Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins]

There is definitely a lot of opportunity in automated decision making, but the safeguards must be in place to make sure that human decisions and the right to safeguards around the impact of those decisions are upheld, because restricting enhanced safeguards to only certain categories of information, without further amendments, could exclude a wide range of significant decisions from meaningful human review and create a lack of transparency. Again, doing so undermines public trust and hinders the adoption of AI and emergent technologies.

We share the concerns of organisations including Justice and the Open Rights Group that clause 80 weakens safeguards by broadening the scope for automated decisions. Although the clause makes safeguarding requirements more explicit, there are concerns that it also provides the Secretary of State with considerable powers via secondary legislation to amend or set aside those safeguards. The Liberal Democrats are firm in our conviction that where a person is the subject of automated decision making, there simply must be a right to explanation, a right to appeal and a meaningful human intervention.

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

I hope the hon. Lady recognises that one of the changes we have made to the Bill is to insist on there being meaningful human involvement. That was not in the previous version of the Bill. I think that that helps considerably with the issue of automated decision making.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. For us, it is a question of making sure that any input from the Secretary of State—whoever that is—does not undermine those safeguards. [Interruption.] I am sure that the current Secretary of State will be around for a while.

[Chris Bryant]

What do you know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), whose speech was absolutely spot on—I agreed with it completely.

It will not surprise the Government Front Benchers that I welcome the Bill. There are very few parts of it, if any, with which I disagree—perhaps because it bears an extraordinary similarity to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill introduced by the previous Government, which I spent many happy hours taking through Committee and Report. As the Secretary of State pointed out, unfortunately that Bill fell as a result of the calling of the general election, and I share his regret that it was not possible to get it on to the statute book. That is another reason among many why I regret the calling of the general election at the time chosen by the previous Prime Minister.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to all the happy days he had, but I do not think that he really enjoyed the Report stage of the previous Bill. I think—nobody else will notice if he admits it here now—that he did not really like everything that was in the previous Government’s version of the Bill, and that he rather prefers our version.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Although the hon. Gentleman and I had a robust but nevertheless amicable exchange on Report, it was in fact his colleague, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), who took that Bill through Committee. It was not until Report that the Conservative Government decided to add measures to the Bill—measures that I fully supported, of course, but which nevertheless made the task a little more difficult, as they resulted in a lack of agreement across the Chamber, which had previously pertained throughout the passage of the Bill. It is a pleasure to debate these matters again, and, indeed, to see not just the hon. Gentleman but some of the officials who laboured to take that Bill through Committee with me, and are now tasked with doing it all over again.

One point about the Bill that the Secretary of State did not refer to is that a lot of it seeks to improve the working of data protection law in this country and make data more accessible while safeguarding important privacy rights. However, the fact that we are able to make changes to improve our data protection laws is a consequence of Britain no longer being a member of the European Union—otherwise, we were trapped by the GDPR requirements. This is an example of where we can draft legislation to benefit people in this country and not have to accept top-down imposed legislation from Brussels—another reason why I was an enthusiastic supporter of the previous Bill.

One issue that featured a lot during the previous debate, and which I am slightly surprised has not been mentioned so far, is whether the changes made in the Bill would in any way jeopardise data adequacy recognition by the EU. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) did mention it, but the Secretary of State did not. Data adequacy is an important issue, and concern has been expressed outside the House that the Bill might put it at risk. We were very keen to ensure that that was not the case, and we worked closely—as I am sure the Minister continues to do—with the Information Commissioner, John Edwards, who has a lot of experience in this field, having previously overseen the data protection regime in New Zealand, which enjoys data adequacy but is not identical to GDPR. I am sure, given that this Bill is so similar, that there is no risk to data adequacy, which is of importance to many large firms.

The Bill covers a lot of other areas that we regarded as important and which have remained largely unchanged, such as the operation of the Information Commissioner’s Office, digital identification, the national underground asset register, the electronic use of the register of births and marriages, the extension of smart data use, automated decision making, and the retention of information where required by coroners after child deaths. All those areas were included in the previous Bill, and I am delighted that they are still there in this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no wish to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), who is doing an excellent job. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman and I have been involved in discussions on copyright for many years, and I share his view. Indeed, I welcomed the debate that we had in this place just a couple of weeks ago on the creative industries, where a lot of these arguments were rehearsed, and the Minister helpfully agreed that there is no workable opt-out technology available.

The existing opt-out, which the European Union has suggested, simply does not work. On top of that, it is unenforceable. The Minister and the Secretary of State have suggested that they would not proceed unless a workable opt-out could be developed. It would be a first if it were. In any case, I am opposed to opt-out in principle, but it is at present practically impossible to introduce. I hear the Secretary of State talking about the technology companies working to bring a workable solution forward, but I hope that the Minister will again make clear that the Government will not proceed unless there is a viable, workable technological solution that allows rights holders to make clear that they do not wish to have their works used by artificial intelligence training models, and have that enforced.

[Chris Bryant]

I think it might be easier if I respond to that now. Yes, I completely and utterly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is our settled view. We want to get to a process where there is more licensing of content, and we have said that repeatedly. It is one of the aims of our consultation. He says that copyright does not need changing, but the amendments tabled by Baroness Kidron in the Lords do change copyright law. We will somehow have to square that circle at some point during the Bill’s progress.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The amendments that Baroness Kidron tabled put in clear terms what we believe the law is already. A number of cases are going through, and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to one in America. That important judgment said that AI training did not constitute fair use. That was an American court, but previously we had been told that America was ahead in encouraging and promoting the use of this technology. It is reassuring that even in America, they recognise the importance of protecting creative works. A news publisher brought forward that case.

It is important that we recognise that creative industries in their broadest definition are affected by this issue, and the newspaper publishers are particularly anxious about the consequences. One of Baroness Kidron’s amendments, which is now in the Bill, emphasises the importance of transparency, and I know the Minister agrees with that, but it also requires companies to make clear, in meeting the transparency requirements, exactly what kind of activity the web crawlers are involved in.

Newspaper publishers depend upon search, and it is important that the search engines can find and flag up their content, because without that they will not get the audiences they need. That is a different exercise from training for ingestion and AI-created content. If the Bill is about requiring transparency, the amendments passed in the Lords seek to achieve that, and I hope they will be preserved, because it is important that we have that transparency, not just as a general principle but in detail in that way.

Two weeks ago, the Minister gave some welcome assurances, and he has done so again this afternoon. We need to continue the debate. As he said, if the Government proceed, legislation will be required in due course, which we will obviously want to examine carefully.

A view has been expressed on behalf of the creative industries and publishers that while the Minister and other members of the Government have been open to discussions, the Secretary of State has not met them, so I was pleased to hear him earlier give the assurance that he would meet them, because this is of such vital importance to them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, there is a lack of any economic impact assessment on the proposals in the consultation paper. I hope that the Government will produce such an economic impact assessment.

This is a subject that was not intended to be included in the Bill—I welcome the fact that it is—but it is obviously one that we will debate again many times.

[Chris Bryant]

In Committee.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Perhaps outside Committee as well. I will rely on my colleagues who serve on the Committee to carry out the work at that point as well. I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage and assure him that we will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely—the hon. Lady is spot on. I know that several Members across the House are looking just now at some of those who took part in the debates we had on the European copyright directive and what it was doing; again, there were disagreements about its value. The hon. Lady is right; we can keep ourselves alive. That is my hope. I just hope that the provisions of the Bill do not do anything to further alienate us from our European colleagues, because it is very important that we keep that alignment.

This Bill is also important because it removes a number of the unnecessary and harmful clauses in the previous Conservative Government’s Bill. We will just have to take with a pinch of salt the ambitions of this Bill, such as the £10 billion in growth anticipated from it. All I will say is that I have heard that all before. I know this is a Government desperate to find growth anywhere—they have made such a mess of the economy since coming to power that everywhere they see the green shoots of growth. We will wait and see whether we will get this £10 billion of growth.

The Government have a first test, which comes with clauses 135 to 139. We do not know if we will get growth from the Bill when it comes to data, but we do know that we get growth from the creative industries in this country, which in 2022 contributed £125 billion to the economy and provided 2.4 million jobs. That is real growth. We should not mess with that and undermine it in the way the Government might be doing with the watering down of the copyright provisions and giving generative AI access to our nation’s creative treasures—I will just say that gently to the Government. However, I do very much welcome the inclusion of clauses 135 to 139.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has talked quite a bit about clauses 135 to 139. He may end up on the Bill Committee, in which case we will be able to talk through the intricacies of those clauses then. Several of them actually require Ministers to introduce very significant changes via secondary legislation. Is that really what he would like? Surely such matters should be properly included in a Bill.

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, at this stage it is definitely what I would like, because we have got them—they are in a Bill that we will decide and vote on and look at in Committee. They are a security and a guarantee for our creative sector, because they are already in a piece of legislation that we will hopefully pass.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

If the Minister is going to say something positive about ensuring that we respect our copyright regime—that it will stay intact and continue to do the job it has been doing so effectively for the past few decades—then I will look at this now. I think I heard the Secretary of State say something about another piece of legislation. It might be necessary to bring in another piece of legislation, and I think we would all welcome that. However, it has to be on the basis of defending and protecting our intellectual property and our copyright regime. I will give way once again to the Minister.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful; the hon. Gentleman is being generous. I completely agree that we need to ensure that the rights of rights holders are protected, that they are able to be remunerated properly for their work, and that human creativity is at the heart of everything. The amendments tabled in the House of Lords state that Government Ministers should basically write the law in secondary legislation, so it would not be on the face of the Bill. He normally opposes such power-making powers being given to Government Ministers, so I am slightly surprised that he is so passionate about them now. I wonder whether it would not be better for us to legislate properly, with all those things laid out for proper scrutiny.

