Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

These reforms are expected to lower the compliance burden on businesses. We expect small and micro-businesses to achieve greater overall compliance cost savings than larger business. We expect these compliance cost savings for small and micro-business compliance to be approximately £90 million a year as a result of the domestic data protection policies in the Bill.

The Bill makes it clear that the amount that any organisation needs to do to comply and demonstrate compliance should be directly related to the risk its processing activities pose to individuals. That means that in the future, organisations will have to keep records of their processing activities, undertake risk assessments and designate senior responsible individuals to manage data protection risks only if their processing activities are likely to pose high risks to individuals. We are also removing the need for organisations to do detailed legitimate interest assessments and document the outcomes when their activities are clearly in the public interest—for example, when they are reporting child safeguarding concerns. This will help reduce the amount of privacy paperwork and allow businesses to invest time and resources elsewhere.

Let me make this absolutely clear: enabling more effective use of data and ensuring high data protection standards are not contradictory objectives. Businesses need to understand and to trust in our data protection rules, and that is what these measures are designed to achieve. At the same time, people across the UK need to fundamentally trust that the system works for them too. We know that lots of organisations already have good processes for how they deal with data protection complaints, and it is right that we strengthen this. By making these a requirement, the Bill helps data subjects exercise their rights and directly challenge organisations they believe are misusing their data.

We already have a world-leading independent regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is only right that we continue to provide the ICO with the tools it needs to keep pace with our dramatically changing tech landscape. The ICO needs to keep our personal data safe while ensuring that it remains accountable, flexible and fit for the modern world. We are modernising the structure and objectives of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Under this legislation, protecting our personal data will remain the ICO’s primary focus, but it will also need to consider how it can empower businesses and organisations to drive growth and innovation across the UK and support public trust and confidence in the use of personal data. We must ensure that our world-leading regulator is equipped to tackle the biggest and most important threats and data breaches, protecting individuals from the highest harm. The Bill means that the ICO can take a more proportionate approach to how it gets involved in individual disputes, not having to do so too early in the process before people have had a chance to resolve things sensibly themselves, while still being the ultimate guardian of data subjects’ rights.

The Bill will create a modern ICO that can tackle the modern, more sophisticated challenges of today and support businesses across the UK to make safe, effective use of data to grow and to innovate. It will also unlock the potential of transformative technologies by making sure that organisations know when they can use responsible automated decision-making and that people know when they can request human intervention where these decisions impact their lives.

Alongside this, there are billions of pounds to be seized in the booming global data-driven trade. With the new international transfers regime, we are clarifying our regime for building data bridges to secure the close, free and safe exchange of data with trusted allies. Alongside new data bridges, the Secretary of State will be able to recognise new transfer mechanisms for businesses to protect international transfers. Businesses will still be able to transfer data across borders with the compliant mechanisms they already use, avoiding needless checks and costs.

The Bill will allow people to control more of their data. It will support smart data schemes that empower consumers and small businesses to make better use of their own data, building on the extraordinary success of open banking, where consumers and businesses access innovative services to manage their finances and spending, track their carbon footprint or access credit. Open banking is already estimated to have the potential to bring in £12 billion each year for consumers and £6 billion for small businesses, as well as boosting innovation in our world-leading fintech industry. With this Bill, we can extend the same benefits for consumers and business across the economy.

Another way the Bill ensures that people have control of their own data is by making it easier and more secure for people to prove things about themselves. Digital identities will help those who choose to use them to prove their identity electronically rather than always having to dig out stacks of physical documents such as passports, bills, statements and birth certificates. Digital verification services are already in existence and we want to put them on a secure and trusted footing, giving people more choice and confidence as they navigate everyday tasks, and saving businesses time and money.

The Bill supports the growing demand, domestic and global, for secure and trusted electronic transactions such as qualified electronic signatures. It also makes provision for the preservation of important data for coronial investigations in the event of a child taking their own life. Any death of a child is a tragedy, and the Government have the utmost sympathy for families affected by this tragic issue. I recognise, and I share, the strong feelings on this issue expressed by noble Lords on this matter and during the passage of the Online Safety Act.

The new provision requires Ofcom, following notification from a coroner, to issue data preservation notices requiring relevant tech companies to hold data that they may have relating to a deceased child’s use of online services in circumstances where the coroner suspects that the child has taken their own life. This greatly strengthens Ofcom’s and a coroner’s ability to access data from online services and provides them with the tools they need to carry out their job. It will include, for example, if a child had taken their own life after interacting with self-harm or other harmful content online, or if they suspect that a child may have been subjected to coercion, online bullying or harassment. It would also include cases where a child has done an intentional act that has caused their death but where they may not have intended to die, such as the tragic circumstances where a child dies accidentally when attempting to recreate an online challenge.

