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 [email protected], 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.)

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

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Meaning of research and statistical purposes

[Chris Bryant]

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

“and that is conducted in the public interest”.

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

Amendment 13 agreed to.

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

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

Clause 70

Lawfulness of processing

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

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 70, page 78, leave out lines 15 to 19.

This amendment would remove subsections (2)(b) and (c) from the Bill which would create a new lawful ground for processing personal data by way of inserting a new Article into the UK GDPR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I shall talk about amendments 49, 53 and 50, which would remove the core of clause 70 that allows the direct establishment of “recognised legitimate interests”. Clause 70 risks bypassing essential parliamentary scrutiny, a point underscored by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which expressed concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight. The amendments are essential to ensure that the Data (Use and Access) Bill fosters innovation responsibly without sacrificing fundamental data protection. I urge Government to look over the proposals, which would help improve the adoption and inclusion of growing technology and its benefits. I would also welcome any proposals to improve this scrutiny when we reach Report.

[Chris Bryant]

The new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest in clause 70 and schedule 4 have been designed to give organisations greater confidence when processing personal data for important public interest objectives, such as preventing crime, safeguarding vulnerable individuals and protecting national security. They also ensure that non-public bodies can share information with public authorities where it is necessary and proportionate to do so without having to conduct a complex balancing test in situations where timely action is essential.

Amendment 49 would remove that provision, making it harder for organisations to share data confidently and swiftly for those public interest purposes. I recognise that the hon. Lady might be concerned that the removal of the need to do a detailed legitimate interest balancing test in this narrow set of circumstances could reduce protections, but strong safeguards remain in place, as was recognised in the House of Lords, which did not approve such an amendment. Any processing must still be necessary and proportionate and comply with data protection principles under UK GDPR to ensure that individuals’ rights continue to be protected.

Amendment 50 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to amend the list of recognised legitimate interests using regulations, and delete the list itself from schedule 4 of the Bill. We believe that the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the list is a necessary safeguard to future-proof the framework. This power is not unrestricted. It is subject to strict safeguards, including parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and the requirement that any additions must serve public interest objectives under article 23(1) of the UK GDPR. Removing the power would make it more difficult to adapt the framework over time.

I have also considered amendment 53, which would prevent health data being processed under the new lawful ground, and I would argue that it conflicts with amendment 49. Health data would be processed under this new ground only in so far as that was necessary for one of the specified recognised legitimate interests in schedule 4 to the Bill. Any processing of health data would also have to meet one of the relevant criteria for processing specific category data in article 9 of UK GDPR and schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 53. I thank the Minister for his comments, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Turner. I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. I am concerned not by the unchecked power of the Secretary of State under this regulation—we of course have precedents to go with under GDPR—but it is the specific and extremely high-grade personal health data that remains a concern for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Clause 70 and schedule 4 introduce a new lawful ground for processing personal data under article 6 of UK GDPR, allowing organisations to process data for recognised legitimate interests without conducting a balancing test. The aim is to provide legal certainty and facilitate faster data sharing for key public interest purposes such as crime prevention and safeguarding.

[Victoria Collins]

New clause 5 sets out that any future changes to data safeguards, including those related to recognised legitimate interests, automated decision making and special category data, must be subject to greater scrutiny in Parliament. It is essential that significant changes to our data protection go through that democratic process. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose, scope and timeline of any additional variations to recognised legitimate interests, again supporting greater transparency and accountability.

The new clauses are there to help improve public trust around data and improve the adoption and inclusion of the growing range of technology and its benefits. They are for the Government to look at when thinking about how we ensure that we bring people along with us. They will help to maintain trust and ensure that we have safeguards in line with recognised legitimate interests. If we are to accept clause 70, the Government must again assure us that robust checks and balances are truly in place.

[Chris Bryant]

New clause 5 seeks to strengthen parliamentary oversight of regulations that could amend the recognised legitimate interest list or the provisions on automated decision making and special category data, which we will debate in detail later. The regulation-making powers in the clause are already subject to appropriate safeguards, and have been designed with retaining our EU adequacy decisions at the forefront of our mind—we will return to the topic of EU adequacy in more detail when we reach new clause 2. It is important to respect the European Commission’s processes and its discretion in how its adequacy assessment is undertaken.

New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose of any changes to the recognised legitimate interest list, to whom they would apply and for how long. As I think I explained earlier on a previous amendment, any draft regulations laid before Parliament under these provisions will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which would lay out precisely the things the hon. Lady seeks. On that basis, I hope she will not push her two new clauses to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 72 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Information to be provided to data subjects

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 78 and 79 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid I do not accept the characterisation the hon. Lady has put on the clause. There is currently an exemption from notifying data subjects if it would constitute a disproportionate effort to do so or prove impossible—obviously, there are cases where it is impossible to notify somebody. At the moment, that exemption can be used only when data was not collected directly from the data subject. Clause 77 will create a new exemption for when data was collected directly from the data subject. It will be limited to processing only for research purposes, and only when there is a change of purpose.

We believe that that will help longitudinal studies that originally obtained data from data subjects but that would struggle to notify them about a change in purpose of the study—for instance, due to having lost contact over years or due to a deterioration in the data subject’s condition. The clause is therefore essential to our research facilities in the UK, and I urge Members to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Automated decision-making

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, a review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”

This amendment would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful a review must be carried out by a competent person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady because automated decision making and the precise definition of “meaningful human involvement” were a key issue in previous versions of the Bill, and she will know that we have changed this version from the previous one.

Our reforms make it clear that decisions

“based solely on automated processing”

are ones that lack meaningful human involvement. The terminology we have introduced in this version of the Bill goes beyond the current UK GDPR and Data Protection Act wording to prevent cursory human involvement being used to, effectively, rubber-stamp decisions that have been made by automated decision processes.

The point at which human involvement becomes meaningful is of course context-specific, which is why we have not sought to be prescriptive in the Bill. The Information Commissioner’s Office already sets out in its guidance its interpretation that meaningful human involvement must be active. Someone—a human being—must review the decision and have the discretion to alter it before it is applied. The Government’s introduction of the term “meaningful” to primary legislation does not change that definition, and we are supportive of the ICO’s guidance in this space.

As such, the Government agree on the importance of the ICO continuing to provide its views on the interpretation of terms used in the legislation. Our reforms do not remove the ICO’s ability to do that or to advise Parliament or the Government if it considers that the law needs clarification. Broadly speaking, I agree with the hon. lady, which is why I do not think her amendment is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

New clause 23 mandates that the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Information Commissioner, must produce a clear definition of meaningful human involvement within six months or justify why a definition is not required. Again, that is to ensure that the term “meaningful human involvement” is not just a hollow gesture. I welcome the Minister ’s remarks clarifying the issue, but it is crucial, if we are to get automated decision making right, that these things are defined and clear for everyone involved.

[Chris Bryant]

I will briefly add that the Information Commissioner already provides guidance in this sphere. We do not want to prevent the Information Commissioner from doing that in the future. The hon. Member is absolutely right: it has to be meaningful human involvement, and we think we have the balance right in the Bill.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 6.

New clause 1—Requirements of public sector organisations on use of algorithmic or automated decision-making systems—

“(1) No later than the commencement of use of a relevant algorithmic or automated decision-making system, a public authority must—

(a) give notice on a public register that the decision rendered will be undertaken in whole, or in part, by an algorithmic or automated decision-making system,

(b) make arrangements for the provision of a meaningful and personalised explanation to affected individuals of how and why a decision affecting them was made, including meaningful information about the decision-making processes, and an assessment of the potential consequences of such processing for the data subject, as prescribed in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State,

(c) develop processes to—

(i) monitor the outcomes of the algorithmic or automated decision-making system to safeguard against unintentional outcomes and to verify compliance with this Act and other relevant legislation, and

(ii) validate that the data collected for, and used by, the system is relevant, accurate, up-to-date, and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018, and

(d) make arrangements to conduct regular audits and evaluations of algorithmic and automated decision-making systems, including the potential risks of those systems and steps to mitigate such risks, as prescribed in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.

(2) ‘Algorithmic decision system’ or ‘automated decision system’ mean any technology that either assists or replaces the judgement of human decision-makers.

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

This new clause would require the public sector to provide increased transparency to service users in informing when automated decision making had been used. It would also require them to develop processes to monitor the outcomes from utilising automated decision-making.

New clause 4—Register of algorithmic tools used in public sector decision-making—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain, or arrange for the establishment and maintenance of, a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make, or materially influence, decisions affecting the rights, entitlements or legitimate expectations of individuals.

(2) A public authority that uses or intends to use an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool must notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the name or brief description of the tool,

(b) the decision or class of decisions in which it is used,

(c) the nature and source of the data used by the tool, and

(d) details of any meaningful human review required by law or policy.

(3) The information set out in subsection (2) must be submitted to the register prior to the deployment of any automated or semi-automatic decision-making tool by a public authority.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, publish guidance on compliance with this section, following consultation with the Information Commission.”

This new clause would create a publicly accessible register for AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector.

New clause 7—Information regarding high-risk AI decisions—

“(1) Where a decision based wholly or partly on automated processing, including AI or machine learning, has a legal or similarly significant effect on a data subject, that data subject has the right to request the following information from a data controller—

(a) an explanation of the reasons and criteria used by the automated processing to reach the decision,

(b) a description of the principal factors or features that most significantly influenced the outcome, and

(c) information about process for appeal, or request human review of, that decision.

(2) In this section, ‘legal or similarly significant effect’ includes decisions affecting an individual’s access to credit, employment, insurance, healthcare, social security, or other key public or private sector services.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the criteria and thresholds for ‘high-risk AI decisions’ to which this section applies, following consultation with the Information Commission, technical experts, civil society bodies, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would give individuals a right to obtain from data controllers an explanation of the key factors determining an AI outcome and provide a mechanism to appeal or request a human review of “high-impact” automated decisions.

New clause 24—Register of algorithmic tools used in public sector decision-making—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain, or arrange for the establishment and maintenance of, a public register of all automated or semi-automated systems used by public authorities to make, or materially influence, decisions affecting the rights, entitlements or legitimate expectations of individuals.

(2) A public authority that uses or intends to use an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool must notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) the name or brief description of the tool;

(b) the decision or class of decisions in which it is used;

(c) the nature and source of the data used by the tool; and

(d) details of any meaningful human review required by law or policy.

(3) A public authority must not deploy an automated or semi-automated decision-making tool unless the information specified in subsection (2) has been submitted to the register.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on compliance with this section, following consultation with the Information Commission.”

This new clause would create a publicly accessible register for AI and algorithmic tools in the public sector.

New clause 26—Provision of explanations for high-risk AI decisions—

“(1) Where a decision based wholly or partly on automated processing, including AI or machine learning, has a legal or similarly significant effect on a data subject, that data subject has the right to obtain from a data controller, on request—

(a) a concise, explanation of the reasons and criteria used by the automated processing to reach the decision;

(b) a description of the principal factors or features that most significantly influenced the outcome; and

(c) meaningful information about how to appeal, or request human review of, that decision.

(2) In this section, ‘legal or similarly significant effect’ includes (but is not limited to) decisions affecting an individual’s access to credit, employment, insurance, healthcare, social security, or other key public or private sector services.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations define the criteria and thresholds for ‘high-risk AI decisions’ to which this section applies, following consultation with the Information Commission, technical experts, civil society bodies, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would give individuals a right to obtain from data controllers an explanation of the key factors determining an AI outcome and provide a mechanism to appeal or request a human review of high-impact automated decisions.

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

Don’t get me started.

[Dr Spencer]

Ah, the temptation.

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

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

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

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

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

[Victoria Collins]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that I have a great deal to add. I feel caught between the rocks of “You are going too far” and “You are not going far enough,” which suggests to me that what we are advocating is probably proportionate and sensible, so I resist the new clauses and support clause 80.

I simply add that I do not have Spotify on my phone because I choose not to stream—I prefer to pay for my music—but I note that my ministerial podcast is available on Spotify.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 81

Data protection by design: children’s higher protection matters

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 21—Age of consent for social media data processing—

“(1) The UK GDPR is as amended as follows.

(2) In Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services)

After paragraph 1 insert —

‘(1A) References to 13 years old in paragraph 1 shall be read as 16 years old in the case of social networking services processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, including targeted advertising and algorithmically curated recommendations.

(1B) For the purposes of paragraph 1A “social networking services” means any online service that—

(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and

(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images, or videos, with a wider audience.

(1C) Paragraph 1B does not apply to—

(a) Educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings, where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes.

(b) Health and well-being services, including NHS digital services, mental health support applications, and crisis helplines, where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care and support’”.

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16.

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Turner.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady is trying to do with new clause 21. I invite the Minister to address, as I am sure he will, her very specific point that it is not about restricting access to social media for people aged between 13 and 16, but about further restricting how social media is targeted at those age groups. After visiting schools in my constituency, I am minded to support her argument. At Ryde academy, I heard the reaction of young people to their school restricting access to their phones, which a school can only do during the school day.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the quite reasonable proposition on how to restrict social media companies from targeting children aged 13 to 16. Restricting the way they collect their data sounds like a small, but meaningful, step that the Government could take.

[Chris Bryant]

I thought the debate might stray a little from the precise point my hon. Friend just made to into broader issues about young people’s use of smartphones and social media in general, and inevitably it has. This is a very live issue, of which the Government are painfully aware, as I tried to say in the debate last Friday. We are trying to work out the best way forward to a place where the rules that were implemented in the Online Safety Act, some of which only come into force in the spring—some have yet to get parliamentary approval; that will probably come in April—bed in properly and are adhered to before we take further action. That is simply because it is difficult to know otherwise whether the Online Safety Act has gone far enough. I wish that the Online Safety Act had been not the Online Safety Act 2023, but the Online Safety Act 2021 or 2019. Had it been, we might now be in a position to assess its effects.

In the debate on Friday I referred to the feasibility study commissioned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology from the University of Cambridge, which is working with other researchers. Work on that will finish in May, so I hope to have further information then. There is already a lot of guidance out there for parents, teachers and schools, but if we need to provide more informed guidance in the future, we will certainly look into that.

The precise targeting of young people by algorithms and so on is, at least theoretically, already dealt with by the Online Safety Act. That is why I do not think that new clause 21 is an appropriate measure to take forward at this time. Whether the age limit should be 13 or 16 was decided by the previous Government and agreed by Parliament after quite extensive consultation during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018. All these matters have to be kept under review, and we are doing so in an urgent way, not least because a lot of Members are bringing up concerns raised by their constituents, families and so on.

I sometimes worry that the concentration solely on schools is to the detriment of the wider issues we are facing, not least because, as teachers readily admit, they only ever see children for about 20% of their time, and we need to set this in a wider context. I understand the motivation behind the new clause, but I will still resist it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 82 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 7 to 9 agreed to.

Clauses 86 to 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Joint processing by intelligence services and competent authorities

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 90 stand part.

New clause 8—Intelligence services and law enforcement data-sharing: enhanced oversight—

“(1) Where intelligence services or law enforcement bodies share personal data under this Act, the Commissioner must review the nature, purposes, and scope of the data-sharing annually and produce a report assessing—

(a) the necessity and proportionality of the data-sharing,

(b) any impact on individuals’ rights, and

(c) any recommendations for improved safeguards or remedial measures.

(2) The Commissioner must lay the report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament, subject to any redactions strictly necessary on national security grounds.

(3) This section does not authorise or require the Commissioner to disclose information that could jeopardise national security, but the Commissioner must endeavour to provide the maximum transparency compatible with security requirements.

(4) The Secretary of State must respond to each report within 90 days of their laying before Parliament, addressing any recommendations made by the Commissioner.”

This new clause would require the Information Commission to review, annually, data-sharing by intelligence and law enforcement services, and to publish a report of its findings.

[Chris Bryant]

I rise mainly to speak to new clause 8, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. It would require the Information Commissioner to review and publish an annual report on data sharing by law enforcement and the intelligence services. Any processing of personal data by law enforcement and the intelligence services must, by definition, be lawful, which inherently includes the requirement that the processing be necessary and proportionate.

The Information Commissioner is obliged to provide an annual report to Parliament under the Data Protection Act 2018, and may also produce additional reports as they see fit. The commissioner has powers of investigation, monitoring and enforcement that they may exercise as appropriate to oversee law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. Given the current system of oversight, and the fact that the commissioner is already required to provide reports annually, I hope the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted will not press her new clause to a vote.

[Victoria Collins]

I am sure members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that I have a very short speech. Clause 89 permits the processing of personal data jointly between law enforcement and intelligence services for the crucial purpose of safeguarding national security. While the Liberal Democrats recognise the necessity of such collaboration in specific circumstances, the inherently sensitive nature of the data demands the highest level of protection and scrutiny. New clause 8 is designed to ensure that ministerial changes to the data safeguards on this joint processing cannot be enacted without proper scrutiny by Parliament. We would also welcome hearing from the Government on Report proposals to uphold and ensure that parliamentary scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Codes of practice for the processing of personal data

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 27—Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the Information Commission—

“(1) Prior to issuing any guidance or statement of strategic priorities to the Information Commission, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee of the House of Commons, and

(b) the Senedd, Scottish Parliament, or Northern Ireland Assembly where guidance relates to devolved powers.

(2) The Secretary of State may not reject or change a Code of Practice prepared by the Information Commission without a resolution to do so from each House of Parliament.”

This new clause seeks to strengthen the regulator’s independence by limiting ministerial powers to direct or override the Information Commission without oversight.

Clause 93 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

[Victoria Collins]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 95

Regulations under this Part: Parliamentary procedure and consultation

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 95, page 120, line 31, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment removes a subsection which was inserted at Report stage in the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 135 to 139 stand part.

New clause 17—Statement on application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities by web-crawlers or artificial intelligence models—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of Royal Assent, issue a statement, by way of a copyright notice issued by the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise, in relation to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities conducted by webcrawlers or artificial intelligence models which may infringe the copyright attaching to creative works.”

New clause 18—Report on regulation of web-crawlers and artificial intelligence models on use of creative content—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to help ensure proportionate and effective measures for transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, refining, tuning and generative activities in AI.”

New clause 19—Report on reducing barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data.”

New clause 20—Publication of a technological standard—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent, publish a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content and relevant information associated with the licence.”

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

I want to recognise the tremendous efforts of the noble Baroness Kidron in the other place in bringing this incredibly important issue to the forefront of the minds of lawmakers and the public. My right hon. Friend the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition has been clear about the importance of growing our domestic AI industry. These technologies have the potential to improve our lives and stimulate economic growth. That need not and must not come at the expense of our creative industries. Music, especially live music, is one of my passions. I know that the Minister shares my passion for our creative industries; indeed, his efforts to incorporate a thespian flourish into the debates we have had over the past few months do not go unappreciated —by some.

[Chris Bryant]

And are hated by others.

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Victoria Collins]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

First of all, I commend both hon. Members on their contributions. Let us face it; this is very difficult. It is a classic case of difficulty for the Government because, as the previous Government found, two sectors are really important to UK growth. The creative industries are one of the fastest-growing sectors in the UK and are representative of our future growth. Somebody put it to me the other day that there was a time when our economy relied on selling industrial products, then it was services, and, in the new era, perhaps one of the things that we are exceptionally good at is selling experiences, and a large part of that is through intellectual property from the creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 22 agreed to.

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

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

Schedule 10 agreed to.

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

Schedule 11 agreed to.

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

Schedule 12 agreed to.

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

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

On a point of order, Mr Turner. I want to make a point about new clause 30, which I know was not selected for debate. Many will be familiar with the story of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen Roome, who lost her 14-year-old son Jools in 2022. Jools was a happy boy. He died in tragic circumstances. In her search for answers about the circumstances leading up to Jools’s death, Ellen has come up against outdated laws and social media giants taking an intransigent approach to sharing data that should naturally be hers as a bereaved parent. We are talking about things that, in the past, she would have been able to find out by looking through her child’s bedroom—things that might have been in wardrobes, stored under the bed or in scrawled notes. These days, those bits of data could be on multiple social media accounts, but parental access is denied.

