PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - 12 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Government are using technology to grow the economy and create new jobs in order to empower citizens and deliver a smaller, smarter state, but none of that is possible without data. Successive Governments failed to set out the extraordinary opportunity that data presents. Our citizens have counted the cost in slower growth, fewer jobs and flatlining productivity; in communities that feel less safe because police officers are spending more time filling in forms and less time out on the streets, where we need them; in hospitals, where patients are left waiting longer for the care that they so desperately need; and when people queue up to register the death of a loved one, or struggle to rent new homes without the decades-old documents that they need to prove their identity. An outdated approach to data is holding Britain’s economy back. This Bill will take the brakes off, unleashing a new era of wealth and opportunity for all.

The Secretary of State says that successive Governments failed to act, but is it not the case that this Bill is almost identical to the one that the last Conservative Government introduced, which very nearly made it on to the statute book?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Indeed, a lot of this Bill is based on the one that his Government introduced. They called a general election, which halted it in its tracks. We offered to get that Bill through in wash-up, but that was turned down by the Government. We are here today to discuss a Bill that his Government could well have got through; of course, they had 14 years to do so. I am grateful to him for pointing that out, and for no doubt supporting a Bill for which he claims so much credit.

The smart data measures in the Bill could make switching energy suppliers as quick and easy as switching bank accounts. Consumers will be able to compare utility prices and find better deals, putting money in their pockets. Businesses will be forced to innovate and improve their services, too. Fast-growing firms will also benefit from the digital verification services that this Bill enables. Today, people spend months waiting to get paperwork sorted for a new job. By helping people to prove who they are without physical documents, we will cut the time it takes to get on the payroll, and give businesses the freedom to get on with growth.

One of the biggest barriers to growth is the appalling state of Britain’s crumbling infrastructure. Today, streets are being endlessly dug up and re-dug up by different firms repairing gas one year and water the next. At the same time, bigger infrastructure projects have stalled and fallen silent for years. By offering a complete and accurate picture of the underground infrastructure, the national underground asset register will strengthen Britain’s building bureaucracy. It will cut the time it takes for workers on site to get the data they need from six days to six seconds. That means that they will be able to get on with building the roads, railways and homes that Britain so desperately needs.

Today, a siloed approach to data is slowing the state down. Patients are put through the same tests again and again, and prescription errors mean that they get the wrong medication. This is simply unacceptable. The NHS has one of the deepest, most diverse datasets in the world, but the people who need that data cannot access it. By introducing mandatory information standards for all information technology suppliers, this Bill will ensure that information can flow safely, securely and seamlessly through the healthcare system.

Can the Secretary of State outline the benefits that this Bill will have for my constituents in Harlow? I am thinking in particular of residents with multiple prescriptions who struggle to quickly have the data at their fingertips.

My hon. Friend is championing his constituents, and I am pleased to inform him that the Bill will deliver much more streamlined access to the healthcare system, from primary care right the way through to hospitals, where information should flow freely, not just because of the incentives being put in place but the actual requirements. Of course, when patients travel to their GP or to hospital, they will be able to count on far less disruption on the pavements and in the streets, simply because of the underground asset register. Those are just two examples of how this Bill will benefit his constituents.

The Bill will make it easier to introduce transformative new technologies such as artificial intelligence. It will reduce duplication and error, and save our doctors and nurses time so that they can focus on the patients who need them the most. The same goes for the police officers keeping our country safe: the measures proposed in this Bill will save them 1.5 million hours every single year.

Engaging with the state today takes time and effort, but I see no reason why it should. I created the new Government Digital Service to deliver efficient, convenient digital public services that are shaped around citizens’ lives. This Bill will bolster those efforts.

Open banking benefits 12 million customers every year by allowing them access to their data. It has been a great success. Does the Secretary of State see that as a model for how citizens can access their data held by the state?

Smart data underpins the service that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We see boundless opportunities for smart data to be applied in new ways, and the Bill before us will unlock some of those opportunities. I am grateful to him for getting that on the record.

An electronic register of births and deaths will make life that little bit easier for a new parent or those who have lost a loved one. However—

Some of my constituents have raised concerns about how their information will be kept safely in the online register of births and deaths. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government keep such information safely?

It is imperative that we reassure people up and down the country that their data will be used safely and wisely, and that they will always remain in control of how their data is used. I can give my hon. Friend those reassurances. The House will notice that this Government have acted with transparency when it comes to informing the public how data and the algorithms that process that data are being used. Just last week I released more algorithms for public scrutiny, so that they can be put into the algorithm playbook that we have released. From Department to Department, more of those algorithms will be made available as our resources allow. That is just one example of how we are using transparency to earn the public’s trust. In the year before the general election, just one Department released an algorithm for public scrutiny.

There is a great deal in this Bill that we can all support, but some difficult concepts lurk within it, as I know the Secretary of State will recognise. He is talking about data transparency. One of the issues of concern is about precisely what we mean by the “scientific research” on which data may be employed, and precisely what we mean by “the public interest” that must be served by that scientific research. We will not examine this issue on Second Reading, but may I ask him to commit to a proper examination of those concepts as the Bill moves forward, so that we can all understand what we mean and the public can get the reassurance that he describes?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his informed intervention. I can assure him that we take this issue very seriously. I can also assure him that this is one of the issues on which we will go into considerable depth in Committee, and I am sure that his Whips are hearing of his interest in getting on to that Committee. He is clearly volunteering to put in the hard yards to make sure that we get the Bill right.

None of the things that I have outlined will succeed without trust. People will not use technology unless they are confident that it is being used safely, but we often lack the rigorous evidence that we need to take decisions about the safety of our rapidly changing online world. The provisions in this Bill will allow researchers to access data held by platforms, enabling them to conduct robust independent research into online safety. I am grateful to peers for their dedication in rigorously scrutinising these measures. We have listened closely, and in response we have made some important changes to the Bill. First, we have brought forward measures to strengthen data protection for children. Information society service providers likely to be accessed by children will now have clear legal duties to consider how best to protect and support children when designing their data-processing activities.

Secondly, we have added a provision to help charities use email to engage with people who have previously supported their charitable purposes. Thirdly, we have committed to making it easier for people to navigate data protection measures in a world transformed by technology. In two rapidly growing sectors—automated decision making and edtech—we will ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to publish codes of practice to give people the knowledge and confidence they need to use personal data legally.

The Secretary of State will be aware that clause 80 removes the existing right of individuals not to be subjected to solely automated decision-making processes unless it involves a category of special data. In practice, this might mean that journalists could have their data processed through ADM, which could pose significant risks to their sources. What reassurance can he give me that these concerns will be explored and assessed as the Bill passes through the House?

The Bill improves the automated decision-making process, but individual attributes and sectors will be impacted and we will of course take that into consideration in Committee, where I am sure that issue will be raised. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it on record on Second Reading.

Peers also added several measures during the Bill’s Report stage. First, Baroness Owen ran an admirable campaign to outlaw the creation of intimate images and deepfakes. This horrific form of online abuse has a devastating impact on its victims. The Government will work with Baroness Owen to ensure that the drafting of intimate image abuse measures in Committee keeps women and girls safe. Secondly, my Ministers will work with Opposition Members to explore the possibility of new security guidance for users of the national underground asset register, as proposed by Viscount Camrose. I am confident that we will find a solution that is satisfactory to all.

Thirdly, Viscount Colville added a public interest test for scientific researchers seeking to use clause 67 to process personal data. However, expecting scientists to define the outcomes of their work in advance goes against the unpredictable nature of research. Many groundbreaking discoveries come from research with no clear public benefits at the start. 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. Today’s AI revolution draws on decades-old neural networks research that was long thought unimportant. As the Royal Society has said, this additional public interest requirement would be an undue bureaucratic burden on researchers. For these reasons, we will seek to overturn the measure.

Fourthly, many Members will have observed Baroness Kidron’s campaign on AI and copyright with keen interest. One of the extraordinary things about Britain is our ability to support a cutting-edge AI sector and world-leading creative industries at the same time. Both are fundamental to our future prosperity and standing in the world, and I refuse to choose between them.

I will finish this section of my speech and then give way to those Members who have a considerable interest in this area. Let me say what I have to say, and then I will hear what hon. Members would like to contribute and engage as fully as I can.

The final framework must reward human creativity, incentivise innovation and provide the certainty required for long-term growth in both sectors, but the importance and complexity of this issue means that it should be considered through the live consultation. As I said in that consultation, legislation is ultimately likely to be needed.

Of course the creative industries are excited about the inclusion of clauses 135 to 139, which they see as their guarantee and protection against the ravages of generative artificial intelligence. Those clauses are in the Bill to protect our creative industries. Will the Secretary of State assure the House today that he will respect them and keep them in the Bill, with no attempt to water them down?

I pay tribute to those in the creative arts sector who are in the House today. I know that, for people who engage in that kind of activity, it is not just a job; it is a passion that comes straight from the heart. They are emotionally connected in a profound way to the work that they create, which is a credit not just to them as individuals but to our entire country. I can assure them that I have no intention at all of standing in the way of respect for their work.

As we go through this process, it will be essential that we listen to the voices from both sides. The consultation that is currently live is a meaningful one, and I assure the House that I am engaging with it. I look forward to hearing all the voices in the consultation and, as I have said, it is likely that legislation on this specific issue will come out of it. That would give the House an opportunity to go through this issue in enormous detail at the appropriate time. I am listening carefully and I want to engage with all the voices throughout the Committee stage and ensure that the debate continues.

Some creatives are arguing that the current consultation could be undermined because it already promotes a preferred option, which is the handing over of creatives’ intellectual property to the AI sector. That would include creatives such as composers, lyricists and writers—one of whom the Secretary of State is sitting next to. Some of them are struggling to earn a fair living, although perhaps not our hon. Friend the Minister. AI models are being trained on those creatives’ work without their knowledge or consent. Without adequate protection for those creatives and without greater transparency over when their intellectual property is being scraped, the creative industries as we know them will cease to exist. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that those creative voices, of whom there are 2.4 million in Britain, are heard throughout the Committee stage?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her offer of advocacy for the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I have never known him to lack a voice for self-advocacy. However, should the time arise, I know that she will be on his speed dial. The issues that she has raised are of profound importance. As I have said, I recognise not just the economic issues but the personal connection that creatives have with the art and work that they create. I have absolutely no intention of disempowering them in that relationship, and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of taking away any rights from those individuals without any consultation.

We recognise that people in the creative arts sector are making representations, as they absolutely should be, and I listen carefully to them, but this country has the third largest AI market in the world. There are young people currently studying in schools, colleges and universities around the country who aspire to work in the technology sector, and they should not have to leave the country and work abroad in order to fulfil their potential. Of the people who have contributed so much to our economy, of course those in the creative arts are absolutely front and centre. Alongside them is the technology sector, which is providing enormous opportunities in job creation, wealth creation and innovation right across the country. Parts of this country are becoming a magnet for talent, not only from this country but from around the world, and I do not want anybody to feel that they have to leave the country to seek opportunities to exploit their talent and potential as individuals. I believe there is a way forward, and I assure the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that, whatever people think of the consultation, I am listening very closely. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has been engaging fully, and we take these issues incredibly seriously. We will continue to do so in Committee and beyond.

I am a great admirer of the Secretary of State, and I admire his belief in his cause today. The creative sector will have heard his commitment to listen, and I thank him for ensuring the openness and engagement of his Ministers on this issue. In the spirit of listening, will he agree from the Dispatch Box today to meet those creatives who are keen to have an audience with him on this significant issue?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in scrutinising these areas and for being a voice for the sector. It goes without saying that I would be delighted to meet the people he references, and the same goes for Members on both sides of the House. Whether I can fit every one of the 2.5 million people who work in the sector into my office, I do not know. It is a bigger office than I had seven months ago, but I am not sure I can fit everyone in. However, I will do my absolute best; I am here to listen and learn, as I have been from the outset, and I am here to find a way through. It is time to reconcile these issues and to give certainty to people in both the creative arts sector and the technology sector. I believe the Bill is the moment for this House to provide the certainty that both sides need as we move forward.