The new provisions do not cover children’s deaths caused by homicide, because the police already have extensive investigative powers in this context. These were strengthened last year by the entry into force of the UK-US data access agreement, which enables law enforcement to directly access content of communications held by US-based companies for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious crimes, such as murder and child sexual abuse and exploitation.

The families who have been courageously campaigning after their children were tragically murdered did not have access to this agreement because it entered into force only last October. To date, 10,000 requests for data have been made under it. However, we understand their concerns, and the Secretary of State, along with Justice Ministers, will work with noble Lords ahead of Committee and carefully listen to their arguments on potential amendments. We absolutely recognise the need to give families the answers they need and to ensure that there is no gap in the law.

Some aspects of the GDPR are very complex, causing uncertainty around how it applies and hampering private and public bodies’ ability to use data as dynamically as they could. The Bill will help scientists make the most of data by ensuring that they can be reused for other related studies. This is achieved by removing burdensome requirements for scientific researchers, so that they can dedicate more time to focus on what they do best. The Bill will also simplify the legal requirements around research and bring legal clarity. This is achieved by transposing definitions of scientific, historical and statistical-purposes research into the operative text.

The Bill will improve the way that the NHS and adult social care organise data to deliver crucial health services in England. It will also improve the efficiency of data protection for law enforcement and national security partners, encouraging better use of personal data to help protect the public. The Bill will save up to 1.5 million hours of police time each year.

The Bill will also allow us to take further steps to safeguard our national security, by addressing risks from hostile agents seeking to access our data or damage our data infrastructure. It will allow the DWP to protect taxpayers’ money from falling into the hands of fraudsters, as part of the DWP’s biggest reform to fraud legislation in 20 years. We know that, over this last year, overpayments to capital fraud and error in universal credit alone were almost £900 million. It is time to modernise and strengthen the DWP’s legislative framework to ensure that it gives those fighting fraud and error the tools that they need and so that it stands up to future challenges.

Through the Bill we are revolutionising the way we install, maintain, operate and repair pipes and cables buried beneath the ground. I am sure we have all, knowingly or not, been impacted by one of the 60,000 accidental strikes on an underground pipe or cable that happen every year. The national underground asset register—NUAR—is a brand new digital map that gives planners and excavators secure and instant access to the data they need, when they need it. This means not only that the safety and lives of workers will no longer be at risk but that NUAR will underpin the Government’s priority to get the economy growing, expediting projects such as new roads, new houses and broadband rollout.

The Bill gives the people using data to improve our lives the certainty that they need. It maintains high standards for protecting people’s privacy, while seeking to maintain the EU’s adequacy decisions for the UK. The Bill is a hugely important piece of legislation and I thank noble Lords across the House for their involvement in and support for the Bill so far. I look forward to hearing their views today and throughout the rest of the Bill’s passage. I beg to move.

In the Online Safety Act, we strengthened Ofcom to regulate technology providers and their algorithmic impacts. In the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, we are strengthening the Competition and Markets Authority to better regulate these powerful acquisitive commercial interests. This Bill is the opportunity to strengthen the Information Commissioner to better regulate the use of data in AI and some of the other potential impacts discussed at the recent AI summit.

This is where the Bill is most disappointing. As the Ada Lovelace Institute tells us in its excellent briefing, the Bill does not provide any new oversight of cutting-edge AI developments, such as biometric technologies or foundation models, despite well-documented gaps in existing legal frameworks. Will the Minister be coming forward with anything in Committee to address these gaps?

While we welcome the change from an Information Commissioner to a broader information commission, the Bill further weakens the already limited legal safeguards that currently exist to protect individuals from AI systems that make automated decisions about them in ways that could lead to discrimination or disadvantage—another lost opportunity.

I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future of Work, and will be seeking to amend the Bill in respect of automated decision-making in the workplace. The rollout of ChatGPT-4 now makes it much easier for employers to quickly and easily develop algorithmic tools to manage staff, from hiring through to firing. We may also want to provide safeguards over public sector use of automated decision-making tools. The latter is of particular concern when reading the legal opinion of Stephen Cragg KC on the Bill. He says that:

“A list of ‘legitimate interests’ (mostly concerning law and order, safeguarding and national security) has been elevated to a position where the fundamental rights of data subjects (including children) can effectively be ignored where the processing of personal data is concerned … The Secretary of State can add to this list without the need for primary legislation, bypassing important Parliamentary controls”.

Furthermore, on lost opportunities, the Bill does not empower regulators with the tools or capabilities that they need to implement the Government’s plans for AI regulation or the commitments made at the AI Safety Summit. In this, I personally support the introduction of a duty on all public regulators to have regard to the principles on AI that were published in the Government’s White Paper. Would the Minister be willing to work with me on that?

There are other lost opportunities. I have argued elsewhere that data trusts are an opportunity to build public trust in their data being used to both develop better technology and generate revenue back to the taxpayer. I remain interested in whether personal data could be defined as an asset that can be bequeathed in one’s estate to avoid what we discussed in our debates on what is now the Online Safety Act, where bereaved families have had a terrible experience trying to access the content their children saw online that contributed to their deaths—and not just from suicide.

