data accuracy, especially in relation to the collection of sex data, but there is no need to kick the can down the road. The clause compels the Secretary of State to do nothing—well, not in an active sense—[Interruption.] If only. It does not compel the Secretary of State in an active sense, but it does give him the important power to put definitions of core personal data attributes in place once the important Sullivan review and other studies have been published and considered. As we have mentioned a few times, the Bill has gone through many iterations and a long legislative period. We believe that this clause will be useful, if not essential, for resolving some of these issues.

Getting those basic definitions right is essential. If we do not, there could be mistakes that could become entrenched in the records of public authorities. That could lead to skewed research findings on important societal matters, such as health disparities and outcomes across the sectors, as well as employment opportunities and equal pay. For those and many other good reasons, let us take this opportunity to get the basics right.

In that regard, I encourage the Minister to heed the timeless words of Julie Andrews with which he opened Committee stage. As far as definitions for core data attributes are concerned,

“Let’s start at the very beginning,

A very good place to start.”

[Chris Bryant]

Mr Turner, I have confidence in confidence alone; I have confidence in you—if we are going to do Julie Andrews.

This is obviously a serious matter. The clause pretends to be just a regulation-making power that would allow the Government to publish a data dictionary by regulations. It is framed as a means to promote data consistency, but its actual intent is to push the Government to set a single definition of the term “sex” through a public authority data dictionary that public authorities would need to have regard to when processing data. As I have said several times in debates already, that is inappropriate. The whole purpose of data is that it is set within a context and that that context changes. For instance, the data that is required for the running of a hospital or prison is different from that required for the hiring of a car or the purchase of a property. That is why we think it is important that we do not go down this route.

The Opposition are again trying to give the Secretary of State more powers to do things by regulation, but it would be completely inappropriate to develop this data dictionary by secondary legislation, which would be unamendable and therefore subject to only minimal debate. I completely agree with the noble Lord Vallance that data has to be consistent and accurate, but it also has to be in the context for which it is being used. That is the key determinant that some Members have not understood in the Government’s argument. I still suggest that clause 140 does not stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 141 delivers our manifesto commitment by ensuring that those who create a deepfake intimate image of an adult without their consent or a reasonable belief in their consent can be prosecuted. There is no need to prove any motivation. This offence will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine, six months imprisonment or both. The clause will also ensure that the courts have the power to deprive offenders of the images they have created and the devices containing them. Creating intimate image deepfakes is a truly demeaning and disgusting form of chauvinism. We believe that clause 141, as amended, will tackle that behaviour. We are sending a very clear message to the perpetrators, putting them on notice that they will face the full force of the law. I command the clause and the amendment to the Committee.

[Dr Spencer]

I start by congratulating my noble Friend Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for her hard work and tenacity in raising the profile of the harms caused to victims of sexually explicit deepfakes, and ensuring that clauses criminalising that activity were inserted into the Bill in the other place. We very much welcome the Government’s engagement in this important area, and we broadly support their amendments, which substantially deliver the changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that Baroness Owen sought in the other place.

In particular, we welcome Government amendment 31, which substantially reflects the offence of solicitation under clause 141, but could the Minister put a bit more flesh on the bones of the reasoning and necessity behind substituting the term “requesting” for “solicitation”? Does he regard those terms as having equivalent meaning in this context? If not, what is the material difference in the approach to terminology?

I am thankful for the Minister’s comments on the “reasonable excuse” defence, but I have some questions about what exactly a reasonable excuse looks like in this context. Does he have any examples to aid our understanding of what constitutes a reasonable excuse in these circumstances? Based on that, do the Government intend to publish guidance on the scope of this defence and its explanation?

We are pleased to see the inclusion of Government amendment 38, inserting among other things an extended limitation period of three years from the date of creation, or request for creation, of a purported intimate image for bringing criminal charges. This will increase the scope for victims to seek justice where these images come to light some time after creation.

[Victoria Collins]

The Liberal Democrats very much welcome clause 141 and action taken on violence against women and girls in particular, including online. However, the clause talks about creating or soliciting the creation of purported intimate images of adults, but it does not necessarily deal with the sharing of them. How do we hold to account those who are sharing intimate images that they should not be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

I just want to make two points. I was a bit confused by the timings in this new clause. I think we all agree on the importance of data adequacy, but my understanding is that, by three months post Royal Assent, we will already have to have a data adequacy agreement in place, given the time that it will take to achieve Royal Assent.

The other point I wanted to make was that I think this might be the last time that I get to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in this Bill Committee, so I want to thank Members, officials and the Chairs for taking part in our proceedings. I look forward to further debate on Report.

[Chris Bryant]

First, I should have also thanked the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), because she has been intimately involved in bringing forward the measures that we debated in the last group. My apologies for forgetting that, Mr Turner.