[Pete Wishart]

Again, I am grateful to the Minister for intervening in such a helpful manner. I am not particularly averse to secondary legislation—it has its place and purpose, and if it helps achieve desired outcomes then I have no issue with it. This is what my constituents want. I have been knocked out by the number of emails I have received and secured from my constituents asking me to support the creative sector in the consultation on copyright and AI, and to back the amendments as the Bill goes through the House. There does not seem to be any doubt that most of our constituents seem to be in partnership with their artists and the creative sector on this matter. I think what they want to see is the Government showing the same determination and ambition for our creative sector and our artists. They have that opportunity. I will be patient with the Minister. He has hinted occasionally about having some sort of solution that defends and protects our copyright regime, while at the same time supplies what he requires to ensure ambition in the AI sector. We are all looking forward to doing all that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

We should not be naive about this, because the tech companies have form. All of their pedigree suggests that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing—to manage their affairs, or to protect either the public interest or the interests of the creative industries—so I hope that the Government will take exactly the robust approach that the hon. Gentleman has described. Perhaps one way in which they could do so, given that copyright has been introduced into these considerations via the amendments, is to extend existing copyright to the internet, so that people who publish online are subject to the same restrictions—

[Chris Bryant]

They already are.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister says that they are, but they should be subject to exactly the same restrictions as those who print and broadcast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frith]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, and I suspect he is a better musician than I am.

[Chris Bryant]

He is, yes.

[Mr Frith]

The Minister got the memo.

AI is giving the creative sector indigestion, frankly, and this is the problem we are facing, so aiming for a smoother future through collaboration is absolutely right.

As with previous technological shifts, such as the introduction of the internet or indeed the printing press, laws should be based on use, not on the technology itself. The principle of tech neutrality should be reaffirmed as a guiding principle for our laws and culture.

In the absence of a clear solution, we must return to first principles and stand for transparency, fairness and the fundamental right to be paid for one’s work. Or will we entertain the risks of an opaque system, built on unnecessary secrecy, freely extracting value from copyrighted works without payment? We are in a defining moment. Innovation should uplift, not exploit. The future of AI must be built on trust, so I urge this House and this Government to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the cost of our world-leading creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I will attempt not to give a rerun of the speech I made during the general debate on the creative industries the other day.

[Chris Bryant]

No Paddington?

[Max Wilkinson]

The Minister will be delighted to hear that there will be no Paddington references. Ministers have set out the core objectives of the Bill: growing the economy, improving public services and making people’s lives easier. No one is going to disagree with any of that. Those aims are laudable, and I support them, as do the Liberal Democrats.

However, there are concerns. I will focus on an area that others have already touched on, and speak in support of amendments that have come to us from the House of Lords relating to the creative industries and copyright. While the Bill seeks to improve lives, we worry that the consultation currently being undertaken by the Government leaves open a risk that incentives for human creativity will be removed entirely, and that we will end up in future with many tens of thousands of shades of pale grey.

At the heart of our creative sector is the ability of the human hand to paint or draw, or to write music that moves us, and of the human brain to compose verse that persuades people, makes the hair stand up on the back of our necks and changes the world for the better. Protecting that must be absolutely central to what we do as we embrace technology, but the risk of AI is that those protections are lost.

For the avoidance of doubt, and in the absence of clarity from the official Opposition, we back a system that would protect the IP of creatives; that is, an opt-in system. I would give way to the shadow Minister if he wanted to clarify the Conservative party’s position—he does not. The default must be that creative content is protected. Even AI models, if we ask them, admit the risk to human creativity if IP is not protected by an opt-in model. While the Conservative party has criticised us on that, at least we have an opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am enjoying the debate and feel regretful that I no longer have any disclosable interests in the creative industries. I am grateful to Members for sharing their powerful testimonies. I do have a couple of disclosable interests in relation to tech, and I want to address my comments to some of aspects of that.

Over the course of human history, we have found ourselves in possession of resources that can radically change how our society operates and the quality of life that we lead. Over thousands of years, we have revolutionised society by harnessing fire, oil, electricity and even cassette tapes. I truly believe that the great opportunity for our generation is to harness the power of data for the public good.

Before I came to this place, I worked with large companies across the world, talking to them about how they should restructure and reform their organisations to make the best use of the power of data, not only to improve their businesses but to improve the experience of their users and customers. When they used data best, they brought prosperity to their organisations and made people want to come back to them time and again. How many of our constituents could honestly say that they want to engage with Departments and public services time and again? We have to face a hard truth: when citizens engage with Government, they are far from impressed. In so many cases, they feel that they are battling with sclerotic bureaucracy and a system built of silos, which feels designed for the convenience of the administration and not the user.

[Chris Bryant]

My biggest gripe is that everywhere I go in the country, when I need to park my car I have to download a new app because the local authority has decided what app it will use. Smart data might actually allow us to have an interoperable, interchangeable system for parking our cars.

[Steff Aquarone]

I could not agree more. Some of the conclusions that are reached through the procurement of technology services by local councils defy sense and are utterly baffling. I am sure that all of us are guilty of that; I will not go any further than that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

So you’re guilty?

[Steff Aquarone]

All of us are guilty, I am sure, of being part of decisions that sometimes defy sense when it comes to usability. I can speak only on behalf of the citizens who contact me about having to go round in circles, sharing the same stories, digging out new and old reference numbers and wondering why nothing seems to want to work for them. I am sure the Minister would agree that it does not have to be this way. We have already seen the transformative impact of the improved usability of gov.uk services, and that is just the very front end of the machine. Total transformation of how data is used in our public services could radically change how we deliver services for citizens.

I hope the Government will look to Estonia for inspiration on how to have a truly data-driven Government with the citizen at the centre. It is a place I visited in my past life to talk about data-driven success stories. I am sure that it is no coincidence that, for the past 20 years, the Estonian digital transformation has been led by liberal Governments from our Estonian sister parties. After the fall of communism, in the late 1990s, Estonia embarked on an ambitious programme known as the “Tiger Leap” to expand internet access and computer literacy—the first step in embedding the digital environment into all levels of the citizen and Government experience. Their Government proudly say that their e-cabinet, which streamlined the decision-making process, brought the average length of an Estonian Cabinet meeting down from five hours to 30 minutes—an appealing prospect to those on the Treasury Bench, I am sure.

Estonian citizens can access 100% of their public services online at any time. The Estonians have transformed their healthcare system with the e-health and e-prescription initiatives, which free up GP time by allowing prescription refills to be dealt with online and ensure fast and simple access to key medical information during emergencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my medical colleague, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), in this debate. This is a wide-ranging Bill, but I would like to talk this afternoon about the role of data access in healthcare, and what I think is a transformative proposal for the patient passport.

NHS IT and case records are chaotic. I know about this chaos from my own clinics, where I spend—or waste—too much time looking at PDF readers; we also have dictaphones, and we even still have fax machines. Half the consultation can easily be spent opening up websites and computer programs for all sorts of different things.

The standard of information kept by different hospitals varies quite widely and IT interoperability is often very poor, so that if I transfer a patient from one hospital where I work to another hospital where I work, the other people in the hospital cannot easily work out what is going on with the patient. Sometimes we are unable to treat the patient because we are unable to access their medical record. Imagine an elderly lady lying on a trolley in a hospital corridor at 3 o’clock in the morning, unable to give a full account of her medical history. If we cannot access her file, how will we best treat her?

That is not an imaginary situation; it is an actual situation that is probably happening in our hospitals today. I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill that will standardise information and improve the flow of data between hospitals. Actually, I am pleased that West Suffolk hospital, in my constituency, has very good IT standards, and I hope the Bill will allow more hospitals around the country to follow its example.

However, I urge the Government to look further when considering reform to medical data. Here is what I think may be a transformative proposal: we should give ownership of the medical record directly to the patient. Let us make the clinicians ask the patient to see the record, and not the other way around. Nine out of 10 Britons want better access to their medical records, and we should simply listen to them. Let us create a patient passport that has all the patient’s medical data on it. It would be transformative.

People organise their lives on their phones, so let us put the passport there. We could just expand the NHS app to become a digital front door for the health service. People are happy to bank on their phones, send emails on their phones and book flights on their phones—

[Chris Bryant]

My mother-in-law is not.

[Peter Prinsley]

Well, the Minister’s mother-in-law might not be.

I do not think it is such a leap of the imagination to let everybody access their medical information in this way. As we heard from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who has gone for a cup of tea, other countries such as Estonia do this.

I urge us to think carefully. One record, one patient—it would simplify so much of our healthcare, and this Bill is the opportunity to do it. I was heartened to hear that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary supports such a proposal. It will be the future of healthcare, so let us simply make it happen.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am a DSIT Minister today, but the debate felt remarkably like the creative industries debate a couple of weeks ago, when I was responding as the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. I will get on to some of the points about AI and copyright later, so if anybody wants to intervene on me they can wait for that bit.

I will start with some of the points hon. Members have made. The measure on the NHS and data is among the most positive in the Bill, and was welcomed by everybody today. It was not in the previous version of the Bill; it is one of our additions. The other day, a colleague was telling me about her local hospital, and I was struck by the fact that it employs 42 people simply to carry around physical medical records. We have put our backs into changing that. That is not a good way to preserve records, or to ensure they are secure and not getting lost, let alone anything else.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) was absolutely right when he talked about patient passports. We need to turn the issue on its head, so that people have access to their data and can participate in and make better decisions about their own healthcare. As I said to my hon. Friend yesterday, that is similar to the change that happened a few years ago. After an appointment, consultants used to write to GP about the patient in doctor gobbledegook, but now many of them write to the patient in plain English, copying in the GP. That is the kind of change we need to see.

I am very hopeful about the changes that will be introduced by the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, they will make dramatic difference. We need to ensure the interoperability of all the IT systems used across the whole of the NHS. I would like to extend that beyond England and Wales; I would not mind if we could manage to do the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I fear that even my friend the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who likes me sometimes, would baulk a little at a United Kingdom-wide approach to such matters.

I am also excited about the elements of the Bill on smart data, which have barely had a look-in in today’s debate but which could be transformative in many sectors. Many of us will know that when we use our banking app, we are enabled to go not just to our bank but to our insurance, including our car insurance, and all those things can be related to one another in a secure way. That is because of the smart data system that has been in existence for the last few years. We need to roll that out in many other sectors, and that is precisely what the Bill allows. For instance, in the gig economy, it will mean that Uber drivers and those delivering for Deliveroo will have a better understanding of whether they are actually earning a living from each delivery.