That is the subject of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen’s Member of Parliament. The change to the law would be known as Jools’ law, in his memory. It would give parents access rights to their deceased child’s data automatically, with certain safeguards to respect third parties, so that other grieving parents will never face the challenges and the huge legal costs that Ellen has had to endure. I know that this new clause has not been chosen for discussion, but I would welcome a meeting with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to discuss the issue further.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Turner. The reason new clause 30 has not been selected is not that anybody has wanted to rule it inadmissible; it is simply because we are cracking through the Bill at such a speed that, although it was anticipated we would still be sitting on Thursday, it seems likely we will finish today, and new clause 30 therefore cannot be reached today because of its late tabling.

I know that Ellen is in the room, and I am very happy to facilitate a meeting with her, which I think is still outstanding with the Department. We will make sure that happens before the Bill gets to Report stage. If the hon. Member for Cheltenham or other Members want to be present at that meeting, I will make sure that happens. This is not a slight of any kind; it is just an accident of fortune in terms of the tabling of amendments.

[The Chair]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the Minister for their points of order.

Clause 117

The Information Commission

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

New clause 10 requires the Government to bring forward a data vision and strategy within six months of the passing of the Bill, and amendment 21 would add a new function to the Information Commission to allow it to support the Government in the drafting and delivery of that data vision and strategy. New clause 11 seeks to ensure that all departmental boards and NHS bodies have senior staff with data and technology expertise at the highest level. Finally, new clause 16 would require the Government to publish annual reviews of the use of data in the delivery of public services, including updates on the progression of a number of key goals.

I turn first to new clause 10. In previous speeches in the House, I have tried my best to emphasise the transformative power of data in our era. It can be seen as similar to the discovery of fire, gold or oil, such is its value and ability to totally reshape how we approach the world. I think the most accurate comparison is with Edison’s harnessing of the power of electricity. I invite you, Mr Turner, and the Committee to imagine that Government is like a 19th-century factory. Prior to electricity generation, a factory had to be organised around a single power source—usually a steam engine—with every machine that needed power connecting directly to the central driveshaft above. Components could be made but then had to be transported elsewhere to be assembled, usually by hand. By harnessing electricity, it was possible to pipe power anywhere on the factory floor. That meant the machines could be placed wherever they were needed, becoming more precise, more efficient and more specialised, and it led to mass manufacturing of the product as the central organising principle of industry.

What does this have to do with modern government? The data revolution that has been under way since the 1990s means that the structures and organisation of government can themselves be transformed in the same way that industry was in the 1890s. We can use data to shift from archaic practices and government functions, some of which occasionally feel like they might still run on steam power, and shift towards public services that make the citizen experience their central organising principle. With the true free flow of data through government, we can bring services to people, make them easier and more efficient to use and radically improve how people interact with government. However, to do any of that, the Government need to develop key principles to enable them to seize that opportunity. Creating a data vision will show what the future could be for data use across government, setting out where we want to get to, how we want services to run and what the ideal citizen experience will be. From that vision, which I hope would be ambitious and wide-ranging, the Government could design a strategy to deliver on it, outlining how they are going to seize data’s transformative power to improve the state’s workings and ultimately deliver a better experience for all our constituents when they come into contact with government or the state.

A national data strategy was, in fact, published under the last Government. It was consulted on during 2019 and published in 2020. It is clear that the world is very different from the world in 2019. The pandemic made Government rapidly re-evaluate and improve their relationship with available data to handle a national emergency and there are lessons to be learned from that. It also forced a change in many people’s habits and expectations. We are prepared to act far more digitally now, but also expect that businesses and corporations and Government will be more adept in the experiences they provide for us. Although much of what was in the last data strategy was on the right track, I am sure that, with a new world, this new Government would want to make their own mark and fully harness the data revolution.

A comprehensive data vision and strategy also empowers the Government when they need to move quickly, to adapt and react to the ever-changing technological landscape. When we need swiftly to harness new technologies or developments, we risk missing out and needlessly delaying, if we drive ourselves back to the legislation table each time. Although I am greatly enjoying the Bill Committee, if we go through a full set of legislative processes every time we want to use the latest innovation, we will move far too slowly. An overarching vision gives confidence to the Government in how to react to new developments by assessing how they can match up with the long-term strategic goals that they want to achieve.

Our slow adoption of the power of data has allowed many other countries to be leaps and bounds ahead of us, despite not having the resources, the expertise or the talent that our country has heaps of. Let us make sure that, for the next step of digital transformation, people look to us as leaders and trailblazers.

I hope that the Government will take inspiration for the data vision and strategy from the last 25 years in Estonia. As I told the House on Second Reading. Estonia has made the astonishing transformation from a poor post-Soviet state to a leader in digital government and data leadership. Its national drive to improve digital literacy and access, along with pulling their public services into the digital age, is an example that many other nations, including ours, should seek to follow. It has made 100% of public services available digitally, developed the fantastic X-Road data-sharing platform and delivered millions of euros in efficiency savings. It is a completely realistic goal to make the UK a digital leader in digital government and data efficiency, just like Estonia. That is the goal that I would write in the Government’s data vision. I hope that the Minister, if he were authoring it, would be just as ambitious.

I also think the Government could take lessons from Denmark, which has come top of the UN’s e-government rankings. It has embedded core principles of digital inclusion into its data and digital transformation journey. Those principles include being aware of the consequences of digitisation, providing usable alternatives and designing solutions for all citizens. This quote from its “Principles for Digital Inclusion” publication is particularly pertinent:

“It is a democratic problem if the digital transformation becomes a barrier to participating in the welfare society.”

The Minister and I have spoken about and shared concerns about digital exclusion. It is something that our constituencies and constituents both have in common. I hope he would be as keen as me to see that inclusion principle made a key tenet of the future of digital governance and data use.

Amendment 21 also ensures that, in drafting and delivering the strategy, the Government can rely upon the expertise of the Information Commissioner. The rights and freedoms of citizens and their data ownership must be core to a future data vision and strategy. The amendment enshrines the ability of the Information Commissioner to act as a source of advice and guidance in bringing that forward. The Government and Departments will need to be ready to implement the data vision and strategy, and the radical transformation that it will require.

I have therefore tabled new clauses 11 and 16. New clause 11 would require the NHS and Government to ensure the appointment of someone with a senior data, information or technology role to their boards. A helpful inspiration in the drafting of the new clause was the Government’s own “State of digital government review”, published only a couple of months ago. It is nothing short of excoriating in its assessment of the state of digital government, as well as the Government’s digital talent and culture. The review states that

“non-digital public sector leaders with sizable delivery responsibilities have insufficient technical expertise or training”,

and that

“Digital leadership is not a consistent priority.”

My new clause 11 would ensure that a chief digital and information officer, a chief information officer, a chief technology officer or a service transformation lead is present on the boards of all Departments. As it stands, none of those roles is present on the executive committee at any of the following Departments: Business and Trade; Housing, Communities and Local Government; Health and Social Care; Education; the Home Office; the Cabinet Office; NHS England; and the Treasury. I could keep going, but I think everyone gets the point.

That is in the Government’s own review, published by the Minister’s Department, and I am using it to draw attention to the problem. It criticises the problem that new clause 11 seeks to remedy. I invite the Minister to accept the new clause to fix something that his own Department has highlighted and that I would not have known about without its helpful review. I do not blame him one bit, of course, because his party inherited this situation from the Conservatives, who were guilty of failing for almost a decade to address the problem, but I hope that he can put it right by accepting new clause 11.

Turning back to the review by the Minister’s Department, it also states that 47% of central Government services and 45% of NHS services still lack a digital pathway. The report says:

“The UK is under digitised”,

and I wholly agree. I hope that new clause 16 could take steps to fix that. I would look forward to the Secretary of State coming to Parliament with his review each year to tell us about the great leaps that the Government are making towards improved data use in public service delivery and improving their digital talent and culture.

If the Government are serious about pushing forward digital transformation with the power of data, new clause 16 provides them with an annual victory lap. If things are falling behind, if the problems that the “State of digital government review” identified are not being rectified, this measure would ensure that they can be scrutinised and held to account. We cannot let the Government fall again into the state that their review found them to be in. I hope that my new clauses could fire the starting gun for a Government that is ambitious and innovative about their data use and digitisation in future.

The Minister heard me make many of the same arguments on Second Reading. I was pleased with the warmth of his reception then, as well as the broad understanding of his Department that we need to do more and do it better. I hope that he can provide me with some commitments today on the issues that I have raised, for the benefit of the citizen’s experience and of everyone we represent. I will end by quoting from the conclusion of his Department’s review—I am grateful to the Government for publishing those findings—which sums up the points I have made excellently:

“Digital is one of the most powerful forces for public service reform, and when it is successful, it changes lives and the public experience of government…However, our approaches to leadership, structure, measurement, talent and funding do not yet do justice to this potential: it is time to transform and reform the way we do digital.”

[Chris Bryant]

I note that before the break we had the Sugababes, and that now we have “The Tempest”—I think the hon. Gentleman managed to get in a very brief quote, or I guess his version of it: O brave new world that has such data in it.

The hon. Gentleman excoriates the Government for moving too slowly and for not taking enough powers to be able to move faster, and yet several of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled have been ones that insist that we should have more accountability to Parliament and a slower process, and should not have such regulation-making powers. It is often difficult to decide between those two because we want enough parliamentary scrutiny, but in an area of rapid technological change it is important that legislation is able to move fast enough to adapt. The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to digital inclusion as a key aspect of the Bill. If we are going to take forward a digital nation and a digital Government plan, we have to factor in the fact that some people will simply not be able to take part unless we take radical action to include them digitally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

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

[Chris Bryant]

The Government are, of course, committed to the independence of the ICO. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, the recommendations about changing the structure were entirely ones that were advanced in the previous version of the Bill and supported by the previous Government. We think that it will just make it more efficient, more effective and more transparent.

As I have said, we are committed to the ICO’s independence; it is a vital part of its role. That is why the new role of the chair of the information commission will be appointed by His Majesty, by letters patent— the same approach taken for the current Information Commissioner role. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has agreed with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the role of chair will be listed as a significant appointment with the Commissioner for Public Appointments and be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

The shadow Minister’s questions about how the Information Commissioner can balance those two requirements are perfectly legitimate. I think that they are questions for the Information Commissioner, and they are the kind of questions that could legitimately be asked in a pre-appointment session with the Select Committee. I do not, therefore, believe that the amendment from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is necessary.

However, I would like to put on record that the Government intend to maintain the title of the Information Commissioner in respect of the chair of the information commission, acknowledging the fact that the identity and brand of the Information Commissioner is valued and recognised domestically and internationally. We do not want to lose that, so we intend to preserve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 118 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Information standards for health and adult social care in England

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Health and social care data records—

“(1) A person processing health and/or social care data for research purposes must maintain a record of the basis on which that data was shared or accessed.

(2) Such a person must make available a description of—

(a) the categories of data used,

(b) the intended research purpose,

(c) where possible, the scope of organisations or persons who will have access to the data,

(d) how individuals can exercise their data subject rights under Article 13 to Article 22 of the UK GDPR.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out requirements for how the record set out by subsection (2) must be published.”

This new clause would require researchers using health/social care data to keep and publish records explaining what data is used and for what reason.

Government amendment 14.

Schedule 15.

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

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

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

[Victoria Collins]

I will speak specifically on new clause 3. On the question of trust, I know that even the British Medical Association has highlighted concerns over transparency and ensuring that we unlock that innovation and bring that data—in other words, that people are willing, ready and happy to be part of this. New clause 3 therefore highlights that health and social data, when used for research, should have clear data categories that are properly recorded, and that individuals have a right to understand how their data is used. However, I appreciate the comments from the Minister, and I am happy not to press the new clause.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge nearly caught me out because I had to look up “iatrogenic”. Basically, I think it means that when someone is being treated for something, it can lead to harmful effects. I am worried about that, because I have a PET CT scan tomorrow afternoon and an MRI scan on Saturday, so I am worried that I am being subjected to more risk because of all this imaging.

The truth of the matter is that a patient wants to be able to access as many of their records as possible—whether it is their blood tests or whatever else. That is a significant change that has happened in the last few years. It is about putting the patient back in a key role in the NHS, and them being able to manage their own data, but that simply cannot happen unless we pass this legislation and roll out changes across the whole of the NHS.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question, although he admitted that it is not really my plan to develop these things; I might have to get the Department of Health and Social Care to write to him to lay some of that out. That is part of the work that we need to do at the moment. This is not in the Bill, but as a Welsh MP, I would like us to have shared standards across the whole of the United Kingdom, because there are people using different parts of the NHS across the different nations. That would make simple, common sense.

I also worry sometimes about cyber-security, with every different part of the NHS buying its own systems, and whether those systems all have the necessary cyber-security to make sure that data is preserved safely. I believe that the Bill will enable us to get a much more secure set of data provisions on the way health information can be shared between different parts of the NHS in England.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15

Information standards for health and adult social care in England

Amendment made: 14, in schedule 15, page 255, line 35, at end insert—

“(5) This section does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by this section).

(6) In this section, ‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment provides that information may not be processed for the purposes of new section 251ZC of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (public censure of relevant IT providers) if that would contravene the data protection legislation.

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Retention of information by providers of internet services in connection with death of child

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Compliance with Section 124 of this Act and Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Online Safety Act 2023—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on provisions of Section 124 of this Act.

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis of the level compliance to notices requiring social media companies, including Category 1 services under the Online Safety Act 2023, to preserve data relating to the use of specified regulated services by children where that information may be needed to respond to an information notice issued under s.101 or to produce a report under s.163 of the Online Safety Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing compliance with Section 124 of this Act and Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Online Safety Act 2023.

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I did not realise that we would be debating all these amendments today. I appreciate that my voice is probably being heard loud and clear, which was not the original intention, but these are important issues. Clause 126 addresses the sensitive issue of biometric data retention, particularly for law enforcement purposes. Amendment 54 strengthens safeguards by requiring judicial review methods before data can be retained beyond a defined period. That is where we are raising the alarm to ensure that there is a defined period, and that there is cause to ensure that data is not kept beyond that. It is a crucial protection to prevent undue encroachment on civil liberties.

The use of biometric data must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and overreach: while we acknowledge the role of such data in tackling crime, we must ensure that retention policies are both proportionate and necessary. Amendment 54 aligns the UK’s approach with best practices, ensuring that security does not come at the cost of fundamental rights.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady has tabled another amendment that calls for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. I hope that I am proving that the requirement to put those reports in the Bill is unnecessary.

The amendment would introduce a new duty on the police to review the retention of biometric data under clause 127, and a duty for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the use of that data. Clause 127 does not alter the existing duty in the Data Protection Act 2018, which ensures that the police retain only personal data, including sensitive personal data such as biometrics, as long as it is considered “necessary and proportionate”—precisely the terms that she advocated.

The biometrics commissioner already has independent oversight of biometric data retained under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and has a statutory duty to report to Parliament annually. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation also has statutory oversight of all the powers in the 2008 Act, and reports annually to Parliament. For those reasons—without doubting the hon. Lady’s intent—I hope that she will not press the amendment to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 to 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135

Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Let’s start at the very beginning,

A very good place to start.”

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Creating or soliciting the creation of purported intimate image of adult

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 141, page 173, line 27, leave out

“or soliciting the creation of”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 29 to 48.

Clause stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

The amendments are the result of considerable discussion between officials, who have suddenly joined me as my inspiration, and the noble Baroness Owen. As promised in the other place, we have tabled further amendments relating to the offence that was included in the House of Lords. Recognising how crucial time limits are in this sensitive area, we made a commitment that is fulfilled by amendment 38, which would extend the statutory time limits to enable prosecutions to be brought at any date that is both within six months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge to justify prosecution, and within three years from when the offence was committed. By doing that, perpetrators will not be able to get away with creating a deepfake just because no one knew about it in time for the prosecution to commence within six months.

Amendment 31 will ensure that the law comprehensively criminalises asking someone to create a deepfake, regardless of where they are based or whether the image was made. We absolutely agree with the policy rationale put forward by Baroness Owen, which is why we did not oppose the amendment on solicitation. Our amendments replace the term “solicitation” with a new requesting offence, which has been drafted to ensure that it is comprehensive and functions as it should, and that it is clear to the courts how it should be understood and applied in practice within the wider criminal law framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

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

[Chris Bryant]

I should have put on the record, as the shadow Minister did, my gratitude and congratulations to Baroness Owen for her tenacity; that point was absolutely right.

[Victoria Collins]

Hear, hear.

[Chris Bryant]

Excellent: we all agree that Baroness Owen has done a great piece of work for us, and we are grateful. Incidentally, I am also grateful to Ministry of Justice officials who worked with DSIT officials on the amendments before us today, which provide a more comprehensive version of what was originally argued for.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked me about the difference between solicitation and requesting. Often, it is considered that solicitation would require some form of exchange of money. Obviously, that would not necessarily be the case in this context, which is why we have “requesting”, a broader category than solicitation. A request includes doing an act that could reasonably be taken to be a request—for example, nodding or otherwise indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer. It also includes both making a request directed to a particular person or persons and making a request available to one or more people, or people generally, without directing it to a particular person or people. In other words, that is broader than what solicitation would have required. I think Baroness Owen agrees with us that this is therefore a more comprehensive offence.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the “reasonable excuse” defence. Let us say that a software developer wants to ensure that he or she—probably “he” in this case—has developed the right safeguards in his software to stop people generating intimate deepfakes without the consent of the person depicted. In some circumstances, he will have a reasonable excuse where, in the course of the testing to ensure that the software does not create such images, he creates a purported intimate image. That might be an instance of a reasonable excuse. I do not want to lay out what reasonable excuses might be, because the courts are so used to dealing with the concept of a reasonable excuse. There are many offences to which it applies, and the courts, as I have said, are used to dealing with them.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted asked me about sharing—is sharing a deepfake an offence? Sharing a deepfake intimate image without consent is already an offence under section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I hope that, without further ado, we can agree the amendments and the clause.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendments made: 29, in clause 141, page 173, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 174.

This amendment removes a new offence of soliciting the creation of a purported intimate image of an adult. For a replacement offence, see Amendment 31.

Amendment 30, in clause 141, page 174, line 26, at end insert—

“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”

This amendment adds a defence of reasonable excuse to the new offence of creating a purported intimate image of an adult.

Amendment 31, in clause 141, page 174, line 29, at end insert—

“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),

(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),

(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).

(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—

(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or

(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.

(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—

(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and

(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.

(6) An offence under this section is committed—

(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,

(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and

(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.

(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.

(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).

(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”

This amendment makes it an offence to request the creation of a purported intimate image of an adult without consent.

Amendment 32, in clause 141, page 174, line 30, leave out “soliciting” and insert “requesting”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 29 and 31.

Amendment 33, in clause 141, page 174, line 32, leave out “section 66E” and insert “sections 66E and 66EA”.

This amendment provides that the definitions in new section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply for the purposes of new section 66EA of that Act (see Amendment 31) (as well as for the purposes of new section 66E).

Amendment 34, in clause 141, page 174, line 33, leave out “the creation of a purported intimate image” and insert “an act”.

This amendment, and Amendments 35 and 36, adjust the definition of “consent” in new section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so that it works for the purposes of new section 66EA of that Act (see Amendment 31) (as well as for the purposes of new section 66E).

Amendment 35, in clause 141, page 174, line 34, leave out “of creation”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 34.

Amendment 36, in clause 141, page 174, line 35, at end insert

“(and see also section 66EA(5))”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 34.

Amendment 37, in clause 141, page 175, line 10, at end insert—

“(8) The “maximum term for summary offences” means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;

(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”

This amendment explains what is meant by the “maximum term for summary offences” in new sections 66E and 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (New section 66EA is inserted by Amendment 31).