Fifthly and finally, let me say a word on Lord Lucas’s amendments. People will use digital identities to buy a house, to rent a car and to get a job. The intention of clause 45(6) is to force public authorities to share whether someone’s information, such as their sex, has changed when disclosing information under clause 45 as part of a digital verification check. That would mean passing on an excessive amount of personal data. Sharing such changes by default would be an unjustifiable invasion of people’s privacy, and I am unable to say that clause 45(6) is compatible with human rights law, which is why we will seek to overturn the amendment.

The Secretary of State is very generous in giving way. Before he finishes, may I ask him about the situation we are creating with this Bill and the Online Safety Act 2023 of setting a framework within which regulators need to operate and cover a good deal of ground? Does he think the advent of these pieces of legislation makes a stronger case for a new Committee of this House, and perhaps a Joint Committee, to maintain scrutiny of ongoing digital regulation? If so, will he be prepared to advance that case?

That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second audition of the day. I am open-minded on these issues, and I take leadership from the Leader of the House on Committee matters.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on this Bill, and on setting out the importance and ubiquity of data; the current confusion on data sharing, data formats, data processing and data usage; and the lack of action by the previous Government to address some of these issues.

Given the evolution of AI technology, its simply being a method of processing data and its growing importance and applications, can this Bill possibly address all future issues? Is this Bill the Government’s last word on data, or is it their first word?

Of course, we should have had this Bill two years ago. We have seen enormous progress on AI technology since then. I have been at the Paris summit for the past few days, and I saw where this technology is heading. Huge advances in the power of AI and the move towards artificial general intelligence are happening faster than anybody imagined. I cannot guarantee that this Bill will be sound for time immemorial, but I can say that it is fit for the moment in which we are living.

I reassure my hon. Friend that all our regulators have been tasked with assessing how non-frontier AI, as applied throughout the economy and society, will impact the sectors they regulate. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is offering assistance, where needed, as we assess the impact across our society.

My hon. Friend refers to a general-purpose technology, and it will therefore be applied and deployed in different parts of the economy and society in very different ways. We must make sure that, as a society, we deploy it safely. Once we ensure that the technology is safe, we can embrace it and explore all the opportunities that it offers.

It is hard to imagine a dataset in which it is more important to maintain confidentiality than patient data. This Bill makes changes to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that there are no changes to patient confidentiality?

I am pleased to give the hon. Member that assurance.

Data reform could not be more urgent or more necessary. Governments have spent years waxing lyrical about the immense promise of technology.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will carry on, I am afraid.

The failure of previous Governments to deliver data reform has undermined that promise, stalling economic growth and leaving our public services wrapped up in red tape, and our citizens have paid the price. This Bill will smash the silos standing in the way of reform and remove the brakes that are holding Britain back.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

The Conservatives want Britain to be a science and technology superpower, and that means fully unlocking all the benefits of data. As a country, we must make the appropriate use of data more widespread. That would cut red tape, make research easier, create new jobs, deliver economic growth and enable people to access public services more efficiently.

A data-enabled economy and society is good for everyone, which is why we introduced the groundbreaking Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before the last election and progressed it through all Commons stages, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly said. We still believe in those reforms and call on the Government to build on them, but we also recognise the concerns around individual rights, privacy, AI and copyright that have been raised in relation to Labour’s Bill.

When the previous Government left office last July, we had turned Britain into one of the world’s leading tech economies. We were home to more tech unicorns than any other European country, and more than France and Germany combined. Britain had become the world’s third largest AI ecosystem, with pioneering start-ups creating new jobs and innovative products. We led the way on developing safe AI through the world’s first AI safety summit and AI Safety Institute.

Our original Bill complemented those achievements and would have accelerated Britain’s progress towards becoming a highly data-enabled economy and society. In particular, our proposals for a digital verification services framework are replicated in this Bill. It is also clear that this Bill has been informed by consultations carried out under the last Conservative Government on the governance of digital identities.

Similarly, putting the national underground asset register on a statutory footing is a Conservative idea, and we welcome its inclusion in this Bill. More than 700 different organisations dig holes to install and maintain underground assets every year. Expanding and standardising the digital map of pipes and cables will help local councils, utility providers and others to better co-ordinate their activities, hopefully reducing the 60,000 accidental damage incidents that occur every year. However, the security of the register must be of the highest possible standard, given that the information is highly sensitive. The amendments tabled on register security by Viscount Camrose and Lord Markham in the other place should be taken seriously by the Government.

While the asset register provisions will turn our aim of joined-up thinking into reality, this Labour Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a total failure, and no joined-up thinking has happened at all. Last December, the Government finally launched their consultation, just as the Christmas break started. Why did Labour wait six months when this area of policy moves so quickly, with AI firms, the creative industries and the public needing legal certainty and firm answers? When the consultation finally arrived, the creative industries sector was unanimous in describing Labour’s proposals as completely unfit for purpose. For the sector, Labour’s idea of imposing a requirement on creatives, such as journalists, songwriters and film makers, to proactively opt out of data mining is not the solution. Labour’s proposal could align the UK’s approach closely with the EU regime under the digital single market copyright directive, which has produced widespread uncertainty about what constitutes a valid reservation of rights.

Labour’s approach to copyright and AI is the ultimate test of its credibility on tech and creative industries issues, and it has failed—the entire sector knows it. Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem.

I know the hon. Member fancies himself as a bit of a tech bro, but he should recognise that much of the anxiety in the creative industries sector is caused by the dither and delay of the Conservatives’ time in Government and their failure to grasp the issue. As ever, we on the Government Benches are doing the hard work.

The last Conservative Government left Britain with a world-class creative industries sector. It is Labour’s dither and delay that is causing huge anxiety, as I will go on to say.

Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem. One way to resolve that is to accept the Conservative proposal, tabled in the other place, to develop international technical standards for watermarks, which the Secretary of State referred to. We welcome the agreement by the Minister in the other place to take that work forward, and both Houses look forward to the outcome with great interest.

As I have said, the creative industries sector is valuable. It is worth £124 billion to the UK economy and employs over 2.4 million people. They will all be damaged by Labour’s approach and they all deserve better, so why has an impact assessment not been published at the same time as the consultation? What has Labour got to hide?

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I did during the debate on the creative industries a few weeks ago. During that debate, Members on the Conservative Benches gave the impression that they were for the opt-out solution that the Labour party is putting forward. Is he now telling us that he is against that and that he will support the creative industries in seeing off the challenge from generative AI?

The creative industries sector is telling us that that solution is not fit for purpose. We will hold the Labour Government to account because the creative industries are extremely important.

Under the Conservatives, we became the second largest exporter of television programming and the fourth largest exporter of film, while also being home to world-class theatre, music, broadcasting and journalism.

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I make progress, but I will give way shortly.

On the Conservative Benches, we have many well-respected champions of the creative industries sector. I am especially looking forward to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, who brings his insight as a former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, creative industries Minister and Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the current Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, for her work and leadership on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the shadow DCMS Minister, are both long-standing advocates for the creative industries. They have both engaged extensively with the creative industries on AI and copyright issues, and together we will continue to champion those industries in this House and beyond.

The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the opt-out or not? He seemed to disagree with it, but then he described exactly the same process as we have in the consultation.

The Secretary of State needs to listen to the creative industries sector. So far he has ignored that sector, issued a consultation late and given it no faith whatsoever. The timing of the consultation and the Bill is fully faulty, reflecting Labour’s entirely incoherent approach—[Interruption.] The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright is open for another two weeks and it will take them many months to respond to the views expressed. On top of that, more time will be needed for the Government to come to any sort of conclusion, and that is before the Chancellor and No. 10 panic, take control of the policy, edge out the Secretary of State and cause even more delay.

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am not in government, so I will not give way until later—although if the Secretary of State wants to come to the Dispatch Box to explain why his consultation and review are late and why he has not given any certainty to the sector, I am happy to give way, but I do not think he wants to do that. Let us go back to the Bill—[Interruption.] Okay, I am happy to give way.

Well, we certainly did not take 14 years to do that, but will the hon. Gentleman answer this: does he agree with the opt-out system? Yes or no?

The Secretary of State keeps asking me questions, but I am not in government. It is for him to answer. It is for him to bring forward a consultation and legislation, and to give certainty to the creative sector. There is no point asking me questions—I am not in government.

What I can tell the Secretary of State is that it is extremely unfortunate that this legislation is passing through Parliament now, while the consultation is still ongoing. Amendments are being tabled by Members from all parts of both Houses, leading to legislative positions being crystalised even though the consultation has not yet closed. If the Government really took seriously the views of the public, the tech sector, the creative industries and other stakeholders, they would not be following this approach or timetable. Therefore, we will table amendments calling on the Government to respond to their own consultation more quickly.

Labour’s consultation provides the worst of all worlds: it does not provide any legal certainty or allow the views of those who have responded to be taken seriously. However, Labour should take the views of parliamentarians seriously, including those of its own Back-Bench MPs, who have voiced concerns at the Government’s approach in this very House. Labour should also take seriously the views of those in the other place. The Secretary of State acknowledged that the Government have already been heavily defeated on several amendments, including the Conservative amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge on sexually explicit deepfake images, which secured wide-ranging support. The Government were also defeated on Conservative amendments tabled by Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot that recognise the importance of accurate data, particularly when it comes to gender and sex. Confusing biological sex and elective gender puts patient safety at risk.

The Bill is lengthy and we will continue to properly scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. Labour’s track record to date on science and technology issues is so bad it needs all the help it can get. In just eight months in office, the Labour Government have already committed eight acts of harm on science and technology issues. They have imposed a national insurance jobs tax, punishing tech workers and businesses; lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca, doing away hundreds of jobs; launched an AI plan with no new funding or delivery plan, which creates two new quangos and more red tape; cancelled the UK’s new exascale supercomputer, hampering our scientists while our competitors race ahead; skipped the international AI summit of world leaders, started by the Conservatives but ignored by this Labour Prime Minister; scrapped £500 million of funding for the AI research resource, which funds computer power for AI; abandoned Conservative plans for the national maths academy, harming the next generation of data scientists; and aligned Britain with the EU’s failing approach to AI and copyright.

Labour’s approach is analogue government in the digital age: slow, uninspiring and not good enough for Britain. Labour promised so much, but it has delivered only failure.

Order. I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 320 and the Noes were 178, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the reasons why the Bill is so important. I welcome the measures that will help to make people’s lives easier and unlock the full power of data to deliver the Government’s missions, including the important mission of growing our economy.

After two false starts with data Bills in the previous Parliament, it seems that the third time is the charm. That may be a consequence of our particularly charming Front Bench, as pointed out earlier, but it is certainly right that we have before us a data Bill that addresses the way in which data has increasingly become fundamental to our society and our economy. It really is fantastic to see the Government leading the way on action to make the most of data’s potential.

Some 85% of businesses handle digitalised data and the British data economy represents around 7% of GDP. I use those two statistics to emphasise that data is not remote and abstract; it is part of our everyday lives and of our businesses’ lifeblood, and that is precisely why the Bill promises to be so transformative. I want to emphasise that we are all walking data generators—we all generate data, all the time. That does not mean that we have to be wearing a Fitbit or some sort of smart device, though we all have two or three, generally; we all generate data.

When the Select Committee that I have the good fortune to chair was looking at the algorithms of social media companies as part of our inquiry into those algorithms and the Southport riots, it was clear that social media advertisers and others are effectively generating digital twins of us all. The thing with a digital twin, which represents us in data, is that there is not just one and it certainly is not under our control. Many companies and organisations, and all those who wish to understand their potential customers or users, have data on us and are tracking data, including that which we generate. Therefore, to have a Government who lead the way in ensuring that that data is managed, generated, stored and shared in the interests of the general public, and that it is better understood by Government and the public services for which they are responsible, is so important.