Thirdly, nobody has referred to the reform of the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is an important part of the Bill. There have been brief mentions of the register of births and deaths, which basically brings the modern world to the register office. As a former vicar, I suppose I am more interested in that than most, as I have hatched and dispatched quite a few in my time.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

On births and deaths? Of course.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his excellent comments. I want to point out that I welcomed the strengthening of the Information Commissioner’s role.

[Chris Bryant]

Hurrah. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referred to John Edwards, who, in my experience, is a very capable leader of the team there. I am sure my hon. Friend and her Select Committee will have him in for evidence soon.

A couple of Members referred to data adequacy, including the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). That is obviously important to us. As the right hon. Member for Maldon said, the Secretary of State has been working keenly with the European Commission. Unfortunately, the previous Government ended up with a data adequacy agreement with the EU that expires later on this year. That means that our time is tight to make sure we maintain that. That is absolutely vital to our economic success as a country and, for that matter, for the rest of the EU. I know that everybody wants to get there. It is not for us to tell the EU what processes it should go through, but we have had very constructive conversations so far. They will not want to comment on a Bill that is still in flight, so the sooner we can get it on to the statute books the better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) referred to music remuneration. For me, the issue of remuneration of musicians is not just about the AI copyright debate; there are many other issues. I do not think we have finished with the issue of streaming, incidentally. I had a successful meeting with the record labels, lots of musicians and the Musicians’ Union on Monday afternoon. I have given them a clear timetable for coming back with a better offer to make sure that musicians are properly remunerated.

A quite famous tenor, who I will not name, texted me yesterday to say:

“Musicians all feel that they have been sooooooo ripped off by streaming.”

That is “so” with seven o’s—I do not know what Hansard will do with that.

“I used to get two or three concert fees as advance royalty for a CD. Now, it is effectively zero. It is theft, really.”

Those remarks have been repeated in a different context today. We are working on that, and I am determined that we will have a proper look at how we properly remunerate our musicians in this country, even if it is only to make sure that the shadow Minister, who declares that live music is one of the most important things in his life, has people to go and listen to.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who has just come back into the Chamber, made a very good speech about digital government. All the points that he made are ones that we are determined to take up. Several Members referred to Estonia—Tallinn, incidentally, is one of the best cities in Europe to visit—but we also need to make sure that there is a digital inclusion element to that. If 19% of poorer homes in the UK have no access to the internet, they will not have any access to Government digital services either. We need to transform all that, and the Secretary of State and I will probably have something to say about that in the near future.

The right hon. Member for Maldon noted one other Labour change, on subject access requests. We would argue that one of the problems with the previous Bill was that it would have made it more difficult for people to get subject access request information. That is why we have a system where we think we have strengthened those rights, and that we think is better for the average person in the street.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) referred to Baroness Owen’s amendments. We are not quite sure that these are right. We want to ensure that we have a workable solution that everybody agrees with by the time we finish in Committee. I am not sure whether he will be serving on the Committee, but perhaps that is a debate we will have—I look forward to that. We are very open to seeing how we can make sure that all the i’s are in the right place and all the t’s are correctly crossed—not dotted.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made some important points, although I have to say that I disagree with her—she may not be entirely surprised by that. In relation to the amendments brought forward by Lord Lucas, public authorities must assess what information is required for a particular purpose. This governs whether and how sex or gender data is processed in a given situation or a given case. They are bound by data protection legislation to ensure that the personal data is accurate for this purpose. Where sex at birth is not an essential part of an identity check— for instance, when renting a property—organisations are not lawfully able to request this information. I think that is absolutely right for protecting people’s privacy.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

My hon. Friend will know that I was one of the first Labour MPs to raise in the Chamber the issue of sex-aggregated data. Can he assure me that the Government will ensure that data on sex is accurate and reliable where necessary and will he expedite the publication of the Sullivan review?

[Chris Bryant]

We have to make sure it is accurate to the precise process for which it is being used, just as a passport has to be accurate for the precise purpose for which it is being used. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is intending to be on the Committee as well—

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear, she is. I am not sure about having world-class rugby players on the Committee, but it is one of the issues I am very happy to debate with my hon. Friend. We want to make sure we have got it right and that we manage to embrace everybody as much as we can.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear, I have started something off.

[Dr Johnson]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s concept of “for the purpose”. Can he be clear that when he is writing his dictionary of definitions, as per clause 140, he will ensure that the definitions are clear so that when people are looking at information on sex, they know whether they are dealing with biological sex or some other definition that the Minister may have come up with?

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to call the 25th amendment—or whatever we have—and say that I will write to the hon. Lady on that. We are getting a bit more technical than I am able to answer precisely, but my bottom line is that if somebody is applying to rent a property, the landlord should not have to know both sex at birth and gender. That is an inappropriate invasion of people’s privacy. I should add that the hon. Lady also referred to people being able to change in changing rooms, and I completely agree with her points about women being able to change in protected spaces. It just seems to me we need to use a great deal of common sense in this area.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), referred to the national data library and open standards and open source. Again, I will have to write to her. As she will know, this area is moving fast in relation to legislative and IT ideas, so we will want to work with people, including her Select Committee, to make sure we reach the right set of decisions.

Turning to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I made a mistake earlier and have to apologise to her. When referring to automated decision making, I talked about meaningful human involvement. That was indeed in the original Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Maldon, but I think it is a vital addition to the current framework, which is why it is important. I am pleased that our new Government have gone further by committing to require the Information Commissioner’s Office to do a code of practice on automated decision making and AI to make sure this really works in the interests of everybody. That will support the safe adoption and deployment of the technology.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) quite rightly raised the case of his constituent Ellen Roome, which we have discussed previously. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak in the debate he took part in, because I was speaking in the main Chamber at the time. I can tell him that coroners will be able to use a data protection process under the Bill and we hope that will be sufficient, but I am quite happy to discuss whether we can go further. I have discussed with several Members the question of whether families should have access to their children’s social media accounts. There are obvious dangers in that because of safeguarding issues that might arise, but I think he understands that as well.

[Max Wilkinson]

To clarify, the Jools Law Bill would simply require access to the social media accounts and data of deceased children. There is no risk to those children in those circumstances because they would already be dead.

[Chris Bryant]

That was the original point that I was trying to make, and I obviously did not make it as well as the hon. Member did, so I congratulate him on that.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) was a bit critical of article 70, but I think that he is being a bit unfair. The requirements in subsections 8 and 9, and then later in 11 and 12 of the article are very clear about the circumstances—and they are the only circumstances—in which the Secretary of State can bring forward changes of the kind to which he referred. I hope that we will be able to please him, if not appease him, if that matter appears in Committee or on Report.

I just want to finish with some comments on AI and IP, not least because there has been so much focus on this area. All of us on the Front Bench wanted to have a data Bill, because we think that it is really important for our economy and for so many different aspects of the way that we deliver Government services. We also want a debate about AI and copyright, which is why we launched the consultation, but it feels odd to be doing a bit of that in this Bill.

Let me turn now to what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. I asked ChatGPT what the view of the shadow Secretary of State was on AI and copyright. It replied, “Regarding his views on copyright, there is no publicly available information indicating that he has expressed specific opinions on this matter.” Well, yes, we heard that this afternoon, didn’t we? I hope the Opposition manage to find some ideas at some point.

This is a very serious matter and it is one of the trickiest issues that any country has to face at this point. I think that it is trickier for our country than most others, because we are the third largest AI economy in the world, and we are probably the second or, at worst, the third greatest IP country in the world. We have creators in every single sphere. Some countries specialise in one particular form of the creative industries, but we manage to do all of them. That is why I was listening very attentively to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith) and for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and many others as well.

I just want to focus on the things on which there is some agreement. I think there is agreement across the House on the idea that transparency is an important part of what we need to ensure in this legislation, and on the aim of control over intellectual property rights, and on possibly ending a stronger version of rights reservation for the creative industries. I can announce that we have set up two working groups in the past week, both of which have people from the creative industries and from the AI companies in them. One is specifically looking at transparency and what that looks like to be effective and proportionate, and it will start work on that next week.

Secondly, on the question of rights reservation, I fully understand that people are sceptical about whether there is a simple technical means of everybody being about to assert their rights—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment, if the hon. Member lets me finish this point. I know that people are sceptical because such a means does not exist at the moment. I have said before that the robots.txt system does not work; it effectively means that a person is wiped from the internet, and lots of people do not know how to use it—it is far too technical. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, there were a system of simple digital fingerprinting where people could say, “No, you can’t use my work” or, “Yes, you can use my work for large language model training once you’ve remunerated me,” that would be a great outcome for everybody, because it would lead to a new system of remuneration. That could be done individually or for an artist, it could be done through DACS, and for a musician it could be done through their record label.

[Ms Billington]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment. That is why I am keen on not selling the pass on that possibility by having undermined it before we get there.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister is right—there is not much difference between us now. We are getting to a place where we are beginning to agree about the way forward, but we are dealing with this Bill, which has clauses that protect copyright and ensure transparency. What I think he is asking us to do is to set those concerns aside for a Bill that might come in the future, which may include the provisions that we already have. Is that roughly a correct characterisation of where we are going?

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not. What is true is that, as I said, we want to get to a concrete idea of what transparency might look like. Not enough work has been done in the EU or in different territories—in the United States of America, for instance, where different states have different arrangements—and we need to do more about what that should look like in the UK. As I say, if the creative industries and the AI companies can do that together, that could give us a nugget of useful progress. Likewise, if we can get to what I am calling fingerprinting, for want of a better term—I know there is a system of fingerprinting—that would get us to the licensing of 60%, 70% or 80%, and that would be significant. I do not want to sell the pass on that whole package by taking too many steps at this point, but we will discuss this in Committee and on Report. I am conscious that I have Margate behind me, so I give way.

[Ms Billington]

It is not only Margate; East Thanet has three cultural drivers—Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs—all with phenomenal amounts of cultural engine throughout the centuries. Many writers such as Wilkie Collins and Jane Austen are well out of copyright. Musicians, visual artists and writers often earn little money. It is great to hear that we will have those working groups. They need to be confident that they will be paid by the machines, as it were, because otherwise they will end up even worse off than they are at the moment. Some 40% of greetings card designers have lost their job because of this issue. I urge the hon. Gentleman to come to Margate to hear what is being said by the creative industries here, and I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is also keen to meet those in the creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Tracey Emin and Russell Tovey have also invited me to Margate, so I think it is inevitable at some point.