Amendment 38, in clause 141, page 175, line 10, at end insert—

“66G Creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult: time limit for prosecution

(1) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, a magistrates’ court may try an information or written charge relating to an offence under section 66E or 66EA if the information is laid or the charge is issued—

(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and

(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge.

(2) A certificate signed by or on behalf of a prosecutor stating the date on which evidence described in subsection (1)(b) came to the prosecutor’s knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.”

This amendment extends the period during which a person may be prosecuted for an offence under new section 66E or 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult).

Amendment 39, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, after “66E” insert “, 66EA”.

This amendment provides that references to an image of a person in new section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (see Amendment 31), like references to such an image in new section 66E of that Act, do not include an image of an imaginary person.

Amendment 40, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, after section 177D insert—

‘177DA Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences

(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).

(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 177C(3) (and section 94A(3)(b)(ii)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).’”

This amendment provides that deprivation orders can be made under the Armed Forces Act 2006 in connection with an offence under new section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).

Amendment 41, in clause 141, page 175, line 12, at end insert—

“(3B) In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offences to be disregarded in reckoning whether an act is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence: England and Wales), after paragraph 38 insert—

‘Sexual Offences Act 2003

38ZA An offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).’”

This amendment provides that a person cannot be guilty, under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, of encouraging or assisting the offence under new section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of a purported intimate image) (see Amendment 31).

Amendment 42, in clause 141, page 175, line 17, leave out

“or soliciting the creation of”.—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Clause 141, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 142

Power to make consequential amendment

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 143 to 146 stand part.

Government amendment 16.

Clause 147 stand part.

[Chris Bryant]

I will speak only to Government amendment 16, which is highly technical—there will be a test on it afterwards. It removes the privilege amendment inserted at Lords Third Reading to clause 147, which was necessary given the Bill was introduced in the Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

Extent

Amendments made: 43, to clause 144, page 177, line 25, leave out “141” and insert

“141(1) to (3) and (4)”.

This amendment, and Amendment 44, are consequential on Amendments 40 and 41.

Amendment 44, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, leave out “extends” and insert “extend”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 43.

Amendment 45, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) section 141(3A) (amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006) extends to—

(i) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,

(ii) the Isle of Man, and

(iii) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar;”

This amendment provides for the amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006 made by Amendment 40 to have the same extent as that Act.

Amendment 46, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) section 141(3B) (amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”

This amendment provides for the amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007 made by Amendment 41 to have the same extent as that Act.

Amendment 47, in clause 144, page 177, line 26, at end insert—

“(5A) The powers conferred by section 384(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (powers to extend provisions to the Channel Islands and to make provisions apply with modifications as they extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar) may be exercised in relation to section 177DA of that Act (inserted by section 141(3A) of this Act).”—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment provides that the new section inserted in the Armed Forces Act 2006 by Amendment 40 may, like the other provisions of that Act, be extended to the Channel Islands and modified as it extends to those Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar.

Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145 and 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147

Short title

Amendment made: 16, in clause 147, page 179, line 10, leave out subsection (2).—(Chris Bryant.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 147, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Impact of this Act and other developments at national and international level on EU data adequacy decision

“Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact on the European Union data adequacy decisions relating to the United Kingdom of the following—

(a) this Act;

(b) other changes to the United Kingdom’s domestic frameworks which are relevant to the matters listed in Article 45(2) of the UK GDPR (transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision);

(c) relevant changes to the United Kingdom’s international commitments or other obligations arising from legally binding conventions or instruments, as well as from its participation in multilateral or regional systems, in particular in relation to the protection of personal data.”—(Victoria Collins.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act and other changes to the UK’s domestic and international frameworks relating to data adequacy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.

It will be no surprise that the Liberal Democrats support greater collaboration with our European partners. Local people and businesses across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, as well as up and down the country, continue to highlight the importance of working with the EU and for ever closer union.

New clause 2 seeks to ensure that any changes in our data laws or international commitments do not jeopardise our data adequacy, which is due to be reassessed by the EU in June this year. The Minister may be pushing through the Bill to ensure that we get our adequacy in line with that requirement, which is crucial, because the UK’s ability to transfer data internationally underpins business, research and security partnerships.

Data adequacy is what allows personal data to flow freely between the UK and the EU without the need for costly and complex additional safeguards. A report by the New Economics Foundation put the cost of data inadequacy with the EU at between £1 billion to £1.6 billion for British businesses, highlighting the importance of aligning with our European neighbours on this. The UK is also party to various international agreements and conventions relating to data protection.

New clause 2 ensures that we assess how our international commitments may impact the EU’s view of our data protection framework. If we fail to maintain strong data protections, we risk losing our EU data adequacy status, an outcome that could cost billions in compliance burdens, disrupt cross-border operations and hinder UK businesses from accessing global markets. That would be a hammer blow to the UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, that rely on seamless data exchange with our European partners.

Supporting new clause 2 is about ensuring that Britain continues to lead on data governance, innovation and global collaboration. Data adequacy is not just a legal issue; it is a fundamental element of maintaining economic growth, international trust and our competitive edge. We welcome assurances—and indeed the discussions I have already had with the Minister—on data adequacy with Europe being maintained.

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Public-interest data trusts and communities

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for promoting data trusts and community data governance models for the public interest (referred to in this section as ‘data trusts’).

(2) That strategy must include—

(a) a definition of data trusts or data communities which prioritise ethical and responsible use of personal data,

(b) mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participant control and governance over shared datasets,

(c) potential incentives for organisations to participate in or develop such data trusts,

(d) safeguards to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms when data is shared,

(e) requirements for transparency in data trusts’ decision-making, including governance arrangements and any commercial partnerships,

(f) arrangements for ongoing independent oversight and review, and

(g) an assessment of how these models might advance innovation, economic growth, and data-driven research in socially beneficial areas such as health, climate resilience, and energy.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commission, UK Research and Innovation, relevant civil society groups, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to laying the strategy under subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, publish a progress report on how data trusts and data communities are being used and how they have contributed to the public interest, including any recommendations for further legislative or policy changes.”—(Victoria Collins.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a formal strategy for data trusts and to report periodically on progress. Encourages innovative but responsible data use.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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.”—(Steff Aquarone.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 17—Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems.

New clause 1—Age of consent for social media data processing—

“(1) The UK GDPR is as amended as follows.

(2) In Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services)

After paragraph 1 insert—

‘(1A) References to 13 years old in paragraph 1 shall be read as 16 years old in the case of social networking services processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, including targeted advertising and algorithmically curated recommendations.

(1B) For the purposes of paragraph 1A “social networking services” means any online service that—

(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and

(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images, or videos, with a wider audience.

(1C) Paragraph 1B does not apply to—

(a) educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings, where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes.

(b) health and well-being services, including NHS digital services, mental health support applications, and crisis helplines, where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care and support’”.

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16.

New clause 2—Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision (including any such provision as might be made by Act of Parliament), requiring the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to comply with United Kingdom copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts relating to the pre-training, development and operation of those web crawlers and general-purpose AI models take place.

(2) Provision made under subsection (1) must apply to the entire lifecycle of a general-purpose AI model, including but not limited to—

(a) pre-training and training,

(b) fine tuning,

(c) grounding and retrieval-augmented generation, and

(d) the collection of data for the said purposes.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires web crawlers and general-purpose AI models with UK links to comply with UK copyright law across all stages of AI development.

New clause 3—Transparency of crawler identity, purpose and segmentation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding the identity of crawlers used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—

(a) the name of the crawler,

(b) the legal entity responsible for the crawler,

(c) the specific purposes for which each crawler is used,

(d) the legal entities to which operators provide data scraped by the crawlers they operate, and

(e) a single point of contact to enable copyright owners to communicate 35 with them and to lodge complaints about the use of their copyrighted works.

(2) The information disclosed under subsection (1) must be available on an easily accessible platform and updated at the same time as any change.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to deploy distinct crawlers for different purposes, including but not limited to—

(a) web indexing for search engine results pages,

(b) general-purpose AI model pre-training, and

(c) retrieval-augmented generation.

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to ensure that the exclusion of a crawler by a copyright owner does not negatively impact the findability of the copyright owner’s content in a search engine.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires operators of web crawlers and AI models to disclose their identity, purpose, data-sharing practices, and use separate crawlers for different functions.

New clause 4—Transparency of copyrighted works scraped—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general purpose AI models, including but not limited to—

(a) the URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by them or by third parties on their behalf or from whom they have obtained text or data,

(b) the text and data used for the pre-training, training and fine-tuning, including the type and provenance of the text and data and the means by which it was obtained, and

(c) information that can be used to identify individual works, and (d) the timeframe of data collection.

(2) The disclosure of information under subsection (1) must be updated on a monthly basis in such form as the regulations may prescribe and be published in such manner as the regulations may prescribe so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory 35 instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause mandates transparency about the sources and types of data used in AI training, requiring monthly updates accessible to copyright owners.

New clause 5—Enforcement—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the Information Commission (under section 114 of the Data Protection Act 2018) (‘the Commissioner’) to monitor and secure compliance with the duties by an operator of a web crawler or general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) model whose service has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (‘a relevant operator’), including but not limited to the following—

(a) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘information notice’) to require a relevant operator to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of investigating a suspected failure to comply with the duties;

(b) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘assessment notice’) to require and to permit the Commissioner to carry out an assessment of whether a relevant operator has complied or is complying with the duties and to require a relevant operator to do any of the acts set out in section 146(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018;

(c) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied 15 that a relevant operator has failed, or is failing to comply with the duties, the Commissioner may give the relevant operator a written notice (an ‘enforcement notice’) which requires it—

(i) to take steps specified in the notice, or

(ii) to refrain from taking steps specified in the notice;

(d) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied that a relevant operator has failed or is failing to comply with the duties or has failed to comply with an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice, the Commissioner may, by written notice (a ‘penalty notice’), require the person to pay to the Commissioner an amount in sterling specified in the notice, the maximum amount of the penalty that may be imposed by a penalty notice being the ‘higher maximum amount’ as defined in section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018; and

(e) the regulations may provide for the procedure and rights of appeal 30 in relation to the giving of an information notice, an assessment notice, an enforcement notice or a penalty notice.

(2) The regulations must provide that any failure to comply with the duties by a relevant operator shall be directly actionable by any copyright owner who is adversely affected by such failure, and that such copyright owner will be entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered and to injunctive relief.

(3) The regulations must provide that the powers of the Commissioner and the rights of a copyright owner will apply in relation to a relevant operator providing a service from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such one provided from within the United Kingdom).

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause grants the Information Commissioner enforcement powers to ensure compliance with AI and web crawler transparency rules, including penalties for breaches.

New clause 6—Technical solutions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the technical solutions that may be adopted by copyright owners and by the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent and to identify the unauthorised scraping or other unauthorised use of copyright owners’ text and data.

(2) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must report on such technical solutions and must issue guidance as to the technical solutions to be adopted and other recommendations for the protection of the interests of copyright owners.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on technical measures to prevent unauthorised data scraping by web crawlers and AI models.

New clause 7—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.

New clause 8—Data Vision and Strategy—

“Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a ‘Data Vision and Strategy’ which outlines—

(a) the Government’s data transformation priorities for the next five years; and

(b) steps the Government will take to ensure the digitisation of Government services.”

New clause 9—Departmental Board Appointments—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) Government departments;

(b) NHS England; and

(c) NHS trusts

shall appoint to their departmental board or equivalent body at least one of the following—

(i) Chief Information Officer;

(ii) Chief Technology Officer;

(iii) Chief Digital Information Officer;

(iv) Service Transformation Leader; or

(v) equivalent postholder.

(2) The person or persons appointed as under subsection (1) shall provide an annual report on the progress of the department or body towards the Government’s Data Vision and Strategy.”

This new clause would require digital leaders to be represented at executive level within Government departments and other bodies.

New clause 10—Data use in Public Service Delivery Review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, every 12 months, lay before Parliament a ‘Data use in Public Service Delivery Review’.

(2) The Data use in Public Service Delivery Review shall include, but is not limited to assessment of the steps being taken to—

(a) improve the Government’s use of data in public service delivery over the previous 12 months;

(b) expand the use of data to support increased and improved digital services in public service delivery;

(c) improve expertise and digital talent within Government departments to help expand the use of data for public service delivery; and

(d) facilitate and regulate for better use of data in the delivery of public services.”

This new clause would require an annual assessment by the Secretary of State to examine the steps being taken to facilitate and regulate the use of data in the delivery of public services using digital and online technologies.

New clause 11—Access to a deceased child’s social media data—

“(1) Where a person under 18 years of age has deceased, a parent or legal guardian (the ‘requestor’) may request from any internet service provider (ISP) the child’s user data from up to 12 months prior to the date of death.

(2) The ISP must provide a copy of the requested data, or direct account access, upon verification of the requestor’s identity and relationship to the deceased person, and no court order shall be required for such disclosure.

(3) ‘User data’ includes all content, communications, or metadata generated by or associated with the deceased person’s online activity, including stored messages and posts, except where the deceased person had explicitly directed otherwise prior to death.

(4) The ISP may refuse or redact specific data only where—

(a) disclosure would unduly infringe the privacy rights of another individual,

(b) the deceased person had explicitly opted out before death,

(c) there is a conflicting court order, or

(d) a serious risk to public safety or national security would result.

(5) In providing data under this section, the ISP must comply with data protection legislation.

(6) This section constitutes a lawful basis for disclosure under Article 6 of the UK GDPR.

(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—

(a) provide guidance on verifying parent or guardian status,

(b) clarify any additional grounds for refusal, and

(c) prescribe safeguards to protect third-party confidentiality.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

‘internet service provider (ISP)’ includes any provider of social media, messaging, or other online platforms; and

‘data protection legislation’ has the meaning given in section 51 of this Act.”

This new clause would allow parents of a deceased minor to obtain that child’s social media data without a court order, subject to privacy safeguards for third parties.

New clause 12—Raising the minimum age at which users can consent to processing of personal data—

“(1) The UK GDPR is amended in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.

(2) (2) After paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services) insert—

‘(1A) References to “13 years old” and “age of 13 years” in paragraph 1 shall be read as “16 years old” and “age of 16 years” in the case of processing of personal data.

(1B) Paragraph (1A) does not apply to—

(a) platform systems and services operated where the primary purpose of processing of personal data is for the advancement of a charitable purpose as defined in the Charities Act 2011;

(b) publicly owned platform systems and services operated for the primary purpose of law enforcement, child protection, education, or healthcare;

(c) cases in which the Secretary of State determines it is in the best interests of the child for an operator to accept the child’s own consent.’”

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data from 13 to 16 years old with certain exceptions for charitable purposes and child safety.

New clause 13—Code of practice for the use of children’s educational data—

“(1) Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the Information Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains such guidance as the Information Commissioner considers appropriate on the processing of children’s data in connection with the provision of education.

(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) all aspects of the provision of education including learning, school management, and safeguarding;

(b) all types of schools and learning settings in the development of guidance;

(c) the use of AI systems in the provision of education;

(d) the impact of profiling and automated decision-making on children’s access to education opportunities;

(e) children’s consent to the way their personal data is generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;

(f) parental consent to the way their children’s personal data is being generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;

(g) the security of children’s data;

(h) the exchange of information for safeguarding purposes.”

This new clause requires the Information Commissioner to produce a code of practice for accessing children’s educational data.

New clause 14—Transparency of business and customer data used in training Artificial Intelligence models—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of general-purpose AI models to disclose upon request information about business data and customer data processed for the purposes of pre-training, training, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation in an AI model, or any other data input to an AI model.

(2) Business data and customer data must include, but is not limited to, the whole or any substantial part of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast included in any text, images and data used for the purposes set out in subsection (1).

(3) Information disclosable under subsection (1) must include but is not limited to:

(i) Digital Object Identifiers and file names;

(ii) Details of how the work was identified, including metadata;

(iii) The source from which it was scraped or otherwise obtained; and

(iv) The URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by operators, or by third parties, to obtain the data.

(4) The owner of rights in any individual work identifiable in information disclosed under subsection (1) must be provided upon request to the relevant operator with information as to whether and how they have complied with the laws of the United Kingdom in respect to that work.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out transparency provisions requiring generative AI developers to provide information to enable individuals and creative businesses to determine whether their data, works and other subject matter have been used in training datasets.

New clause 15—Complaints procedure for vulnerable individuals—

“(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) After section 165(3) insert—

‘(3A) For complaints under subsection (2), the Information Commissioner must provide appropriate complaints-handling procedures for—

(a) victims of modern slavery,

(b) victims of domestic abuse,

(c) victims of gender-based violence, or

(d) data subjects otherwise in a position of vulnerability.

(3B) Procedures under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) appropriate support for vulnerable individuals;

(b) provision of specialised officers for sensitive cases;

(c) signposting to support services;

(d) provision of a helpline;

(e) de-escalation protocols.’

(3) After section 166(1)(c) insert—

‘(d) fails to investigate a complaint appropriately or take adequate action to remedy findings of inadequacy.’

(4) After section 166(2)(b), insert—

‘(c) to use formal powers as appropriate to investigate a complaint and to remedy any findings of inadequacy, unless the request from the data subject is manifestly unfounded or excessive.’”

This new clause would require the Information Commission to introduce a statutory complaints procedure for individuals in a position of vulnerability and new grounds of appeal to an Information Tribunal.

New clause 18—Report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) prepare and publish a report examining the need for a specific statutory public interest test to determine and safeguard access to NHS data by third-parties and companies.

(b) within 28 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate and votable motion on the findings of the report in each House.

(2) The report must consider—

(a) whether and in what situations it would be necessary, proportionate and lawful to share NHS data with third-parties and companies when the interests and risks to both the individual and/or public is considered.

(b) when it would be in the public interest and in the best interests of patients and the NHS to allow access by third-parties and companies to NHS data in relation to the provision of health care services and for promotion of health.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies and then to schedule a debate on it in each House.

New clause 19—Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent of this Act, have conducted a review and published a report into the operation of Article 8 (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services) of the UK GDPR in relation to the data processed by social media platforms of children under the age of 16.

(2) As part of this review, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) the desirability of increasing the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR from 13 to 16, taking into account the available evidence in relation to the impact of social media platforms on the educational, social and emotional development of children; and

(b) the viability of increasing the digital age of consent under Article 8 of the UK GDPR in relation to specific social media platforms which are shown by the evidence to be unsuitable for use by children under the age of 16.

(3) Within six months of the publication of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a plan before Parliament for raising the digital age of consent to 16 through amendments to Article 8 GDPR, unless the review concludes that such changes are unnecessary.”

New clause 20—Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the use by web-crawlers and artificial intelligence models of creative content—

“The Secretary of State must—

(a) by 16 September 2025, issue a statement, by way of a copyright notice issued by the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise, in relation to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities conducted by web-crawlers or artificial intelligence models which may infringe the copyright attaching to creative works;

(b) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to help ensure proportionate and effective measures for transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, refining, tuning and generative activities in AI;

(c) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data;

(d) by 1 July 2026, publish a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content and relevant information associated with the licence.”

