Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, who did so much during the Online Safety Bill—now Act—to champion the issues that are now before us. She should get full credit for the first steps she made. I think I said it before, and I will say it again in her presence, that we thought we had achieved much of what we are talking about today in the final wind-up of that Bill, but we had to swap it for a slightly bigger prize and it fell down slightly on the list, so I feel very guilty about this and want to help to redress somehow the balance of the deficit that was created.

I do not want to get, in this House, any reputation for being a person who asks geeky questions about Third Reading issues, but the Minister will know that getting access to debates at Third Reading is tricky. It often requires the graven head of the clerk to nod very slowly at an appropriate moment, and I wonder if we could just rehearse that slightly so that we are quite clear exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was saying.

Am I right in saying that the intention—and good intentions are great—is that there will be a government amendment at Third Reading? Since it is being produced by the Government, there is not an issue for the clerk to nod at, because that is allowed. If there is a government amendment dealing with all the issues we raised today, then we are all in a good place. It is right that this House, which has done so much to come together to create it, gets the credit for this Bill going down to the Commons. That is appropriate and something that we should get right.

In the absence of the Bill—and I recognise that there are difficulties about drafting, and it may well be that we have a very short time between Report and Third Reading—would it not be appropriate for the Minister to say to the clerk that it is his intention that, if necessary, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, may bring forward an amendment on these issues so that at least we get, if not all of the package, the parts that are relevant and most important to it in the Bill as it leaves this House? That would be helpful all round, and it would be in accordance with the sentiment of the House.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I share in the congratulations of my noble friend Lady Owen. It has taken me about 10 years to begin to understand how this House works and it has taken her about 10 minutes.

I want to pursue something which bewilders me about this set of amendments, which is the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I do not understand why we are talking about a different Bill in relation to audio fakes. Audio has been with us for many years, yet video deepfakes are relatively new. Why are we talking about a different Bill in relation to audio deepfakes?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on having brought forward these very important amendments. It has been a privilege to be part of her support team and she has proved an extremely persuasive cross-party advocate, including in being able to bring out the team: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has cross-examined the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. There is very little to follow up on what noble Lords have said, because the Minister now knows exactly what he needs to reply to.

I was exercised by this rather vague issue of whether the elements that were required were going to come back at Third Reading or in the Commons. I did not think that the Minister was specific enough in his initial response. In his cross-examination, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, really went through the key elements that were required, such as the no intent element, the question of reasonable excuse and how robust that was, the question of solicitation, which I know is very important in this context, and the question of whether it is really an international law matter. I have had the benefit of talking to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and surely the mischief is delivered and carried out here, so why is that an international law issue? There is also the question of deletion of data, which the noble Lord has explained pretty carefully, and the question of timing of knowledge of the offence having been committed.

The Minister needs to describe the stages at which those various elements are going to be contained in a government amendment. I understand that there may be a phasing, but there are a lot of assurances. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, is it six or seven? How many assurances are we talking about? I very much hope that the Minister can see the sentiment and the importance we place on his assurances on these amendments, so I very much hope he is going to be able to give us the answers.

In conclusion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said—and it is no bad thing to be able to wheel on a former Secretary of State at 9 o’clock in the evening—there is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-based abuse. This is something which motivates us hugely in favour of these amendments. I very much hope the Minister can give more assurance on the audio side of things as well, because we want future legislation to safeguard victims, improve prosecutions and deter potential perpetrators from committing image-based and audio-based abuse crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, 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. At the moment, age is about the only stable personal characteristic, in that we generally know where it comes from, where it is recorded and can trust it. Name has become unstable: people are using name changing to hide previous criminal convictions, because we do not have a system of linking one name with another. Residence is widely abused by people who want to get their kids into the school of their preference.

Disability, ethnicity, sexuality and religion are all self-identified. We really need to understand why we are basing policy on something that is self-identified and whether we are collecting the right information for the policy uses we are making of it, particularly when, in areas such as employment, we are encouraging people to make particular choices because they are favoured in the employment advertisements. There is a collection of information there which we really ought to make an effort to be clear about if we are to make proper use of it and understand data going down the decades.

The definition we ought to do something about now is the protected characteristic of sex, because the misuse of sex and its conflation with gender has caused a whole suite of disadvantages and corruptions in the system. Basically, sex is simple: there are only two sexes. For the huge majority of humans, you can easily determine which sex they are. There are some for whom it is harder, but there are still only two sexes. We are in a situation where we record sex and use it to provide safe spaces for women, to have female sports, to know which prison to put someone in, to know how to record crime and, presumably, to know what action to take as a result of it.

Sex and knowing how women are doing is a really important thing to collect accurately, because there is a whole suite of areas in which women have been historically disadvantaged, such as in employment. It is well known that the standards in medical care have been set on men, not women, which has led to a series of disadvantages. We need accurate data. To my mind, rules based on reality and truth that are then adapted to people are much better than rules based on the way we wished things were, then trying to reconcile that with the truth.