This takes me neatly on to broken promises and lessons not learned. I am confident that, whether the Government like it or not, the House will use this Bill to keep the promises made to families by the Secretary of State in respect of coroners being able to access data from technology providers in the full set of scenarios that we discussed, not just self-harm and suicide. It is also vital that the Bill does nothing to contradict or otherwise undermine the steps that this country has taken to keep children safe in the digital world. I am sure we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on this subject, but let me say at this stage that we support her and, on these Benches, we are fully committed to the age-appropriate design code. The Minister must surely know that in this House, you take on the noble Baroness on these issues at your peril.

I am also confident that we will use this Bill to deliver an effective regime on data access for researchers. During the final parliamentary stages of the Online Safety Bill, the responsible Ministers, Paul Scully MP and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recognised the importance of going further on data access and committed in both Houses to exploring this issue and reporting back on the scope to implement it through other legislation, such as this Bill. We must do that.

The Bill has lost opportunities and broken promises, but in other areas it is also failing. The Bill is too long—probably like my speech. I know that one should not rush to judgment, but the more I read the Bill and various interpretations of its impact, the more I worry about it. That has not been helped by the tabling of some 260 government amendments, amounting to around 150 pages of text, on Report in another place—that is, after the Bill had already undergone its line-by-line scrutiny by MPs. Businesses need to be able to understand this new regime. If they also have any data relationship with the EU, they potentially also need to understand how this regime interacts with the EU’s GDPR. On that, will the Minister agree to share quickly with your Lordships’ House his assessment of whether the Bill meets the adequacy requirements of the EU? We hear noises to the contrary from the Commission, and it is vital that we have the chance to assess this major risk.

After the last-minute changes in another place, the Bill increasingly seems designed to meet the Government’s own interests: first, through changes to rules on direct marketing during elections, but also by giving Ministers extensive access to the bank account data of benefit claimants and pensioners without spelling out the precise limitations or protections that go alongside those powers. I note the comments of the Information Commissioner himself in his updated briefing on the Bill:

“While I agree that the measure is a legitimate aim for government, given the level of fraud and overpayment cited, I have not yet seen sufficient evidence that the measure is proportionate ... I am therefore unable, at this point, to provide my assurance to Parliament that this is a proportionate approach”.

In starting the scrutiny of these provisions, it would be useful if the Minister could confirm in which other countries such provisions already exist. What consultation have they been subject to? Does HMRC already have these powers? If not, why go after benefit fraud but not tax fraud?

Given the lack of detailed scrutiny this can ever have in the other place, I of course assume the Government will respect whatever is the will of this House when we have debated these measures.

As we did during last week’s debate on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, I will now briefly outline a number of other areas where we will be seeking changes or greater clarity from the Government. We need to see a clear definition of high-risk processing in the Bill. While the Government might not like subject access requests after recent experience of them, they have not made a convincing case for significantly weakening data-subject rights. Although we support the idea of smart data initiatives such as extending the successful open banking framework to other industries, we need more information on how Ministers envisage this happening in practice. We need to ensure the Government’s proposals with regards to nuisance calls are workable and that telecommunications companies are clear about their responsibilities. With parts of GDPR, particularly those on the use of cookies, having caused so much public frustration, the Bill needs to ensure appropriate consultation on and scrutiny of future changes in this area. We must take the public with us.

So a new data protection Bill is needed, but perhaps not this one. We need greater flexibility to move with a rapidly changing technological landscape while ensuring the retention of appropriate safeguards and protections for individuals and their data. Data is key to future economic growth, and that is why it will be a core component of our industrial strategy. However, data is not just for growth. There will be a clear benefit in making data work for the wider social good and the empowerment of working people. There is also, as we have so often discussed during Oral Questions, huge potential for data to revitalise the public services, which are, after 13 years of this Government, on their knees.

This Bill seems to me to have been drafted before the thinking that went into the AI summit. It is already out of date, given its very slow progress through Parliament. There is plenty in the Bill that we can work with. We are all agreed there are enormous opportunities for the economy, our public services and our people. We should do everything we can to take these opportunities forward. I know the Minister is genuinely interested in collaborating with colleagues to that end. We stand ready to help the Government make the improvements that are needed, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is a long way to go if this legislation is to have public confidence and if our data protection regime is to work not just for the tech monopolies but for small businesses, consumers, workers and democracy too. We must end the confusion, empower the regulators and in turn empower Parliament to better scrutinise the tsunami of digital secondary legislation coming at us. There is much to do.