New clause 21—Directions to public authorities on recording of sex data—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, issue regulations relating to the code of practice set out in section 49 of this Act which require public authorities to—

(a) collect, process and retain sex data only where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation;

(b) request and record sex data accurately, in every circumstance where sex data is collected, in accordance with following category terms and definitions—

(i) ‘Sex’ meaning male or female only based on ‘sex at birth’, ‘natal sex’ or ‘biological sex’ (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably); and,

(ii) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, ‘Acquired Gender’ meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004;

(c) have updated relevant organisation guidance to stipulate that, where sex data is collected, this must be done in accordance with the definitions set out by subsection (1)(b) within three months of these regulations coming into force;

(d) have conducted a review of the accuracy of data held in relation to the sex of data subjects to ensure that the data is accurate in recording sex at birth and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate within 12 months of these regulations coming into force;

(e) have taken every reasonable step to ensure that any data held in relation to the sex and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate of a data subject that is found to be inaccurate is rectified or erased within 18 months of these regulations coming into force; and

(f) have produced and submitted to the Secretary of State a report setting out the findings of its review in relation to the matters set out by subsection (1)(d) and, where relevant, a description of the steps taken to ensure that the data held by the relevant public authority is accurate within the definitions set out subsection (1)(b) with 18 months of these regulations coming into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on receipt of a report in accordance with subsection (1)(f) instruct a public authority to take any further remedial steps within a specified timeframe reasonably necessary to ensure the accuracy of the sex and acquired gender data held by the relevant public authority.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passage of this Act, establish and maintain a register of public authorities approved to act as sources of data relating to the attribute of sex for persons providing digital verification services.

(4) The register in subsection (3) must be published on the website of the Office for Digital Identities & Attributes or any successor body.

(5) Until such time as a public authority is added to the register under subsection (3), persons providing digital verification services may only obtain data on the sex of an individual requesting the provision of digital verification services from the record of births held by the General Register Office in accordance with subsection (6).

(6) Information supplied by the General Register Office pursuant to subsection (5) must specify sex as recorded at birth, as well as any subsequent corrections to the register in the field marked ‘Sex’.

(7) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, add public authorities to the register as under subsection (3) only upon being satisfied on the basis of a report issued under subsection (1)(f), or satisfaction of such further steps required by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) that the data held by the relevant public authority in relation to sex and, where relevant, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate, as defined in subsection (1)(b), is accurate.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue regulations relating to the code of practice in section 49 requiring public authorities to record sex data in line with these regulations when data are collected. This clause is linked to amendments 39 and 40.

New clause 22—Recording of ethnicity data for the purposes of public service delivery—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data in the process of public service delivery and associated data collection.

(2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be collected in the process of public service delivery.

New clause 23—Recording of ethnicity data on the Register of Births and Deaths—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data during birth and death registration.

(2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be able to be collected during birth and death registration.

Government amendments 11 to 32.

Amendment 39, in clause 45, page 42, line 30, at the beginning insert—

“Save in respect of data relating to sex,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 40, page 43, line 15, at end insert—

“”gender recognition certificate” means a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Government amendments 1 to 8.

Amendment 37, in clause 67, page 75, line 24, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of paragraph 2, ‘scientific research’ means creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.

(2B) To meet the reasonableness test in paragraph 2, the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.”

This amendment incorporates clarifications to help reduce potential misuse of the scientific research exception. The first is a definition of scientific research based on the Frascati Manual. The second is a requirement that research be conducted in line with frameworks and standards in the UKRI Code of Practice for Research.

Amendment 41, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert—

“3. For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a human’s involvement is only meaningful if they are a natural person with the necessary competence, authority and capacity to understand, challenge and alter the decision.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 45, page 96, line 2, at end insert—

“5. Consent in accordance with paragraph 2 cannot be given by persons under the age of 18 where—

(a) the automated decision-making is likely to produce legal or similarly significant effects on the child, or

(b) the processing involves the profiling of a child to determine access to essential services, education, or other significant opportunities.

6. The controller shall not be obliged to maintain, acquire or process additional information in order to identify the age of a data subject for the sole purpose of complying with this Regulation.

7. A significant decision may not be taken based solely on automated processing, if the data subject is a child or may be a child unless the provider is satisfied that the decision is in, and compatible with, the best interests of a child, taking into account their rights and development stage, authorised by law to which the controller is subject, and after suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are made publicly available.

8. Profiling or solely automated processing of children’s data may not occur for the purposes of targeted advertising or behavioural analysis.”

This amendment ensures that automated decision-making cannot take place in circumstances where it would affect a child’s access to significant opportunities or would not be in their best interests, as well as protections against practices such as behavioural analysis.

Amendment 46, page 96, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—

“(a) communicate to the data subject before and after the decision is taken the fact that automated decision-making is involved in the decision, the extent of any human involvement, and the availability of safeguards under this Article;

(b) provide the data subject with information about decisions described in paragraph 1 taken in relation to the data subject including meaningful information about the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject, and a personalised explanation for the decision;

(c) enable the data subject to make representations about such decisions;

(d) enable the data subject to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller in relation to such decisions;

(e) enable the data subject to contest such decisions.

3. For the purposes of paragraph 2(b), a personalised explanation must—

(a) be clear, concise and in plain language of the data subject’s choice in a readily available format;

(b) be understandable, and assume limited technical knowledge of algorithmic systems;

(c) address the reasons for the decision and how the decision affects the individual personally, which must include—

(i) the inputs, including any personal data;

(ii) parameters that were likely to have influenced or were decisive to decision or a counterfactual of what change would have resulted in a more favourable outcome;

(iii) the sources of parameters and inputs;

(d) be available free of charge and conveniently accessible to the data subject, free of deceptive design patterns.

4. Where the safeguards apply after a decision is made, the controller must give effect to data subject requests as soon as reasonably practicable and within one month of the request.

5. The controller must ensure the safeguards are fully in place and complete a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 before a decision under Article 22A is taken, documenting their implementation of the safeguards in addition to the requirements of that Article.

6. The controller must publish details of their implementation of the safeguards and how data subjects can make use of them.”

This amendment would ensure that data subjects are informed of automated decisions made about them in a timely way, and that that explanation is personalised to enable them to understand why it was made. It also ensures processors are incentivised to put the safeguards in place before commencing automated decision-making.

Amendment 42, page 96, line 23, after “Article 22A(1)(a),” insert

“and subject to Article 22A(3)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 43, page 97, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, the review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 44, page 98, line 31, after “and 50C(3)(c),” insert “and subject to 50A(3)”.

This amendment and Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful, the review must be carried out by a competent person who is empowered to change the decision in practice.

Amendment 9, in clause 81, page 100, line 7, at end insert—

“Age assurance

1C. Information society services which are likely to be accessed by children must use highly effective age verification or age estimation measures for the purpose of delivering on children’s higher protection matters.”

This amendment requires services which are likely to be accessed by children to use highly effective age verification measures.

Amendment 38, in clause 86, page 103, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Where personal data is processed for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act (‘reuse’), the processor or controller must publish details of the data sources used.

(2B) These details must as a minimum include a description of the scientific research, the provenance and method of acquisition of the personal data being reused, the original lawful basis for processing, the number of data subjects affected, and whether the data subjects have been notified of the reuse.

(2C) The processor or controller must notify the Information Commission when processing data for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act with the same details.”

This amendment ensures transparency for the use of scientific research exemptions by requiring those reusing personal data to publish details of that reuse and notify the Information Commission of that reuse.

Government amendments 33 and 34.

Amendment 10, in schedule 7, page 201, line 5, at end insert—

“(1B) A third country cannot be considered adequate or capable of providing appropriate safeguards by any authority where there exists no credible means to enforce data subject rights or obtain legal remedy.

(1C) For the purposes of paragraph 1A, the Secretary of State must make a determination as to whether credible means are present in a third country.

(1D) In making a determination regarding credible means, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the view of the Information Commissioner.

(1E) Credible means do not exist where the Secretary of State considers that any of the following are true:

(a) judicial protection of persons whose personal data is transferred to that third country is insufficient;

(b) effective administrative and judicial redress are not present;

(c) effective judicial review mechanisms do not exist; and

(d) there is no statutory right to effective legal remedy for data subjects.”

The amendment would prohibit personal data transfer to countries where data subject rights cannot be adequately upheld and prohibit private entities from using contracts to give the impression that data security exists.

Government amendments 35 and 36.

[Chris Bryant]

Earlier I appeared as a Department for Culture, Media and Sport Minister, and now I appear as a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister. I hate to embarrass Members, but they will get two bouts of me today. I will start with the Government amendments, and then once I have heard the arguments from Members advancing other amendments, I will speak to those later in the debate. If I do not cover subjects in this initial speech, I will get back to them later.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is enticing me. I hope he will be nicer to me than the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was earlier.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am sure that the Chair of the Committee and I will always be nice to Minister. I was only going to say that I have experienced the slight schizophrenia he has referred to in holding roles in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and in DCMS at the same time. Although he is appearing as a DSIT Minister this afternoon, can he assure the House that he will not forget his responsibilities as a DCMS Minister for the creative industries?

[Chris Bryant]

I model myself in all things on the right hon. Gentleman, apart from the fact that I left the Tory party many years ago, and it is about time that he came over to the Labour Benches.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is not too late.

[Chris Bryant]

No, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) could come over here; I am not going back over there.

The point I was going to make is that I am fully cognisant of my duties. I think the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the artificial intelligence copyright issues that we will be addressing fairly shortly. I like the fact that I am in both Departments, because it means I can bring the knowledge of both sectors to bear on each other. If we are lucky, and if we work hard at it, I hope that I will be able to persuade him that we can come to a win-win solution. As he knows, this is not easy. When I had my first meeting with him after I was appointed in the post, he said, “This is not an easy area to resolve.” I hope I am not breaking a confidence—but he is smiling.

I have a large number of topics to cover, and I am conscious that many Members will think this is the data Bill, when we will actually be dealing with an awful lot of subjects this afternoon that do not feel as if they have anything to do with the measures in the original version brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman and previously. I hope that Members will bear with me. I intend to address the Government’s amendments as follows: first, AI and copyright; secondly, deepfakes; thirdly, the national underground assets register; and then smart data and other minor and technical amendments.

I will start with AI and intellectual property. As Members know, it was never the Government’s intention to legislate on that issue at all in this Bill. It is a complex and important issue, which is why we have consulted on a package of measures. That consultation had more than 11,500 responses, which we are still considering. Several hon. Members have said to me, “Will you remove the opt-out clause in the Bill?” I need to make it absolutely clear that no such opt-out clause is in the Bill. We never laid one in the Bill, so there is not an opt-out clause to remove.

As Members will also know, the Lords inserted a set of amendments on AI and copyright, which we removed in Committee. They reappear on the amendment paper today as new clauses 2 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). A similar measure has been tabled as new clause 14 by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel).

We oppose all these new clauses for several reasons. First, they pre-empt the results of the consultation. It must surely be better to legislate on this complex subject in the round rather than piecemeal. The amendments are also unworkable. New clause 5, for instance, would make the Information Commissioner the regulator of transparency requirements, but the Information Commissioner’s Office has neither the skills nor the resources to perform that function. Obviously, transparency requirements without an effective enforcement mechanism are worse than useless, which means the other clauses on transparency are also unworkable in this context. The new clauses also fail to address some of the most important questions in this area. They effectively legislate piecemeal rather than in the round. Whenever Parliament has done that in the past, it has rued the day, and I think the same is true today.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Does the Minister not understand the urgency? Generative AI is ingesting our whole creative catalogue as we speak. We need something in place now. We cannot wait a year for reports or three years for legislation; we need action now. Does he not understand that something needs to be brought forward here today? These amendments offer that.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think the amendments do offer that, because I do not think they work. We need to legislate in the round, as I say, and not piecemeal. I point out to the hon. Member that there is something of a two-edged sword here. I have been repeatedly told—and I understand the point—that there is no legal uncertainty as to the copyright status of works that are being scraped. At the same time, people are saying they want legislative change. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. I am determined to get us to a better place on this, as I will perhaps explain in a couple of moments.

I think there is an intention to push new clause 2 to a vote later, which I urge hon. Members not to do, although I do not always get my way. New clause 2 basically says that people should comply with the law. I mean, it is a simple fact: people should comply with the law. We cannot legislate to tell people that they should comply with the law; the law is the law. If none of these amendments is passed today, the law will remain as it is today and copyright law in the UK will be robust and clear.

For the absolute avoidance of doubt, some people have talked to me about text and data mining exceptions, which, as Members will know, exist, for instance, in the European Union. There is a text and data mining exception already in UK law. It was introduced in 2014 via a statutory instrument, which added section 29A to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, it is an exception for the sole purpose of non-commercial research. I think that that is absolutely clear in law, and I do not think it needs any clarifying.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand the point that the Minister is making about existing copyright law, but, as he has said, the Government opened a consultation that has, for many of our constituents who work in the creative industries, prefigured a substantial change in copyright when it comes to AI. Does he see the merit that many of us see in making it clear that the principles behind copyright from which our creative constituents should be able to benefit, and which should protect their own works, are what is at stake here? Having said that the existing law stands, will he at least make a commitment that that is what the Government want as well? I think he can understand why people are concerned, and the source of the concerns that have merited these amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely understand and, in large measure, share those concerns. We wanted to ensure, in this fast-changing world, that the creative industries in the United Kingdom could be remunerated for the work they had produced. We are not in the business of giving away other people’s work to third parties for nothing: that would be to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, to use a term from an old translation of the Bible, and we are determined not to do it. As my hon. Friend—and several other Members—will have heard me say many times before, we would only proceed with the package of measures included in the consultation if we believed that we were advancing the cause of the creative industries in the UK, rather than putting them in danger or legal peril.

I think that some of the things I will say in a moment will be of assistance. We want to reach a point at which it is easier for the creative industries—whether they are large businesses with deep pockets and able to use lawyers, or very small individual photographers or painters—to assert and protect their rights, and to say, if they wish, “No, you cannot scrape my material for the purpose of large language model learning, unless you remunerate me.” That remuneration might happen via a collective licensing scheme, or it might happen individually. Either way, we want to get to more licensing rather than less. As, again, I have said several times at this Dispatch Box, we have looked at what has happened in the European Union and what is happening in the United States of America, and we believe that although the EU said that its package was designed to deliver more licensing, it has not led to more licensing or to more remuneration of the creative industries, and we want to avoid that pitfall.

As I have said, I take the concerns of the creative industries seriously, both as a DSIT Minister and as a DCMS Minister; of course I do. I agree—we, the Government, agree—that transparency is key. We want to see more licensing of content. We believe that the UK is a creative content superpower, and we want UK AI companies to flourish on the basis of high-quality data. I have spoken to a fair number of publishing companies, in particular UK companies such as Taylor & Francis, a largely academic publisher. As Members will know, the UK is the largest exporter of books in the world. Those companies are deliberately trying to get all their material licensed to AI companies, for two reasons: first, they want to be remunerated for the work that they have provided, and secondly, just as importantly, they want AI to come up with good answers. If you put dirty water into a pipe, dirty water will come out at the other end, and if you put good data into AI, good answers will come out of AI. That is an important part of why we want to ensure that we have strong AI based on high-quality data, and much of that is premium content from our creative industries.

We also agree that the Government must keep an open mind, and must take full account of the economic evidence. That is why we have tabled new clauses 16 and 17, which set out binding commitments to assess the impact of any and all proposals and to consider and report on the key areas raised in debate. That includes any and all of the options that were involved in the consultation that we published after the amendments were tabled in the House of Lords. As the Government take forward the commitments made by these amendments, they will consider all potential policy options. I must emphasise that the Government have not prejudged the outcome of the consultation, and take the need to consider and reflect on the best approach for all parties very seriously.

Members will, I am sure, have read new clause 17; it requires the Government to report on four matters. First, there is the issue of technical solutions that would enable copyright owners to control whether their copyright works could be used to develop AI.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Lady just let me finish this paragraph, because it might read better in Hansard? Actually, I have now added that bit, so it is ruined, and I might as well give way to her.

[Victoria Collins]

The question of technical solutions is very important, but my challenge is this. I have spoken to representatives of some of the big tech companies who are pushing for that, and who are saying that it is hard for them to do it at scale but creatives can do it. Why can the tech companies not be leading on an opt-in system for creatives? Let me hand that back to the Minister.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I should point out that the hon. Lady, as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party, will be speaking very shortly.

[Chris Bryant]

I know, but she is wonderful, so we will let her—or you will let her, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is a really important point. Surely it cannot be impossible for us to find a technical solution. People who can develop AI—and they are now developing AI on their laptops, especially following DeepSeek; they do not need massive computers—should be able to develop a very simple system, as I have said before, whereby all creatives who are copyright owners are able to assert their rights, very simply, across all platforms, without any great exertion. That is what I want to achieve.

The hon. Lady was quite right to raise that question, so what are we going to do next? We say in new clause 17 that we will report in 12 months’ time. If we were to report in 12 months’ time that we had done absolutely nothing, I think that everyone would rightly rant and rave at us. It is our intention that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will together co-ordinate a special taskforce specifically to consider how we can facilitate, incentivise and enable the development of these technical solutions. I suspect that, if we can get there, opt-out will look remarkably like opt-in.

The second matter on which new clause 17 requires us to report is access to data for AI developers to train AI systems in the UK, the third is transparency, and the fourth relates to measures to facilitate the licensing of copyright works for AI training. The publication will be required within 12 months of Royal Assent, and will of course be laid before Parliament. New clause 16 supplements these reports with a full economic impact assessment that will go further than previous assessments, and will present an analysis of the economic impact of a range of policy options available in this context, supported by the additional evidence that the Government have received in response to their consultation. The reporting requirements are important: they mean that we will have to engage with each of these issues apace and in depth, and we will do that. We are determined to find and incentivise technical solutions that support our objectives, and I believe that if we do that we can be a world leader. As I said earlier, the two Secretaries of State will convene working groups to tackle each of these issues.

I have heard people say that we are legislating to water down copyright, but that is simply not true. If Members support the Government’s position today, the UK’s copyright law will remain precisely as robust tomorrow as it is today. For activities in the UK, people will, in law, only be able to use copyright material if they are permitted and licensed to do so or if a copyright exception allows it, such as the existing copyright exceptions for education, public libraries and non-commercial work.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that that might engender something.

[Alice Macdonald]

It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee. May I take up the point about timelines in the new clause? The Minister has said that the reports must be made before the end of a period of 12 months, but, as other Members have said, there is a great deal of concern about what may happen. Does he expect this to take a year, or might it possible to work faster so that more reassurance can be given? I accept that there will need to be further consultation, and examination of the responses.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously, a series of different things will happen. We will have to respond to the consultation at some point, and I guess that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will want to respond as well. In the meantime, we will be running a working group. I am very happy to keep the House updated on how that work progresses, but I do not want to commit to producing something within 12 months without being absolutely certain that I can do so. If new clause 17 is carried today, it will be a requirement by law that we produce a response within 12 months.

I fully get the point about urgency. As the right hon. Member for Maldon knows well, this issue has been hanging around for a considerable period of time. We in the UK have perhaps been a little slow, but I want to make sure that we get it right, rather than legislate piecemeal.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I apologise if I have missed this, but has the Minister outlined when the Government will respond to the consultation?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I have not—my hon. Friend has not missed anything. Obviously, we want to respond as soon as possible, but we have 11,500 consultation responses to consider.

Some issues have hardly been referred to in the public debate on this matter. One issue that Equity is understandably pursuing, and that we referred to in the consultation, is about personality rights, which exist in some states in the United States of America. That is quite complicated to legislate for, which is one of the reasons we have consulted on it.

We have also consulted on the question—again, nobody has referred to this in the public debate—of whether a work that is generated by AI has any copyright attached to it. If so, who owns that copyright? It is slightly moot in British law. One could argue that British copyright law has always presumed that copyright applies only where a work is the expression of an individual, so it does not apply to AI-generated material, but there are other elements. Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 says that machine-generated material can have copyright attached to it, which is one of the other issues that we want to address.

As I said earlier, one of the issues to which nobody has yet come up with an answer is how we will provide proper enforcement of whatever transparency requirements we propose. I am conscious that in discussions I have had with our European counterparts, including my Spanish counterpart and members of the European Commission, there has been some concern about precisely what they will do by virtue of transparency. This issue is made more complicated by the advent of DeepSeek—for a whole series of different reasons, which I am happy to explain at some other point—but we need to end up with a transparency system that is both effective and proportionate. Simply dumping a list of millions and millions of URLs that have been visited on the internet is neither effective nor proportionate, so we will have to come up with something.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Does the Minister envisage that any model of enforcement around transparency will be compulsory and not a voluntary system?