We are trying to get to a win-win, and we do not believe that is unachievable, which is why I am keen on sticking with the process of the consultation. We will respond to the consultation as soon as we can, although a large number of people have responded and we want to take the response seriously. Whatever we choose to do in the end, I would have thought that it will look like a full, stand-alone Bill. That may include elements of what Baroness Kidron has put in, elements from elsewhere or, for that matter, bits of the copyright directive, such as articles 18 and 20, which the former Government helped draft and then did not incorporate into UK law. It might be a whole series of different things, but it needs to be considered in the round.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh Lord! I was sort of trying to get to the end.

[Chi Onwurah]

I share my hon. Friend’s desire to get to the end, and his faith in the ability of technology to deliver solutions. As I said in an earlier intervention, my Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee brought together technologists and creatives with exactly that ambition. I am pleased to hear about the working groups that he has put in place, but I urge him to be transparent about who is in them—not necessary now, but perhaps he will write to my Committee—so that we can see how they are progressing in a transparent way. It is important that the technological solutions are viewed as openly as possible.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, we will be transparent about the transparency working groups—it is a good point. For that matter, I am happy—as are any of the Ministers—to give evidence to my hon. Friend’s Committee, or to a joint Committee, on those inquiries.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The Minister is being extremely generous with his time.

[Chris Bryant]

And everybody else’s.

[Dr Johnson]

He talked about deepfake pornography—the purported intimate images. One undertaking that the Government gave Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge was that they would remove the prosecution limitation of six months from the offence being committed. However, I have not seen that in the Bill. Do the Government intend to table an amendment in Committee, or would they accept an Opposition amendment at that stage?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not accept an amendment that I have not yet seen, but that is one issue that we are definitely already working on, and we intend to address it in Committee. Government amendments for Committee must be tabled within a fortnight from yesterday, so that will all be happening fairly soon. If the hon. Lady can bide her patience for a while, I would be grateful. We are working to get to a resolution that everybody will be happy with.

I will make a few final points about AI and intellectual property. Several Members spoke about legislative change in that field. I completely agree that there will have to be legislation change, and I think it would be better if that were done in a single stand-alone Bill. That is why we launched the consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) was absolutely right to say that we must get this right for this country’s creative people and our economy—it is about both those things together. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) was absolutely right: there might be a win-win solution that provides certainty, clarity and remuneration for both AI and creative industries, and that is what we are striving for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) was rather shy about her own successes in life. In 2008, she was named Royal Television Society writer of the year for “Summerhill”. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] She was absolutely right about three things: first, that we should look after the rights of creatives, and I agree; secondly, that we should protect their income, and I agree; and thirdly, the importance of human beings—I 100% agree.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), with whom I look forward to giving the Bill the proper scrutiny that the House expects in Committee—alongside our Liberal Democrat counterpart, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins)—said that he likes live music. I do, too; the next gig I am going to is Kylie, again—I am not a stereotype at all.

Last night, I went to the Royal Opera House to see “Festen”, the new opera by Mark-Anthony Turnage, based on the movie and the play. The shadow Minister is right that absolutely nothing beats live music, and we will do absolutely nothing to undermine it. Interestingly, the libretto, which was written by Baroness Kidron’s husband, ended with the words of Dame Julian of Norwich:

“All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

I think that also applies to AI and copyright.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 18 March 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, the Treasury, a government department or another public authority, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees or levies under or by virtue of the Act;

(2) the requiring of payments in connection with costs incurred by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority for the purposes of a tender exercise relating to a smart meter communication licence; and

(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

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

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water that is provided. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if after having spoken Members could email their notes to [e-mail], or pass on their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the Committee Room.

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

I beg to move,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 4 March) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 March;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 March;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 March;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 March;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March;

2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 56; Schedule 1; Clauses 57 and 58; Schedule 2; Clauses 59 to 65; Schedule 3; Clauses 66 to 70; Schedule 4; Clause 71; Schedule 5; Clauses 72 to 80; Schedule 6; Clauses 81 to 85; Schedules 7 to 9; Clauses 86 to 103; Schedule 10; Clauses 104 to 108; Schedule 11; Clauses 109 to 112; Schedule 12; Clauses 113 to 115; Schedule 13; Clauses 116 and 117; Schedule 14; Clauses 118 to 121; Schedule 15; Clause 122; Schedule 16; Clauses 123 to 147; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March.

It is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner; I cannot wait to hear you tell me off repeatedly during the course of the Committee’s proceedings. In the words of Julie Andrews—this is material—

“Let’s start at the very beginning,

A very good place to start.

When you read you begin with A-B-C.

When you sing you begin with do-re-mi”,

but when you start a Bill Committee, you start with clause 1. Basically, the programme motion says, “Let’s start with clause 1 and keep on going till we come to the end.” With that said, I commend the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Chris Bryant.)

[The Chair]

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped are generally on the same or a similar issue. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate and decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses.

Clause 1

Customer data and business data

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Consumer Data Right: multi-sector extension—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish a roadmap for implementing a cross-sector ‘Consumer Data Right’ to enable individuals and small businesses to control and share their data securely and effectively in the following sectors—

(a) energy,

(b) telecommunications,

(c) financial services, and

(d) such other sectors as regulations may specify.

(2) The roadmap under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) technical standards and data portability protocols,

(b) timelines for phased implementation in each sector,

(c) consumer protection measures, and

(d) oversight responsibilities for any designated cross-sector data regulator.

(3) In preparing the roadmap, the Secretary of State must consult relevant regulators, consumer groups, industry representatives, and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to implement the Consumer Data Right in additional sectors or extend obligations in existing ones.

(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a roadmap for extending “smart data” portability rights beyond finance to other sectors, such as energy and telecommunications.

[Chris Bryant]

Strictly speaking, it is a misnomer to say that we do the Bill line by line; we do it clause by clause, or grouping by grouping. The first grouping contains clause 1 and new clause 15, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.

Clauses 1 to 26 establish regulation-making powers to implement smart data schemes. I think this part of the Bill is universally accepted, or it was in a previous version of the Bill—this is at least the third version of the Bill that a House of Commons Committee has considered line by line, clause by clause or grouping by grouping. These clauses were part 3 of the old Bill, but it is none the less important that we go through each of the clauses segment by segment, because this is a newly constituted House of Commons, with different Members and political parties, and therefore we have to consider them fully.

As many hon. Members will know, smart data involves traders securely sharing data with the customer or authorised third parties at the customer’s request. Those third parties may use the data to provide the customer with innovative services, including account management services or price comparisons. This has already been spectacularly successful in open banking.

Clause 1 defines the key terms and scope of part 1, which covers clauses 1 to 26. Subsection (2) defines the kinds of data to which part 1 applies: “customer data”, which is information specific to a customer of a trader, and “business data”, which is generic data relating to the goods, services or digital content provided by that trader. It also defines “data holder” and “trader” to clarify who may be required to provide data. That covers persons providing the goods, services or digital content, whether they are doing so themselves or through others, or processing related data.

Subsections (3) to (5) set out who is a customer of a trader. Customers can include both consumers and businesses such as companies. Subsection (6) recognises that regulations may provide for data access rather than transfer.

I commend clause 1 to the Committee and urge hon. Members to resist the temptations offered by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who tabled new clause 15. I thank her for her interest in smart data. We had a very good conversation a week ago. I am glad to be able to confirm that, following some pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the other place, the Government announced that the Department for Business and Trade intends to publish a strategy document later this year on future uses of those powers. Since the hon. Member’s new clause asks for a road map and we are saying that there will be a strategy, the difference between us may just be semantic.

The strategy document will lay out the Government’s plans to consult or conduct calls for evidence in a number of sectors. It is important that we implement those powers only after having properly spoken with relevant parties such as consumer groups and industry bodies in the sector. Clause 22 also requires consultation before commencement in any sector. As such, we think the best approach is to use powers in part 1 of the Bill to implement smart data schemes that fit the identified needs of the relevant sector. The strategy document will set out the Government’s plans for doing so. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank all hon. Members taking part in the Committee as well as the officials. As the Minister said, this is the third iteration of this Bill and it has been extensively covered in Committee before. We rely on and thank former Members and those in the other place who worked on the Bill to get it to where it is. I am pleased that the Government are taking the Bill forward and that it is one of the early Bills in the Session.

There is much to say about the Bill that is positive, and not just because it is a reformed version of our previous two Bills. Although, ironically, the Bill does not reference the term “smart data”, clause 1 brings forward smart data and smart data schemes. That will help to open up a digital revolution, which will build on the successes of open banking in other sectors. We very much support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We are already committed to a strategy; I am not sure whether we need a road map for the strategy, and I would prefer us not to have such a thing in the Bill. It would also be slightly limiting, as the new clause effectively gives a list of priority areas. We want to explore quite a lot of other sectors; for instance, we might make a radical difference to the gig economy if we were to look at that sector. The hon. Lady made a good point about telecoms, although it might be specifically about smart meters. If we could turn a smart meter into an actually smart meter, which would require some telecoms work, smart data might be able to deliver cheaper bills for people. Notwithstanding the fact that I like the sentiment behind the new clause, I would resist it, so I hope the hon. Lady will not push it to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Power to make provision in connection with customer data

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Now we are on a winning streak. Clause 2 provides the principal authority for the relevant Secretary of State or the Treasury to establish smart data schemes in relation to customer data. The Government envisage that most smart data schemes will involve providing access to customer data. Clause 3 provides a non-exhaustive list of supplementary provisions that may be contained in regulations relating to customer data under clause 2. These include important matters such as requirements for data holders and/or third-party recipients to use specified facilities or services to ensure that smart data schemes can run effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Power to make provision in connection with business data

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 5 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 4 provides regulation-making powers that allow the relevant Secretary of State and the Treasury to require the publication of business data or the provision of business data to customers or third parties. Business data is envisaged to be contextual information provided alongside customer data, such as the price of products and services, for comparison. The Government, however, do see some uses where schemes focused on business data could be appropriate.