There are three main areas where we can predict that the risk will occur. The first is where the core legal regime for data protection in the UK is deemed to be too weak to protect the interests of EU data subjects. The second is where there are aspects of the UK legal regime for security-related surveillance that are seen as creating unacceptable risk if EU data is in the hands of UK entities. The third is where redress mechanisms for EU data subjects, especially in relation to surveillance, are regarded as inaccessible or ineffective. These are all the areas that have been tested thoroughly in the context of the United States, and any or all of them may end up being tested also in the European Court of Justice for the United Kingdom if EU citizens complain in future about the processing of their data in the UK. The first angle will test the complete package of data protection set out in the many pages of this Bill. The second will consider our surveillance practices, including new developments such as the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, which is before us right now. Any future changes to UK surveillance law, for example, following a terrorist outrage, may end up being tested and queried before the European Court of Justice.

Regarding redress, our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights is critical. Any suggestion that we start to ignore ECHR judgments, even in another area such as immigration policy, may be used to argue that EU citizens cannot rely on their Article 8 right to privacy in the United Kingdom. My advice to the Minister is to properly test all these angles internally on the assumption that we will be arguing them out at the European Court of Justice in the future. This is difficult. I know that the UK authorities, like the US authorities, will not be comfortable sharing details of their surveillance regime in a European court, but that is what will be required to prove we are adequately safe if a complaint in respect of UK surveillance is made. It is really important that we hear the strongest lines of attack, and that we invite privacy activists, in particular, to offer them: the Government should invite in the kinds of people who will be taking those court cases so they can hear their strongest lines of attack now and test all our legislation against them. We certainly should not rely on assurances from the European Commission; I hope the Minister can give us more than that in his response. The key dynamic from the transatlantic experience is that this is between EU privacy activists and the European courts, rather than being something the Commission entirely controls.

The consequences of the loss of EU adequacy, or even significant uncertainty that this is on the horizon, will be that UK businesses that work on a cross-channel basis will be advised by their lawyers to move their data processing capability into the EU. They would feel confident serving the UK from the EU, but not the other way around. This is precisely what has happened in the context of transatlantic data flows and will hardly make Britain the best place in the world to do e-business. I hope the Minister will confirm that it would be a very undesirable outcome, to use parliamentary language, and that we will be taking one step forward but two steps back if that is a consequence of this Bill.

Having planted that flag, it is regrettable I will be unable to help noble Lords as they try and thread the needle of getting the legislation right. I have every sympathy for those seeking to do that; I have less and less sympathy for the Government, because they chose to bring the legislation forward, unlike other important legislation like the mental capacity Bill, which was left off the agenda, as I keep reminding the Government. I hope noble Lords will keep this Cassandra-like warning current in their minds as they consider the Bill; I do not want to be standing here in five years’ time saying, “I told you so” and I do not think noble Lords want me here in five years’ time saying that either. With that in your Lordships’ ears, I hope the Minister and Members who are scrutinising the Bill can really dig into this adequacy point and not hold back, because it is a genuine, serious threat to all kinds of businesses in the United Kingdom, not just digital ones.

I set this out at length because the AADC not only drove design change, it also established the crucial link between privacy and safety. This is why it is hugely concerning that children have not been explicitly protected from changes that lessen user data protections in the Bill. I have given Ministers notice that I will seek to enshrine the principle that children have the right to a higher bar of data protection by design and default; to define children’s data as sensitive personal data in the Bill; and exclude children from proposals that risk eroding the impact of the AADC, notably in risk assessments, automated processing, onward processing, direct marketing and the extended research powers of commercial companies.

Minister Paul Scully said at Second Reading in the other place:

“We are committed to protecting children and young people online … organisations will still have to abide by our Age-appropriate design code”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/23; col. 101.]

I take it from those words that any perception of, or diminution to, children’s data rights is inadvertent, and it remains the Government’s policy not to weaken the AADC as currently configured in the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention to protect the AADC and that he is willing to work with me to ensure that it is that the outcome? I will also seek a requirement for the ICO to create a statutory children’s code in relation to AI. The ubiquitous deployment of AI technology to recommend and curate is nothing new, but the rapid advances in generative AI capabilities marks a new stage in its evolution. In the hundreds of pages of the ICO’s non-binding Guidance on AI and Data Protection, its AI and Data Protection Risk Toolkit and its advice to developers on generative AI, there is but one mention of the word “child”—in a case study about child benefit.

The argument made was that children are covered by the AADC, which underlines again just how consequential it is. However, since adults are covered by data law but it is considered necessary to have specific AI guidance, the one in three users that is under 18 deserves the same consideration. I am not at liberty to say today, but later this week—perhaps as early as tomorrow—information will emerge that underlines the urgent need for specific consideration of children’s safety in relation to generative models. I hope that the Minister will agree that an AI code for kids is an imperative rather than nice to have.