[Chris Bryant]

By its nature, enforcement would have to be compulsory, but we are running ahead of ourselves, because nobody has actually come up with a system that has an enforcement mechanism. Who would do it? What body would do it? How would that body be resourced? That is one of the things that we need to look into, and it is one of the elements of the consultation.

I will move on to another subject: the issue of purported intimate images. Government amendment 34 deals with the creation of intimate images or deepfakes. Earlier in the Bill’s passage, my colleague Lord Ponsonby added a new offence of creating purported intimate images without consent or reasonable belief in consent, and I am sure all hon. Members agree that this is a really important addition. In Committee, we introduced the offence of requesting the creation of purported images without consent or reasonable belief in consent, as hon. Members who were on the Public Bill Committee with me will know. It seems axiomatic that the courts should have the power to deprive offenders of the image and anything containing it that relates or is connected to the offence. This is already the case for the creating offence, which was introduced in the House of Lords. Government amendment 34 amends the sentencing code to achieve that for the requesting offence. It ensures that the existing regime of court powers to deprive offenders of property also applies to images and devices containing the image that relate to the requesting offence.

We have tabled a series of amendments to clauses 56 to 59 to reflect our discussions with the devolved Governments on the national underground asset register. The amendments will require that the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, rather than merely consult them, before making regulations in relation to the provisions. Co-operation with the devolved Governments has been consistent and constructive throughout the Bill’s passage. We have secured legislative consent from Scotland, and the Senedd in Wales voted in favour of granting the Bill legislative consent only yesterday. We regret that for procedural reasons, the process with Northern Ireland has not yet reached the stage of legislative consent. We are, however, working constructively with the Department of Finance to ensure that we can make progress as quickly as possible. We continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to secure legislative consent, and to ensure that citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland feel the full benefits of the Bill.

Before I finish, I turn to our amendments to help ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally, and that part 1 of the Bill is as clear as possible. Amendments to fee charging under clauses 11 and 15 follow extensive stakeholder engagement, and will maximise the commercial viability of smart data systems by enabling regulations to make tailored provision on fee charging within each smart data scheme. For example, amendments 19 to 21 enable the fees charged to exceed expenses where appropriate. This is necessary to fulfil the commitment in the national payments vision to establish a long-term regulatory framework for open banking. Outside smart data, Government amendment 35

“adds references to investigating crime to existing references in the Data Protection Act 2018 to detecting or preventing crime”,

which will bring these references into line with other parts of the legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Dr Spencer]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Dr Spencer]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I rise to support new clauses 2 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins); to pay tribute to Baroness Kidron, who has driven forward these amendments in the other place; and to speak in favour of new clause 20 in the name of the official Opposition.

I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record on this matter, but our creative industries are such a phenomenal UK success story. They are our economic superpower and are worth more than automotive, aerospace and life sciences added together, comprising almost 10% of UK registered businesses and creating nearly 2.5 million jobs. More than that, our creative industries have so much intrinsic value; they underpin our culture and our sense of community. Intellectual property showcases our nation around the world and supports our tourism sector. As a form of soft power, there is simply nothing like it—yet these social and economic benefits are all being put at risk by the suggested wholesale transfer of copyright to AI companies.

The choice presented to us always seems, wittingly or unwittingly, to pit our innovative AI sector against our world-class creative industries and, indeed, our media sector. It is worth noting that news media is often overlooked in these debates, but newspapers, magazines and news websites license print and content online. In turn, that helps to support high-quality and independent journalism, which is so vital to underpinning our democratic life. That is essential considering recent news that the global average press freedom score has fallen to an all-time low.

I want to push back against the false choice that we always seem to be presented with that, somehow, our creative industries are Luddites and are not in favour of AI. I have seen time and again how our creators have been characterised by big tech and its lobbyists as somehow resistant to technological progress, which is of course nonsensical.

[Chris Bryant]

I want to knock on the head the idea that any Government Minister thinks that the creative industries are Luddites. As I said in the debate in Westminster Hall—I know that the hon. Lady was not able to be there—many creative industries use all sorts of technical innovations every single day of the week. They are not Luddites at all; they are the greatest innovators in the country.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I did take part in a Westminster Hall debate on this matter a couple of weeks ago, but one of his colleagues was responding. I made the same point then. Quite often in the media or more generally, AI seems to be pitted against our creative industries, which should not be the case, because we know that our creative industries embrace technology virtually more than any other sector. They want to use AI responsibly. They do not want to be replaced by it. The question before us is how lawmakers can ensure that AI is used ethically without this large-scale theft of IP. We are today discussing amendments that go somewhere towards providing an answer to that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend: that is the peculiarity. The Minister knows only too well about the nature of what goes on in countries such as China. Chinese companies are frankly scared stiff of cutting across what their Government tell them they have to do, because what happens is quite brutal.

We have to figure out how we protect data from ill use by bad regimes. I use China as an example because it is simply the most powerful of those bad regimes, but many others do not observe data protection in the way that we would assume under contract law. For example, BGI’s harnessing of the data it has gleaned from covid tests, and its dominance in the pregnancy test market, is staggering. It has been officially allowed to take 15% of the data, but it has taken considerably more, and that is just one area.

Genomics is a huge and vital area right now, because it will dominate everything in our lives, and it populates AI with an ability to describe and recreate the whole essence of individuals, so this is not a casual or small matter. We talk about AI being used in the creative industries—I have a vested interest, because my son is in the creative industries and would support what has been said by many others about protecting them—but this area goes a whole quantum leap in advance of that. We may not even know in the future, from the nature of who they are, who we are talking to and what their vital statistics are.

This amendment is not about one country; it is about providing a yardstick against which all third countries should be measured. If we are to maintain the UK’s standing as a nation that upholds privacy, the rule of law, democracy and accountability, we must not allow data to be transferred to regimes that fundamentally do not share those values. It is high time that we did this, and I am glad to see the Minister nodding. I hope therefore that he might look again at the amendment. Out of old involvement in an organisation that he knows I am still part of, he might think to himself that maybe this is worth doing or finding some way through.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not resile from my views just because I have become a Minister, just as the right hon. Member did not when he became a Minister. He makes an important set of points. I do think, however, that they are already met by the changes in the schedule to article 45B, which is not an exhaustive list of things that the Secretary of State may consider. The points he refers to are certainly things that the Secretary of State could—and should, I would argue—consider.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that that might find its way on to the face of the Bill with a little more description, but I understand that and I acknowledge that he does as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill and to address some of the amendment proposed, particularly Government new clauses 16 and 17.

New clause 17 is entitled “Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems”. I am pleased to note, in subsection (3)(b), that the report will

“the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by developers of AI systems (for example, on text and data mining)”.

I also note that “developers” are specifically broken down into

“individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses”.

It is right to provide for that level of granularity. Similarly, I note that the report will

“consider, and make proposals in relation to… the disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about”

their use of copyright data to develop AI systems and “how they access” that copyrighted data,

“for example, by means of web crawlers”.

I am pleased to see discussions of licensing included in the report, and an exploration, again in granular detail, of the impact of a licensing system on all levels of developers. However, I would have liked to see an equal level of granularity for copyright owners to understand the effects of proposals outlined in subsection (3). Subsection (4) states that

“In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consider the likely effect of proposals, in the United Kingdom, on… copyright owners”

as well as developers and users of AI systems. Although I note that new subsection (4) refers to individuals, microbusinesses and so on, I feel that there is a little vagueness as to whether this level of granularity is afforded to copyright owners as well.

[Chris Bryant]

That is not intentional. It is exactly the same level of granularity that we will go into in our reporting.

[Dr Gardner]

Well, I will just throw the rest of my speech away, then. I shall persevere. Will the report explore the effects of the proposed solutions and the resulting protections on individual creators?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Dr Gardner]

Micro creative businesses?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Dr Gardner]

And small publishers?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Dr Gardner]

Right, so can I push it further?

[Chris Bryant]

No.

[Dr Gardner]

There seem to be an awful lot of David Attenborough TikTok videos, but it is not him. I wonder whether this measure will apply to personality rights, and about the definition of a “small rights owner”. I will just squeeze that in.

[Chris Bryant]

Personally, I am in favour of doing something about personality rights, but it is one of the things that is in the consultation, to which will we respond. It is one of the things for which we will need to legislate in the round.

[Dr Gardner]

Perfect.

I asked the Secretary of State what reassurances can be given that smaller creatives, including microbusinesses and small creative businesses, will be considered in the report so that they can have confidence that the systems finally applied will work for them, particularly when we consider an individual’s early career—think of Ed Sheeran strumming away in his bedroom in his pre-fame days—and how they can protect their copyrighted works against the global tech giants.

New clause 16 addresses the economic impact on both copyright owners and AI developers, and I want to switch from talking about copyright owners to trying to defend the AI industry. If we do not get the controls right, we risk the mid and long-term success of the AI industry. If we do not get a fair solution for the creative and AI industries, we risk a reduction in the quantity, and potentially in the quality, of human-created data and an increase in AI-generated creative data.

I will briefly segue, because we are developing a lot of AI-created content that might be subject to copyright. A report recently pointed out that 18% of Spotify content is now AI-generated. People might remember the big hoo-ha when an AI-generated image won a photographic competition, which caused a lot of disturbance, but a lot of creative skill was involved in how the photographer developed and produced that image. No, it was not a photograph, but it is in a category of its own. I feel that is also creative content and copyrighted data, so there is a grey area.

If we start to generate more and more AI-created data and less and less high-quality human-generated data, because of the challenges to the creative industry, there is a danger that AI models will start scraping and training on AI-generated data, potentially leading to a reductive spiral into mediocrity, with some even suggesting that this could result in model collapse. On new clauses 16 and 17, I encourage the House to consider the impact of not employing proposals such as licensing and protecting the generation of new human-created content, given the risks posed to AI models and developers in the long term.

I will briefly comment on amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). She ably outlined the reasons for the amendments, so I will not go into a lot of detail, but I want to point out that getting the definitions correct will prevent a loophole whereby AI companies can misuse personal data by claiming that their commercial development is scientific research. The amendments would provide transparency on the use of data by researchers in order to maintain confidence in this country’s ethical, legal and professional high standards in academic research. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to the points I have raised.

I am now going to give my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), a heart attack because I am going to refer to amendments 41 to 46 to clause 80 on article 22 of the UK GDPR, which is close to my heart. She is not to worry, though; I read those amendments with great interest and I understand the back-up they would provide, but although I am a newbie MP, as I read them—in my understanding, given the little work I did in my previous job with a regulator—I felt that they were more like secondary legislation. They could be considered for the future, particularly amendment 46, which includes some very welcome additions. However, when it comes to primary legislation, I feel that the Bill works better as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As many Members will be aware, my constituent Ellen Roome knows only too well the tragedies that can take place as a result of social media. I am pleased that Ellen joins us in the Gallery to hear this debate in her pursuit of Jools’ law.

In 2022, Ellen came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had tragically lost his life, aged just 14. In the following months, Ellen battled the social media giants—and she is still battling them—to try to access his social media data, as she sought answers about what had happened leading up to his death. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for raising this in his speech. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so they did not see any reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, and a court order was needed to access the digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees.

The legal system is unequipped to tackle the complexities of social media. In the past, when a loved one died, their family would be able to find such things in their possession—perhaps in children’s diaries, in school books or in cupboards. However, now that so much of our lives are spent online, personal data is kept by the social media giants. New clause 11 in my name would change that, although I understand that there are technical and legal difficulties.

The Minister and the Secretary of State met Ellen and me this morning, along with the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and we are grateful for the time they gave us. My new clause will not go to a vote today, but we will keep pushing because Ellen and other parents like her should not have to go through this to search for answers when a child has died. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill that will be steps forward, but we will keep pushing and we will hold the Government’s and all future Governments’ feet to the fire until we get a result.

[Chris Bryant]

It was great to meet this morning, although I am sorry it was so late and so close to Report stage; I wish it had been earlier. We were serious in the meeting this morning: we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that coroners understand both their powers and their duties in this regard, and how they should be operating with families and the prosecuting authorities as well if necessary. We will also do everything we can to ensure that the technical companies embrace the point that they need to look after the families of those who have lost loved ones when they are young.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. He is absolutely right. There are clear issues of process here. There are differential approaches across the country—different coroners taking different approaches and different police forces taking different approaches. The words of Ministers have weight and I hope that coroners and police forces are taking note of what needs to happen in the future so that there are proper investigations into the deaths of children who may have suffered misadventure as a result of social media.

On related matters, new clause 1 would gain the support of parents like Ellen up and down this country. We need to move further and faster on this issue of social media and online safety—as this Government promised on various other things—and I am pleased that my party has a very clear position on it.

I will now turn to the issue of copyright protections. I held a roundtable with creatives in Cheltenham, which is home to many tech businesses and AI companies. The creative industries in my town are also extremely strong, and I hear a lot of concern about the need to protect copyright for our creators. The industry, is worth £124 billion or more every year, remains concerned about the Government’s approach. The effects of these issues on our culture should not be understated.

We would be far poorer both culturally and financially if our creatives were unable to make a living from their artistic talents. I believe there is still a risk of the creative industry being undermined if the Government remove protections to the benefit of AI developers. I trust that Ministers are listening, and I know that they have been listening over the many debates we have had on this issue. If they were to remove those protections, they would tip the scales in favour of AI companies at the cost of the creative industry. When we ask AI companies and people in tech where the jobs are going to come from, the answers are just not there.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) would reinstate copyright protections at all levels of AI development and reinforce the law as it currently stands. It is only fair that when creative work is used for AI development, the creator is properly compensated. The Government have made positive noises on this issue in multiple debates over the last few months. That is a positive sign, and I think that in all parts of this House we have developed a consensus on where things need to move—but creatives remain uneasy about the implications for their work and are awaiting firm action.

Ministers may wish to tackle this issue with future action, and I understand that it might not be dealt with today, but our amendments would enable that to happen. They also have an opportunity today: nothing would send a stronger signal than Government support and support from Members from across the House for my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I implore all Members to back them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to come to the right hon. Member’s amendment in a moment.

The study is being led by Dr Amy Orben of Cambridge University, and it is supported by scientists from nine of the UK’s premier universities, all with established expertise in this field. The study will report to the Government this month on the existing evidence base, ongoing research and recommendations for future research that will establish any causal links between smartphones, social media and children’s wellbeing. The Government will publish the report along with the planned next steps to improve the evidence base in this area to support policy making. Considering the extra work we are doing, I hope Members will not press their amendments.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I will not give way.

On new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), we share the concern that children’s data in education must be safeguarded. We have already committed to instructing the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce a statutory code of practice on the use of children’s data by edtech services once the findings of their audits have been published. We believe that defining the scope of the code in legislation now or imposing a six-month deadline for its publication risks undermining that evidence-led process.

Amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), seeks to ensure that platforms adopt strong age-assurance mechanisms when designing their services under the new children’s higher protection matters duty in clause 81. Of course, we subscribe to that policy aim, but the clause already strengthens UK GDPR by requiring providers of information society services to take account of how children can best be protected and supported when they are designing their processing activities. The ICO’s age-appropriate design code will be updated to provide clear and robust guidance on how services can meet these obligations, including through proportionate risk-based age assurance, where appropriate. I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention if he wants—he asked first—but I am afraid I have to be very careful because I have a lot of questions to answer.

[Damian Hinds]

Very quickly, I want the Minister to confirm that the Ofcom children’s codes, to which he has referred, are all about the 18 age threshold. They are a very welcome move to filter out wholly inappropriate content that is designed for over-18s and other very harmful content, but they do not do anything for the initial threshold—the age minimum—at age 13.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Member makes a fair point.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry, but I do need to crack on because I have very little time.

I have not yet mentioned new clause 21 and amendments 39 and 40. Let me start by saying that the Government accept the Supreme Court ruling, but it is paramount that we work through this judgment carefully, with sensitivity and in line with the law. We cannot simply flick a switch; we must work through the impacts of this judgment properly, recognising that this is broader than data used by digital verification services. I reflect the comment made earlier by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), when he said that data accuracy is important.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Trans people and trans-led groups have been very concerned by new clause 21 tabled by the Opposition. They have rightly described it as an attack on trans people’s rights and their privacy. Can the Minister offer some reassurance that, as well as opposing this amendment today, the Government will not seek to introduce similar legislation via other means in the future?

[Chris Bryant]

We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.

As I said, data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service. That is why the Government are already engaged in an appropriate and balanced range of work on data standards and data accuracy. We are already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority. Following a review, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Government Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published. That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today. Simply, we believe the concerns regarding the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling and the specific and particular requirements of public authorities. By contrast, the new clause and the amendment would undermine the work the Government are already doing. Giving the Secretary of State a new regulatory rule would undermine the existing processes that ensure compliance with the UK’s data protection.

Secondly, the new clause is misplaced because the Bill does not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender. Indeed, it does not seek to alter any of the content of data used by digital verification services. Instead, the Bill enables people to do digitally what they can presently do physically, and it is for organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify in their particular circumstances. Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically would obviously sow further division.

Thirdly, the new clause is unnecessary, because it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used in many, if not all, of the cases specifically raised by or with hon. Members, such as within the NHS to gain access to single-sex wards or for screening or to enter other female-only spaces. We expect digital verification services to be used primarily to prove things such as one’s right to work, or one’s age, address or professional or educational qualifications, which are not matters where sex or gender is relevant at all.

Fourthly, the new clause goes significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court. Finally, the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by requiring public authorities to record sex as biological sex in all cases regardless of whether it is justified or proportionate in that given circumstance. In addition, the amendment does not take account of the fact that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 gives those with gender recognition certificates a level of privacy and control over who has access to information about their gender history. As for amendment 39, it will create further uncertainty as it appears to prevent use of clause 45 in all cases involving sex.

As I have set out, while I understand the reason for tabling these amendments, I fear they would create legal confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency. I also note that they were not part of the previous Government’s version of this Bill, in which in nearly all respects this part of the Bill was identical to ours. Given the narrow scope of digital verification service measures, the need to consider this area holistically to ensure alignment with existing legislation, and upcoming EHRC guidance and the breadth of work already being carried out, I hope the new clause and amendments will be withdrawn.

There was one other amendment referring to digital verification services: the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 7. I completely share their concerns about digital inclusion, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). We have published our own digital inclusion action plan, but such obligations could be particularly challenging for businesses currently operating solely in the digital sphere—for example, online banks. Taking a blanket approach in the way proposed would not be proportionate, so I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

On scientific research, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) tabled amendments 37 and 38. Amendment 37 adds further conditions to the definition of scientific research. I understand her concern and we want to prevent misuse. However, the Bill does not expand the meaning of scientific research and already contains safeguards, such as in clause 86. Moreover, the amendment replicates wording from two external documents—including the Frascati document—neither of which were intended to be legally binding or to define scientific research. I am very happy to continue having these conversations with my hon. Friend, but I urge her not to press her the amendment.

On access to NHS data, which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) raised, let me just answer his direct question about the sale of NHS data. The Secretary of State for Health has said categorically that the NHS is not for sale and that patients’ data is not for sale—end of story. I hope we can put that one to bed.

On ethnicity data, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) made valid points that we intend to pursue. Public bodies usually collect ethnicity data in line with the Office for National Statistics’ harmonised standards. The ONS is currently reviewing that and I am sure she will want to feed into that process.

I am afraid that I have not had time to refer again to AI and copyright, but this country is a—

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 32 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B.

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement.

That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding the views of the Chinese Government, it is a delight to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am only saddened that I have not been sanctioned, which feels a shame—nor by Russia, for that matter. There is still time.