I should briefly say that I know there are quite a few points in the Bill where we are providing regulation-making powers. Although in general, I am not a big fan of secondary legislation, because it limits the ability of Parliament to scrutinise, it is important in an area where there is rapid technological change to provide Government Ministers with the power to enact regulations. These have already been considered by the relevant House of Lords Committee as well. The purpose of clause 5 is provide a non-exhaustive list of supplementary provisions that regulations under clause 4 can contain relating to business data. The clause largely mirrors clause 3 and contains important provisions relevant to the exercise of powers relating to business data under a smart data scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Decision-makers

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

[Chris Bryant]

This clause applies when regulations provide for a person, referred to as a decision maker, to decide whether third-party recipients satisfy conditions allowing them to be authorised by a customer to receive customer data or to act on the customer’s behalf under clause 2 or approved to receive business data under clause 4. that approach of regulating who can receive the data may not be suitable for all smart data schemes, but where it is, it will provide customers with confidence that the third parties they authorise meet approved standards. If regulations provide for a decision maker, they must also provide for the rights of those affected by decisions. These rights may include review of decisions and appeal rights to ensure transparency and accountability.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Interface bodies

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

[Chris Bryant]

This clause allows regulations to require the creation of interface bodies. These bodies may provide facilities and services, set standards or make related arrangements for data sharing interfaces, including application programming interfaces. Regulations may require data holders or third-party recipients to set up and fund an interface body. The role that Open Banking Ltd plays is an example of what we consider an interface body might look like under these regulations.

It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of people in this country would have no idea that smart data is what is behind their ability to have two bank accounts on one mobile phone and for the two speak to each other. There may be significant advantages for us unleashing this in other sectors as well.

Subsection (4) sets out provisions that regulations may make about the interface bodies. Among other things, regulations may confer powers on an interface body for monitoring the use of its interface, interface standards or interface arrangements. That could include powers to require the provision of documents or information subject to restrictions in clause 9, which we will come to later. Regulations may also provide procedures for complaints and enable or require interface bodies to publish or provide persons with specified documents or information relating to their functions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Enforcement of regulations under this Part

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 12, line 18, leave out “imposed by a decision-maker” and insert

“(referred to in sections 3(2) and 5(3))”.

This amendment amends a reference to conditions for authorisation or approval to receive customer data or business data so as to reflect the fact that conditions will not necessarily be imposed by decision-makers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 2 to 5.

Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Government amendment 1 amends clause 8(5) to reflect that the conditions relating to authorisation or approval of third-party recipients will not necessarily be imposed by the decision makers who carry out the authorisation or approval. Government amendments 2, 3 and 5 amend clause 8(10) to require or allow enforcers to publish or provide documents as well as information, ensuring consistency with the powers of decision makers and interface bodies. Government amendment 4 removes unnecessary wording in subsection (10) to ensure consistency with equivalent clauses elsewhere. I commend these minor and technical amendments to the Committee.

Clause 8 enables regulations to confer powers on public bodies, known as enforcers, to monitor and enforce compliance with smart data schemes. Monitoring powers include requiring information and powers of inspection. Enforcement powers include issuing notices requiring compliance, naming and shaming non-compliance, and imposing financial penalties. Regulations may create criminal offences for falsification or similar conduct. To ensure accountability and transparency, regulations may provide for reviews of enforcers’ decisions, appeal rights, and complaint procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

We support technical amendments to the Bill to make sure it works properly, but I am intrigued why these amendments are necessary at such a late stage, bearing in mind the multiple layers of scrutiny that the Bill has gone through. Can he explain where he received the feedback about the necessity of the proposed changes?

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Gentleman says, these are technical changes, and sometimes we just have to go through it again and again to make sure that we have got things right. Amendment 4, for instance, was simply a matter of working out that the grammar did not really work. Sometimes, it is just a question of filleting, I am afraid, and that is what we have been doing.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 8, page 13, line 16, after second “specified” insert “documents or”.

This amendment provides that regulations may require enforcers to publish or provide documents as well as information, making the regulation-making powers in relation to enforcers consistent with the powers in relation to decision-makers and interface bodies (under clauses 6(9) and 7(4)(k)). See also Amendments 3 and 5.

Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 13, line 18, leave out “information about” and insert—

“documents or information relating to”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.

Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 13, line 18, leave out—

“, either generally or in relation to a particular case”.

This amendment leaves out unnecessary words. Power for regulations to make provision generally or in relation to particular cases is conferred by clause 21(1)(a).

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 13, line 20, leave out “information about” and insert—

“documents or information relating to”.—(Chris Bryant.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Financial penalties

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 10, page 16, line 8, at end insert—

“(f) about what must or may be done with amounts paid as penalties.”

This amendment confers express power to make provision about the treatment of amounts paid to enforcers as penalties, for consistency with similar powers in clauses 11(1)(b) (fees) and 12(1)(b) (levies).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

It might more sense, in explaining the amendment, if I speak about the clause first, even though we would normally take the amendment first. The clause provides safeguards on the use of financial penalties. Except where clause 16 provides otherwise for the Financial Conduct Authority, the amount of the penalty must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. If the regulations allow an enforcer any discretion in that determination, the enforcer must publish, and have regard to, guidance. Other safeguards include an opportunity for representations before penalties are imposed, and rights of appeal to a court or tribunal. Regulations may provide for increase of the penalty in the case of late payment.

Government amendment 6, which is minor and technical for some of the same reasons I adverted to earlier, enables regulations to make provision about what is to be done with any amounts that are paid as part of clause 10. That is consistent with provisions on fee and levy receipts in clauses 11 and 12. This is another bit of tidying up of the previous version of the Bill.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Fees

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 12 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 11 enables decision makers, interface bodies, enforcers and others to charge fees to alleviate their costs, which is obviously an important part of the Bill. It may also enable data holders to charge fees. Except where clause 15 provides otherwise for the Financial Conduct Authority, the fee amounts must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. If the regulations allow a person to make that determination, they must publish information about the fee and how it is determined. Fees can only be charged on those directly affected by the performance of the relevant functions. That would include data holders, customers and third-party recipients. Regulations may also provide for fees to increase periodically—for instance, to cater for inflation—and for charging interest on and recovering unpaid fees.

Clause 12 enables regulations to impose a levy on data holders or third-party recipients or allow a specified public body to do so. The purpose is to meet costs incurred by bodies performing functions under the regulations and avoid costs to the taxpayer. The levy may be imposed only on persons directly affected by the performance of those functions. If the regulations allow a public authority to impose the levy, the regulations must provide how the rate of the levy and the period in which it is payable are to be determined. The public authority must also publish information about what it determines. The regulations may also make provision for charging of interest and recovery of unpaid amounts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Financial assistance

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

[Chris Bryant]

The purpose of the clause is to allow the Government to provide financial assistance where it is appropriate to do so. Although the Government expect schemes to be self-financing, as I have referred to, it is important to have statutory spending authority as a backstop where needed, and that is precisely what clause 13 provides.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

The FCA and financial services interfaces

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 14, page 19, line 3, at end insert—

“(ba) requiring section 2(4) actors described in the regulations to use a prescribed interface, comply with prescribed interface standards or participate in prescribed interface arrangements when taking, facilitating or doing other things in connection with relevant financial services action;”.

This amendment provides that the Treasury’s powers to confer rule-making powers on the Financial Conduct Authority in connection with the use of interfaces include powers relating to the use of interfaces when taking action described in clause 2(4) of the Bill (persons authorised to receive customer data taking action on behalf of customers). See also Amendment 9.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 8 and 9.

Clauses 14 to 17 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Again, it might be more convenient if I speak to the clauses first and come back to the amendments, because then it is more self-explanatory, but I may need to speak at greater length here.

Open banking has revolutionised the UK retail banking sector by enhancing competition and introducing innovative services. Establishing a long-term regulatory framework for open banking will pave the way for its future growth, and this framework will rely on the FCA having the powers necessary for effective regulation and oversight. Clause 14 therefore empowers the Treasury to enable or require the FCA to set rules for interface bodies and participants in smart data schemes, ensuring compliance with essential standards. Clause 15 sets out further detail about the regulation-making powers conferred on the Treasury by clause 14.

These provisions create a clear framework for delegating rule-making powers, ensuring effective regulation, proper funding and mechanisms to address misconduct by scheme participants, with clear objectives for the FCA’s oversight of smart data schemes. Regulations may enable or require the FCA to impose interface requirements relating to an interface body, as set out for the smart data powers more broadly in clause 7, and to require fees to be paid by financial services providers to cover interface body costs.

Clause 15 further provides that such regulations must impose certain requirements upon the FCA, including a requirement, so far as is reasonably possible, to exercise functions conferred by the regulations in line with specified purposes, and a requirement that the FCA must have regard to specified matters when exercising such functions. Additionally, regulations under clause 15 may empower or require the FCA to impose requirements on individuals or organisations to review their conduct, to take corrective action and to make redress for loss or damage suffered by others as a result of their conduct.

Clause 16 covers the Treasury’s ability to make regulations enabling the FCA to impose financial penalties and levies. The regulations may require or enable the FCA to set the amount or method for calculating penalties for breaches of FCA interface rules. The regulations must require the FCA to set out its penalties policy, and may specify matters that such a policy must include. Additionally, the Treasury may impose itself, or provide for the FCA to impose, a levy on data holders or third-party recipients of financial services data under the scheme to cover its regulatory costs, with the funds being used as specified in the regulations. Only those capable of being directly impacted should be subject to the levy.

Penalties and levies are a necessary part of smart data schemes, including in financial services, to allow the FCA to penalise non-compliance and recover the costs of its regulatory activities. The clause ensures that any penalties or levies are subject to proportionate controls.

Clause 17 gives the Treasury the power to amend section 98 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 through regulations. This will allow the Treasury to update the definitions of the FCA’s responsibilities and objectives in that section, so they can include new functions or objectives given to the FCA by regulations made under part 1 of this Bill. That will ensure that the FCA’s new duties fit into the existing system for co-ordinating payment system regulators, helping maintain a consistent approach across the financial sector. Regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

We have tabled Government amendments 7 to 9 to ensure that the Treasury may delegate to the FCA powers to set rules for action initiation, as well as data sharing. We think this is vital to ensure that open banking continues to work properly and is in line with the policy as set out elsewhere.