Driving higher productivity through the smart use of data not only will grow the economy but, as the Secretary of State set out, will make all our lives easier. In an era when we increasingly interact with public services online, the measures in the Bill will enable a modern digital Government, which will save people time. Boosting our public sector productivity, which has been stubbornly low in recent years, will help to deliver the efficient, effective public services that our constituents expect and deserve. That includes freeing up to 1.5 million police and 140,000 NHS staff hours a year to focus on protecting us, saving lives and providing better NHS treatment and all the other services that need to be people driven. An important part of the Bill is that it recognises that freeing up administrative effort through better joined-up data sharing, collection, storage and so on gives people greater opportunity to deliver services for others.

I particularly welcome the national underground asset register. Before I became an MP, as I may have mentioned at some point, I worked as a chartered engineer in what my constituents continue to call “a proper job”. As the head of technology for Ofcom, I spent an amazing amount of time trying to work out what BT had underground. I thought that, in part, it was BT being reluctant to share their knowledge of their underground cables and systems—part of that was their ducts and so on—because of that opening them up to competition. I eventually realised, however—this is some time ago, so I hope they will not mind me saying this now—that they did not know what they had underground and their own systems did not reflect what was under the ground or what their assets were. When it came to repairing a fault or improving or upgrading to a new network, therefore, not only was there the additional cost of trying to find out what was there, but systems were designed slowly or wrongly.

The Secretary of State referred to traffic jams being caused by roads being dug up in the wrong place. That is a fundamental example of the impact of not having simple, accessible and secure data on our assets. It seems amazing that I was working on the issue as a regulator 15 or 16 years ago, and that only now under this Labour Government are we addressing that essential national asset.

I will also briefly mention advances in digital identity, which will deliver tangible benefits to the public, making tasks such as opening a bank account, starting a new job or renting a flat that much easier. I will not go into the debate on whether digital ID should be mandatory, but I will certainly say that it should be available and accessible to everyone. I have a constituent who was obliged to take a photograph of himself with the The Chronicle, the local newspaper of the day, in an attempt to prove to the Department for Work and Pensions that he existed because he was disabled and could not go into the jobcentre. That was the only way open to him for verification, because he did not have a passport or a driving licence. I hope the measures set out in the Bill will enable digital ID to be accessible to those who need it.

The Bill also promises an approach to data that is, in some quite literal ways, cradle to grave, including for patient passports, electronic registration of births and deaths, and critical services such as benefits and so on, which I have referred to. It is therefore vital that the public have confidence in our country’s data protection regime. I have long argued—and it was great to hear the Secretary of State say essentially the same thing—that we can unlock the benefits of data only if there is public trust. Often, my constituents feel that advances in technology are done to them, rather than with them and for their benefit. Critically, our constituents need to feel they have agency over the way in which data impacts their lives. Rather than feeling empowered by digital innovation, too many feel the opposite: disempowered, undermined, dehumanised, tracked and attacked.

As an engineer with 20 years’ experience before entering Parliament, I found it deeply disturbing to follow the trajectory of tech from boring but incredibly useful, which was how it was when I started my career, to exciting but exploitative, which is how too many of my constituents view it now. I always say that I came into politics for the same reason I went into engineering, which was to make the world work better for everyone. I think the Bill can significantly contribute to that, with its emphasis on high standards for protecting personal data, including the strengthened role for the Information Commissioner and the new measures to protect the data of children. Delivering the improvements promised by the Bill must therefore go hand in hand with respecting the rights of citizens to control and manage their data.

So important is data that already, in the first few months of its existence, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, has extensively discussed many of the issues being addressed by the Bill. In our session with the Secretary of State, we discussed the problems of legacy systems and inconsistent standards for information in the NHS. It is good to see that the Bill looks at addressing that. The Secretary of State made it clear that he understood the scale of the challenge, and I think he has delivered on his pledge to us to deliver a Bill that safeguards data.

We also discussed the considerable unmet demand for digital ID, which the Bill will meet, and the need to focus on outcomes, with the chief scientific adviser echoing in her session with us the idea that data gathering must be proportionate, seeking to answer specific questions and not hoovering up data willy-nilly. This Bill is in that spirit, taking a pragmatic approach that seeks to use data to solve problems, not to needlessly extend the role of Government or big tech in our lives.

We have heard about the exciting ways that data can help solve problems right across Government. In the Committee’s session yesterday, the Science Minister, Lord Vallance, spoke about the importance of data to the Health Secretary’s ambition to move from cure to prevention in the NHS, and the role that genomics and the revolution in life sciences could play in transforming healthcare. I hope the Minister will address in his closing comments the single data health record for the NHS. It is important to have a consistent, safe, secure and shared understanding of a patient’s treatment, and I ask him to address how the evolution of the role of genomics and the detailed personal data in any genomics record will be reflected in the provisions of the Bill.

In the Committee’s session on the Budget, we also discussed the data environment, the infrastructure around data, and how that is critical to our future success in supporting private sector growth and delivering modern public services. I welcome that the Government have made data centres part of our critical national infrastructure. That recognises a reality that has been there for some years now.

Last week the Committee launched our inquiry into the “digital centre of government”—a change in the machinery of government that the new Labour Government made, centring digital transformation and digital government in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in order to enable the revolution in public service delivery that is part of the Labour Government’s ambitions. The effective implementation of this Bill is essential to the rewiring of data in a digital Government.

It is also critical that there is the political will to ensure that the effective sharing of data across Government serves the Bill’s intentions of supporting public trust, consistency of standards and consistency of data formatting. When the Minister responds to the debate, will he say a little more about the role of open standards and open source? The Secretary of State has already spoken about transparency, but will the Minister talk about the role of open standards and open source in ensuring that we have a consistent framework for data sharing across Government?

I look forward to engaging with Ministers in the Department in the months ahead on the Committee’s inquiry and on the progress of the Bill, which marks an important and overdue step in delivering a digital Government fit for the future.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What do you know?

I know nothing. I shall continue with data adequacy.

We must be mindful of our data adequacy agreements with the EU and other partners, and I know that the Government are all too aware of that. By watering down protections, we risk undermining our international credibility and endangering agreements that are essential for British businesses, academic institutions, and cross-border collaboration. It is paramount that our reforms do not jeopardise those vital partnerships, and it is vital that, as we update UK data law, we protect our position as a leading, trusted partner for international data sharing. At a time when international waters look increasingly choppy, this is more important than ever.

There is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and promote data trusts or data communities—where groups of individuals collectively manage their data for wider societal benefit, such as medical research or tackling climate change. The Bill could champion that approach, thereby boosting public interest innovation. Instead, it is largely silent on collective or community-driven data governance, and misses a crucial chance to build genuine public trust in how technology can help us all.

By going further on data trusts or data communities, we could further unlock economic growth, as is exemplified by open banking. Consumers and small business can use this, and smaller providers can grow and compete more effectively. Furthermore, considerations over access to data on energy consumption could help improve sustainability and drive down energy bills.

The Bill has come to us from the other place, and I commend the work that has taken place in the House of Lords in recent weeks to scrutinise and improve the legislation. There are several areas where the changes made in the other place will have the support of the Liberal Democrats. On AI and copyright, we have been very clear that the current Government proposals would fail creatives. The Conservative shadow Minister was not clear on his stance on the question of opt in or opt out, so the creative industry has been left unsure of whether the Conservatives will support it. I am happy to take an intervention from the shadow Minister if he wants to clarify his position.

I said to the Minister, and I will say it again for the hon. Lady: it is for the Government to bring forward their proposal. Once the consultation closes, we will respond. That is the proper order in this House.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As Liberal Democrats, we have been very clear on this, and we have listened to what the creative industry has said so far—

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Let me finish my point and then I would be very happy to give way.

We are against the opt-out system, because we want to preserve the rights of copyright. It is easy for those creatives to opt in, whereas opting out is harder, especially for smaller businesses or creatives in their own right.

I was going to say to the hon. Lady, half in jest and half in reality, that the Liberal Democrats will say whatever they need to say in any part of the country and on any issue. That is the reality.

Like anyone in this House, we can say whatever we want to say—within the rules of the House, of course, and under the eye of Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been clear on our views and on our values. We have listened to the evidence and we have said what our view is, which is that we do not support the opt out. Our creatives are one of the UK’s greatest exports, which is why we support them. Our world leaders in this area should never be asked to give up their existing rights.

We also welcome the provisions of clause 81 to protect children’s data and introduce a legal duty for data privacy by design for services that are likely to be accessed by children. Across all areas of technology and the online world, safety by design for children is a concept to which we are firmly committed, and this is an important step.

Finally, we welcome the measures in clause 141 on deepfakes. Sexually explicit deepfakes have devastated far too many lives in this country, and it is very welcome that the Bill now contains a consent-based offence and that enforcement will have real teeth, with the possibility of custodial sentences. This is a long overdue step that has to be taken.

Overall, we support a modernised data framework that upholds digital rights while stimulating innovation. We want a dynamic tech economy that addresses real-world challenges—from healthcare to public services to climate resilience. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat vision is of a digital future that spreads the benefits of technology across society while protecting fundamental liberties. None the less, the Bill needs further amendments to safeguard fundamental rights and embed proper scrutiny. We will work with colleagues across the House, as well as with civil society organisations such as Big Brother Watch, Liberty and the Ada Lovelace Institute, to ensure that those important protections are not overlooked. We welcome measures that clarify or simplify how organisations may use data to develop new products, support research or improve public services. For instance, the concept of data trusts and data communities, where individuals pool data for broader societal benefit, has the potential to create public interest innovation while retaining trust and control.

By improving oversight mechanisms, reinforcing transparency and embracing ideas such as data trusts, we can create a Bill that truly balances public interest with economic growth. We owe it to our constituents and to the future of our digital economy to deliver legislation that fosters innovation and secures individual rights in equal measure. I look forward to exploring these issues in Committee and ensuring that we seize the opportunity to shape a robust, rights-respecting digital landscape for the UK.

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.

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.

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.

We have heard lots of voices from the creative arts sector. The point of the consultation is to hear from all sectors. So far in the debate we have not heard representations or voices from the technology sector—I look forward to the contribution by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—but I have been reassured by the technology companies that they are engaging with the consultation and are trying to present the technological solutions for which my hon. Friend inquires. That is why the live consultation is so important: so that I, and we as a House, can judge whether the submissions from technology companies are robust and implementable enough and can see where the technology will go. The consultation is still live during this debate, and I hope that by the time we are in Committee, we can have more of an informed discussion, even though, as I said before, there is the likelihood of further parliamentary involvement down the line in a fully informed way.

I thank the Secretary of State for his reassurances. I know that creatives are worried because the scraping is happening now and will carry on until we have a solution. We must protect the creative industries. They grew by over a third between 2010 and 2023 in terms of gross value added, far outpacing growth in the UK economy as a whole. They are worth more to the economy than life sciences, car manufacturing, aerospace and the oil and gas sectors combined. They are a glorious British success story. They make us proud. They make us feel good. They shape the nation’s identity. They make us, well, us. They are represented in every corner of the UK, with 2.4 million workers, 70% of whom live outside London. They are writers, musicians, photographers, artists—all manner of wonderful creative folk, powering one of our greatest success stories and one of our best engines for growth.

In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, I have been entreated by individual creatives and small and medium-sized enterprises to ask the Government to look after their rights and to protect their income. Recently, I proudly served on the Employment Rights Bill Committee—a Bill that will see the biggest improvements for working people in a generation. Creatives are working people, too. Creative work is work. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has talked about her determination to take the brakes off the creative industries and turbocharge growth.