We would do better for everybody—women in particular, but also people who identify as trans—if we based our description of them, when it comes to sex, on the truth. We would provide better healthcare, better protection, a much easier attitude to integration into society and proper provision for them. We should seek to do this. Truth should be the base of how we collect data; we should really insist on that. We should not corrupt our data but adapt our practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, this one should be easy. Last week, we passed amendments that said that the public authorities, in recording data on matters including sex, should do so accurately. Some might think that that should not be particularly controversial. This amendment says that the Government “may make regulations” about definitions of that sort of thing—that is “may”, not must. It is a negative resolution, not a positive one. It is not difficult, so let us do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 68 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones. This amendment has been debated several times within this Bill and its predecessor; however, this version differs slightly in approach. The objective remains the same: to overturn the common-law assumption in both civil and criminal law that computers are infallible.

This assumption has led to untold injustice. Innocent people have lost their lives, freedom and livelihoods because the law wrongly assumed that computers are never wrong. This of course is nonsense, as explained in detail in our last debate, at column GC 153 of Hansard. In summary, computer systems are very susceptible to both human and technological error. Indeed, the presence of bugs is normal, anticipated and routine in all contexts other than the court.

As with previous iterations of this amendment, Amendment 68 overturns that common-law assumption, but the drafting now closely mirrors provisions under the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, which was enacted in recognition that the majority of trade documents are now electronic.

The ETDA ensures and assures the integrity of electronic trade documents. It was put in place to protect those on both sides of the trade, so I am curious, at the very least, as to why we will be able to consider the efficacy of computer evidence in relation to trade but not in our legal system. I am also concerned that the MoJ, under several Governments, has been so slow to recognise the scale of the problem of this assumption, which one of my most experienced computer science colleagues described as “wicked nonsense”.

In brief, the amendment provides that the electronic evidence produced by or derived from a computer may be relied upon as evidence where that evidence is not challenged and where the court is satisfied that the evidence can be relied upon. The rest of the amendment is carefully drafted by legal experts and computer scientists with legal expertise to support the court in coming to a meaningful assessment of whether to be satisfied, or not, that the evidence can be relied upon.

This proposal has been tried and tested within our legal system. We know that it works, and I therefore see no reason why the Government should not simply accept it. However, rather than discuss it, the Government chose to announce, last week, a consultation on computer evidence. The call for evidence is a source of significant frustration for those of us who have championed this issue, as is the fact that the promised meeting with the MoJ did not happen before that announcement, in spite of repeated requests.

In her introductory remarks to the consultation, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, says that the purpose of the consultation is to help her department

“better understand how the current presumption concerning the admissibility of computer evidence is working in practice, and whether it is fit for purpose in the modern world”.

This is a backward step. The evidence that presumption is not working and is not fit for purpose is overwhelming and decades long; what are needed now are solutions, one of which is before us tonight.

Moreover, the Government’s preference for doing everything behind doors has sunk their own consultation. Had experts been consulted, the first thing they would have pointed out is that the scope is insufficient because it does not address civil proceedings but only criminal proceedings, even though the presumption is the same for both. This means that, at best, the Government’s consultation can lead only to a partial solution.

We in this House have discussed this issue in the case of the postmasters; it is a case that is front of mind. This approach may have spared those postmasters who were subject to criminal prosecutions, but not those such as Lee Castleton who was subject to civil proceedings by the Post Office, which chased him to bankruptcy. He was also branded a thief, spat at and verbally abused in the street. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder. His wife developed epilepsy from stress, his daughter developed an eating disorder and his son remains so traumatised that he cannot be in a room where someone says the words “Post Office”. A solution that does not prevent the injustice done to Lee and his family from happening to others is not fit for purpose. If the MoJ had done us the courtesy of a meeting, this could have been avoided.

I am sure the Minister will assure us that the Government are acting, but for those whose lives have been ruined, those who have fought for too many years on this issue, the consultation creates the spectre of yet another battle and further delay when the solutions are here and at hand. I want nothing more than to be wrong on this, and for the Government to prove me wrong. But for past victims, for lawyers and experts who have given their time so generously, and for those whose lives will be ruined because the computer got it wrong, half a consultation on a matter so well-established and urgent is a pretty poor result. I beg to move.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, as so often, I listened with awe to the noble Baroness. Apart from saying that I agree with her wholeheartedly, which I do, there is really no need for me for me to add anything, so I will not.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too am lost in admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—still firing on all cylinders at this time of night. Current law is clearly out of touch with the reality of computer systems. It assumes an untruth about computer reliability that has led to significant injustice. We know that that assumption has contributed to miscarriages of justice, such as the Horizon scandal.

Unlike the amendment in Committee, Amendment 68 does not address the reliability of computers themselves but focuses rather on the computer evidence presented in court. That is a crucial distinction as it seeks to establish a framework for evaluating the validity of the evidence presented, rather than questioning the inherent reliability of computers. We believe that the amendment would be a crucial step towards ensuring fairness and accuracy in legal proceedings by enabling courts to evaluate computer evidence effectively. It offers a balanced approach that would protect the interests of both the prosecution and the defence, ensuring that justice is served. The Government really must move on this.