[Dr Spencer]

I apologise, Mr Turner: I misspoke earlier with regard to our position on the Government amendments. Rather than offering positive support, I meant to say that we will not oppose the technical amendments.

What does the FCA think about these amendments? Has the Department consulted the FCA?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether we have specifically—I am looking to my left for inspiration. I am getting vague inspiration, although it is remarkably non-productive. If the hon. Member would like to intervene for a little longer, perhaps I will be able to be more inspired.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that it is a technical question and I hope he is able to give a response. Equally, I appreciate that he may have to write to me in due course. I see that there are papers coming his way.

[Chris Bryant]

To quote Richard II, methinks I am a prophet new inspired. Yes, this is all based on a consultation with the FCA. The FCA is content with us proceeding in this direction. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister—I am trying to differentiate between his not opposing and supporting, but I think on the whole in Parliament, if you are not against us, you are for us. I think in this measure he is for us.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Chris Bryant]

The clause will ensure that public authorities given powers under part 1 are not liable in damages for their acts or omissions in exercising their functions. That mirrors the exemption from liability for the Financial Conduct Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and allows public authorities to carry out their functions effectively. However, regulations cannot remove liability for things done in bad faith or which are unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Duty to review regulations

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

[Chris Bryant]

I know all Members of the Committee were wondering, “When are we going to review all of these provisions?” Fortunately, we have reached a clause that requires review of the regulations at least at five-yearly intervals. The Government recognise the importance of ongoing scrutiny of regulations. As part of a review, the regulation maker must consider whether the regulations remain appropriate—which seems rather basic, but anyway. The findings of the review will be published in a report laid before Parliament. This will uphold our commitment to transparency in the creation and maintenance of future regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Restrictions on processing and data protection

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 21 to 24 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 20 allows regulations to provide that the processing of information they require does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on processing information. However, regulations cannot compel businesses to breach data protection legislation. This mirrors the approach taken towards pensions dashboards in the Pensions Act 2004.

Clause 21 outlines further provisions that regulations may contain. Those include references to published standards and technical requirements, and the conferral of functions. The clause allows the part 1 powers to be used flexibly and tailored for their purpose. It also prevents regulations from enabling a person to set the maximum amounts of fines, financial penalties or fees, which adds to the safeguards in clauses 10 and 11. Finally, the clause stipulates when regulations can amend primary legislation to support consumer redress.

Clause 22 ensures that the regulations are properly scrutinised and requires that certain regulations be subject to affirmative parliamentary scrutiny. Those include regulations that introduce smart data schemes or make them more onerous, contain enforcement provisions and impose fees or a levy, as well as regulations under the financial services sector clauses. The clause also requires appropriate consultation before the regulations are made.

Clause 23 clarifies that part 1 powers may be used to amend existing subordinate legislation dealing with equivalent subject matter, rather than creating stand-alone regulations. This provision could be used to amend existing data-sharing requirements such as open banking provisions in the Payment Services Regulations 2017.

Clause 24 repeals sections 89 to 91 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which part 1 of the Bill replaces. The powers in the 2013 Act are no longer adequate to enable the introduction of effective smart data schemes. That was recognised in the previous iterations of this Bill under a previous Government, and we agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Other defined terms

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 26 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that this discussion might take a little longer. Much as I am tempted to dally on clauses 25 and 26, clause 25 basically defines various terms used in part 1 of the Bill, and clause 26 provides an index of terms used in part 1, including those defined in clause 25, so I do not think my heart is in the business of doing so. Without further ado, I urge that clauses 25 and 26 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Introductory

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Right to use non-digital verification services—

“(1) This section applies when an organisation—

(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and

(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.

(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—

(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and

(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”

This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.

[Chris Bryant]

Part 2 of the Bill is about digital verification services. Those are obviously a very important part of the Bill; they lay out how we want to move into a new era and they are essential to many businesses being able to deliver their services effectively. They are also important to the Government being able to deliver some of the things we hope for—in terms of greater productivity in the delivery of services—and, frankly, to turning Government-provided services into services that feel as intuitively available and accessible as those provided by the private sector.

Clause 27 defines digital verification services and sets out the scope of provision in part 2, which runs from clauses 27 to 55, to help secure their reliability. New clause 9, which we will hear about in a few moments, has been tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. It would require organisations to offer non-digital verification services where practicable. The provision would change the voluntary nature of part 2 by imposing new obligations on businesses.

I fully support the idea of digital inclusion, which is why as the digital inclusion Minister I introduced our first action plan last week; we are the first Government to bring one forward in 10 years. However, we believe that the new clause is unnecessary because we are already prioritising digital inclusion. The office for digital identities and attributes will monitor the inclusivity of certified services, and include findings in the annual report that must be published under clause 53, which we will come to later.

In addition, there are already legislative protections in the Equality Act 2010 for protected groups. If in future the Government find evidence suggesting that regulatory intervention is appropriate to ensure that individuals have equal access to services across the economy, then we will consider appropriate intervention. I reassure the House that digital inclusion is a high priority for the Government, which is why we have set up the digital inclusion and skills unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and why just last week we published the digital inclusion action plan, setting out the first five immediate steps we are taking towards our ambition of delivering digital inclusion for everyone across the UK, regardless of their circumstances.

We want to be able to deliver as many services digitally as possible, in a way that is fully accessible to people. However, we also accept that many people are not engaged in the digital world, and that there must also be provision for them. For those reasons, I hope the hon. Member for North Norfolk feels comfortable not pressing his new clause to a vote.

[Dr Spencer]

Digital verification services are important, and will make a big change when rolled out as part of this legislation. The provision is entirely right, particularly on the proportionality of data disclosure. Reading through some of the various reports and briefings we have received, the example used is of someone going into a nightclub: why should a scanned copy of their driving licence be consumed and contained by whoever the data holder is, when all they need to do is prove their age? These services will open the door to allow the proportionate disclosure of data. There is a both a data assurance component and a section on privacy, so we are glad that the Government are taking these measures forward.

I sympathise with the intention of new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, which is to make sure that we do everything we can to support people who are digitally excluded. That ensures that people are not locked out and that there is a degree of reciprocity, so that as we digitalise more, the opportunity remains for people to access non-digital base services. I am not sure about the scope of the binding duty in the provision and about how the duties on small providers, as opposed to a duty on public service providers, play out politically. I think those are different things. Nevertheless, I support the sentiment of the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will consider accepting our new clause, which would provide reassurance to the many who are worried about the potential limitations that a digital verification system could place on them. Their concerns are very real and valid, and I know that many of my constituents in North Norfolk and many constituents of all members of the Committee will be hoping to hear reassurances that go beyond what we have heard from the Minister so far and that their rights will be protected in the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I note the comments from the shadow Minister, and I am grateful for them.

There is a fundamental flaw in the argument from the hon. Member for North Norfolk that this new clause was tabled in the House of Lords, because what he means is that it was lost in the House of Lords—the House of Lords did not bring it to us. There is a second flaw in the argument, which is that it seems to presume that people will be required to use a digital verification service. That is not true. People will be able to use non-digital systems if they want to in every circumstance. That is an essential part of being able to take forward digital verification services. It may be that a growing number of people begin to find them more useful, reliable and trustworthy than carrying around a set of papers. I am sure that many of us have gone through the tedious process of renting a car—having to turn up with copies of the previous three months of bills sent to your house, and all that. They have to be printed out, of course, and not provided in digital form, and so on. In the end, therefore, this measure will be transformational for the vast majority of people, but that does not mean that we should exclude people.

Where the hon. Member for North Norfolk is absolutely right is that there are many different patterns of digital exclusion. One, which I am very conscious of from my own constituency in south Wales, is physical digital exclusion. Many people in the south Wales valleys simply do not have the physical digital connections, a mobile phone or whatever it may be, to be able to transact their business. The second is the simple issue of poverty. Social tariffs do not even touch the edge for lots of families, because it is yet another bill. Even another £10 or £15 bill a month is one that has to compete with whether they have fresh food on the table for the kids. Another level where people might be excluded relates to age, at the top end and at the bottom end. The hon. Member mentioned nonagenarians, but he could go down to 60-year-olds and find people who simply do not want to use open banking or any kind of digital system, do not have a smartphone and have absolutely no intention of getting one, or, for that matter, do not have any kind of broadband connection to their home. I understand that fully, and that is why the Bill is written as it is, so that it is permissive and not mandatory.

That is an important reason why—although I have listened to the arguments that the hon. Member for North Norfolk has repeated from Big Brother Watch—I am determined to do everything we possibly can to tackle each and every one of the issues of digital exclusion. I have not even referred to skills—people might have some form of disability, might have simply never acquired or wanted to acquire digital skills, or might find using a screen particularly difficult for whatever set of reasons. We want to tackle every single form of digital exclusion, but I do not think that this is the place to do so. We will not be able to tackle digital exclusion by putting an additional measure in the Bill, and that is why, if the hon. Member wants to push this to a vote, I will still resist his new clause. I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee.

[Victoria Collins]

The Minister says that the proposal for digital verification services is not mandatory, so a non-digital version will be available for people to use. May I check what the guarantees are? We have seen this with card payments and even the banks—in Harpenden, we lost all our banks, apart from Nationwide. A very big team campaigned to get a banking hub, because a lot of people said, “You can either go online or drive many miles to get to a bank.” I want to understand what guarantees are in place to secure that non-digital version.

[Chris Bryant]

It is simply that there is no requirement for people to use a digital verification service to be able to secure the service that they want. Obviously, that is a key part of how local government or Government have to deliver their services. They have to think not only about the people who can use digital services, but about those who cannot, for all the reasons that we have laid out.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is absolutely right about banks, and it is not just in Harpenden; I do not have a bank in my constituency. I have seen them go one after another after another. We have a banking hub, but even it has had to move. That provides all sorts of difficulties for people who do not want to do their banking in any way other than physically going into a bank. That is why both our Government many years ago, then the Conservative Government for years, were trying to encourage people to use the post office as an alternative means of doing their banking.