If the creative industries are a fast car, the creative is the driver. Without us, it is the equivalent of a driverless car—fine, maybe, to get from A to B—but if we are to produce the kind of quality scripts behind the superb television dramas that entertain, comfort, inspire and, as recently shown in the case of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, effect meaningful change, we need a human being at the wheel. To have a human there, we need to ensure that they are paid for doing what they do best: being original.

We should inspire the rest of the world to adopt high standards, lead from the front and amplify our influence on the global stage. Britain’s creative industries deserve a dynamic licensing market that protects copyright and drives growth and innovation in both the creative and tech sectors. I look forward to the outcome of the consultation on AI and copyright and to working with the Secretary of State and the Minister to find a future-proofed solution, which protects original work and the ability to earn an income from it. The Labour party was founded on the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. Being in government is our opportunity to fulfil that principle for UK creatives.

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.

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.

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.

If I may, I will take this opportunity to explore some of my right hon. Friend’s knowledge and expertise in this area. Will he comment on the balance in this Bill between safeguards on the one hand and freedom on the other? I would be interested in his thoughts.

If my hon. Friend is referring to data protection, it is a careful balance. People are rightly concerned that their data is protected and that they should have privacy rights, and there are campaigning organisations out there that have examined the Bill and expressed concern. We were careful to ensure that the standards of data protection required were maintained, and I am sure this Government take the same view.

At the same time—this is where there are small differences between the previous Bill and this Government’s Bill—we were keen to ensure that data protection did not impose unnecessary burdens, particularly on small businesses. There were one or two areas where we were able to slightly relax the definitions and to reduce the burden on business, but this Government have taken a different view. They are relatively minor and relatively technical areas, but there are things such as the definition of “vexatious and excessive”, which was an issue that occupied a lot of discussion. The Government have now removed that and reverted to the previous definition, which we felt was unnecessarily burdensome. There is also the whole area of subject access requests that would occupy a huge amount of firms’ time in trying to respond to them. We felt there needed to be at least some safeguard to prevent those becoming, as we defined it, vexatious, so I regret the fact that the Government have not proceeded with that element.

However, those are relatively minor areas, and in large part the Bill is one that previously enjoyed cross-party consensus when it went through this Chamber in the last Parliament and that I suspect will continue to enjoy cross-party consensus as it moves into Committee in this Parliament. The Secretary of State is no longer with us, but I hasten to add that I am not volunteering to serve on the Public Bill Committee. Having previously endured many hours doing so, I do not particularly want to repeat that experience.

Perhaps in part because the Bill enjoys a lot of support across the House, there is inevitably a particular element about which there is real concern, and that is the area of copyright protection and artificial intelligence. It is worth saying that that was not originally in the Bill at all, and I congratulate Baroness Kidron, who managed to persuade the Clerks in the other place to allow her to move the amendments to insert it into the Bill, and it is now part of the Bill. I think those amendments are very important, and I very much welcome them.

The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) referred to the fact that the previous Government had not acted in this area, and he is right. The Conservatives did not act because we felt, and continue to feel, that the law on copyright is clear and does not need changing. This Government have proposed to change the law to bring in the text and data mining exception. That will create the opportunity for AI to take, scrape and ingest creative content, of the kind the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned, using an exception that the Government are bringing in. It was proposed under the last Government, but I can tell the House that the last Government rejected it precisely because we felt it would drive a coach and horses through copyright law and do real damage to the creative industries.

I am very happy to address that. I am not on the Front Bench, but I will tell the hon. Member my view, which is very clear: I have profound reservations about the opt-out, which reverses the whole principle of copyright law. The owners of rights will have to go and say that they do not want to have their rights taken away from them, otherwise there is a right for others to use their content. I would prefer to see an opt-in or, in actual fact, a licensing method whereby rights holders could agree, if they wished to do so, that their content could be used.

If only the right hon. Gentleman were on the Conservative Front Bench on these issues, we would have a little bit of clarity, but he is absolutely spot on. There is no issue with copyright at the moment and no confusion about what is required in the law. All the Government are doing is trying to create some sort of smokescreen so that they can start to dismantle and water down our copyright regime. What does he think about those attempts, and will he join the rest of us in standing up for the copyright regime as it stands, where there is no question about its legality?

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.

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.

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.

In Committee.

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.

It fair to say that if we do not work with data, we do not really think about it too much, but, when we do, we realise how much of it surrounds us in multiple forms. Every day in this place I walk past shelves groaning under the weight of volumes of Hansard: an institutional memory of all that has happened here. New technologies offer us an opportunity to take all that knowledge of what has come before and use it to help shape what we do next. Data is a powerful but often underappreciated and undervalued commodity.

The Bill is to be welcomed. I have no doubt that it will help grow the economy, improve public services and make people’s lives easier. However, when it comes to the creative industries, we must recognise that creativity is more than just the sum of its data parts. A novel is not just words, a song is not just notes and lyrics, and a painting is not just pixels or brush strokes. The poems of Robert Burns are not merely letters on a page; they come alive in our minds in a way that no dataset can fully capture. When we treat creative works as nothing more than data points, we risk undervaluing the talent, the skill and the human expression that make them meaningful.

I started my working life as a broadcaster. At 15 years old, I secured a work placement at Central FM, which is still proudly broadcasting independently across the Forth valley. I went for a week and I stayed for 10 years. I presented the breakfast show, dragging myself out of bed at 4.30 in the morning. My parents were more impressed that their teenage son could get up that early than they were about my career choice.

Back then, only 17 radio stations were available in Stirling. Today, my teenage son can stream thousands of stations, podcasts and songs from a device in his pocket. The march of technology is relentless; it can sweep people up or it can sweep people aside. In radio, I saw that march at first hand—first came digitisation, then networking and then automation—and, with each step, jobs disappeared. My last full-time broadcasting job was in 2008. I left because I saw too many friends chasing too few jobs that paid too little money. Now, we are at another turning point.

AI is a powerful tool with huge potential, but it needs vast amounts of data, and that data has enormous value. At a recent Public Accounts Committee evidence session, we heard from academic experts who told us that once we hand over our data, whatever promises are made and whatever covenants are placed on it, we have lost control. If unchecked and unregulated—or regulated improperly—technology and the data it uses does not care whether it makes people’s lives better or worse. We are dealing today with the good and the bad consequences of decisions taken by tech companies and regulators in relation to social media and smartphones. Let us learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.

The amendments proposed in the other place, particularly on copyright and transparency, resonate greatly with me and much of the creative community. I urge colleagues to give them due consideration in the next stage of the Bill’s passage through the House. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State’s positive comments to that end in today’s debate, and I welcome the Government’s separate consultation on the issue.

There will be other opportunities to consider these points, but the concerns of the creative industries must be heard and acted upon. Copyright protections are not a barrier to AI innovation and competition, but a safeguard for the work of an industry worth £125 billion per year and employing more than 2 million people. We can enable a world where much of this value is transferred to a handful of big tech firms, or we can enable a win-win situation for the creative industries and AI developers, where they work together based on licensed relationships with remuneration and transparency at their heart.

Technology does not care what or who it replaces, but we should. The world needs data scientists, and it also needs poets. Creative workers are right to be nervous about AI further eroding their ability to monetise their work. If we do not act carefully, we risk a future where technology exploits creativity rather than supports it. Data and technology drive progress, but progress must not come at the expense of those who create, innovate and inspire.

AI has immense potential, but without proper safeguards on it and its data, it risks sweeping creative workers aside, or worse, replacing them all together. As we embrace the opportunities that AI and data-driven technologies present, we must ensure that progress does not come at the cost of our creative industries. Human expression cannot be reduced to mere data points. The livelihoods of those who enrich our economy and culture must be protected. It is our responsibility to force innovation while safeguarding the rights of creators. We can build a future where AI enhances human creativity rather than undermining it, and where both well-paid data scientists and well-paid poets thrive in a digital age.

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). He was spot on in reminding us that data has always existed in various forms throughout the centuries, whether in volumes or in little things that we can plug into a computer. The only difference now is that all that data is scraped and ingested into huge machines, which regurgitate it into some form that only they will decide. The hon. Gentleman was also spot on in reminding us about his work at Central FM, a very fine radio station. This hon. Member is always available for interviews at any time that Central FM comes a-calling.

This is an alright Bill. It is good. It is quite fine. It is reasonable in its approach and intent. It is a good shot at trying to redefine our data regulation laws. It will do a good job of ensuring that our public services are more aligned and mainstream, and that access is available to all our constituents. However, it is a much better Bill because of some of the amendments made in the House of Lords. The amendments that were added at the later stages went further on child protection in online data and looked into deepfakes, which was particularly helpful, and I congratulate our colleagues down the corridor on bringing them forward. It is a much better Bill because of the amendments that were delivered by Baroness Kidron on copyright and transparency. They significantly improved the Bill to make it something worth defending and protecting. I hope that that will be the main mission as it continues to go through this House.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is unusual for me to congratulate our be-ermined unelected friends down the corridor, but this oiky Nat will doff his cap to their lords, their ladies, their barons and their earls, because they have done a good job at shaping the Bill. It is certainly a much better Bill than it was on Second Reading down the corridor.

I have a few issues with the Bill. There are concerns about the security of some of this data. I am particularly worried about some of the relationships within the EU-UK partnership, and I just hope that whatever is proposed in the Bill does not drag us further away from the mainstream when it comes to the European Union. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and I agree about most things when it comes to the creative sector, but we do not agree about the European Union and the benefits of this country leaving it. I am a passionate remainer, and I hope that at some point I will be able to take our country back into the European Union, as a proud member of the Scottish National party; my intention and ambition is that we go back into that fantastic union of nations that has done so much to enrich our culture and our lives.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we do not agree on this particular issue. Of course, were we to rejoin the EU, we would then be bound by its legislation on this very issue, which includes the opt-out.

This is where the right hon. Gentleman and I do profoundly disagree. I look at this arrangement and the partnership across the European Union as a positive—it is a good thing. We were major contributors to some of the EU directives put forward on copyright and artificial intelligence. They miss us, and we miss them; we were just so much better when we were in partnership. I think we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree as we go forward on this particular issue.

I am keen to emphasise that it is of course possible for us to align ourselves with the European directive that the previous Government constructed before leaving the European Union in order to be able to maintain good creative copyright protections for our creatives, without us necessarily having to rejoin the European Union.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way. I did not include this point in my own contribution, because I did not realise that the AI copyright issue would be such a big part of the debate, but I just want to let him and the House know that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee sat together with creatives and technologists to discuss how the technology solutions the Minister is looking for could address the exact point that he is making: supporting copyright and providing access to data. Google and OpenAI refused to take part, because they said their response to the consultation was ongoing. As an engineer, I think that you should always be able to explain what you are doing in the midst of you doing it, but that was their position. However, the technologists who were there had a view that technology could—there was not a consensus—support that, although not necessarily immediately.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. She is absolutely right. Her Committee has a central role in looking at these issues and I wish her well in any of the inquiries she launches. It is particularly disappointing that Google and other AI companies will not come to her Committee. I hope that she uses the powers that I know, as a former Select Committee Chair, can be used to oblige reluctant witnesses to come in front of her. I am pretty certain that somebody who is as determined an individual as she is will be able to secure that.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, as ever, and I agree with much of what he is saying. Does he agree with me that we should be ready to point out where those who contribute to this debate are proxies or funded by tech companies not appearing in public to make the case, but instead making arguments through smaller organisations that can be a little bit more assertive and nimble-footed, and not quite as accountable?

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.

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—

They already are.

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

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.

I am interested by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of these clauses—amendments from the other place—which, in principle, I support. He has also mentioned the importance of ensuring that proper scrutiny takes place when it comes to, for example, the tech companies making representations in this place, but those amendments suggest that that would be dealt with only through secondary legislation. If we have an opportunity, as presented by those on the Front Bench, to suggest that we could have proper, primary legislation, why should we accept the idea of secondary legislation, which does not allow for sufficient scrutiny to ensure that we are providing the necessary protections, when we should be debating primary legislation in this Chamber?