I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Bill, which we last discussed in depth a week ago today. First, I would like to express how pleased I am that the other place has agreed to the Government’s amendments relating the national underground asset register and intimate image abuse. I pay tribute to all those Members of the House of Lords who took part in getting that part of the legislation to the place where it is now. I am glad we have been able to work with them. I will start by encouraging the House to agree to those amendments, before I move on to discuss the amendments relating to AI and intellectual property, scientific research, and sex and gender—in that order.

Lords amendments 55D, 55E and 56B, which were introduced to the Bill in the other place by the noble Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, place a duty on the face of the Bill that requires the Government to: review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence in the offences of creating and requesting intimate image deepfakes without consent, or reasonable belief in consent; publish the outcome of the review in a report; and lay that report before Parliament. The Government were pleased to support the amendments in the other place, as we share the desire to ensure that the criminal law, and these offences in particular, work as the Government intend.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I think we all appreciate the amendment, because we want to protect vulnerable women, children and anybody who is at risk of this sort of harm. Could we not look at doing something similar to the amendment, and the carve-out we have created with it, for our creative industries? If we can protect our vulnerable people, can we not also protect our creative industries from copyright infringement by having territorial exemptions similar to what we have with deepfakes?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is jumping the gun slightly—I will come on to those issues.

I want to praise Baroness Owen with regard to this part of the legislation. If it had not been for her, I do not think it would have ended up in the Bill. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between her and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we got the legislation in the right place. As I said in last week’s discussions, one of the issues was whether Baroness Owen’s original version of the second offence really worked in law; I think she agreed that our version, which we tabled in Committee, was better. We have been able to tidy up the question of the reasonable excuse. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how on earth there could be a legitimate or reasonable excuse for creating one of these images or asking for one to be created, and we went through those debates previously. I am glad that the Government have come to a settled position with Baroness Owen, and that is what I urge everybody to support here today.

The Government made a manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes, and the Bill delivers on that promise. For the first time, there will be punishment for perpetrators who create or ask others to create intimate deepfakes of adults without consent.

Secondly, I turn to the national underground asset register, which it does feel has been a long time coming. Of course, that is partly because the Bill is in its third iteration. Amendment 34 relates to the national underground asset register. An amendment was previously tabled in the House of Lords requiring the Secretary of State to provide guidance on cyber-security measures, which was rejected by this House. Last week, the Government tabled amendments 34B and 34C in lieu on this topic, which were drafted with the support of the security services. These amendments expand the scope from cyber-security only to general security measures, clarify the audience for the guidance and extend its reach to Northern Ireland, alongside England and Wales.

On all the amendments I have spoken to thus far, I thank our noble colleagues in the other place for their work and support to reach agreement in these areas. I urge colleagues here today to support these amendments, too; otherwise, we are never going to get the Bill through.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

On the subject of never getting the Bill through, I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Steve Barclay]

One reason for getting the Bill through, one would hope, is to deliver on things like content credentials, which firms like Adobe have championed, to show who has produced a file, where the ownership sits and whether artificial intelligence has been used to edit it. Can the Minister confirm whether the Bill will deliver on that commitment on content credentials, and if not, why not?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, it is because the Bill was never intended to deal with copyright and artificial intelligence at all. The Government have not introduced any provision relating to AI or copyright, and I think that specific issue would probably be ruled out of scope if it were to be tabled.

There are very serious issues in relation to AI and copyright, which I am about to come on to, and I know the point the right hon. Gentleman is making on technical standards. [Interruption.] He keeps on talking at me—I am happy to give way to him again if he wants, but I cannot hear what he is saying.

[Steve Barclay]

My point is about AI being used to change photographs, and having the ability to see that through content credentials or the digital fingerprint. The point I am raising is that the Government themselves have still not adopted that, in terms of their official communications. Will the Bill deliver on that, and if not, why will the Government not adopt that best practice?

[Chris Bryant]

I am honestly failing to understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. The Bill is not and has never been intended to deal with the kind of issue he is referring to. As I say, I think that if somebody were to table amendments to that effect, they would be ruled out of order. The Bill does not deal with copyright or artificial intelligence; the only measures in the Bill on AI and copyright are those introduced in the House of Lords, which I am about to speak to.

Although I was not able to listen to the whole of the debate in the House of Lords the other day, the Secretary of State and I stood at the Bar of the House to listen carefully to considerable parts of the debate. I want to make two separate but interconnected points on AI and intellectual property in relation to the Bill. First, there is an urgent issue that must be addressed—namely, what is happening today, and, for that matter, one could argue what happened yesterday, last week, last year and two years ago. To be absolutely clear, I will reiterate that copyright law in the UK is unchanged. Works are protected unless one of the existing exceptions, which have existed for some time, such as exceptions for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holder has granted permission for their work to be used. That is the law. That is the law now, and it will be the law tomorrow if the House agrees with the Government and rejects the amendment tabled by Baroness Kidron and supported in the House of Lords. As I have said previously, I am glad that several creative industries have been able to secure licensing agreements with AI companies, including publishers, music labels and others, under the existing law. I want to see more of that—more licensing and more remuneration of creative rights holders.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend talk about the importance of copyright and the fact that we have existing laws that we can use, but I wonder whether he is aware of the growing concern in industry about the risk of expansive US-style fair use principles creeping into UK practice and what we might do to secure our safeguards. We must not allow foreign interpretations of fair use to erode our copyright laws.

[Chris Bryant]

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the US system of fair use is different from the UK’s—ours goes back to 1709, with the first of our copyright Acts, and it has been very solid. When we introduced this Bill, I said that this country should be proud of the fact that a succession of different generations have ensured that rights holders can protect their copyright. Interestingly, one of Charles Dickens’ big battles was being able to protect his copyright not only in the UK but in the United States of America, where he felt he had fewer protections. It is for us to develop our own copyright law in our own country, and I say to my hon. Friend that the law as it is will not change one jot as a result of what we are intending to do in the Bill.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I probably ought to give way first to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Yesterday the Minister appeared before our Select Committee and said, “The best kind of AI is the kind of AI that is built on premium content, and you can’t get premium content without paying for premium content.” Now, as well as being concerned about the overuse of the expression “premium content” in that sentence, I am also concerned about the fact that, as we speak, there are copyright works out there being scraped underhandedly by AI developers, some of whom are feigning licensing negotiations with the very rights holders whose works they are scraping. Surely now is the time to require developers to tell us what copyright works are being used to train their models and what their web-scraping bots are up to. Surely he agrees that Lords amendment 49 is a very good way to move this forward to see what works are being used to train AI models.

[Chris Bryant]

The first thing to say to the right hon. Lady is that I completely stand by everything I said to the Select Committee yesterday. I do believe that the best form of AI will be intelligent artificial intelligence. And just like any pipe, what comes out of it depends on what goes into it. If we have high-quality data going into AI, then it will produce high-quality data at the other end. I have spoken to quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK, including Taylor & Francis in particular—

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Let me finish my point and then I will give way first to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who gets very cross if people queue-barge.

I am aware that there are quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK that are determined to secure licensing deals with AI companies, both in the UK and overseas. First, they want to ensure that those AI companies remunerate them and, secondly, they want to ensure that they have very high-quality, up-to-date information and data going into them, so that if somebody searches for immunotherapy, for instance, they will have the latest information on immunotherapy, not stuff that is five, six or seven years out of date, or that may have come from a dodgy source.

The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Lady said that this amendment would sort the problem today, but it would not. It would do nothing today, or indeed for a considerable number of months. Therefore, there is an issue about what we do today—what we as a Government do, and what we as the creative industries and everybody working together do, to ensure that we protect copyright under the existing law as it is today.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister keeps saying that we have existing copyright laws that are there to protect the creative industries and our artists, but practically our whole creative heritage is being scraped. There are probably songs in the top 40 that have been totally designed by AI, and there will be books in the top 30 or 40 bestsellers that will be based on AI—probably fully AI. This is happening right now. Surely artists and creators should know when their works are being used. That is why Lords amendment 49B is so important for transparency.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are works out there that have been created with the use of AI. As I have said several times, I have never thought that the creative industries are in any sense luddite; I have always thought that they are at the forefront of innovation in so many areas—at the Select Committee yesterday I referred to Fra Angelico. This is true of every creative industry: they have to innovate in order to succeed. A video games company would say that it is using AI all the time, not necessarily to save money but to improve the product and be at the cutting edge of what they are doing. Even Björn from ABBA has said that he has been using AI because it enhances his work.

One area that is in our consultation but is yet to be addressed by anybody in any of the debates I have heard in this House or the other place is this: what we do about the copyright status of works that are solely or largely created by AI, because it is a moot point what we should do about it under existing law? My point is simply that we need to address all these issues in the round rather than piecemeal, and I will come on to that in more substance in a moment.

[Jonathan Davies]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. Central to what he is saying is transparency. Does he agree that enforceable transparency obligations would reduce legal uncertainty, deter infringement by increasing the legal risk to AI developers, and enable faster redress by allowing the courts to establish precedent where copyright is breached?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. I do not think that people should breach copyright law. I have said that in several debates, and it is the settled view of the Government. We believe that people should not breach copyright law—they should not break the law. Some of the issues my hon. Friend raises have been or are being tested in the courts, and they will be contested more in the courts in future months.

A point I made right at the beginning, when we introduced the consultation, was that there is a fair use system in the United States of America, while we have our system in the UK, and then there is a slightly different system in the EU, which has largely relied on the Napoleonic code understanding of what an author is and what a work is. All those systems are slightly different and have been implemented in different countries in different ways, and they may lead to different conclusions in individual court cases.

That is why we have wanted to look at every single element of this issue, from transparency to technical data, access to high-quality data, issues of enforcement and personality rights. There are a whole series of issues, many of which are yet to be addressed in debates in either Chamber. That takes me back to my point that I do not think this is the Bill in which to do this piece of work, and I do not think that the amendment we are debating will secure what people hope from it.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the consultation. Could he confirm that the Government no longer consider an opt-out model to be their preferred approach to copyright and AI, and if so, what alternative approach is now being actively pursued or developed with the sector?

[Chris Bryant]

I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that—

[Samantha Niblett]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment, but I am still answering the intervention. I had two points to make, and I will now probably forget the second one.

As I was saying, it was always going to be a package of measures, and we always said that we would not introduce that package unless we were secure in the belief that we could deliver for the creative industries a technical solution that made it simpler for them to enforce their rights and seek remuneration and that would lead to more licensing. That is a whole package.

When we last debated this, I said two things: first, that we are open-minded about where we are in relation to the consultation, and secondly—perhaps just as importantly—that our amendment 16 would require us to undertake an economic impact assessment of all the different options included in the consultation. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. Somebody else wanted to ask another question.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and then I will probably go over to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The other week, an Observer article reported that a source close to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that

“proposals to introduce an opt-out system of copyright rules was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.”

That is a very welcome change of heart, potentially, but it does not mean anything unless Ministers are prepared to repeat it in Parliament. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is an accurate representation of the Government’s position?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I will repeat what I just said. First, in the consultation we introduced a package of measures and it hinged on the issue of whether we can deliver not only for AI companies but for the creative industries, to protect their rights more effectively than they presently can. Secondly, as I think I have now said twice at the Dispatch Box, we are open-minded about the responses to the consultation. We have had 11,500 responses to the consultation and we are making our way through all that. A lot of different issues have been addressed.

The issue of the economic impact assessment is a serious one. It is one thing to say that the AI sector in the UK, which is the third largest in the world, is worth x billion pounds to the UK economy, and that the creative industries are worth £124 billion—that is a number that a lot of people have used—to the economy. It is quite a different matter to draw up a proper economic impact assessment on the basis of the various different options.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is in a queue. It is quite a long queue, and it seems to be getting longer.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank the Minister for—

[Chris Bryant]

No, no. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is next.

[Samantha Niblett]

On the point of finding a solution in the round, if no credible technical solution is in sight, will the Minister confirm what non-technical legislative or regulatory measures the Government are considering to protect rights holders in the interim?

[Chris Bryant]

That is precisely why we need to do this in the round, rather than just piecemeal. I understand the attraction of what is on the amendment paper today, but I do not think it would deliver the answer that the people need now to the issues that the creative industries are facing now. In another debate we referred to the issue—

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The Minister is very popular.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that it is popularity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The important point is that we need to look at this in the round, rather than piecemeal. I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now. Indeed, it does not purport to; it instead purports to give something in six, nine or 12 months’ time, or sometime in the future.

[Torcuil Crichton]

We can assure the Minister that he remains popular, as well as generous with his time. He mentioned the Government consultation. It has caused deep and sustained anxiety across the sector. When can we expect a substantive response to the consultation?

[Chris Bryant]

I wish I could give my hon. Friend a timeline. The main thing I want to say about the timeline, as somebody who I think all hon. Members know cares passionately not just about the anxiety that has been created in this sphere because of the consultation but about the anxiety for many creative people about their future careers, is that I get that anxiety—100%. That is the bigger point.

Frankly, I would like to stop doing the Data Bill and start going out and engaging with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to have as many sessions with creative industries and different parts of the sector and with the AI companies—in particular UK-based AI companies—to work out how we can get to proper solutions to all of this. However, until I get the Data Bill out of the way, I will struggle to do that.

On another point, I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley as a musician, because she is still a member of the Musicians’ Union. There is a really important part here for the different sectors within the creative industries. Word, image, music and sound will all probably need different technical solutions. That is the kind of nitty-gritty that we need to get into, which we can only really do when we consider the whole issue in the round, rather than just one specific aspect of it. Now, I think Margate calls.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time.

The Minister is talking about the possibility that the amendments put forward would not do anything today, but there is an urgency in the creative industries because the stuff that they create is being scraped now. Will he prioritise transparency by committing at the Dispatch Box to introducing enforceable obligations, if not through a statutory instrument then at least through a clear public commitment, so that transparency will be central to the Government’s approach to AI and copyright?

[Chris Bryant]

First, I completely get the urgency of this. In many ways, I wish we had been addressing this two or three years ago, because we are some way behind other countries in relation to this. Secondly, we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward. I have said that from the very beginning. Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to the process of AI being high- quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. All these things have to be addressed in the round and together, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is worth nothing.

The AI Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North—is chuntering in my left ear, which is helpful because she makes the point that this was the very first thing we discussed when came into office. With both of us in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discussed how we could get to a resolute piece of legislation that enabled greater licensing, greater deployment of artificial intelligence in the UK, in particular UK companies, and greater transparency. So I completely agree on that—

[Ms Billington]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way, but I have the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) waiting.

[Ms Billington]

Again, my hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. Will he therefore consider interim measures or guidance that would deliver similar outcomes while legislative options are being explored? That is what the creative industries are looking for.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know what interim measures would look like. All three of us on the team, including the Secretary of State, have often said that we are open- minded about anybody coming through the door with a good solution. We are in the business of good ideas, and if anybody has any good ideas, we are happy to look at them, but I honestly cannot make the guarantee that my hon. Friend asks for because I do not know what interim measures that were not legislative would look like. It is not our intention—I would urge people to abide by this—to legislate piecemeal in this Bill, which is not about artificial intelligence and copyright.

[Mike Martin]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry he has been waiting so long.

[Mike Martin]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous, although I might suggest that he works on his queuing system a little bit.

I understand that the timetable issue is a difficult one, and most things seem to be arriving in the spring with this Government, but could we talk about the format? Are we going to have the consultation, then a White Paper and then a Bill? Is that what it is going to look like? Will that perhaps be in the next King’s Speech?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If I was unable to suggest what interim measures would look like, I am not sure I will be able to please the hon. Gentleman by suggesting what will be in the next King’s Speech. I do not even know when the next King’s Speech will be. As the Minister for the creative industries and for data, I want, along with my colleagues in Government, to be able to get on with the business of trying to get together the working parties I have referred to. I want to get people from the AI companies and the creative industries sitting around the same table to work out what a proportionate and effective system of transparency would look like and what the technical solutions might be. Other countries have struggled with drawing this up; the EU is struggling with it at the moment.

That is the next stage. At the same time, we are considering what our response to the consultation should be. We have heard what many people in this House and in the House of Lords have said on this issue, and of course we will bear all that in mind. We are keeping an open mind in relation to that. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for when we will publish that consultation, but we are working on it as fast as we possibly can.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend told our Select Committee yesterday that it is not for us to give away the labour of other people to third parties for free. Given that the Government have now said they are open-minded, and if open-minded means there is no technical solution, is the Minister open-minded to the idea of legislative solutions to protect copyright and enhance it for all our great creatives? It is not just ABBA’s Björn; it is people in Rochdale and low-paid creatives across the whole north-west and country.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the special and unique aspects of the creative industries as a sector, which has grown faster than the rest of the UK economy and for whom we hope to lay out our plan in the next few weeks in the creative industries industrial strategy, is that they exist in nearly every part of our land. Often, the jobs are not well remunerated, and we want to change that. That is a key part of what we seek to do. We also want to ensure that more people can come into the creative industries and realise their ambitions in those areas, and they will not be able to do that if they are not remunerated. That is why I have made the point from the beginning that we want to get to a technical solution, which is not far distant. It is a possibility—I would not deride it. It does not exist at the moment, but there are those who want to work on it. Frankly, somebody might earn a decent penny if they were to come up with a solution so that all rights holders would be able easily, simply and without great expense to protect their rights across all AI platforms deployed in the UK.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh my Lord—I am almost as keen to get on to the next bit of my speech as I am to get the data Bill through to Royal Assent, but I probably ought to give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will come back to my hon. Friend.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I get the sense that he is perhaps needing to go long, and that might be why he is taking so many interventions—I am happy to assist him in that process. I want to give him an opportunity. I know him well enough and know how much he values this place, but I have been slightly concerned by his comments throughout that he is keen to get on with it. Would he like to put on the record that he is first and foremost a parliamentarian and that being in this place is the bit of the job that he values most?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the right hon. Lady was at my 60th birthday—I know it is difficult to believe.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

A long time ago!

[Chris Bryant]

“A long time ago!” says the rather ungenerous Member sitting at the back.

Honestly, I have not been asked to go long. I am simply, because I do believe in parliamentary scrutiny, trying to answer all the questions and engage in a proper debate. I know that colleagues want to press me on a series of issues. There are some issues coming up that they might want to press me on that are completely different from this, and I am happy to be pressed, including by the right hon. Lady, as many times as she wants. But I do not think there was a question in her point. She thought she was trying to help me go long, but I am trying to go slightly shorter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.

[Chris Bryant]

I know it is out of order to say that an hon. Member is not telling the truth, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were there! [Laughter.] And I accept your apology.

[Mr Frith]

The hon. Gentleman has been generous with his time today and in the process to date, and I thank him for that. I understand the Government have long maintained that this Bill is not the right place for these amendments. Given the Government’s anticipated removal of the Lords amendments and the use of financial privilege, what definitive action will the Minister take to address the ongoing serious concerns of our world-leading creative industries, particularly on copyright and transparency? What does he advise those of us seeking stronger commitments to do next? Would he point to any specific timeline, mechanism or legislative tool that will be used to offer the certainty that the sector is crying out for?

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding the hilarity, this is obviously a very important matter to a large number of people. For many people in the creative industry, it feels like a kind of apocalyptic moment—they think that their careers are disappearing in front of their faces. I fully recognise that.

The moment that the Bill is out of the way, I and the two Departments I sit in—the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology—would like to get people back in to work on two working parties. One would work on transparency and precisely what it looks like in granular detail—very high-level stuff does not really meet the moment. The second would work on technical standards and solutions that might deliver greater access to data for the AI companies, and on the ability for the creative industries to protect their works.

I do have some sympathy with Lords amendment 49B. There is one element that I would like to explore, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). It is one thing for Getty Images, for example, to go to court and protect its rights under the existing law, because it has deep pockets and can engage lawyers. It is quite a different matter for individual artists, who may want to promote their work by putting it on the internet and do not want it to disappear from the internet, but also do not want it to be scraped and turned into another version of their work created by AI.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a second. Then I probably ought to move on to the next subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear.