That is the pattern that we will have to adopt. Government will always have to be aware. While we may want all the productivity gains and the added security that digital verification services can provide, none the less we need to ensure that others are provided for. That is all provided for in the Bill, and I would say adequately, although the hon. Member may disagree with me. Yet again, I am still resisting any amendment and urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Collins]

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I do understand. I will leave what happens with new clause 9 to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but it is important to state that we have seen a pattern, as my hon. Friend mentioned, of rights being taken away when we know that people cannot access services, and then the problem being solved after it was created. We need to think about a way to secure non-digital services, whether in respect of public services and council tax, our banks, or whatever it is. The Government need to think about how we can protect those services, whether through this Bill or something else, to ensure that those who are excluded can still access a non-digital version of services.

[Chris Bryant]

Even without inspiration, I agree with everything the hon. Lady said. I would add the fact that to park a car in lots of places in the country now we have to go online using a smartphone. When I was in Cardiff recently, the sign said “Go to the app”, but it did not say which app. What frustrates me is that every local authority in the land seems to have adopted a different app, so if we park in more than one local authority area, we have to download app after app, upload all our card details and all the rest of it.

I hope to God that one of the things smart data might be able to solve is the issue of different apps for parking, because the car does not change, we do not change and our banking details do not change; the only thing that changes is our location. To achieve that, though, we must also address the issue of digital exclusion. Lots of areas simply do not have a download speed of 5 megabits per second for mobile coverage, even though Ofcom probably suggests that there is 99% coverage in all areas from all four operators. My problem is that the new clause tries to correct many deficiencies in society, none of which has anything to do with digital verification services.

[Steff Aquarone]

I am well aware of the Minister’s frustration with mobile parking apps and I sympathise. Likewise, there is the frustration of having to take two separate bits of physical ID to a bank branch on two separate occasions to get a simple credit card approved. However, I cannot agree with the Minister’s accusation that new clause 9 tries to solve the entire universe. I remind him of what we have seen in practice when rights to alternatives are not enshrined. The reality is that if the rights to non-digital identification and verification are not enshrined in the Bill, the options and competitiveness of the options for those who do not or are unwilling to use digital verification will reduce.

[Chris Bryant]

The thing is, it is already enshrined in law under the Equality Act 2010. That is perfectly adequate for the purposes of the Bill—it protects all the characteristics that the hon. Gentleman referred to, including age—so I urge him not to pursue his new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

DVS trust framework

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

This amendment removes subsections which were inserted at Report stage in the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 11.

[Chris Bryant]

We will be talking about clauses 28 to 31, but now I will speak to Government amendment 10 to clause 28, along with Government amendment 11. Several Members may wish to speak to this issue.

Government amendment 10 removes subsections (3) and (4) of clause 28, which were added on Report in the House of Lords. The subsections require the Secretary of State, when preparing the digital verification service trust framework, to assess whether certain listed public authorities reliably verify personal data. This seems very dry, but it is a clear and specific issue. The trust framework provides rules for digital verification services, not rules for how public authorities process data. Data protection legislation already requires public authorities to ensure that any personal data they process is accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. As such, the Government cannot proceed with the change introduced in the Lords as it would duplicate existing legislation and bring in matters that are out of scope of the trust framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

Amendments 10 and 11 seek to remove certain provisions that were introduced in Committee in the other place. I thank Sex Matters for its work, but also many people in this policy area who have tried to focus on the importance of data accuracy and validity when it is used.

I hope we all agree that it is important that data, when it is collected—in fact it is a principle of data collection and maintenance—is accurate and correct and that there is no point holding or using data if it is incorrect. Biased data is worse than no data at all. Therefore, I do not understand—especially given the extra use of the data that will come as part of digital verification services—why the Minister and the Government are not keen on the provision to stipulate that public bodies that hold sensitive data should be certain of its accuracy, particularly when the data is going to be passed on and used as part of digital verification services. I am confused by the resistance to ensuring that the data is correct, particularly when we anticipate that it will be used as part of a far bigger spectrum. It will be consumed by a digital verification service in which it is not routine to go back and look at the original paper records. The only dataset to be relied on will be some Oracle Excel spreadsheet or whatever database is used by public authorities.

This debate has become more acute with regard to the importance of sex data. It is critical that sex data is available to protect public spaces and to be used in scientific research to allocate someone’s sex as part of medicine and healthcare. I speak as a former doctor, and I guess I should declare an interest in that I am married to a doctor. The use of sex data is critical in medical screening programmes, such as cervical screening and prostate screening, to understand and interpret investigations. It is critical that the data is accurate; otherwise, there is a danger that research will not be appropriate or will produce bad results, and there is also a potential degree of medical harm. It is critical that we get sex data correct when it is being used.

I do not agree with the argument that requiring the disclosure of sex data is either disproportionate or somehow a breach of the European convention on human rights. The whole point of digital verification services is proportionate disclosure. In fact, we have heard speeches from both sides of the Committee about proportionate disclosure, and limiting the amount of personal data that is passed on as part of a digital verification service.

My challenge is, quite simply, that if somebody is collecting sex data as part of a verification system, why are they doing so? If they do not need to know what someone’s sex is, it should not be collected. Digital verification services allow people to choose their proportionate disclosure. There will be times when sex data is required for renting a property—that example has been used before—because people may want to rent properties in single-sex accommodation. I may argue that is a proportionate disclosure. If it is a standard rental property in another situation, it is probably a non-proportionate disclosure. Another argument has been made that it is needed to triangulate data to verify ID. Again, that does not seem to work, because the whole point of a digital verification service is to allow someone to have a digital ID framework and use different points to verify.

The perversity of this debate is that these schemes and their proportionate disclosure protect people’s identities. They protect people from non-disproportionate disclosure. We need to make sure that the data we are using is accurate and correct, and that it says what we want it to say when someone is inquiring about somebody’s sex. If somebody is asking for sex data but they do not need it, people should be able to say no, which the existing provisions allow for.

[Chris Bryant]

No, they don’t.

[Dr Spencer]

What is the point of politics if we do not have a debate? We strongly disagree with the interpretation that the provisions are somehow incompatible with ECHR rights. They totally support people’s privacy rights under article 8 regarding proportionate disclosures. If somebody needs to have someone’s sex data, they need sex data. They do not need gender data. The provisions allow for it, and if somebody does not need sex data, they should not be collecting it in the first place.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, does the Minister at least accept that the Bill poses a risk of entrenching inaccurate data relating to sex through public bodies using DVS systems? Notwithstanding his views on the Lords amendments, could he address that point? What steps will the Government take to ensure the reliability of sex data to ensure protection, such as of women using female-only spaces? What will the Minister do to ensure that inaccurate data entrenched by the Bill will not pose a risk to people in those situations and others? I am thinking, of course, of services available in healthcare, but that is by no means the only example.

[Chris Bryant]

I need to make it absolutely clear, for a start, that the element of clause 45 that we are removing—subsection (6)—makes no reference to sex or gender at all. The words do not appear on the face of the Bill at all. Subsection (6) refers to accuracy and inaccuracy, but it says

“the public authority is able to attest that it…has been corrected through a lawfully made correction,”

and that is obviously aiming at a particular form of lawfully made correction.

Public authorities are already bound in law by data protection legislation—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East just made—to ensure that the personal data they process is accurate and, importantly, that it is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed, and that it is kept up to date where necessary. In essence, what the noble Lords’ amendments to the Bill did was say that we should also be keeping, in every instance, a history of what the data had been. That, I think, is problematic.

The hon. Member is absolutely right about wanting to preserve women-only spaces, which is why public authorities are required to process information that is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed. In the delivery of healthcare, for instance, when it comes to health screening for transgender and non-binary individuals, the Department of Health and Social Care has comprehensive guidance that sets out the NHS default adult screening programmes that are available in England and lays out who is invited. In England, it is up to GPs to ensure that, as part of processing gender change, the individual is correctly registered for relevant screenings in relation to their sex.

I simply do not buy this argument that we need to make this provision in relation to all digital verification services. Although it is of course right that, in the delivery of prison services or in the health service, or in so many other areas, simple common sense should apply in relation to female-only spaces and wanting to make sure that women are safe, I do not think that this Bill on digital verification services benefits from the introduction of a measure that would effectively mean that in the provision of every digital verification service—whether in regard to the provision of some sensitive service or not—you should make this provision. That is why we tabled amendments 10 and 11, and I urge all hon. Members to support them.

[Victoria Collins]

The Liberal Democrats support the Government amendments. As the Minister highlighted, the amendments are about proportionality in digital verification services. For Liberal Democrats, it is about the balance between trust and helping to protect privacy, as well as getting the data needed to make our society better. We believe that the original proposal had the proportionality right, so we will support the Government’s amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 29 to 31 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 28 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish the digital verification service framework, which will set out rules for the provision of digital verification services for providers that want to be certified and appear on a Government register. The rules will draw on existing technical requirements, standards and best practice, and guidance and legislation. They will help organisations to provide services in a trusted and consistent way, and enable inter-operability and increasing public confidence.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to revise and republish the trust framework as the market evolves. The requirement to consult the Information Commissioner and others whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate will ensure the trust framework’s development is informed by industry expertise and the wider regulatory environment.

Clause 29 allows the Secretary of State to prepare and publish supplementary codes. The codes will be relevant to sectors that require rules to cater for their specific requirements around identity checks, supplementary to those in the DVS trust framework. For example, additional rules are needed when proving someone’s right to work in the UK. By working with those operating in such sectors, the Secretary of State can identify market and user needs for these codes, and that will help to encourage digital identity adoption across the wider economy. The requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Information Commissioner and others as appropriate when preparing a supplementary code should also ensure that those needs are taken into account in its development.

Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to withdraw a published supplementary code if, for example, it is no longer required or is outdated. The Secretary of State will need to publish his determination to withdraw a supplementary code and allow at least 28 days before its withdrawal.

Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the digital verification service trust framework and any published supplementary code at least every 12 months. When doing so, the Secretary of State should consult the Information Commissioner and anyone he or she considers appropriate. This review will ensure that the body of rules governing digital verification services keeps up to date with the digital identity market, and is fit for purpose as that market evolves.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

DVS register

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 33 to 38 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

These clauses are all about the digital verification service register. Clause 32 requires the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a publicly available register of digital verification service providers, which is called the digital verification service register. This duty will ensure that people can look up which digital verification service providers have met the requirements to join the register, making it easier for people to know which providers can be trusted and to realise the benefits of this technology with confidence.