I have probably not explained exactly what my fears and concerns are, and that is probably typical of me. What we currently have in the Bill is a guarantee that we will respect copyright and ensure that there is transparency. Until I am presented with something that covers all the issues that are covered in clauses 135 to 139, with all the security that they would give our creative industries, I will back those clauses to the hilt, and will do everything possible to ensure that they remain within the Bill. If the Minister, as he seems to be suggesting, is going to come back to us with a different Bill, let us see it. Let us see if it does all the things that we all want when it comes to backing our creative sector. If it contains all the provisions that will ensure that our copyright framework is respected, and if transparency is on the face of it, I will back it in a flash; but until I see it, this is all that I have got, and all that the House has got, and we should make sure that we defend and protect it.

There is an idea that somehow our copyright laws are broken. They are not broken at all; our copyright laws work perfectly well. The only people who have an issue with our copyright laws are those running the AI tech giants, who find that such laws get in the way of what they want to do and achieve. Their intention and ambition is to ingest our creative heritage, and to scrape the world for the last bit of human imagination and creative content. That is what has created difficulties and confusion about our copyright regime. There is nothing wrong with our laws. They are really good and the envy of so many, and they have served us well.

I will support the Bill as it goes through the House. As I have said to the Minister, it is a good Bill that generally does all the right things when it comes to data use, which should be supported. It is a better Bill because of the amendments, and I will continue to support it. But if the Minister has a Bill that he wants to present to this House, could he please get on with it? There is a consultation going on just now, which ends, I think, in two weeks on Wednesday. At that point, we will have the information that we require, and I suspect that we will find an overwhelming desire to see our copyright regime protected and defended. If the Minister has a Bill, bring it on. In the meantime, we must support the provisions and clauses in this Bill.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute further on this important Bill. I thank Ministers, particularly the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, for their ongoing attention and for being in listening mode, particularly on the copyright matters that have been so dominant so far.

The Bill rightly modernises data regulations, which will spur growth and improve public services, making everyday life better. When put to good use and used fairly and effectively, data can enhance efficiency across sectors, from food supply chains and commercial forecasting to healthcare. It is a powerful prospect with enormous benefits. The challenge is in ensuring that those benefits reach everyone. Given the demands placed on the Bill by the amendments tabled in the other place, I hope that it proceeds into Committee. As it does so, we will gain insight from the Government’s ongoing and related consultation on copyright and AI.

Today’s debate is concerned with the use of data to drive progress; it speaks to how we can live better, and how we can live best, with AI. We do not need to accept the false choice of innovate versus regulate. In considering the countries either side of us, it can feel as though there are only two options—one or the other; zeroes or ones—but the UK must act now. This is a national cause with international consequences. Faced with demands for innovation while others call for regulation, we should bid for harmonisation. Harmony is the language not of compromise, but of complement—a value greater than the sum of its parts. We must understand the strength of all contributions to that harmony.

No country has got this right yet, and this is our chance to learn from a blend of approaches. International examples should be observed. AI should be harnessed to be an honest broker, which is why transparency is key. In silicon valley, exceptions have been made to the US’s general approach, and the creative and tech industries are balanced accordingly. The UK should embrace transparency and maintain the strengths of both sectors. Europe understands the role of transparency, though there is little evidence that this has led to more licensing for copyright holders. We must not assume that one will automatically lead to the other, or that this will alleviate the concerns of our creative sector. Singapore has a broad AI training exception, but it has a minimal creative sector. The UK, with its proud creative industry, should not make flawed comparisons with a country without the same creative strengths, outputs and exports.

Just as transparency is demanded in our supply chains, so too must it apply to our code chains. Arguments suggesting that transparency would be too burdensome feel disingenuous. In Select Committee hearings, the argument for transparency, which represents a giant step forward in resolving the tension between AI and creators, seems to have been deliberately opposed by those seeking to excuse themselves, as well as those they represent by proxy, from paying for the work of others.

The Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy includes our brilliant creative industries, but discussions with those industries should focus on how we advance and enhance them. We risk making this about how we can protect their very existence if we do not take seriously the deep alarm voiced by creators over the threat posed by AI. We also risk losing the very things that make life richer.

I urge the Government to introduce a requirement for transparency. If an AI system is trained on the works of thousands of musicians, authors and film makers, they have a right to know and a right to be paid. This could include a register. We do not tell manufacturers, energy providers or tech firms that their products should be freely used to build billion-dollar businesses without compensation. The same principle must apply to creative work. Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive.

This threat to creators’ livelihoods is particularly acute for smaller rights holders who lack the means to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. These independent creators are the backbone of our creative ecosystem. More than 70% of them are based in our towns and regions, away from the cities, where for them, levelling up means making up. Without them, the UK’s creative engine will begin to fray and diminish. Creativity thrives not just through the marquee names but through the countless independent voices, expressions and creations that enrich our experiences.

The argument that restricting AI’s access to copyrighted works will stifle progress and leave us trailing behind other territories is incorrect. I ask again: what progress are we pursuing if it undermines the position of strength that we start from? I have seen no economic impact assessment that states that exempting music and other creative content from licensing, or introducing AI training exceptions, will boost the economy. Yes, jobs in data centres will be welcome, but they are minimal in comparison to those sustained by our creative industries. At its heart, AI is about capability and capacity. It should not facilitate the casual but disastrous dismantling of copyright. The job gains must come from skilled input and employment that puts AI to work. The harnessing of AI must be human-tethered.

We must remember that AI is a great enabler, and for our advantage. It is not a stand-alone sector; it is a transformative technology for all sectors. Our focus must therefore be on its use, not on sweeping legal exceptions that weaken copyright and risk hollowing out the very industries we are committed to growing. If there is a technological answer—a digital fingerprinting solution or a pay-as-you-go AI model—we should keep an open mind, but it is a leap to expect these solutions to come soon enough for the urgent issues at hand. The anxieties I have outlined cannot be left unresolved while we wait.

My hon. Friend is, like me, a musician. Is it any wonder that creatives, particularly musicians, are concerned even by the language that has been referred to across the Chamber? “Ingestion” speaks of consuming, and let us not think what else it speaks of. “Scraping” is also a horrible word. Hopefully we can reach a situation, through the consultation that the Minister and others are engaged in, where we can use better language in this space that gives more reassurance to the creative sector. Instead of “ingest” we could use “collaborate,” for example, and instead of “scrape” we could use “reward.” We might then protect our wonderful creative sector.

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

He is, yes.

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.

Opposition Members are broadly supportive of this Bill and its aims, which build on the work done by the previous Conservative Government and refined by Members of the other place. I will focus primarily on deepfakes and AI-generated images, specifically in relation to clauses 91 and 141.

I commend Baroness Owen for her work on non-consensual images and deepfakes, and for pressing the Government to address this issue with more urgency. Her work brought about a U-turn on the intent-based amendment, pushed the Government to agree on solicitation, and pushed them to act on the deletion of content.

Removing the intent-based amendment removes a huge hurdle for victims—a hurdle that would have required victims to prove the intentions of their tormentor. This would simply have placed more pressure on victims, while abusers would have been more likely to excuse their crimes.

It is right that solicitation is now included in the Bill, as many cases have shown that it is not enough just to criminalise creation; we must also criminalise the people who ask others to create these images and videos for them. Otherwise, we run the risk of a loophole where images are posted on to sites and people from other jurisdictions create the content and send it back to the person requesting it.

The Government tried to prevent custodial sentences from being an option for these abusers, as they argued that omitting “reasonable excuse” may breach the European convention on human rights. Given the content, I cannot see how perpetrators’ rights trump the rights of victims, but the change was made thanks to Baroness Owen and Members from across the parties in the other place, who persisted in making sure that the Government take all action needed to stop this growing criminal scourge.

We have seen a surge in deepfakes, revenge porn and nudifying apps. This technology is the wild west and, unchecked, poses a danger to many in society. We must act to protect the most vulnerable from harm. I welcome that clause 91 establishes requirements for the commissioner to report on what actions have been taken. It is right that we see what is being done to combat these crimes. We have heard many reports of sexual images of children being generated and spread. This causes so much damage, and once such exploitative images are created and disseminated, they are near impossible to eradicate.

As technology advances, we need to keep pace with new threats, lest technological change outstrip the pace of legislation. For too long, the law has been out of touch with fast-changing realities. There are apps just a few clicks away that allow users to generate their own AI boyfriend or girlfriend, and some of these apps can take real images and change them into sexually explicit figures that are already terrifyingly real. This is just one example of why we need further restrictions, with clear penalties for both platform providers and users.

One app, undress-ai, processed over 600,000 images of women within 21 days of launching. These were ordinary women, with no knowledge that their image was being doctored in such a way and used, even traded, for the gratification of others. This is simply not right.

Although consent is at the heart of aspects of the Bill, we need to look closely at provisions for withdrawing consent. This must be seriously considered, particularly where an image that is consensually exchanged is doctored into something that was never consented to.

Though I welcome aspects of the Bill, we must ensure that we keep up with the rapid pace of change. Apps that cause great harm are readily accessible. I hope to hear more about what can be done to assist people to withdraw consent, so that we can end this vile abuse.

I will focus my remarks on the impact of generative AI on musicians. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a member of the Musicians’ Union.

With a background in the music industry, sharing friendships with many musicians and as a fan, I have been inundated with concerns from musicians about how AI could affect their livelihoods. The music industry has long been structured in a way that exploits musicians. Streaming services have made that far worse, and our musicians will once again lose out if AI copyright laws are not handled correctly. Big tech companies should not be able to generate and profit from music without permission or payment. How can we justify taking money away from British musicians and handing it to tech firms for free? That does not support growth; it undermines it.

In reality, many household names—artists whose music we all know, who have had top 10 hits and whose posters once adorned our walls—are struggling. New musicians can barely get a foot in the door and are often not paid for years. Songs are played more than ever, yet songwriters see less of the money. Someone is getting paid, but not the people who create the music. Unless they are at the very top, making a good living as a musician in this country is becoming nearly impossible. Even those who can sell out venues of a couple of thousand people across our towns and cities are barely scraping by.

The balance is completely off, but we, in this place, have the power to help to change that. Unlike our European counterparts, in this country we have failed to introduce proper protections for creators’ pay over the past decade. As the party of labour, with a commitment to make work pay, this Government should ensure that artists, songwriters and musicians are fairly paid for their work and protected from exploitation by faceless tech companies.

AI can be a powerful tool, transforming industries like healthcare and science by reducing admin burdens and freeing up skilled professionals. But AI that tokenises the toil of artists and spits out soulless imitations does not support human creativity or make it more productive. No one has ever loved a song because of how efficiently it was written. As James Oppenheim wrote in his 1911 poem:

Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;

Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.

If work is our bread, then music is our roses.

Musicians across the country are closely watching today’s debate. The consultation is ongoing and these matters will be addressed more in due course. I thank the Minister for his ongoing engagement in the matter, but will he assure me that the Government will strive to get the Bill right for musicians and that musicians will not be overlooked in the introduction of Al technologies?

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

No Paddington?

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.

I want to emphasise and build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) pointed out in relation to music. We need to understand which creative sectors are most vulnerable to generative AI. It is those that have been easily replicable through other forms of technology in the past: music, writing and the visual arts, in particular photography. I say that because it is sometimes misunderstood that some creative sectors are more vulnerable than others, and if we do not understand that they have different regimes for how they are protected, there are risks of not being able to properly protect them.

The hon. Lady’s contribution is as right as all the others she has made during this debate and the general debate a couple of weeks ago.