I take very seriously the point that this is not just about people with deep pockets; it is also about individual artists. We want to ensure that they are protected. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hoare]

There is little doubt that the Minister takes the issue seriously—I think the House accepts that—but does he acknowledge that what he has said in answer to questions from the Opposition and from his hon. Friends will offer the sector rather cold comfort? He recognises that this is an issue, as the Government do, and argues that the Bill is not the place to resolve it, but he does not give strong leadership by setting out a clear timetable and a clear direction of travel or sharing with the House his thinking on how the issue could be solved. Many people are facing this problem today, and he is asking them to take comfort from his intention to do something at an unspecified time, with the exception of convening two working parties. It is not quite enough to meet the magnitude of the concern from that vibrant and growing sector, which, as he rightly says, is represented in all constituencies across the country.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, I would like to be able to move faster, but as the hon. Gentleman said to me last week in Committee and in various different places, this is not an easy knot to untie. It will require a great deal of goodwill from a large number of people to secure a settled outcome that works for everybody. I still believe that there could be a win-win situation, but that will happen only if we can gather everybody around the same table in order to deliver it. I am perfectly happy to provide leadership, and to be punched in the nose for providing that leadership if people think that I have got it wrong, but I do not think that is the problem at this particular moment.

Let me give the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) one reason why I think Lords amendment 49B does not really work. Yes, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures—although it is difficult to work out precisely how they would be proportionate and effective and work equally for big and small companies—but there is no point in having transparency measures unless we have an enforcement measure. An element of the proposed new clause refers to enforcement, but it basically asks the Secretary of State to draw up that enforcement. One would not expect to be able to do that in any other area without a full Bill devoted solely to that purpose. I wish that I could move faster, but I do not want to move faster than is required to secure an outcome.

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Mr Frith]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will take only one more intervention, I am afraid, because I have taken so many. I probably ought to give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, which has made this a real debate. I commend him for his determination to bring together the tech sector and creatives to develop a solution—I know that many creatives are technical, and many technical people are creative. May I urge the Minister to ensure that he works with a wide range of tech companies? As I have said to him, I do not believe that large tech platforms have the right incentives to develop an appropriate tech solution to this, and I urge him to be transparent about how he engages with them.

Finally, the tech platforms refused to appear at a joint sitting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is through transparency that we can ensure competition to identify the best technical solution.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I completely agree. My hon. Friend makes the good point that in the UK, many of the creative industries—roughly 40%—are tech. They are fast-growing, and part of what we want to incentivise. She makes the good point that we need to talk to lots of different kinds of artificial intelligence companies, just as we need to talk to lots of different kinds of creative industries. All those points are well made, and what she refers to is precisely the work that I and the team will want to take forward as soon as we can.

[Mr Frith]

This will be my last intervention for now. Will the Minister make it his policy to include representatives of the creative industries on the technical committees that are working on AI and copyright reform? We arrived at this point because there is a sense that one Department speaks to some people, and another Department speaks to others, whereas there are implications for both sectors. We should have both sectors in the room, talking about each other with the Minister and his Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I can give that guarantee. Interestingly, when we started this process after the general election, the first consultation meetings that the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), and I had were with the creative industries in one room and the AI companies in another. Perhaps it would have been better to mix them up in the way my hon. Friend has suggested, and that is precisely the job of work that I want to get on with.

We are determined that wherever we can, we will take creative industries with us, and we will be transparent about the work that we do. I want to lay to rest the idea that there are two Departments at war with one another. That simply is not the case. The two Departments are trying to work together to achieve good outcomes for everybody.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The Minister is being unbelievably generous in taking interventions, but before he moves on, I wanted to say that it is really important to have those involved in AI and in the creative industries in the same room at the same time. He must not forget that the reason the creative industries are in such a state of panic and despair about this is because a hare was set running a few months ago by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, when it published an AI strategy that said that the copyright opt-out was a way to grow the AI industry. The Government then published their consultation, in which they indicated that the opt-out was their preferred mechanism, despite the fact that the document also mentioned prioritising transparency. I understand that, but the Minister must understand that panic has set in. Words matter; what we say matters. He needs to do everything that he can to bring this issue to a close.

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Lady knows, I am sympathetic to the direction of travel that she is trying to take me in. Some people will think that I am splitting hairs, and that is not my intention, but I have been keen to avoid the term “opt-out”. As I said, we have brought forward a package of measures. They were reliant on our being able to deliver greater control, through technical measures, for the creative industries and others who had rights to protect. That is why we referred to “rights reservation”, rather than “opt-out”. I take her point, and I am sure that we will be debating it for some considerable time. She is a Select Committee Chair, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). I should have said earlier that when I was Chair of the Committee of Privileges, we produced a report, which has yet to be implemented or even discussed in the House, about how we could ensure that witnesses appeared before Parliament when Select Committee Chairs wanted them to.

If it is all right with the rest of the House, I will move on to further subjects. The issues around scientific research—I can never work out where the emphasis lies when I say the word “research”—are embodied in Lords amendment 43B. Some people have suggested that the Bill will somehow create a wild west for research, but that is simply not true. The Bill does not change the threshold for what constitutes scientific research; we are sticking with what has been and is a fair, clear and proportionate measure, using the “reasonableness test” that is common in other legislation and well known by the courts.

As Lord Vallance said in the House of Lords earlier this week, this amendment would go against the good work done by the previous Government on avoiding unnecessary red tape for researchers. We have a world-class research sector in the UK. We want to empower it, not tie it up in red tape. We believe that documents such as the Frascati manual, which are useful and interesting in other settings, are not designed to contain legally binding requirements, so the amendment is misplaced.

If the amendment were carried forward, researchers would need to be able to demonstrate their work’s creativity to a legal standard. If someone’s work is aimed at testing or reproducing another researcher’s results, is it truly creative? That is a legitimate question, but it takes on a whole new meaning, and brings a whole new layer of bureaucracy, when enforced to a new legal standard, as the Bill insists, backed up by the potential for huge regulatory fines.

Similar issues arise in relation to requirements for research to be “systematic” and “ethical”. Those words are not necessarily well known in the courts when it comes to this legislation. As Lord Winston argued powerfully on Monday, if the amendment had been law 50 years ago, we may never have had in vitro fertilisation and the benefits spinning off from that, including valuable cancer research. Those are the issues caused by putting such a test in a legally binding setting that it was never designed for.

[Chi Onwurah]

On the point that Lord Winston made in the other place, will the Minister explain how setting a test for scientific research, so that data could be reused, would have prevented in vitro fertilisation?

[Chris Bryant]

Lord Winston’s point is that by introducing a requirement that research be systematic, ethical and creative, we are creating a whole new idea of what constitutes research. When he wanted to start his IVF work, it was generally thought that it would be unethical to explore that territory. Today, we would consider that view to be misplaced. We believe that the task of deciding what counts as scientific research is best approached by drawing on guidance and the opinion of experts. That is what the reasonableness test allows. It is a concept that is well understood by the courts. While I sympathise with the intention, expressed in the other place, of guarding against misuse, and while I understand the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and I have discussed on several occasions, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already contains sufficient and, I would argue, considerable safeguards.

A controller who wishes to change the purpose of data processing to scientific research must first ensure that they comply with clause 71’s rules on purpose limitation. Scientific research is not listed as grounds for exemption where data was collected on the basis of consent. Secondly, the controller would have to ensure that they passed a “reasonableness” test; thirdly, they would have to ensure that they had lawful basis; fourthly, they would have to ensure that they met the requirements of the safeguards in clause 86; and fifthly, they would have to ensure that the new processing was fair and complied with the wider data protection principles in UK GDPR. That is a very substantial set of safeguards. The Government cannot see how the Lords amendment would add value, on top of all those requirements against misuse, but it would have an effect on genuine researchers, as I have set out, burdening them with red tape and uncertainty and potentially excluding important research.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way again. I will sum up at the end of the debate, so if she wants to raise issues again, I will take interventions then. [Interruption.] I think you would like me to get a move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I turn finally to the issue of sex and gender, particularly in the context of the measures on digital verification services. I have tabled amendments to remove the measure that was voted for in the House of Lords on Monday, for reasons that Lord Vallance and I have noted in previous debates. For clarity, the data accuracy principle requires personal data to be accurate and not misleading for the purpose for which it is being used. That safeguard should ensure that personal data shared by public authorities with digital verification services for the purposes of verifying a particular attribute appropriately confirms the specific attribute in question. Public authorities and digital verification service providers are legally required to comply with that principle at different stages of the digital verification process. As I said last week, although it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used in the kind of cases raised by Opposition Members, the provisions mean that if an organisation requests verification of a person’s sex at birth, the public authority must not share data that records gender more widely for the purpose of that check. Likewise, digital verification service providers must not rely on data that records gender more widely as part of the verification process in that scenario.

This Government recognise that there are instances where sex and gender data appear in the same field in public authority data sets. Existing legislation requires personal data to be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used, which means that personal data processed as part of digital verification checks must reflect the specific requirements of that check. I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.

To reiterate, this Government consider the issue of data accuracy to be of importance, and accept the Supreme Court ruling. That judgment and its effects must be worked through holistically, with sensitivity and in line with the law. The Government are already undertaking extensive work on data standards and data accuracy that will consider upcoming updated guidance from the equalities regulator. I do not think it would be appropriate to legislate in the way proposed without having taken those steps, particularly given the sensitive nature of this matter and the potential impact on people’s privacy and human rights.

I finish by noting your opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Lords amendments 49B, 52B and 52C engage the financial privilege of this House, which the Government do not believe it is appropriate for this House to waive. I am sure that the other place will reflect on that carefully during its further consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all those Members who intervened, and I hope that I have not managed to cut off anybody before their prime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a substantial opening speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 43B, which deals with the safeguarding of scientific research and ensuring that the exemptions in the Bill are used for the purposes of such research alone.

On Second Reading, the Minister was unable to address the points that I raised; he ran out of time because of the length of the debate on AI and copyright, and I rather feel that the same has happened today. In the meantime, however, he wrote to me extensively to address my concerns. Although I do not think all of them were fully addressed, I was convinced that the Minister and, indeed, the Government did not intend this measure to widen the circumstances in which data could be reused for scientific research without consent. I am thinking of circumstances in which data would be reused for the training of AI models which were in themselves not contributing to new, creative scientific research. I believe—let me emphasise this—that all scientific research is creative, and that even if it is simply reproducing existing findings, it is creating confidence in the stock of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Minister does not intend to create a wild west, and I hope that he can confirm specifically that it is not the policy, intention or effect of the provisions to enable the reuse of personal data for AI.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated assent.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister makes a hand signal, but I am of the view that hand signals are not reflected in Hansard. The Minister has far greater knowledge of proceedings in this House than I do, so I suspect he knows that too. If he would like to intervene on me, I would be very happy for him to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

I am being very badly behaved. I did not want to take up more time, but I will respond at the end. I think my hon. Friend will be happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.

Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.

Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.

It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.

If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.

[Chris Bryant]

I was anticipating more contributions from other Members, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow on from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I will not speak at great length, Members will be delighted to hear.

First, I want to refer to the matter of financial privilege, because the hon. Member referred to it just now. It is not the Government who decide whether financial privilege is engaged. It is a simple matter decided on advice from the Clerks to the Chair, which is determined from two motions, from 1671 and 1678. Where there is any financial implication of a Bill, or in this case an amendment that comes from the House of Lords, it is a simple matter as to whether or not the financial privilege of the House of Commons is engaged. Anything that obviously requires a system of enforcement is likely to require expenditure. That is why we would not choose to waive our financial privilege in relation to these amendments today.

[Pete Wishart]

A money resolution to the Bill was passed with Second Reading. I looked at it and there is nothing that says there is any financial limit on any measures included in the Bill, so I am a bit confused about why financial privilege has to be invoked on that basis.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not the Government who invoke financial privilege. It is the House that does it, via the Speaker’s Chair. I am afraid that that is a debate we will have to have at another point. Much as I love debating motions from 1671 and 1678, I think we might move forward.

The only point I will make to the hon. Gentleman about his contribution on the creative industries—he knows that on many of these issues we completely and utterly agree—is that if there were a simple way of being able to enforce those rights today, I would seize it. If he wants to write to me with a suggestion on what that actually looks like and what we would do today to be able to enforce the rights under the existing law today, then of course I would be happy to look at it.

I also said that I would respond to the point from the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). The Bill creates no new permission to reuse data for scientific research. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. I hope that that meets some of her understandable concerns.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that it is completely not in order, but I am going to say it anyway and end on this point. We have discussed some very serious points, but I do just wish that Remember Monday will win the Eurovision song contest on Saturday evening, with their song, “What the Hell Just Happened?” I wish Lauren, Holly-Anne and Charlotte all the best of British.

Question put.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.

I am tempted to start with a quote from “Macbeth”—

“When shall we three meet again?”—

because I notice there is a similar cast to our previous debates, but let me start by dispelling some misconceptions. We are not, contrary to what some have stated, changing UK copyright laws to the detriment of the creative industries. If the Government’s Bill is adopted, not a single word of copyright law will have changed in the United Kingdom. It will be as robust as it ever was. In fact, we have said repeatedly that creators should share in the value of this new technology, and we support artificial intelligence developers paying for the content that they use. We want to see more licensing of and proper remuneration for UK content.

We are not undermining copyright owners’ control over their work. We have said from the beginning that we want intellectual property owners to have more control over the use of their works. Some said in the House of Lords yesterday that we have not listened to them or to the creative industries, but that is simply not true. We have heard loud and clear the message from the creative industries and from others. That is why we put reporting commitments on the face of the Bill at a previous round, and we have committed to adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on enforcement. We have committed to delivering reports and impact assessments within nine rather than 12 months, and the Bill will require the Secretary of State to make a progress statement to Parliament about the impact assessment and reports within six months of Royal Assent.

It is also why the Secretary of State, who is sitting by me now, stated clearly that although we went into the consultation with a preferred option, we have heard the reaction to that. We want to consider the consultation responses in full, and—to quote him precisely—

“When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1233.]

As I have said, the Government have listened at every stage.

As I have explained to the House previously, the Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. What we have is a Bill that will harness data for economic growth, improve public services and support modern digital government. We want to get the legislation on the statute book as fast as we possibly can.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, it would be a delight.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

If only I believed the Minister. I pick up the frustration in his tone, and I appreciate that this must be exhausting for him, because this is the fourth time that the Government have been defeated on this issue in the other place. I understand that he just wants to get this piece of legislation done, but this time it only requires the Government to come forward with a plan to implement transparency before it is too late. He says that our copyright law is robust and that he is not seeking to undermine it—it is robust, but it is being ignored. How long will it take before the Government hold the AI companies to account for what is effectively the biggest copyright heist in history? How long will it take before the Government clamp down on what is basically the whitewashing of the behaviour of big tech? Who is really pulling the strings here?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, nobody is pulling my strings. I do not know what that final reference was to. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the Select Committee, who have done important work in this field. Some of what we have committed to in previous rounds of ping-pong in this House has sprung directly from what her Select Committee asked us to do. We will continue to listen to that. As she knows, we have always said, right from the beginning, that a key aspect of any package we bring forward would be something around transparency.

I will come on to the precise matters in the new clause before us, and I hope that might explain why we are urging the House to reject the amendment today. It is a delight to hear from the hon. Lady, and she need not doubt me.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Another delight.

[Robin Swann]

I know that the Minister does mean it in this case. He talks about the speed of moving this legislation on to the statute book. I note that legislative consent motions are in from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but as yet there is not one from the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can he give me clarification as to what implication that legislative consent motion not being in place will have for those businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland who will be affected by this legislation?

[Chris Bryant]

I have spoken to Ministers in Northern Ireland, and they have already laid that legislative consent motion. My understanding is that that process will be fully done in time for Royal Assent, so he need not worry. We have sorted that one out, too.

I promised the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), that I was about to come on to the precise details of the amendment, so I will address that. First, as Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, my noble colleague, said in the Lords yesterday,

“the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment”—

the one that we are now considering—

“how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 481.]

We will do subsection (1) of the new clause as part of our report and economic impact assessment. In other words, we have already committed to do half of what is in the amendment, and I would therefore argue that that half is unnecessary.

The second part of the new clause is problematic, and I think it would be problematic for any Government. It requires the Government to produce a draft Bill on copyright and AI according to a specific timetable. It lays out elements that that Bill must include and determines how it should be considered by this House. I cannot think of any Bill in our history that has included such a clause, for very good reason. A central plank of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. That does not just mean from one Parliament to another; it means that one Session of Parliament cannot bind a future Session. However, the Kidron amendment says that, for instance, the draft Bill

“must make provision for enforcement”.

What happens if it does not do so, or if the measures it includes for enforcement are not sufficient in some people’s minds? Where would that be adjudicated? How would it be decided?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will just finish this point, if the hon. Lady will allow me. In addition, we are still working through a huge number of consultation responses. To prescribe a draft Bill in detail at this point would completely undermine that process and the policy work that is taking place. I would argue that not only is that bad policymaking, but it would completely disregard the input that so many respondents to the consultation have exhausted so much effort in providing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Gosport, and then to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I think the Minister for giving way, but I think he is dancing on the head of a pin. The fact is that all legislation somehow binds those who are coming down the track, and others have spoken on many occasions about the urgency of bringing forward measures to provide transparency about what of people’s intellectual property is being scraped right now. I cannot understand why the Government are taking this position. This amendment is not asking for much; it is just asking for the Government to have a plan to sort this out in short order.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course, I understand the demand for us to act as swiftly as we possibly can, and that is our intention. One could argue that introducing a draft Bill, which would then be considered in various different places and presumably would be followed by a Bill, would delay things rather than speed them up. In addition—this is a really important constitutional point—as I said earlier, I am not aware of a single Bill in the past that has required a future Bill to be produced and specified things that must be in it.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I have got to give way to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon first, but then of course I will come back to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The essential point is that the creative industry is desperate to get a hook within this Bill to reassure it that this vacuuming up of its intellectual property will be controlled. The problem with all the commitments, the working groups and all the words that the Minister is saying is that they do not give the creative industry that reassurance. Yesterday’s debate was passionate about the need—somehow, in whatever way the Government want—to give the creative industry reassurance that this issue will be dealt with within a set timeframe.

[Chris Bryant]

I understand the concern of the creative industries—they have expressed it to me in no uncertain terms on many occasions, both individually and in larger groups. We have heard the message loud and clear. I think some people have been labouring under the misconception that this Bill is doing something to undermine copyright. I know that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, because I was standing next to him, listening to the fullness of the debate as a courtesy to the House of Lords.

As I have said before, I worry that to legislate on a part of this issue, rather than the whole of it, is a mistake. For the sake of argument, let us say that we only legislated in relation to what transparency should be required and did not come up with an enforcement measure. What would happen if the companies simply refused to provide that information? Would we have to introduce a new offence of not providing such information? What would we have to do? That is my argument for why I think—notwithstanding the clamour for us to go as fast as we possibly can, which I fully understand—we need to get it right and to legislate in the round, rather than just piecemeal on the back of a Bill that is not meant to deal with these matters at all.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) attempt to intervene earlier.

[Ms Billington]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I understand that he is being extremely patient in these circumstances. May I draw his attention to something that happened before 2010? I know that that was a long time ago, but both he and I are old enough—and, indeed, ugly enough—to remember those times.

When Lord Mandelson was Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, what was then known as the Napster clause was included in the then Digital Economy Bill. That was done precisely to give reassurance to the music industry that if, later on, downloading became so problematic that the music industry was going to be hollowed out, the Government would give themselves the power to act. If my hon. Friend is giving the Government the power to report, surely it would be right for the Government to give themselves the power to act once they have received evidence that something is going wrong, enabling them to enforce the copyright law that we all now agree is clear and should therefore be enforced.

[Chris Bryant]

I will start with my hon. Friend’s very last point, which is that we all agree that copyright law is clear—we do. I hope people understand that the Government’s position is clear that copyright law is clear. I do not think that is in doubt.