Subject to limited powers of refusal in clause 34, clause 33 requires the Secretary of State to register a digital verification service provider if it applies to appear on the register and if it holds a certificate from an accredited conformity assessment body confirming its digital verification service is compliant with the digital verification service trust framework. In practice, this means that in applying to join the register, a provider must have its service certified against the trust framework by a body that has been independently accredited by the UK Accreditation Service. The digital verification service provider must also have made an application in accordance with requirements made by determination under clause 39 and paid any relevant fee, as set out in clause 39. This provides confidence to users and businesses that only those digital verification services that meet these conditions will appear on the digital verification service register.

Clause 34 grants the Secretary of State the power to refuse applications to the digital verification service register in two circumstances: first, where he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of national security or, secondly, where he is satisfied that the provider is not compliant with the trust framework. Before a refusal, he must provide written notice of his intention, informing the provider of his reasons and of the opportunity to make representations. He need not share reasons on national security grounds where to do so would be contrary to those interests. Those powers will act as a backstop, allowing the Secretary of State to stop bad actors—I always worry about that term, thinking about actors who have appeared in movies that I have not liked—entering the system in circumstances where, for example, he has intelligence that conformity assessment bodies do not. That should increase confidence that registered DVS providers are trustworthy and secure.

Clause 35 allows registered digital verification service providers to have multiple certified services listed in the digital verification services register. The provider must apply for the Secretary of State to amend its register entry to accommodate this. This is largely a technical provision to ensure that the register can operate appropriately and seamlessly when providers offer more than one service that is certified against the trust framework.

Clause 36 provides for a registered provider to apply to the Secretary of State to add a supplementary note to their entry in the register if its service is certified against the supplementary code, its application complies with any requirements set out in a determination under clause 38, and it has paid any required fee. Supplementary notes will make it easy for people and businesses to see which registered digital verification services are certified against the rules of the supplementary code, so that they can find a trusted service that meets their needs.

In the same way that clause 35 allows registered digital verification service providers to have multiple certified services listed in the register, clause 37 allows providers with multiple services certified against the supplementary code to have that information suitably noted in the register. The digital verification service provider must apply to the Secretary of State to have its supplementary note amended to accommodate this. This technical requirement ensures that the register can operate appropriately and seamlessly when DVS providers offer more than one service that is certified against both the trust framework and a supplementary code.

Finally, clause 38 makes provision for the Secretary of State to determine the form of applications to the register and supplementary notes, the information that needs to be contained in the application, the documents to be provided and the manner in which is to be submitted. He must publish this determination, which will ensure that the requirements are clear for digital verification service providers who wish to make an application. For the same reason, if he revises the determination at a later time, this must also be published.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Fees for applications for registration, supplementary notes, etc

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

[Chris Bryant]

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the payment of fees for applications to the register and applications for supplementary notes. The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. The fees can be set at a level higher than the administrative costs of determining applications or those associated with the DVS providers’ ongoing registration in the DVS register. This is to help ensure that fees may cover the total operating costs relating to governance, which includes functions such as publishing an annual report and keeping the trust framework up to date.

The Government amended clause 39 from the original Bill that was introduced prior to the general election in response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee so that these fees are set by regulations instead of determination. This ensures that any fees the Secretary of State may wish to charge for these applications are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Duty to remove person from the DVS register

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 41 to 44 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 40 requires the Secretary of State to remove a digital verification service provider from the digital verification service register in the following circumstances: when that provider asks to be removed; if it stops providing all services for which it is registered; or if it no longer holds a certificate for at least one of these services. This duty ensures that the Secretary of State acts to uphold the digital verification service register in these circumstances to uphold trust and confidence in it.

Clause 41 allows the Secretary of State to remove a digital verification service provider from the digital verification service register if it is not compliant with the trust framework or a supplementary code; if it fails to provide information in response to a clause 51 written notice; or if removal is necessary in the interests of national security. Before removal, the Secretary of State must provide written notice informing the provider of reasons for removal and the opportunity to make representations. Reasons need not be given where this would be contrary to national security interests. These powers will help ensure that the register lists only certified services and that the Secretary of State can act to remove services where necessary, providing confidence in its accuracy.

Clause 42 requires the Secretary of State to remove a service from the digital verification service register if the digital verification service provider requests removal; if it ceases to provide one or more of those services, but not all of them; or if it no longer holds a certificate for all those services. Similar to clause 41, these duties provide confidence to people and businesses that the digital verification service register can be trusted as an accurate source of information. Whereas clauses 40 and 41 cover removal of a digital verification service provider as a whole, the clause 42 duty enables the Secretary of State to remove one or more services, should a digital verification service provider have more than one service registered and one or more, but not all, those services no longer meet the digital verification service register’s conditions.

Clause 43 requires the Secretary of State to remove a supplementary note from the digital verification service register if the digital verification service provider requests its removal; if it ceases to provide all the services to which the note relates; if it no longer holds a certificate for at least one of those services; or if the supplementary code to which the note relates has been withdrawn. This is a technical requirement to ensure that changes in certification and provision of multiple services in accordance with supplementary codes are accurately reflected for digital verification service providers, upholding confidence that the digital verification service register can be trusted as an accurate source of information.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Chris Bryant]

The clause creates a permissive information gateway. This will enable public authorities to share information relating to an individual with registered digital verification services, when requested by the individual. The gateway enables digital identity checks to be made against public authority data, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of identity and eligibility checks across the economy.

Clause 45 also makes it clear that the power does not authorise disclosure of information that would breach the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, disclosure of information under the clause would not breach any obligations of confidence owed by the public authority or any other restrictions on the disclosure of the information. The clause also enables public authorities to charge a fee for the disclosure of information under the clause.

[Dr Spencer]

I am not going to rehash the previous debates. Clearly, the Committee has made its decision, no matter how disappointing that is. I just wanted to pick up the Minister’s previous point about the use of common sense in arbitration decisions when it comes to access to protected same-sex spaces. I fully support using common sense, but how does that play out in a situation where somebody has gone through a digital verification service that has used data that is held by a local authority, but that has been changed at a later date—that is, in effect, gender data? How will that be resolved?

[Chris Bryant]

I think that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman. We have agreed the amendment, so that is slightly rehashing the debate. I am happy to write to him and he will have that before we come back for Thursday’s Committee sitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Information disclosed by the Revenue and Customs

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 47 and 48 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

Clauses 46, 47 and 48 relate to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Welsh Revenue Authority and Revenue Scotland respectively. The clauses provide additional safeguards to any information disclosed through the information gateway by these bodies. They place restrictions on onward sharing and create offences for the wrongful disclosure of such data, thereby creating appropriate protection for tax data shared through the gateway. A similar provision is not required for Northern Irish tax data, as HMRC is responsible for the collection of devolved taxes in Northern Ireland. The Government will not commence measures to enable the disclosure of information held by HMRC until the commissioners for HMRC are satisfied that the technology and processes for information sharing uphold the particular safeguards relating to taxpayer confidentiality, and therefore allow information sharing by HMRC to occur without adverse effect on the tax system or any other function of HMRC.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Code of practice about the disclosure of information

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

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure Members were wondering when we were going to get to a code of practice, and this is the clause that introduces it. Clause 49 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a code of practice for the disclosure of information under the information gateway created in clause 45. The code of practice will provide guidance and best practice for such disclosure, including what information should be shared, who it should be shared with and how to share it securely.

In preparing and revising the code, the Secretary of State must consult with the Information Commissioner, devolved Governments and other appropriate persons. The code will be laid before Parliament before it is finalised. The first version of the code will be subject to the affirmative procedure and subsequent versions to the negative procedure, allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny.

[Dr Spencer]

Will the code of practice include information on the proportionate disclosure of data through the DVS scheme?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Trust mark for use by registered persons

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

[Chris Bryant]

This clause enables the Secretary of State to designate a trust mark to be used only by registered providers of digital verification services. This will help users to identify those digital verification service providers that have been assessed as reliable and trustworthy. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to bring civil proceedings against unauthorised use of the trust mark. The trust mark has now been registered as a trademark in the UK, so the Secretary of State will also be able to take appropriate legal action against misuse under trademark law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Power of Secretary of State to require information

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

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to issue written notices to accredited conformity assessment bodies and registered digital verification service providers, requesting information that he may reasonably require to exercise his functions under part 2 of the Bill. That could include information on inclusion, fraud or other statistical information to assist the Secretary of State in carrying out his duties under this part of the Bill.

The notice must state why the information is required and may specify or describe particular information, together with the form in which it must be provided, the time within which it must be provided and where it must be provided. The clause also sets out circumstances where disclosure would not be required—for example, where it would contravene the data protection legislation. Non-compliance with the clause by registered providers may result in removal from the digital verification services register.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Arrangements for third party to exercise functions

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 53 and 54 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

I am conscious that we are steaming towards the end of part 2 of the Bill. It is 11.10 am, and we could go on until 11.30 am, but it might be convenient for Members if we were to end a little earlier and then move on to parts 3 and 4 this afternoon. That would be a matter for the Whips, and I do not like to tell a Whip what to do.

Clause 52 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for his functions to be exercised by a third party. Such delegation may be made for any function of the Secretary of State under part 2 of the Bill, except for his regulation-making powers. The delegation may also provide for payments to be made and received from the third party to whom functions are delegated.

This clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt to the governance needs of the digital identity market as it grows. Governance functions will initially sit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and future plans to delegate any function in part 2 of the Bill will be carefully considered and subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

Clause 53 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish reports on the operation of part 2 of the Bill at least every 12 months, with the first report due 12 months after the commencement of clause 28, which concerns the publication of the digital verification services trust framework. These reports will be published on gov.uk. This publication will strengthen transparency in the Government’s digital identity programme and boost trust in the market.

Clause 54 is an index of terms defined or explained in part 2 of the Bill. It sets out the subsection numbers where definitions and explanations can be found.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)