I will immediately move on to the point that data is an abstract term and is being used to cover all sorts of information in these debates. Yet all data is not equal and our legislation must properly reflect that. For example, there is a clear and obvious role for AI in processing health data in a way that helps doctors with diagnosis and benefits patients with faster treatment. The same might apply to the chats we have with our local councils about bins, planning or licensing. Yet even though no one will disagree that the UK firms innovating in science, medicine, climate change and other key industries must not be stymied, the training data for other AI systems—the data we are talking about—is literature, poetry, music and art. Those are things that are creative in essence. It is not just data; it is creative endeavour and an extremely human form.

One of the options in the current consultation would abolish the copyright protections that underpin the livelihoods of our creative sector and, as others have said, that would be ruinous for the creative industries. Furthermore, the unintended consequences could actually harm the long-term development of AI models that we will all come to rely on. High-quality data is essential for training good AI models, but publicly available human-created text data might become the minority online. We have all seen the mistakes that AI can produce and a model trained on bad data will only produce bad results. The Government are rightly ambitious for AI, and part of that ambition must include producing models with traceable data that the public can be assured meets a high standard. Ministers should be embracing our copyright laws precisely because that is a means to improve AI, as well as protecting our creatives.

A reliable licensing system will ensure that AI models are being created using high-quality, human-generated data. Oversight of what is used to train those models will only help to build trust in what is a very new technology that the public is sceptical about. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support the amendments that have come from the House of Lords, which seek to strengthen the rights of creatives. The Government must think carefully about which side of the argument they support, and I have been pleased to hear some of the Secretary of State and the Minister’s reassurances today. We will be watching closely.

We can take more positives from other parts of the Bill, and to reflect on that, I will move on to discuss some constituency matters. I am more optimistic about the Bill’s potential to improve the situation of bereaved parents, which the Minister and I have discussed fairly recently, and I hope Ministers will confirm that that opportunity will be taken.

Many in the House will be familiar with the story of my constituent, Ellen Roome, who tragically lost her 14-year-old son Jools to suicide. 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 parent. We are talking about the 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 school notes. These days, those bits of data will be on multiple social media accounts.

This is the subject of my private Member’s Bill, the Social Media (Access to Accounts) Bill, also known as the Jools’ law Bill. This Bill would give parents access rights to their deceased child’s data automatically, so other grieving parents will never face the challenges and the huge legal costs that Ellen has had to endure. I note the plans announced by Ministers include establishing an information commission with a duty to ensure children’s data is protected. This is a welcome step which I hope will strengthen the protections children badly need online, but we must ensure the commission is effectively resourced to take on the social media giants, who have made it clear that they only want profit.

First, I offer my deepest condolences to the family concerned. In my constituency I also had a challenging case where a young boy lost his life. It is entirely appropriate that the Government are taking this forward, and I commend Ministers for their work on it and also thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this important matter.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of my points today is to make sure that, while the data Bill progresses, consensus is built in this House that we all acknowledge that parents should have the right to their children’s data in cases where a child has died of suicide. That is a simple principle, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with it, as I know Ministers do. That consensus must be borne out in the legislation that we pass.

I am hopeful these circumstances will be covered in the final Bill, and that the Jools’ law Bill will become law. So I ask Ministers today: will we have clarity on the Government’s plans in this area, and will they support parents like Ellen? Will the Government accept the principles my constituent Ellen is pursuing? It is a simple ask that parental access to social media accounts data is protected in the event of a child’s death, that social media companies are obliged to retain that data for a suitable period of time, and that data is made available to inquests so coroners can make judgments to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am pleased to follow the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

This wide-ranging Bill cuts across many aspects of Government and people’s lives. We must harness the power of data to drive economic growth, to support a modern digital Government and build more efficient, effective public services, and to support people to have improved lives more generally. For too long this potential has not been fully realised, holding back businesses, public services, learning and education, and people up and down the country more generally.

This mission-led Government’s plan for change—delivering economic growth, better public services and action on the environment—cannot be fully realised without some of the opportunities that this Bill creates. Measures in the Bill are expected to free up 1.5 million hours of police time, meaning officers will have more time to tackle crime rather than dealing with admin. This will be welcome in communities blighted by antisocial behaviour and among retailers who have been affected by shoplifting or violence against shop workers—the Co-op in Oakwood in my constituency is an example. It will also be welcomed in terms of the service victims of domestic violence receive from the police, as they will have more time to take preventive work and support victims, including my constituent Hayley who came to me to talk about her experience of domestic violence.

It is also estimated that measures in this Bill will free up a huge amount of time within the NHS for clinicians, potentially saving lives as well as making services more accessible and responsive to people’s needs. That is vital as the Government have inherited from their predecessors the longest waiting times in NHS history.

The Bill will also improve the information that regulators receive, enabling a real-time view of how a service is performing. Old models of regulation, where inspectors would go in on a periodic rolling basis, are often insufficient and not responsive to a service’s current situation. We have seen examples in the NHS and education where extremely poor services have not been of a standard that people have a right to expect—there has been abuse in some cases—but regulators’ oversight has not been modern enough to capture that and drive regulatory action.

I presume that my hon. Friend is moving on to a range of other benefits of AI. Has he considered the importance of AI in supporting medical and scientific research? There is a great deal of evidence to show that the power of AI applied to this area could speed up the development of new drugs and many other treatments. In addition to diagnostics, that is an important aspect of the benefits of AI to medicine, and is not always reported well in the media.

My hon. Friend is right. There are tremendous opportunities to anticipate people’s needs throughout their lives and also drive scientific innovation, so that we can live longer and healthier lives. The Health Secretary and other Ministers have been clear that the huge investment that the Government are making in public services must go hand in hand with reform, since change will not be delivered solely by spending more money, and this Bill will help to make that possible.

I am also pleased that the Government will strengthen safeguards on personal data. That is key to ensuring that people have trust in the services that they use, and to preventing those who would exploit personal data from being able to do so. I look forward to following that aspect of the Bill as it progresses through its future stages.

I also wish to touch on the national underground asset register—a national map of the UK’s underground infrastructure. In Derbyshire, people find it so frustrating to find that their street, their road, or the highway that they use has been dug up again by yet another utility company, or another person who needs access to the cables or the infrastructure underground. Not only is that frustrating for people as they try to get around, but it is, I believe, undermining the integrity of the roads that we use and driving our pothole problems. I hope that, combined with our journey to local government devolution, our roads will be another area where people will be able to see a tangible difference.

During the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, efforts were made to strengthen copyright protections for creators, including artists, photographers, authors, musicians, composers and lyricists. I welcome the work that the House of Lords has done to push those issues further up the agenda. Stronger protections for creators is something that I will always seek to support.

Artificial intelligence has benefits for sectors such as music, yet more transparency from AI firms on the music, art, and literature on which their systems draw is absolutely necessary. Although the technology is new, some of the arguments that we have heard here and today in the wider discourse on this Bill are decidedly not new. I am reminded of the 15th century—although I was not there—when Johannes Gutenberg rolled out his printing press for the first time. People were worried about the effect that that would have on scribes and the monks who transcribed the religious texts. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place, spoke about the volumes of books that we have here in Parliament.

I say gently to my hon. Friend that the difference is that then people understood from looking at the book whether it was printed or scribed, whereas with AI-generated works it is sometimes hard to distinguish, which is why we need labelling and additional consumer protections in this space.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall get on to those points when I talk about the consultation that is currently under way.

We need to ensure that the benefits of AI are managed and that our creators are properly protected. This is a £120 billion industry, which employs more than 2 million people. It is an expression of who we are and contributes to our understanding of ourselves and each other, and it takes us on a journey where we can walk in somebody else’s shoes and build a more tolerant, cohesive and engaged society. If we do not get this right, all that is threatened. That would be bad not just for the global stars, the household names and the people whose records, CDs and downloads we have in our homes—

And cassettes.

Yes, and cassettes. It would also be bad for those at the start of their journey. We must cultivate up-and-coming talent and support emerging artists across all those sectors. We have a moral duty to do so and to find an equitable solution, and I commend the work that UK Music has done to point that out.

I know it was not the Bill’s intended purpose to address copyright and AI. The consultation, which closes on 25 February, is under way, and I know the Government do not want to predetermine its outcome because we want to get this right. We need to get it right for the economy and for our culture. Given that this issue has been conflated with those in the Bill, I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that if we cannot proceed with progressing better protections to ensure the UK’s legal framework for AI and copyright for the creative industries at this stage, we will consider the matter following the closure of the consultation. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues across the House to get the best solution possible for our creatives.

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.

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.

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—

So you’re guilty?

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.

Although all-digital services are desirable, we should never freeze out those who are not digital savvy, given that over 1 million people in this country do not own a mobile phone, for example. Does the hon. Member agree?

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, for which I am grateful—I will address it in a moment, if I may.

X-Road, described as the backbone of e-Estonia, is a secure data-exchange platform that allows smooth and seamless use of data between organisations. It carries out 2.2 billion transactions every year, and is estimated to save Estonians 1,345 years-worth of work per annum. The platform has been described as having a “radical anti-silo” agenda. My experience so far of the structures of Parliament and Government have convinced me that we would all benefit from a heavy dose of radical anti-siloism.

That data transformation saves the Government money, and the public like it. Savings worth up to 2% of Estonian GDP have been made thanks to that efficient data environment—a saving that, if replicated in the UK, would easily fill the Chancellor’s budgetary black hole. For 12 of the 15 e-services surveyed, 80% of citizens or more said they had made using public services easier. I call on the Government to be bold, ambitious and, above all, citizen-focused in such design and delivery.

I visited Estonia last year and spoke to our ambassador there. We are now on our third agreement between the UK and Estonia on Government e-services and digital collaboration. That was underutilised by the previous UK Government. It would be great to see the Minister and his colleagues step up the work with Estonia and bring that sort of work here, given that those agreements are in place.

This is absolutely not a pitch to be a member of the Bill Committee, but I would certainly be grateful for the opportunity to implement my views in the design and delivery of Britain’s very own Tiger Leap into the data-driven revolution.

Estonia is a crystal-clear example proving that the results of such a transformation are not just the preserve of tech geeks—a category into which I place myself—but provide tangible benefits for individuals, and not just by making them use digital stuff at the front end, which the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) will be glad to hear. I think about the lady in her 90s whose Openreach engineer understandably refused her fibre upgrade because the local council had not shared with them the fact that she used a telecare device. I also think of the farmers who are baffled by the systems used to issue flood recovery payments, because the data is not transparent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to extracting value from datasets is data retrievability?

Absolutely. There are so many layers upon which data governance, data infrastructure and data practices must be established, and data retrievability is one of the things that sit between those layers and the application or interface that uses them.

I understand that one reason why Estonia has a sophisticated tech and AI capability, and a great many protections in how it manages that data, is that it faces a threat from Russia and is keen to ensure that its digital integrity is retained. I am glad that we do not face quite the same threat in this country, but we can learn lessons from Estonia, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that.

I do not doubt that that was an enabling factor, but one reason why being citizen-focused works so well is that it is much easier to build trust and credibility bit by bit by telling people why doing something differently will be better for them. In that way, we do not end up in the horrendous situation of facing yet another £100 billion abortive IT project that cannot quite establish public trust and collapses. Again, I draw attention to the success of some of our European neighbours.

To go back to examples that are not just about the interface, but about the underlying enabling tech, an exasperated constituent contacted me to tell me how the Department for Work and Pensions had refused to email him. He had asked it to send him details of his conversation with it by email, rather than by letter, to try to save the Government money, and he was told that it had to post this to him by letter because that was how the system worked.

Harnessing the power of data must not, however, come at the cost of our rights or civil liberties. I am very concerned about some aspects of the Bill that have been touched on by other hon. Members, such as the reduced accountability mechanisms for law enforcement when handling data, a potential watering down of our GDPR rights and giving more scope for automated decision making without human oversight, although I have been partially reassured by some of the comments from the Minister, for which I am grateful.