Similarly, we must deliver data privacy to children in education settings. Given the extraordinary rate at which highly personal data seeps out of schools into the commercial world, including to gambling companies and advertisers, coupled with the scale of tech adoption in schools, it is untenable to continue to see tech inside school as a problem for schools and tech outside school as a problem for regulators. The spectre of a nursery teacher having enough time and knowledge to integrate the data protection terms of a singing app, or the school ICT lead having to tackle global companies such as Google and Microsoft to set the terms for their students’ privacy, is frankly ridiculous, but that is the current reality. Many school leaders feel abandoned by the Government’s insistence that they should be responsible for data protection when both the AADC and Online Safety Act have been introduced but they benefit from neither. It should be the role of the ICO to set data standards for edtech and to ensure that providers are held to account if they fall short. As it stands, a child enjoys more protection on the bus to school than in the classroom.

Finally on issues relating to children, I want to raise a technical issue around the production of AI-generated child sexual abuse material. I recognise the Government’s exemplary record on tackling CSAM but, unfortunately, innovation does not stop. While AI-generated child sexual abuse content is firmly in scope of UK law, it appears that the models or plug-ins trained on generating CSAM or trained to generate CSAM are not. At least four laws, the earliest from 1978, are routinely used to bring criminal action against CSAM and perpetrators of it, so I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to explore the issue with the police unit that has raised it with me and make an explicit commitment to close any gaps identified.

We are at an inflection point, and however esoteric and arcane the issues around data appear to be, to downgrade a child’s privacy even by a small degree has huge implications for their safety, identity and selfhood. If the Government fail to protect and future-proof children’s privacy, they will be simply giving with one hand in the OSA and taking away with the other in this Bill.

Conscious that I have had much to say about children, I will briefly put on the record issues that we can debate at greater length in Committee. While data law largely rests on the assumption of a relationship between an individual and a service, we have seen over a couple of decades that power lies in having access to large datasets. The Bill offers a wonderful opportunity to put that data power in the hands of new entrants to the market, be they businesses or communities, by allowing the sharing of individual data rights and being able to assign data rights to third parties for agreed purposes. I have been inspired by approaches coming out of academia and the third sector which have supported the drafting of amendments to find a route that would enable the sharing of data rights.

Similarly, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we must find a route to access commercial data sets for public interest research. I was concerned that in the other place when former Secretary of State Jeremy Wright queried why a much-touted research access had not materialised in the Bill, the Minister appeared to suggest that it was covered. The current drafting embeds the asymmetries of power by allowing companies to access user data, including for marketing and creating new products, but does not extend access for public interest research into the vast databases held by those same companies. There is a feeling of urgency emerging as our academic institutions see their European counter- parts gain access to commercial data because of the DSA. There is an increased need for independent research to support our new regulatory regimes such as the Online Safety Act. This is an easy win for the Government and I hope that they grasp it.

Finally, I noted very carefully the words of the Minister when he said, in relation to a coroner’s access to data, that the Secretary of State had made an offer to fill the gap. This is a gap that the Government themselves created. During the passage of the Online Safety Act we agreed to create a humane route to access data when a coroner had reason to suspect that a regulated company might have information relevant to the death of a child. The Government have reneged by narrowing the scope to those children taking their own life. Expert legal advice says that there are multiple scenarios under which the Government’s narrowing scope creates a gaping hole in provision for families of murdered children and has introduced uncertainty and delay in cases where it may not be clear how a child died at the outset.

I must ask the Minister what the Government are trying to achieve here and who they are trying to please. Given the numbers, narrowing scope is unnecessary, disproportionate and egregiously inhumane. This is about parents of murdered children. The Government lack compassion. They have created legal uncertainty and betrayed and re-traumatised a vulnerable group to whom they made promises. As we go through this Bill and the competition Bill, the Minister will at some points wish the House to accept assurances from the Dispatch Box. The Government cannot assure the House until the assurances that they gave to bereaved parents have been fulfilled.

I will stop there, but I urge the Minister to respond to the issues that I have raised rather than leave them for another day. The Bill must uphold our commitment to the privacy and safety of children. It could create an ecosystem of innovative data-led businesses and keep our universities at the forefront of tech development and innovation. It simply must fulfil our promise to families who this Christmas and every other Christmas will be missing a child without ever knowing the full circumstances surrounding that child’s death. That is the inhumanity that we in this House promised to stop—and stop it we must.

As an example, GeneWatch has highlighted that, under the new Bill, some genetic information will no longer be classed as “personal data” and safeguarded as such, allowing the police and security services to access huge amounts of the public’s genetic information without needing to go to court or to justify the requirement for this data. Crucially, data protection legislation should define what is or is not personal data by the type of data it is, not by how easy or feasible it may be for an organisation or third party to use that data to identify an individual at every given point. Personal data rights must continue to be protected in this country and in our law.

The new Bill also provides vastly expanded powers to the police and security services via Clause 19 and Clauses 28 to 30. As I read them, on the surface they do not look as though they provide proper accountability; perhaps the Minister can reassure me on that. Clause 19 would review the requirement in the Data Protection Act 2018 for the police to justify why they have accessed an individual’s personal data. Clauses 28 to 30 allow the Home Secretary to authorise the police so that they do not need to comply with certain data protection laws via a national security certificate; this would give the police immunity even if they commit what would otherwise be a crime.