On new clause 2, I completely agree that EU data adequacy is vital, but I completely disagree with the new clause, because I think it is technically deficient. One reason for that is the timeline that it lays out of three months, by which time I hope we might be able to have made progress. I also think that it undermines the independence of the process that the European Commission has to go through. The European Commission has already confirmed that its review of its two adequacy decisions for the UK are currently under way—ahead of the deadline, which is good. As Lord Vallance stated in the House of Lords, DSIT and the Home Office have dedicated teams supporting the European Commission’s technical review, as required.

I acknowledge the unilateral nature of the adequacy assessment made by the European Commission. For that reason, it is important to provide the European Commission with the discretion needed to complete its process, which I am afraid new clause 2 would undermine. So, for that reason, I am resisting the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

This is my last intervention, which I am sure the Committee will all be very sad about, and it is on data. I know that we have talked a lot about public trust, but I also want to highlight that, as Liberal Democrats, we are also excited about unlocking the opportunities from data. These new clauses speak to that.

New clauses 6, 25 and 28 together would ensure that we harness the benefits of data while upholding fundamental rights. Too often, data is seen as something that happens to people rather than something that they have a say in. We have an opportunity here to unlock even more opportunities, not just in Government data systems but in how data is used across research, public services and wider society.

New clause 6 calls on the Government to develop a clear strategy for public-interest data trusts and community data governance. That means allowing individuals and communities to contribute their data for socially beneficial purposes while retaining meaningful control. Imagine if patients suffering from rare diseases could securely share their data for medical research, knowing that it would be used solely for public good, not commercial gain; that is a future we can build.

New clause 25 would ensure that the Government take a proactive role in shaping public-interest data governance, setting clear ethical guidelines for how data can be shared securely and fairly. This is about moving beyond reactive regulation. Instead, we should actively create frameworks that allow innovation to flourish while protecting those rights. If we want the UK to be a leader in responsible AI and data stewardship, we need clear structures that allow businesses, researchers and civil society to work together with confidence.

New clause 28 would establish a framework for data altruism, ensuring that those who wish to donate their data for public interest projects can do so safely and transparently. Consider a family in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted who want to contribute to a dementia research project. Right now, there is no clear framework guaranteeing that their data will be protected from misuse. By formalising ethical data-sharing models, we can enable research and innovation without compromising trust. These new clauses share a simple principle: data must serve people, not the other way around. We must strike the right balance, harnessing data to drive innovation while ensuring that public confidence and ethical standards remain at the core of our approach.

We have a huge economic opportunity. The UK has led the way in setting high regulatory and Government standards in sectors such as fintech, law and insurance, where trust, transparency and compliance are critical. We should build on those strengths and apply the same principles to emerging fields such as AI, healthtech and responsible data sharing. By learning from what works and setting clear guidelines now, we can unlock investment, support start-ups and ensure that the UK becomes a hub for innovative, data-driven businesses. That is why I urge colleagues to consider new clauses 6, 25 and 28, as well as the principles put forward in them, to ensure that we build a data-driven future that is transparent, accountable and a gold standard for responsible innovation and public involvement.

[Dr Spencer]

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s comments, and I want to reflect on one point. She presented, or at least seemed to present, a tension between public interests and the commercial use of data. It is really important that we recognise that a lot of health research, particularly pharmaceutical development, is for commercial purposes, with a huge amount of benefits for health as a consequence.

I do not think it is to right to try to sabotage the use of data for commercial purposes, because it has huge benefits for the care and treatment of people. We depend on pharmaceutical companies to spend the risk money, for which a state organisation would never have the appetite, to develop the new drugs of the future. It is important to be quite careful when one is thinking about commercial interests versus non-commercial interests for scientific research.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that this is her last contribution to the debate, so in the words of the “The Little Mermaid”, I suppose we are poor, unfortunate souls. I thank her for tabling these new clauses, and she raised issues that were also discussed in the other place.

On new clause 6, as my noble Friend Baroness Jones noted in the House of Lords, the Government support giving individuals greater agency over their data and a robust regime of data subject rights. We have already announced our intention to publish a call for evidence on the potential role of data intermediaries. It is important that we establish a firm evidence base before we make any changes to people’s data rights, so I hope that that makes new clause 6 unnecessary.

On new clause 25, as I have just said, we have already published a call for evidence on the potential role of data intermediaries, which is why we need to proceed carefully before going down the route offered by the new clause. Finally, on new clause 28, the Government acknowledge that there are various models of data intermediaries, including those that manage voluntarily contributed personal data for the common good, such as data co-operatives and trusted research environments.

We have already announced our call for evidence, which will seek views on various aspects relevant to data intermediaries, including the delegation of data subject rights to third parties, barriers preventing data intermediaries from operating at full capacity and risk factors associated with significant growth in their activities. This will also include views on different models of data intermediaries, including those focused on data altruism, as the hon. Lady mentioned. Given that we have already announced our intention to act in these areas, I very much hope that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw the motion.