I am also concerned that, along with the provisions in the Bill for creating a digital ID system, there is no equal right to a non-digital ID. Not only does this create concerns about data freedom, but in areas such as North Norfolk, where digital exclusion is higher than in many other areas, I am worried about how many of my older residents will feel comfortable or confident using any digital system. Their rights must be preserved, and their experiences and fears given equal worth.

The Bill seeks to tackle a difficult but very important subject. It is right that the Government venture into data transformation to deliver for all our constituents and make their experiences as citizens interacting with the Government far better than is currently the case. I guess my reservation is about who it is written and working for, and why. I am trying to make sure that this Bill is built not around convenience for the Administration, but around genuinely citizen-centred design principles. The Bill tackles issues such as data handling, but I would like it to start to set out a vision for a data-driven society—I am a bit disappointed in that, as it stands, it could be more ambitious and innovative in this regard—and seek to carve us out as data pioneers among our international peers.

I hope the Government can see the evidence from successful data-driven societies, and I am confident they do. I hope they hear the frustrations of citizens at their experiences, and I think they currently do. I hope they will make this Bill one that can be lauded by future generations as the launchpad that transformed our society.

It is an honour to follow that great contribution from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), much of which I will echo. Like him, before I was elected to this place I worked a lot with data—understanding it, using it, deploying it—in tech companies, academia and then politics. I am a huge supporter of the Secretary of State’s and the Minister’s agenda, and broadly of the enormous potential for data and data-driven tools such as AI and machine learning, because they can drive productivity growth, boost earnings and, crucially, save constituents’ time and money—whether it is registering the birth of children, kids going through school, accessing a GP or entering the workplace.

I would like to underscore a few aspects of the Bill that have not been spoken much about, but I would also like to make a wider argument about the importance of this agenda and about going further in some areas in the years to come, particularly in the connection between data and risk. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will forgive a slight and quick diversion.

The word “data” has its roots in the word for “fact”, but in the world of machine learning and AI it means something broader—the information we choose to record about our world to analyse and use to make decisions. Data began as demographic information, because a state that wanted to build an army or fight wars wanted to know what kinds of people comprised its populace. Now we collect data about driving, sleep and clicks online to help us navigate or get fitter, but also to push us mindless advertising. What data we collect depends on what we want to use data for, and that requires constant judgments about risk: where we are willing to take risks, how much risk and what kinds of risks.

In many ways, we have become a society and a country too averse to risk—to failure. We create new regulators and give them enormous discretion because we want to minimise risk. We create new tsars for this, that and the other, and give them broad powers because we want to minimise risk. The effect is that we avoid failures on 1,000 small things, but we also lose the opportunity to maximise our output and our success, because success requires risk, and data often forces us to make clear and confident judgments about risk.

The topic of this Bill is an opportunity to begin to shift our culture in our economy and, crucially, in our state too, but also for politicians like us in this House to be clear about where we welcome and embrace risk and where we do not, and to take responsibility as elected Members for failure. I will focus on two areas in this Bill where I believe data is forcing to the surface different appetites for and judgments about risk: healthcare and social media.

Briefly, I will say something about copyright, which has been well covered in powerful contributions by others. I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that he is looking at this area in the AI consultation, and I look forward to hearing more about the details of that consultation and what comes from it. We should be optimistic. It is possible to do what others have argued for and place our creative industries on a secure and stable footing, while also ensuring that AI is unlocked in this country. I hope that the Secretary of State will hear the powerful contributions of my colleagues today.

The two examples I will focus on are those that matter to many of the working people in my constituency of Makerfield. As the Secretary of State said, data is at the heart of how this Government must break through barriers and inertia to deliver for working people. That is why I am so glad that this Bill is not about killer robots or space-age AI, but is focused on the transformation of Government and services that impact my constituents every day.

The first example is healthcare, and this is an area where we should embrace more risk. Systematising the collection and recording of data in healthcare unlocks the possibility of using data to spot patterns, of contacting people ahead of time—instead of fining them if they miss their appointment, as they do in my borough of Wigan—and of saving people time that they do not have. To unleash the full potential of data in healthcare, we need to be confident about building population-level datasets controlled and owned by the public, anonymised through tools such as encryption, and then using those datasets not just for academic research, but to improve services and delivery. This Bill takes initial steps in that direction, which I welcome. In Greater Manchester, my constituents benefit already from a shared patient care record between primary and secondary care, and a data science platform that brings in data across local hospitals. Patients already feel the benefit of that every day.

In healthcare, we can go further and faster. We must be cautious about inadvertently slipping into risk aversion, caution and stagnation, particularly in relation to concerns about privacy. For much of the past 20 years and the period I have been involved in this debate, debates about data have been dominated by concerns about privacy, but whose interests does the privacy lobby serve? Often, think-tanks and NGOs fight in the name of working people to stop data being used to do things that working people want done. There is a lot of good evidence that the public are relaxed about population-level anonymised data being used to save them time and money and improve the services they use, especially in healthcare.

Does the elderly woman I saw in my constituency surgery last week, who has been struggling to see her GP for weeks now, care if her data sits in an anonymised database and is used to unlock more facetime for her GP to see patients and to make it faster for her to get an appointment? I do not think she does. I therefore welcome the changes in this Bill to the EU’s sprawling GDPR framework. If one of Brexit’s much-famed opportunities is to lead the way in diffusing the collection and use of data, we should embrace it wholeheartedly, subject to the data adequacy requirement. More generally in healthcare, we must ensure that we do not inadvertently build barriers that block the collection and use of data controlled by those accountable to the public for the public good, where data can drive better outcomes and improve experiences.

The second case I will consider is social media. Social media collects data about our unthinking scrolling to build highly optimised engagement algorithms that rake in advertising revenue. That contributes little to growth, national security or, indeed, the welfare of humanity. The digital verification market that this Bill creates will be vital. Digital age verification is central to protecting our children, especially once the Online Safety Act 2023 is in force. I want my young kids to grow up in a country that protects them from harmful content, such as sexualised violence, and from spending hours mindlessly scrolling through content, wasting their time and corroding their minds.

I also welcome the Bill’s provision to allow researchers to access online safety data held by technology companies, and I hope that we will continue to deepen those provisions. This is one area where I actually think we should be more worried about risk—a rare exception to my general view that we have become too risk-averse—because it is about the minds and character of our citizens and the strength of our democracy. At present, the information environment of our nation is being polluted, sometimes deliberately and often by foreign adversaries. Governments communicate with citizens, and citizens with each other, in spaces designed to drive them apart. As we have seen in past months, knowing what is circulating online, and how, is in the public interest.

I hope that the Bill is just the beginning of our Government using every possible lever to rebuild the fabric of trust in government, politics and each other in this new digital environment. Historically, states collected data to wage wars and raise taxes. This Government should harness data to put money in the pockets of working people, to make public services more efficient and easier to access, and—crucially—to rebuild our public realm and restore trust in our great democracy.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which I have really enjoyed listening to. I particularly enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who talked about writers and stories. Her discussion reminded me of the book I am reading with my son, Andy Griffiths and Terry Denton’s “The 39-Storey Treehouse”, where they have just built a book making machine and have gone off to enjoy themselves while the book is written. I do not quite know how the story will end yet. That reminds us of the balance between the benefits that innovations such as AI can bring and the challenge, as the hon. Member said, of ensuring that people are fairly remunerated for their efforts, whether they be on building the machines or writing the stories.

I will direct my remarks to two particular areas of the Bill. First, clause 141 deals with what it refers to as “purported intimate” images, otherwise referred to as deepfake pornography images. There are images of all hon. Members and a majority of our constituents online, fully clothed—at least, I hope so—but individuals can take those innocent images of us or our constituents and use computer software to insert them into another image, generating images that appear to show an individual in an intimate state, undressed or engaging in sexual activity. Why do they do that? For their own sexual gratification, to share with others—perhaps for money—or to humiliate, threaten or control the individual in the image or their loved ones. That has a devastating effect on people’s lives. No hon. Members will be surprised to hear that 99% of victims of that evil crime are women.

It is important to recognise the work of Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge. She introduced a private Member’s Bill in this area last December. It was unfortunate that the Government chose not to support her legislation at that time, but I am grateful that they have drafted this clause of the Bill, which has the same effect. It was Baroness Owen’s tenacity and explanations that persuaded the Government to ensure that the threshold is consent, rather than the victim needing to prove intent, in the use of images. She persuaded them to increase the penalty to include imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crime. She also persuaded them of the need to amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to end the somewhat farcical situation in which an individual will be prosecuted for creating an image and, at the end of the court case, have that same image handed back to them as part of their property.

The Government gave the Baroness one further undertaking. Sometimes, images are not discovered immediately after they are taken; or, if a group of images is found on someone’s computer, it may take a while to identify the victim. In such cases, a six-month timeout loophole can cause individuals to get away with these hideous crimes. The Government undertook to amend section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which limits jurisdiction to within six months of a crime, to ensure that people caught for a crime after six months has elapsed or whose prosecution takes place after six months have elapsed can still be held to justice and account. I ask the Minister to explain why I cannot find that in the Bill—it may be there and I just cannot find it. If he could clarify that point, I would be grateful.

The other point I want to raise is accuracy. We have talked a lot about data, but data is useful only if it is accurate. We will all have heard the story of baby Lilah, a beautiful baby girl born in Sutton-in-Ashfield who was registered as male by accident. It is not very easy to have side notes in digital data. How do we ensure that data is accurate? Three clauses in the Bill may help us with that. Clause 45(6) says that information must be accurate, clause 28(3) and (4) suggest that the Secretary of State must check listed organisations for data reliability, and clause 140 requires the Secretary of State to produce a data dictionary to ensure that we know the definitions of all the data points.

The Secretary State spoke about the huge opportunity that data offers the NHS. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a consultant paediatrician. Others have talked about the huge opportunities that AI and data use and research can present to the NHS, but there is also a risk. How does the Minister intend to define sex? The Labour Cabinet and the Prime Minister have repeatedly struggled to define what is a woman. Leaving that to secondary legislation, considered in a small Committee, is not sufficient scrutiny for such an important matter.

Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State under secondary legislation and why things are not included in the Bill itself. This issue should be given more scrutiny than that of an SI Committee. It is important to protect women: women’s sport, women’s privacy and women’s single-sex spaces. It is important for intimate care. Many people want to receive intimate care, particularly domiciliary care, by somebody of the same sex. How will they know if the data is not available?

Data is also important to protect those with a trans identity. Many blood reference ranges are different for males and females. Haemoglobin varies from laboratory to laboratory, but is roughly 13 to 18 in males and 11.5 to 16.5 in females. If data is not complete or accurate, some individuals may receive unnecessary investigation. Data for screening and other health messages is important. We do not want male people called for cervical screening or men not to receive prostate information.

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points on sex and gender and the collection of data—she knows that I share her views on that. It is incumbent on the Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that data is collected according to sex. However, does she agree that the previous Government put us in the situation that we are in?

It is certainly true that across the western world at the moment, there seems to be some confusion on some of the basics of biology and humanity.

Data is important for protecting children, too. One data provider listed in clause 28 is the Disclosure and Barring Service. GB News reported that there were 12,000 prosecutions between January 2019 and June 2022 of people on the sex offenders register who did not inform police of data changes. It is crucial that data is accurate and up to date, so will the Secretary of State commit to the integrity of biological sex data in the Bill and in the Government’s datasets?

Last September, the UK Health Security Agency released data on sexually transmitted infections by sex and sexual orientation, which is important because of the different epidemiological nature of infections in the different populations. However, the footnotes said that men were defined in the data as cisgender and transgender men, and women as cisgender and transgender women. That somewhat undermines the data integrity and the purpose of splitting the data in the first place. Data that is wrong, unhelpful, misleading or misused by malicious actors can be dangerous. Many are concerned. How does the Minister plan to define sex, and what are his plans for incongruous data?