Taken together, these two measures give an extraordinary amount of unchecked power to the police and security services. With the amended approach to national security certificates, the police could not be challenged before the courts for how and why they had accessed data, so there would be no way to review what the Government are doing here or ensure that abuses of these powers do not take place. Can the Minister explain how such measures align with the democratic values on which this country and government are based?

The National AIDS Trust has been involved in cases where people living with HIV have had their HIV status shared, without their consent, by police officers, with a huge impact on the life of the individual in question. This is a serious breach of current data protection law. We must ensure that police officers are still required to justify why they have accessed specific personal data, as this evidence is vital in cases of police misconduct.

I am aware that there are many other concerns about this Bill. Noble Lords have touched on some of them, not least around online pornography, gambling and other matters that I hope other noble Lords will pick up on. In particular, there are doubts around the Bill’s compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We in this House must do our duty to properly scrutinise and, wherever necessary, amend this Bill to ensure that we have the proper legislation in place to protect and safeguard our data. I look forward to working with Ministers and Members of this House when we move into Committee on this Bill.

Clauses 138 to 141, on a national underground asset register, are obviously very sensible; that proposal is probably long overdue. I have questions about the open electoral register, in particular the impact on the direct marketing industry. Once again, we want to get the balance right between commerce and ease of doing business, as my noble friend the Minister said, and the right to privacy.

I have concerns about Clauses 147 and 148 on abolishing the offices of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. I understand that the responsibilities will be transferred, but, in thinking about the legislation that we have been talking about in this place—such as the Online Safety Act—I wonder about the amount of powers that we are giving to these regulators and whether they will have the bandwidth for them. Is there really a good reason for abolishing these two commissioners?

I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about access to bank accounts. Surely people should have the right to know why their bank account has been accessed and have some protection so that not just anyone can access it. I know that it is not just anyone but there are concerns about this, and people have to be clearer on the rules.

I have talked to the direct marketing industry. It sees the open electoral register as a valuable resource for businesses in understanding and targeting customers. However, it tells me that a recent court case between Experian and the ICO has introduced some confusion on the use of the register for business purposes. It is concerned that the Information Commissioner’s Office’s interpretation, requiring notification to every individual for every issue, presents challenges that could cost the industry millions and make the open electoral register unusable for it, perhaps pushing businesses to rely more on large tech companies. However, I understand that, at the same time, this may well be an issue where there are clear concerns about privacy.

Where there is no harm, I would like to understand the Government’s thinking on some of that—whether it is going too far or whether some clarification is needed in this area. Companies say they will be unable to target prospective customers; some of us may like that, but we should also remember that there is Clause 116 on unlawful direct marketing. The concern for many of us is that while it is junk if we do not want it, sometimes we do respond to someone’s direct marketing. I wonder how we get that balance right; I hope we can tease some of that out. If the Government agree with the interpretation and restrictions on the direct marketing industry, I wonder whether they can explain some of the reasons behind it. There may very well be good reasons.

I also want to look at transparency and data usage, not just for AI but more generally. It is obvious in the Government’s own AI White Paper that we want a pro-innovation approach to regulation, but we are also calling for transparency at a number of levels: of datasets and of algorithms. To be honest, even if we are given that transparency, do we have the ability to understand those algorithms and datasets? We still need that transparency. I am concerned about undermining the principle, and particularly weakening subject access requests.

I am also interested in companies that, say, have used your data but have refused an application and then tell you that they do not have to tell you why they refused that application. Perhaps this is too much of a burden to companies, but I wonder whether we have a right to know which data was being accessed when that decision was made. I will give a personal example; about a year ago, I applied for an account with a very clever online bank and was rejected. It told me I would have a decision within 48 hours; I did not. Two weeks later, I got a message on the app that said I had been rejected and that under the law it did not have to tell me why. I wrote to it and said, “Okay, you don’t have to tell me why, but could you delete all the data you have on me—what I put in?”. It said, “Oh, we don’t have to delete it until a certain time”. If we really own that data, I wonder whether there should be more of an expectation on companies to explain what data and information they have to make those decisions, which can be life changing for many people. We have heard all sorts of stories about access to bank accounts and concerns about digital exclusion.

We really have to think about how much access individuals can have to the data that is used to refuse them, but also the data when they leave a service or stop being a user. I also want to make sure that there is accountability. I want to know, in Clause 12, about “reasonable and proportionate search”; what does that mean, particularly when it is processed by law enforcement and intelligence services? I think we need further clarification on some of this for our assurance.