Secondly, of course, we always have the power to introduce legislation. However, certainly if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I would doubt whether it would be right to introduce transparency requirements solely on the basis of secondary legislation, which—as I say—would probably have to contain some sort of enforcement mechanism and potentially a new offence. I would say, “Secondary legislation is unamendable—it is take it or leave it. That would be problematic.”

While again I understand the desire for us to move as swiftly as possible, I reiterate that I think it is better for us to legislate in the round, taking all of the subject matter into consideration. Some matters have not even been mentioned in this debate, such as what we do about the copyright that pertains to AI-created material. Should that material have any protection, or no protection? Should it follow the person who created the AI large language model, or should it stick with the person who asked the AI large language model the question?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) is quite right: back in 2010, the Napster provision was first enacted through the Digital Economy Act. Such provision is possible, and I just do not understand the Minister’s reticence about this amendment. It seems an entirely reasonable amendment to bring forward—it does everything that everybody wants to achieve when it comes to this Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, could he at least say that he accepts the principles of it and what it requires, and that he will do all he can to bring forward all the provisions it asks for?

[Chris Bryant]

I am trying to be tidy in the way I respond to people, so first, I note that I did not respond to the Napster point. Quite a lot of people have made the point to me that we got from Napster to Spotify. There are many problems with Spotify that many musicians, record labels and so on have raised with me, but at least it is better than people taking stuff for nothing. There is an argument—a strong argument, I would say—that in this debate, we want to move from Napster to Spotify, or to something even better than Spotify. I am not sure precisely how we get there, but I am absolutely certain that we need to legislate in the round for all of these issues.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about the principles of the noble Baroness Kidron’s amendment. Of course we believe in transparency—we are fully subscribed to wanting to provide that. That has always been part of the package that we have wanted to present. There is still the question of what enforcement would look like, and many other issues that any Bill that comes forward would need to address. I am hesitant about introducing a draft Bill, because a draft Bill would take longer to go through.

We want to be able to legislate in this area as soon as we possibly can, but we also want to have listened to and borne in mind the full panoply of the responses. People may presume that they know what the 11,500 responses will say, but actually, they are much more diverse. I am not saying that everybody is clamouring for what the Government have laid out; I am just saying that those responses address a diversity of issues, all of which we need to address.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way again, as he has on so many occasions during these debates, and for his ongoing engagement in these matters, but does he agree that if the Government do not act now to enforce the law, we will basically be allowing what everyone already sees as theft to continue? Would he accept that in any other industry, such as retail or farming?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the issue of enforcement, although traditionally it is not for Governments to enforce the law. It is for the courts to do that, although in certain circumstances when there has been a breach of the criminal law, it will be for the prosecuting authorities to consider. In a way this makes my point, which is that it is all very well to legislate on transparency requirements, but if there are no enforcement measures it will not make the blindest bit of difference. All this has to be done in the round.

We have already said that we want to engage with the creative sector and, of course, the technology sector as much as we can. We believe that such engagement will help to chart the way forward on both transparency and technical standards, and possibly on technical solutions to the problem. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed on and implemented. However, we must see what comes of the process rather than imposing preconditions at this early stage.

For all those reasons, I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendment. The first part of the proposed new clause is a helpful addition to the work that we will do and are now committed to doing, but the lion’s share of it would lead to what I believe is confusing law and constitutionally uncertain.

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

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends about how open and engaging both the Minister and the Secretary of State have been on this issue. As for the consideration of working groups, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that both sides are in the room at the same time, with the Minister and the Secretary of State? This has been rehearsed before; the last Government failed, and talks broke down. May I urge this Government please to ensure that both voices hear each other? Their job is to manage that process, as well as leading it.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree 100%. There would be absolutely no point in not having both sides—indeed, I would say several sides—of the argument in the room at the same time. Yesterday morning I had an interesting conversation with someone who is very prominent on the music scene. He told me, in granular detail, what we would need to do for transparency in the music sector, but added that obviously it would be completely different for the publishing sector. That is the kind of detail we will have to go into. If we are to bring about a licensing regime that really works, it will have to work differently for sound, music, words and images, which means that we will have to have all those people around the table, as well as AI—not just “big tech”, a phrase that was used frequently in their lordships’ House yesterday, but tech from the UK. That is a very important part of what we need to be promoting. So yes, I can guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will have everyone in the room, and also that we want to get on with it as soon as we possibly can—

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

And I want to be able to sit down as soon as I possibly can, but I am being prevented from doing so.

[Mike Martin]

The Minister is being extremely generous, as he always is. I pressed him on this point on the last occasion when we met across the Chamber, but some time has passed since then. He speaks of dealing with the issue “in the round”, which is a sentiment that I understand, but when? Can he give a timetable?

[Chris Bryant]

“As soon as possible”, I am afraid. I know that there are lots of parliamentary terms for these matters, such as “imminently” and “soon” and so on. The difficulty is that there are plenty of other priorities for legislation at the same time. I am not the Leader of the House, so I fear that I cannot give a guarantee about a timeline, but we have given some guarantees about when the Secretary of State will report back to the House—within six months of Royal Assent, and I hope that that is within six months of “soon”—and we have given guarantees about our other reports back, which will be within nine months, shortened from 12 months.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will try to crack on.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I thank the Minister for giving way again: he is being very generous. He has spoken about trying to bring the AI sector together with the creative industries. The last Government tried that in response to the text and data mining exception. They formed an AI working group, which, as the Minister knows, fell into abeyance because the AI companies did not engage. Does he think that that could be a problem this time, and has he heard any signals from the big tech companies that they would be more forthcoming with their engagement in response to this attempt?

[Chris Bryant]

We will make sure that they engage. In a strange way, I think that the campaign that has been led by the hon. Lady and others, in the House of Lords and elsewhere, will help to make people engage in what will not necessarily be an easy process, but one that I think could deliver a win-win for us in the UK and could potentially enable us to lead for other countries in the world. Every indication that we have had thus far suggests that everyone wants to sit in the room together, and, of course, we will have to provide significant leadership in those meetings to be able to drive them forward. As I said on the last occasion when I was talking about these matters at the Dispatch Box, I should like to be able to get on with that as soon as possible, but we have a duty to get the Bill out of the way first.

Let me now say a few words about ping-pong. As Members will know, this is in large measure the same Bill that was presented, twice, by the previous Government. The second Bill fell at the general election, but both major parties committed themselves to reintroducing it, in a broadly similar form, in the new Parliament. None of the parties intended to introduce any matters relating to copyright into the Bill when they discussed it in the run-up to, and during, the general election.

I warmly commend those who are fighting the corner of the creative industries—of course I do; I am the creative industries Minister—but there comes a point at which the Lords is barring the Commons from fulfilling a pledge made by both major parties. We shall now be entering the fourth round of ping-pong. Few Bills in our history have gone this many rounds. In the cases of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill of 2004-05 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 2006-07, at issue was what the Government had put in rather than what it had not included. Neither of those Bills had been openly advocated by both main parties at a general election. By tradition, the House of Lords does not interfere with Bills to which Governments have committed themselves at the time of a general election. Everyone agrees that this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation, and for that reason I urge their lordships to let it pass into law.

[Sir Julian Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right.

[Sir Julian Smith]

The Minister was present at yesterday’s debate. Their lordships were acutely aware of not wanting to fetter the House of Commons, but at the same time they are trying to represent thousands of people who are desperate about their incomes. I think it worth putting on the record here that all those who spoke were very aware of what they were doing, but on balance felt that fighting for the underdog was the best thing to do.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not making an criticism of any individual Member of the House of Lords. I listened to the debate, and it was clear that people felt passionately and were arguing entirely in good faith. I fully understand that. As I have said, however, this a Bill that was not intended to include elements relating to AI and copyright. In the last Parliament it was supported by the Conservative party and by us on the Opposition Benches, and was referred to by both sides during our general election campaigns. Neither of us said that we were going to include anything about copyright in the Bill, but that is what is now holding up Royal Assent. There are economic benefits that would flow from the Bill, but they will of course be delayed if we further delay Royal Assent.

Let me end by saying that, as I think I have said several times, I fully understand the concerns expressed by people in the creative industries about artificial intelligence. Many use it already, but they are understandably concerned about where it will go, and they fear for their jobs. It is true that, for many, the strikes in the US had an even more cataclysmic effect on their careers, but I would just add one corrective to those fears. There is a moment at the end of “The Winter’s Tale” when Paulina takes Leontes to see a statue of his wife, who he thinks died of grief when he falsely accused of her adultery many years earlier. We all know when we watch it in the theatre that the statue is actually the actress playing Hermione; it is not a statue at all. Yet the moment when Leontes touches the statue and says, “O, she’s warm!”, still shocks us and brings tears to our eyes. Why? Because it is human to human. Yes, of course it is artifice laid upon artifice, but it is humanity face to face that really moves us. The Government have heard the concerns expressed by this House and the other place, and we have set out our plans to address them. I believe the Bill must be allowed to run its course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill.

I fear it is an inevitable aspect of ping-pong that there is a degree of repetitiveness about our proceedings. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), said last week that it reminded him of the film “Groundhog Day”, but that refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition that if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on 2 February and sees its own shadow, it will retreat to its den and winter will go on for six more weeks. Well, I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another six weeks.

Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright. I fear that some of those misconceptions persist. The Guardian carried the following sentence this weekend:

“The AI Bill, which proposes allowing‬ tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered‬ a fifth defeat in the Lords.”

That was repeated by one of the presenters on the “Today” programme, who stated that the Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material. I am glad the “Today” programme has apologised and corrected‬ the record. Let me reiterate: this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever. If the Bill goes forward in the way proposed by the Government, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. Sometimes I want to say, in the words of Richard II, “you have mistook us all this while.” ‬‬

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I accept what he said at the start of his speech, but the industry is desperate: its intellectual property is being stolen day by day, and the Minister does understand that it wants a timeline and a vehicle. I hope he will confirm that the Government are going to bring one forward.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to do that. He also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for Government because it is not the Government who enforce it. I have the enforcement regulations in my hand. Chapter VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes it very clear that infringement is actionable by copyright owners. In common with many bits of the law and with statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by Government. It is by either the prosecuting authorities or by people taking a civil action. Those are the measures that exist in copyright law today and we are not changing them in a single regard. Having said all that, I acknowledge the strong feelings expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country, including the significant proportion of the creative industries represented by the tech industries, which this week are celebrating London Tech Week.

It must be said that their lordships have been persistent, so much so that they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”, about the 18th century Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi. It uses several musical terms, such as the dominant, and includes the line:

“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”

The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listened to them; we have heard them, and we are answering them. Although the Bill, which was drafted largely by the previous Government, did not originally refer to the matter of copyright at all, that is why at a previous stage we tabled specific requirements on the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months.

In response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. First, we are adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Secondly, in response to the call for us to work faster—meeting the point just made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith)—we will deliver the economic impact assessment and reports within nine months, rather than 12 months. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that the Secretary of State make a progress statement to Parliament about the documents within six months of Royal Assent.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody?

[Chris Bryant]

In the end, the single most important compromise will be between the AI sector and the creative industries sector. That is the bit that we need to negotiate over the next few months. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the idea of simply putting one part of the jigsaw into this Bill. The truth is that if we are going to get to a proper compromise solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture. That means that we need to go through a proper process.

The last time we discussed these things, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) referred to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments that he thought were tabled to deal with Napster in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Because I had some spare time over the weekend, I read all the debates on that Act in 2010, and we went through a process to get to that Act: we produced a White Paper and then legislation, which went through both Houses. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Mandelson and in the House of Commons by Ben Bradshaw. In fact, most of that Act was so controversial that in the end, it was never implemented by the Government who took over in 2010, and large chunks of the Act were taken out when it collided with the 2010 general election.

I am not sure that things were quite as the hon. Gentleman thought at the time, but the key point is that we need to go through a proper process of bringing forward conciliation in this area. That means introducing legislation once we have considered the responses to the consultation, bringing forward our economic impact assessments, considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industries and the tech companies, and then considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we possibly can, because I want to get to a solution for all of this problem.

The Government have tabled amendments to put these commitments in the Bill. The amendments were initially tabled in the other place, but they were not voted on by peers, who instead insisted on the amendment that we disagreed to last Tuesday—in fact, as I understand it, the amendments were not moved. They show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard the concerns about timing and accountability.

We need to do one other piece of work. The House already knows that we will bring together working groups to consider transparency and technical solutions. They will have AI and creative industry representatives on them and will be extra-parliamentary.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. On that point, will he outline how the Government will decide which parliamentarians will be on the advisory group and how they will be chosen?

[Chris Bryant]

I am about to come to that—my hon. Friend has a faster timeline than I have. There is of course expertise in Parliament, which is why I commit today that the Government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed on progress on this important issue, so that we can benefit from their input as we develop our thinking before any formal proposals are brought back to Parliament.

The working group meetings will include a cross-party group of Members, made up of MPs and peers. We hope that the group can act as an informal sounding board, but it is not intended to replicate or replace the normal scrutiny role of established bodies, such as Select Committees. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is in her dutiful place as usual; I would not dream of seeking to tell her Committee what to do or how to conduct its business, but we would none the less like to be able to draw on its members and their expertise.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that might happen.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Late on Friday night—after hours and to an unmonitored inbox—emails suggesting that approach were sent to the Chairs of the two relevant Select Committees: the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That was the first that had been heard of it. An all-colleague email went round on Saturday morning. This seems to be rather hurried, breathless and not very courteous to the House. The Minister has written two very respected books about Parliament, and I am sure that he did not intend disrespect, but we need to be clear that scrutiny is done through Select Committees and that policymaking is a separate thing. Combining the two is not really appropriate.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. Scrutiny of Government legislation through the proper processes in either this House or the other House—or through Select Committees, for that matter, which do it in a slightly different way—is one thing, and the business of developing policy is another. I completely apologise for the inadvertent sending of the email to the wrong address and all the rest of it.

We are simply trying to engage as many Members in this House and the other House as we possibly can, on a matter that clearly matters to a great number of Members of Parliament because of their constituents. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who I know has a very large creative community in her own constituency. We want to involve as many people as we possibly can. We may be moving faster on occasions than people want, but sometimes the demand is that we move faster. I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy, but we are simply trying to engage as many people in the future debate as we possibly can.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Before I do, I will say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wonder if it would be useful if she and I met in the next few days with the Chairs of the two most relevant Committees to discuss precisely what shape all that should take and what would be useful and informative, rather than doing anything that might undermine the process.

[Chris Vince]

The Minister partly answered my question as he went along there. My thought on the group is that it is really important that we get creative voices into the room to have that conversation. Once the group is formed, will part of its remit be to invite members of the creative industry in to discuss their concerns and how we can work together to solve them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind him that we have only an hour for the whole debate. We have four Back Benchers wishing to contribute.

[Chris Bryant]

I feel told off, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you very much. I have been told off for talking too long, for talking too short, for going too fast and for going too slow.

My point is that we are already committed to creating two working groups that will look at transparency and at technical solutions to the problems that we face. Both of them will have members of the creative industries and members of tech and AI companies engaged in them. In addition, we want to have a separate group of Members of this House and the other House who are engaged with and have an interest in the subject to help us to develop these policy areas. I think it is best to keep those separate, and that is the plan. As we know, the Secretary of State has already written to the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, but I hope that what I have just said is helpful.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I see that I am getting a slight nod from the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about the prospect of our meeting to sort out a way forward on that.

I will say a few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested that different rules apply because the Bill started in the Lords. That is simply not true. Double insistence would kill the Bill wherever the Bill had started, and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the Bill. It has important measures that will enable digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy; that will save NHS time; that will make vital amendments to our policing laws; and that will support the completion of the EU’s adequacy review. Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses, which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu and urge the Lords not to insist on their amendment but to agree with us.

It is worth pointing out that if their lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill that all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation; they are imperilling something of much greater significance and importance economically: our data adequacy with the European Union. The successful renewal of our EU adequacy decisions is predicated on us having settled law as soon as possible, and we will not have that until the Bill gains Royal Assent. I cannot overemphasise how important this is, and I am absolutely mystified as to why the Liberal Democrats—of all parties—would want to imperil that.

I am equally mystified by the position of the Conservative party. They tabled amendments in the Commons Committee and Report stages that are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the Bill and are adding today. I very much hope therefore that the Conservative party will agree to our motion. It is not as if it disagrees with any of the measures in the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, who said in the Lords,

“I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 755.]

It was a point she reiterated later in the debate when she said,

“if we”

—that is, the Lords—

“choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does… I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 773.]

The noble Baroness is right. In the end, only one House is elected; only one House constitutes the Government of the day; and, especially where a Bill was adumbrated in a general election as this one was, the unelected House treads carefully. That is all the more important when the governing party has barely a fifth of the members of the other House. We have listened to the other House and taken action. There may be disagreements about the measures we have taken, but it would be wrong to say that we have not listened. It is time for the Houses to agree that the Bill must go forward.

I will say one final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional age. When our parents were young, they were lucky if their family had a television or a record player. They might occasionally go to a gig, concert or play. If they did have a television, they had a choice of just two or three channels. By contrast, today we are surrounded by human creativity in a way that no other generation was. Technology has brought us multiple channels where we can pick and choose whatever we want, whenever we want to see it. We watch more drama than ever. We can listen to our own choice of music on the train, on the bus or in the car. We can play games online with friends on the other side of the world. More books are published than ever. We can read or listen to them. Almost twice as many people went to the theatre last year as went to a premier league match. There are many challenges, all of which we need to address, including that of the interaction of AI with human creativity, but creativity is a quintessence of our humanity. It requires human-to-human connection, and I do not think for a single instant that that will change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not detain the House, as I have just a few comments to make. Let me begin by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I had my criticisms of the previous Government, but they did not extend to her. She was someone who understood the issues, and someone who was prepared to try to find a solution. Whereas the previous Government were appalling in the way they dealt with these matters, she at least made every effort, through the work of her Committee, to get to the heart of the debate.

This has been an extraordinary episode, and I cannot believe that we are back here for the fifth time. The issues are usually resolved and dealt with in circumstances such as this, and a meaningful compromise is reached between the Lords and the Commons, but that has failed to materialise during what has been a remarkable session of ping-pong. The whole episode has been as interesting and dynamic as it has been entertaining. The Minister and I were elected at the same time—I think we celebrated our 24th year of continuous membership of the House over the weekend. I am sure he will agree that he has never seen anything quite like the way in which we have reached this stage, but if he can give an example to the contrary, I shall be keen to hear it—I know that, given his almost photographic memory, he would be able to provide the details.

What disturbs me is the Government’s failure to attempt to secure some sort of meaningful compromise. Their inability to do that is quite baffling. I am trying to think of a few ways in which we might get round this. It might be an idea to get the Secretary of State and Elton John in the same room and lock the door: perhaps when the two of them emerged, we might be able to come up with some sort of solution. We are in the realms of trying to find a way forward, and that might be one way in which we could do so.

By refusing to listen to the strong view of the Lords and respect the convention that ping-pong is a process at the end of which a workable compromise generally appears, the Government risk undermining their own legislative process. Having looked at the Lords amendment again, and having listened carefully to the debate the other day, I cannot see anything wrong with an amendment that simply asks for a draft Bill containing provisions

“to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models”.

I thought that was what we were all trying to achieve, and I am surprised at the Government’s intransigent resistance to a fairly modest attempt to find solutions.

I have looked at the Government amendments as well, and I welcome them. As I have said to the Minister, the one that excites me most involves this House, parliamentary resources and the ability to play a meaningful part in these matters. I hope that he will be able to extend that to all parties across the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Even to you.

[Pete Wishart]

I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues.

The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment.

It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success.

The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously.

[Chris Bryant]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change.

Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Okay, although my hon. Friend was not here earlier.

[Chi Onwurah]

I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will.

[Chris Bryant]

We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up.

I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind.

We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow.

Question put.