Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Data is the new gold. It is by using good data, and lots of the stuff—heaps—that we will cure diseases, empower consumers and businesses, find solutions to societal problems and unleash economic growth. Behind that data, however, are the lives of everyday people, and the decisions made with that data will impact everyday lives. We must ensure that data and the value from it is used in the service of the British people. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill’s efforts to modernise and clarify our data laws and to unleash growth and opportunity.

The digital landscape is evolving rapidly, and it is right that we seek to keep pace. The Bill marks an improvement on the previous data Bill introduced under the Conservative Government. However, although this Bill contains some positive steps, it also contains significant gaps and missed opportunities. We must seize this opportunity to get the legislation right, and to ensure that the data landscape we put in place serves all of us across the UK.

Maintaining public trust in data safeguards is vital. As the Ada Lovelace Institute emphasises, trust about data and technology is a must. In order for our democratic principles to be upheld, citizens must be able to trust how their data is being used. That is even more important as the data-driven digital interfaces of government increase.

Trust is also two sides of the same coin: inclusion and adoption. One is critical for society and the other is crucial for growth. That is why, in the name of constructive opposition and the interest of firming up public trust, we would like to highlight concerns and missed opportunities. As the Bill passes through the House, we will be seeking to interrogate and strengthen it where necessary.

One of our primary concerns lies with the powers granted to the Secretary of State, particularly on recognised legitimate interests and the framework for digital verification. In essence, the Bill allows ministerial decisions that bypass meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. That risks a situation where changes to how data is captured or shared are made unilaterally, without the thorough checks and balances that Parliament or the public expect.

Both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have highlighted these issues. The Open Rights Group highlights concerns that a governing party could change the rules on election data, for example, or have undue influence on the Information Commissioner’s decision-making process and jeopardise impartiality. Although there is a drive in the Bill to formalise digital identity frameworks, the Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial to strike the right balance. We support harnessing digital verification to make services more efficient, provided there is robust transparency and independent oversight of how personal data is stored and used. We urge Ministers to tighten this area with clear ethical safeguards to genuinely foster trust rather than undermine it.

Secondly, modernisation should not come at the cost of transparency. Several clauses appear to dilute individuals’ rights to information about how their data is collected and processed, notably in respect of legitimate interests and automated decision making. Clause 77, for example, risks seriously watering down the rights of data subjects, and in doing so seriously hampers public trust in data processing. The National Data Guardian and the British Medical Association, for example, are worried about the clause eroding transparency in how health and social care data is used for research. If we truly wish to harness the benefits of emerging technology, from AI to digital verification, we must earn and maintain that trust, and that depends on being open about how data is used and by whom.

That brings me on to the Bill’s proposals on automated decision making. They currently focus on special category data, which leaves our ordinary personal data less shielded. AI and algorithmic processes increasingly determine people’s credit, insurance, and even job prospects. There are risks in restricting enhanced safeguards to only certain categories of information without further amendments to protect individuals.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that tendency, but it does not have to be like that. We can either build a society that is about personal interactions and familiarity, or we can allow a society of the kind she describes to develop, which will destroy the tapestry of those interactions that make up the wellbeing of each of us and all of us.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the attention of the House to my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

I rise to contribute to today’s debate on the Data (Use and Access) Bill as a creative who worked as a screenwriter before I entered this place. To write a good script takes discipline, focus, sweat and tears—I have found that tea and biscuits help, too. Us mere mortals cannot create something out of nothing. Creativity is an act of synthesis: pulling together the flotsam and jetsam of our experiences and observations and applying them in an original way. We pour our life experiences into our work, creating the humanity behind the lines, which lifts characters from the pages and into the public’s consciousness.

If the public want to hang out by watching the shows that we create, we have on our hands the rarest of commodities—a hit.

Many years ago, I worked on the hit show “New Tricks”. It was a cold case cop drama that ran to 12 series on the BBC, created by Nigel McCrery, who died this week. “New Tricks” was, and remains, a very popular show. Twice a year, I receive the royalties collected for me by the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I am paid fairly for my original work when it is rebroadcast around the world, or on digital platforms.

This week, I discovered that the subtitles from one of my episodes for “New Tricks” have been scraped and are being used to create learning materials for artificial intelligence. Along with thousands of other films and television shows, my original work is being used by generative AI to write scripts, which one day may replace versions produced by mere humans like me. This is theft and it is happening on an industrial scale. As the law stands, AI companies do not have to be transparent about what they are stealing. I therefore welcome the principle of the amendments in the Bill before us today, which address this issue. The amendments require generative artificial intelligence firms to be transparent about the content used to train their models, allowing creators to know when our work has been used. Another amendment expands the existing copyright regime, which is completely clear that the unlicensed use of creative content to train AI models is theft, to cover all GAI models marketed in the UK.

Over in the United States, Thomson Reuters has just received a summary judgment on its infringement claim. It is the first pure AI training case decided in the US, and the judge has said that AI training is not fair use. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his listening mode, but the creative industries worry that the Government’s preferred position of creators of original material opting out of having work scraped is not workable because no such model currently exists anywhere in the world. We are worried because creators build our industries. The creative industries are at the heart of our industrial strategy.

[Sir John Hayes]

I fully endorse much of what the hon. Lady has said. We as a House were slow to regulate the internet when it first emerged. The fascination with the new blinded people to the damage it could do. We have had the online harms Bill more recently and so on and so forth. The risk in this case is not that we go too far, but that we do not go far enough. It is important, based on what she just said, that we take swift, decisive and firm action to avoid the eventuality of reducing humans, as she described them, to “mere” puppets.

[Alison Hume]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is crucial that the Government take that into account at the end of the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very interesting contribution from the hon. Gentleman. It would be a useful exercise to find out who is speaking on behalf of certain companies, if they are reluctant witnesses. We should not have reluctant witnesses in this House. People should have an obligation to appear for parliamentary scrutiny. It does not matter whether it is the biggest tech brothers or the smallest company in our constituencies. He is right that that type of transparency would be really useful.

[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.

[Pete Wishart]

Far be it from me, who am on my feet, to get in the way of a conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister. I was interested by that little exchange. The right hon. Gentleman is right: we have to be careful when it comes to issues such as this. Given his experience of the House, he will have observed over the years some of the ways in which people who are able to make representations can be abused. As we go forward in such a critical area, he is right to issue a warning, and I think the House has heard what he has had to say.

Clauses 135 to 139 are the creative industries’ safeguard and guarantee in the face on an almost existential threat to their ability to sustain themselves and continue to bring that uncontaminated joy of human imagination to the people we represent. They would help to tackle the unauthorised use of intellectual property by big tech companies scraping data for AI. They would enforce transparency and lay out a redress procedure. They would explicitly subject AI companies to UK copyright law, regardless of where they are based in the world. That means—and this is a critical point—that those companies would have to reveal the names and owners of web crawlers that currently operate anonymously. Most importantly, they would allow copyright owners to know when, where and how their work is to be used.

To develop and thrive, our artists need the best possible conditions and political environment, and we have delivered that over the decades. That is why we lead the world when it comes to our contribution to the creative industries, and why we make such massive gross value added in every single sector in which we are predominant. Our leading artists give us a soft power that is the envy of the world, and we must not do anything that threatens our ability to retain it. We have a gold standard IP rights framework enshrined in UK law. We have a copyright regime that protects our artists, and ensures that their wonderful works are properly recognised and that they are remunerated for the products of their imagination.