We also have to recognise that, if we look at the online environment of the last 10, 15 or 20 years, at first we were very happy to give our data away to social media companies because we thought we were getting a free service, connecting with friends across the world et cetera. Only later did we realise that the companies were using this data and monetising it for commercial purposes. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but we have to ask whose data it is. Is it my data? Does the company own it? For those companies that think they own it, why do they think that? We need some more accountability, to make sure that we understand which data we own and which we give away. Once again, the same thing might happen—you might stop being a user or customer of a service, or you might be rejected, but it is not there.

As an academic, I recognise the need for greater access to data, particularly for online research. I welcome some of the mechanisms in the Online Safety Act that we debated. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that the Bill sufficiently addresses the requirements and incentives for large data holders to hold data for academic research with all the appropriate safeguards in place? I wonder whether the Minister has looked at some of the proposals to allow this to happen more, perhaps with the information commission acting as an intermediary for datasets et cetera. Once again, I am concerned about giving even more power to the information commission and the bandwidth to do all this stuff, including all the powers we are giving.

On cookie consent, I understand the annoyance of cookies. I remember the debates about cookie consent when I was in the European Parliament, but at the time we supported it because we thought it was important for users to be told what was being done with their information. It has become annoying, just like those text messages when we go roaming; I supported that during the roaming debates in the European Parliament because I did not want users to say they were not warned about the cost of roaming. The problem is that they become annoying; people ignore them and tick things on terms and conditions without having read them because they are too long.

When it comes to some of the cookies, I like the idea about exemptions for prior consent—a certain opt-out where there is no real harm—but I wonder whether it could be extended, for example so that cookies to understand the performance of advertising and to help companies understand the effectiveness of advertisements are exempt from the consent requirements. I do not think this would fundamentally change the structure of the Bill, but I wonder whether we have the right balance here on harm, safety and the ability of companies to test the effectiveness of some of their direct marketing. Again, I am just interested in the Government’s thinking about the balance between privacy and commerce.

Like other noble Lords, I share concerns about the powers granted to the Secretary of State. I think they lack the necessary scrutiny and safeguards, and that there is a risk of undermining the operations of online content and service providers that rely on these technologies. We need to see some strengthening here and more assurances.

I have one or two other concerns. The Information Commissioner has powers to require people to attend interviews as part of an investigation; that seems rather Big Brother-ish to me, and I am not sure whether the Information Commissioner would want these abilities, but there might be good reasons. I just want to understand the Government’s thinking on this.

I know that on Report in the other place, both Dawn Butler MP and David Davis MP raised concerns about retaining the right to use non-digital verification systems. We all welcome verification systems, but the committee I sit on—the Communications and Digital Committee—recently wrote a report on digital exclusion. We are increasingly concerned about digital exclusion and people having a different level of service because they are digitally excluded. I wonder what additional assurances the Minister can give us on some of those issues. The Minister in the other place said:

“Individual choice is integral … digital verification services can be provided only at the request of the individual”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 913.]

I think that any further verification would be really important.

The last point I turn to is EU adequacy. Let me be quite clear: I do not believe in divergence for the sake of divergence, but at the same time I do not believe in convergence or harmonisation for the sake of convergence and harmonisation. We used to have these debates in the European Parliament all the time. There are those expressing concerns about EU data adequacy, and we have to split them into two groups—one is those people who really still wish we were members of the EU, but there are also those for whom this is irrelevant, and for whom this really is about the privacy and security of our users. If the EU is raising these issues in its agreements, we can thank it for doing that.

I obviously was involved in debates on the safe harbour and the privacy shield. As noble Lords have said, we thought we had the right answer; the Commission thought we had the answer, but it was challenged by courts. I think this will have to be challenged more. Are we diverging just for the sake of divergence, or is there a good reason to diverge here, particularly when concerns have already been raised about security and privacy?

I end by saying that I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I thank noble Lords for listening to me, and I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House on some of the issues I have raised.

Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks this Big Brother mechanism is necessary? Why can the problem of benefit fraud not be dealt with in a way that does not mean that all customers are subject to surveillance? What alternatives were considered by Government and rejected? What safeguards will go alongside this provision to prevent it from being typified as a heavy-handed Big Brother approach?

It is strange that pension claimants are included. A pension, in my view, is a right, not a benefit; it was paid for by hard work during one’s working life. The Minister said in another place that they intend to extend this sort of surveillance process to other data areas. Can the Minister tell us what other areas and when that extension might take place?

The third issue is AI safety, an issue that has already been raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government were quite bushy tailed about their recent AI Safety Summit and the commitment to see the UK as a world leader. I am afraid that every time I hear this phrase “a world leader” I have the urge to throw up in my handbag, so you will pardon me if I wrinkle my nose at that. The fact that we want to be somewhere in the front pack on AI safety and responsible and safe AI innovation is okay, but the Bill is a missed opportunity. I agree with my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth that the Bill should be the place where oversight challenges posed by a very fast-moving set of AI developments, such as in biometric technologies, needs to have been gripped.