In the debate in the upper House, it was reported that 3,000 people have changed their sex data in their passport, and 15,000 have changed it with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on their driving licence. It was said in the House of Lords debate that up to 100,000 people may have incongruous official datasets between items such as passports and driving licences. How does the Minister intend to resolve that if we are to have one large dataset for each person?

Finally, clause 45(8) sets out that a person may need to pay fees in respect of disclosure. Will we expect people to pay for their own data, and, if so, how much? I know Labour is very keen on increasing taxes, but can the Minister guarantee that the cost will never outweigh the admin cost of producing the data?

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—

My mother-in-law is not.

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.

I stand in support of the objectives and aims of the Bill. Having worked with data and technology for more than 30 years, I wholeheartedly support the ethical, responsible and equitable use of technology and data to benefit and make easier the lives of the people of the UK, and to increase the efficiency of service delivery in the public sector. I also pay tribute to campaign groups including Big Brother Watch and Justice for their work to protect the vital privacy and data protection rights of people in the UK.

I want to share some concerns I have on the Bill, focused on two areas: clause 70 and clause 80. I urge the Government to take note and amend the Bill to ensure that the British public’s privacy rights and rights to equality and non-discrimination are not compromised. Clause 70 will weaken protections around personal data processing, thereby reducing the scope of the data that is protected by safeguards in data protection law. I am particularly concerned about the executive power to determine recognised legitimate interests, which will allow for more data to be processed with fewer safeguards than is currently permitted and reduce existing protections that ensure the lawful use of data. I am also concerned about the increased power of the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “recognised legitimate interest” through secondary legislation without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

Currently, automated decision making is broadly prohibited, with specific exemptions. Clause 80 will permit it in all but a limited set of circumstances. That will strip the public of the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions, which risks exacerbating the likely possibility of unfair, opaque and discriminatory outcomes from ADM systems; limiting individuals’ rights to challenge ADM; permitting ADM use in law enforcement and intelligence, with significant carve-outs in relation to the existing safeguards; and giving the Secretary of State executive control over the ADM regulatory framework through secondary legislation. They may not be direct examples, but Horizon and the many Department for Work and Pensions scandals show the failings and risks of relying solely on automation and AI.

The Bill introduces a new regime for digital verification services. It sets out a series of rules governing the future use and oversight of digital identities as part of the Government’s road map towards digital identity verification. The framework currently lacks important safeguards and human rights principles that prevent the broad sharing of the public’s identity data beyond its original purpose. Further, the Bill misses the opportunity to take a positive, inclusive step to codify a right for members of the public to use non-digital ID where reasonably practicable. Such a right is vital to protect privacy and equality in the digital age. The right to use a non-digital ID where practicable would protect accessibility, inclusion and people’s choice in how they choose to verify their identities when accessing public and private services, legally protecting the millions of people who cannot or do not want to hand over personal identity data online where an alternative is reasonably practicable.

Returning to automated decision making, it is clearly insufficient to move the burden of safeguards from the data controller, who is currently responsible for preventing harm, to the individual to complain if the ADM is unfair, since people may not complain due to a lack of knowledge or confidence, intimidation and various intersecting vulnerabilities.

I welcome the limited protections in the Bill, but I know from experience that many applications for benefits—especially disability benefits and personal independence payments—that are processed through automated systems are refused, and the applicants have to go through a complicated and laborious appeals process in order to overturn those automated decisions.

Clause 70 introduces significant changes to the lawful bases for processing personal data. While the aim of those changes is to streamline data processing for legitimate interests, they also present challenges relating to privacy protection, parliamentary oversight, and the potential for misuse. It is essential to balance the facilitation of legitimate data processing with the safeguarding of individual rights and freedoms. Although the Bill is intended to modernise data protection laws, the proposed changes to automated decision-making rights in clause 80 raise significant concerns. The potential erosion of individual protections, increased power imbalances, reduced transparency and the risk of discrimination highlight the need for a more balanced approach that safeguards individual rights while accommodating technological advances.

While I welcome the positive elements of the Bill, I urge the Government to ensure that it does not deliver the proposed benefits along with diminished human rights and rights to privacy, increased discrimination and other unintended harms to individuals, the wider public, minorities, artists and creatives, public services, or our country as a whole.

Wales’s creative industry is a cornerstone of our culture and economy. It generated £3.8 billion in the last financial year—5.3% of our GDP—and much of that success relies on strong copyright protections. Creatives must be paid when their work is used, including for AI training. Too often creative data is being scraped without permission, undermining livelihoods. Does the hon. Member agree that clauses 95 and 135 to 139 of this Bill are a vital step in safeguarding our creative industries?

I call the shadow Minister.

As a self-professed data geek—[Interruption.] The Minister looks quite surprised at that. Well, I am now self-professing myself as a data geek, and it is a real pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the official Opposition.

As the original architects of the Bill, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the potential of these Conservative-led policies to make people’s lives easier by being able to prove identity quickly when dealing with statutory agencies and service providers; to streamline and enhance public service delivery, such as by harmonising the information available to healthcare professionals across NHS settings; and to boost economic growth through the innovative use of smart data. In short, this Bill will bring into effect the previous Government’s ambition to harness and exploit data as the currency of the digital age.

The staggering pace of recent technological advances presents not only enormous opportunity, but challenges that demand further scrutiny. Earlier, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), rightly pointed out some of the areas where the Government’s approach to the science and technology sector conflict with the outcomes that they want. We have had an extensive debate today with hon. Members covering a range of topics, some of which I shall refer to shortly.

Perhaps it is ironically apt that the Data (Use and Access) Bill has had so many iterations and this recursive Second Reading, but I must pay tribute to those who have been working before us to get it to the state it is in today. Much of the Bill is technical and uncontroversial, but some of it still needs to be thrashed out and debated, and I look forward to taking it through in Committee. I would like at this point to pay tribute to Lord Markham and Viscount Camrose. I was particularly pleased to hear the Government’s response with regard to security around the underground assets register.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who I am sure is glad that he is not doing another Second Reading speech and hopefully not taking the Bill through Committee for this side, and of course to Baroness Owen for the incredible work that she has done. The tribute paid to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was far better than anything I could put together from this Dispatch Box, and I thank him for his comments.

By my count, we have had 15 or 16 Back-Bench speakers, and I would like to draw particular attention to the intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who pointed out the wranglings that took place in the House of Lords regarding data that is used for scientific purposes. I am sure that the definition of public interest will be discussed in further detail in Committee. I also particularly liked the speech from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). As I have said, much of this Bill—this big tome—is in some ways uncontroversial. Many Members focused on a few specific areas, but I was interested that he looked at the whole scope of the Bill, particularly around the civil liberties components and the GDPR issues, which is what much of the core of the Bill is about.

There are a few points I would like to focus on, starting with data accuracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is not in her place, remarked that to empower the public and businesses to take full advantage of the speed and simplicity offered by digital verification services, there must be a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the data provided by public authorities. In the other place, the Minister acknowledged this concern, stating that, as far as the data underpinning digital identity is concerned,

“we must have a single version of the truth”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1620.]

However, he did not support the amendment seeking to guarantee the accuracy of data held by public authorities for the purpose of digital verification services, and nor did the Secretary of State in his opening remarks today.

While the reliability of the data that supports digital identity is fundamentally important across the board, an area of particular importance is the accurate recording of biological sex. This is vital for ensuring that services such as medical care are delivered properly and to protect female-only spaces. Biased data is worse than no data, and wrong data is worst of all. We call on the Government to ensure that data is robust and accurate as a matter of priority.

We must ensure the digital infrastructure is in place to support the Bill’s aims. We welcome the inclusion of provisions for NHS data sharing, and I should declare an interest as a former doctor whose wife is a doctor. I have spoken many times of the importance of data sharing. We focus on AI, but we need to get the basics right.

NHS data sharing, if implemented effectively, will enable the fast and seamless transfer of patient data between healthcare settings. It will lead to better clinical decision making and improved outcomes for patients, and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) will be able to see his patients more efficiently and more effectively. I pay tribute to the strength of his argument, and I hope he takes the mantle I had when my party was in government of pushing for this to happen as quickly as possible.

To harness those benefits, the Government have acknowledged that healthcare settings’ IT systems will need to meet common standards to facilitate data sharing across platforms. The previous Government set out a bold plan for upgrading the nation’s digital infrastructure. This Government must continue and expedite that work to ensure the NHS has the tools it needs to implement the Bill’s reforms.

Finally, on the important subject of AI and copyright, the powerful debate both in the other place and here highlights the challenges, the complexities and the importance of making sure we get this right, particularly on the Government’s proposal for a data mining opt-out, as mentioned in the consultation. Many Members have raised that point, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

We cannot hold back the tide of change that AI has brought with it, nor can we put the genie back in the bottle, but we must do everything in our power to protect and promote our creative industries so that they can continue to thrive and grow, as they did with the support put in place by the previous Government during the pandemic.

The Government’s consultation on AI and copyright remains under way. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State spoke about the overwhelming need for the Government to respond to the consultation as soon as possible. The Government must engage constructively with the industry and the official Opposition to identify solutions that turbocharge our developing AI industry while protecting and boosting the growth of our creative sector.

All of us, both those who work in the creative sector and those who benefit from it, understand just how important it is for our national identity. Live music is one of my passions. It was the thing I missed most during the pandemic. The idea that we could end up causing harm to our creative industry fills me with horror. The Opposition want to make sure we get this right, not only for those whose livelihoods depend on the industry but for all of us. This is complicated and difficult. If it were not, there would already be an answer—the Europeans would have an answer. This is a difficult situation that we need to get through.

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is vital that we support our creative industries. Will he clarify the Conservatives’ stance on opting in versus opting out, which is the current proposal?

Our position is pretty much exactly as I have just set out in my speech. A Government consultation is under way that presents four options, including the Government’s preferred opt-out option. There are challenges with that opt-out approach, as well as with a whole range of different approaches. As I have previously said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, whatever we do we must think about how that co-ordinates with what can happen in other jurisdictions. It is a complicated issue, and we need to ensure we get the legislation absolutely right. As I said, we need a response to the consultation as soon as possible so that we can chew through this further to find the best solution. In his summing up, I hope the Minister will update the House on that.

The creative industries have been very clear about their position. The shadow Minister says that he wishes to support the creative industries and that that is the position of his party, but would it be too much to suggest he might go a step further and say that he supports the opt-in position, which is the position supported by the creative industries? That would give them reassurance that there is support from all parts of the House for the position they are taking.

The shadow DSIT team, including our shadow Secretary of State, have met representatives of industry in general. I have met representatives of the creative industries, and I am fairly sure the shadow Secretary of State has too. That is what the consultation is there for. It would not be appropriate to make a unilateral declaration from the Dispatch Box when a live consultation is looking into that complicated area. That would be not be reasonable opposition or good for anybody.

There are no easy answers to some of the challenges, but we should not shy away from them given the clear gains for the public and the economy that many of the reforms set out in the Bill will deliver. His Majesty’s official Opposition and the shadow DSIT team stand ready to work with the Government, wherever possible, to find solutions on these pressing issues. Effective engagement between Government and Opposition will promote confidence among tech companies and would-be investors that the UK is open for business. The last Government’s vision was to harness the UK’s competitive advantage in tech industries to boost our economy and revolutionise the way we live for the benefit of our population. We remain committed to that goal in opposition.

I call the Minister.

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.[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 11WC.] (Correction) 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.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

On births and deaths? Of course.

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

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.

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?

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—

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.

Oh dear, I have started something off.

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?

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.

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.

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.[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 11WC.] (Correction)

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—

Will the Minister give way?

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.

Will the Minister give way?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

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

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.

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.

The Minister is being extremely generous with his time.

And everybody else’s.

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?

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.