I was a victim of a biometric technology development when I was chancellor of Cranfield University. It developed a process for detecting microscopic and invisible beads of sweat above your eyebrows if you were put under pressure, and it was to be used in cases of airport security and various other areas. They decided to put me under pressure by making me stand in the main square of the university and answer mental arithmetic questions over a loudspeaker. What they had not quite grasped is that I know I am rubbish at mental arithmetic, so it put me under no pressure whatever, because this was not going to be news to anybody. It therefore failed to detect microscopic sweat. I thought you might like the day to be raised by a humorous account in this pre-Christmas process.

The Bill is a real missed opportunity to grasp those AI developments and the safeguarding that needs to go with them. In fact, you could say that it erodes further the already inadequate legal safeguards that should protect individuals from discrimination or disadvantage by AI systems making automated decisions. We have heard about job hiring and loan applications; this is, “The computer says no”, but on speed. We in your Lordships’ House deplore late additions to Bills, although we have rather grown used to it in recent months, but if the summit’s assurances are not going to seem a bit hollow, it would be good to hear whether the Minister intends to introduce additional measures on AI safety in the Bill and, if not, in what other legislation and to what timescale.

The fourth issue I want to raise is that of the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, soon to be the Information Commission. I entirely approve of the structure of an information commission as opposed to a commissioner. We need a powerful and effective regulator. The ICO’s enforcement and prosecution record has not been sparkling, with low levels of enforcement notices, prosecutions and fines. If, when I was at the Environment Agency, I had had as low a level of those as the Information Commissioner has had, I would think I had gone to sleep somewhere along the line. Does the Minister acknowledge that improvements need to be made to the Bill to ensure that the new Information Commission has a clear statutory objective and is clearly independent and at arm’s length from government, not the sort of arm’s length that becomes very short in times of crisis, that its regulatory function at a judicial level can be effectively scrutinised, that it retains the office and surveillance camera commission rather than simply wiping them from the script, and that it is able to consider class action complaints brought by civil society organisations or the trade unions?

In my experience, all too often, Governments plural, not just the current Government, establish watchdogs, then act surprised when they bark, and go and buy a muzzle. If the public are to have trust in our digital economy, we need a robust independent watchdog with teeth that government responds to. The Bill will need a lot of work, and there are hours and hours of happy fun in front of us. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions and to those of other noble Lords. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.

It is five years since the original GDPR legislation was introduced. At that time, it caused a significant amount of anxiety within the small business and veterinary world. This was reflected in the number of individuals and businesses attending seminars on the GDPR, put on by the Veterinary Practice Management Association, an organisation of which I am proud to be the current president. It promotes management and leadership, which are also a passion of mine, in the veterinary sector. The revision of this Bill is extremely well timed and needed. SME businesses are comfortable with the processes they have in place today to comply with the current legislation, but in the fast-moving and changing IT world, the simplification and clarity in the rules with regard to the use of data on a legitimate basis which this Bill intends to clarify are welcome.

Nearly all small businesses, from sole traders to large owner-managed companies, are data controllers. All collect personal data of some form in sales databases, client and patient relationship software and accountancy packages. The ability of the business to keep control of this data is becoming harder, as it has never been easier to export substantial amounts of data from these systems for many different purposes. Therefore, there is an increased risk that personal data can be lost or stolen due to the ever-increasing threat of cyberattack. It is essential that this updated legislation takes into account where all data is stored and its many different formats and ensures that it is not unknowingly shared with other users.

As my research for this debate has shown me, this Bill is immensely complex, which I know is required—but I fear that its complexity will mean that it will not be fully complied with by a number of small to medium-sized businesses that do not have the resources or time to research and instigate any changes that may be required. Therefore, investment will be needed from government to publicise the changes in a simple and understandable way to SMEs. If the Minister will say how he intends to communicate these changes to the sector, that would be welcome.

With regard to the section on smart data, this has brought immense efficiencies and security for small businesses with the changes made by the banking sector. Extending it further would bring more efficiencies for the business community. A cautious approach is needed when extending the use of smart data to ensure that businesses sharing and receiving personal data are compliant with these complex regulations, so that open application program interfaces cannot be infiltrated or hacked.

Individual personal data has without doubt grown in value significantly over the past five years since the introduction of the original data protection legislation. The desire to exchange of data between businesses, scientific institutions and government will only improve efficiency, productivity and scientific breakthroughs, which is one of the goals of this legislation. The protection of the data and recognising its value is essential as we review the Bill. Potentially, as it currently stands, the Bill could favour large IT corporations, whose ability to collect, process and monetise data is well known, so we must ensure that the new up-to-date regulations do not require large amounts of resources to implement them, so that we can ensure a level playing field for all businesses so that they can benefit from the power of data analysis. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on the need to access EU data so that small businesses can continue to trade without too much hassle and burden. I look forward to learning more of the way of the House as I continue to contribute to this Bill as it moves to Committee stage.