Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]: progress of the bill

The Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] was introduced in the House of Commons on 6 February 2025. It is currently at "ping-pong" and is scheduled to be considered in the Commons on 10 June 2025. The government has repeatedly been defeated in the House of Lords on amendments relating to artificial intelligence (AI), copyright and the creative industries. This is the one remaining matter to be resolved before the bill can gain Royal Assent. Section 2.5 of this Library briefing, originally published for the bill's report stage in the Commons on 7 May 2025, gives background to the issue.

What happened last week? 2 June 2025

On 2 June 2025 in the House of Lords, a new clause, moved by Baroness Kidron (crossbench), was added to the bill after a division (242 votes to 116). The first part of the new clause would require the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, within three months of the publication of its report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems, to make a statement to the Commons setting out their view on:

(a) the scale of copyright infringement of works used as a data input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, where that infringement is conducted by a relevant trader or by third parties from which they source data inputs, and whether conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas,

(b) the impact of such copyright infringement on the United Kingdom economy, businesses, and individual copyright owners,

(c) the impact of such copyright infringement on the ability of UK-registered companies, in particular small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, to compete on a level playing field in the market for AI models with relevant traders that conduct such copyright infringement (especially overseas), and

(d) the adequacy of existing statutory and regulatory powers which support copyright owners in identifying and preventing such copyright infringement, including but not limited to transparency requirements on relevant traders.

On the same date as the statement, under the second part of the new clause, the government would have to publish a draft bill containing legislative proposals to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models made available by “relevant traders” (as defined in the new clause).

3 June 2025

In the Commons on 3 June 2025, Chris Bryant, the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, explained why the government could not accept the new clause:

…We will do subsection (1) of the new clause as part of our report and economic impact assessment. In other words, we have already committed to do half of what is in the amendment, and I would therefore argue that that half is unnecessary.

The second part of the new clause is problematic, and I think it would be problematic for any Government. It requires the Government to produce a draft Bill on copyright and AI according to a specific timetable. It lays out elements that that Bill must include and determines how it should be considered by this House. I cannot think of any Bill in our history that has included such a clause, for very good reason. A central plank of parliamentary sovereignty is that no Parliament can bind its successor. That does not just mean from one Parliament to another; it means that one Session of Parliament cannot bind a future Session...[col 215].

The new clause was rejected after a division (317 votes to 185).

4 June 2025

On 4 June 2025, when the bill returned the Lords, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch set out the government’s position:

...There is no disagreement with our plan to finish analysing the consultation processes, convene technical working groups, make a Statement to the House on progress, and then bring forward reports setting out our proposals and our economic impact assessment of them. I am glad to make amendments to the Bill to give this plan legislative effect. This is consistent with our approach of hearing concerns, responding to them and moving the Bill forward. I urge noble Lords from across the House to support them.

The only issue on today’s Order Paper with which there is any disagreement is the question of whether the Bill should mandate the future production of a draft Bill, its contents and it going through the pre-legislative scrutiny process...we cannot, should not and must not prejudge the outcome of these processes. Despite assertions to the contrary, good government does not assume what 11,500 detailed responses to its consultation will say.

Our plan—to consult properly and finish the job, carrying out the processes as now mandated in the Bill and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament can have confidence in—is surely the right one. A draft Bill is not a plan to solve the problem. Indeed, it could have the consequence of delaying the very reforms that your Lordships have called for...[cc752-3].

Baroness Kidron’s new clause was again added to the bill after a division (221 votes to 116). During the debate, Baroness Kidron said she would “accept anything that the Commons does” next:

…The Commons can accept the amendment; it can put in its own in lieu or it can collapse the Bill, but I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.

What are the bill’s policy objectives?

The government has said the bill has three core objectives:

• growing the economy
• improving UK public services
• making people’s lives easier

What would the bill do?

The bill has seven parts:

• Part 1 covers access to customer and business data and aims to enable “smart data” to be used in sectors other than its current use in open banking in the finance sector
• Part 2 would regulate the provision of digital verification services through the creation of a trust framework, a register of providers, an information sharing gateway, and a trust mark
• Part 3 would put the national underground asset register on a statutory footing
• Part 4 would update the way births and deaths are registered, moving from a paper-based system to an electronic register used by officials
• Part 5 would make changes to the UK’s data protection regime
• Part 6 would abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office and transfer its functions to a new body, the Information Commission
• Part 7 would, among other things, make further provision about the use of, or access to, data in the following areas:
  • health and social care
  • smart meter communication services
  • public service delivery
  • online safety

Previous debate The bill in the House of Lords

The bill [HL Bill 40] (PDF) was originally introduced in the House of Lords on 23 October 2024. It had its second reading in the Lords on 19 November 2024. The bill was considered in committee over four sittings between 3 December and 18 December 2024.

Report stage took place on 21 and 28 January 2025. The government was defeated on amendments relating to:

• digital verification services
• the national underground asset register
• the meaning of research and statistical purposes
• copyright, web crawlers and artificial intelligence
• adding a data dictionary to the bill

The bill had its third reading in the Lords on 5 February 2025. A government amendment was agreed that would protect children’s personal data and ensure that online services likely to be accessed by children would be designed with their safety and privacy in mind.

Also at third reading, the Lords considered another government amendment to introduce an offence of creating ‘deepfake’ intimate images without consent. It was agreed, but only after it had been amended (through amendments moved by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge) to include an offence of soliciting the creation of an image, remove a defence of reasonable excuse, and allow for a custodial sentence as well as a fine.

The bill in the House of Commons

The bill [bill 179] (PDF) had its first reading in the House of Commons on 6 February 2025. Second reading took place on 12 February 2025. A library briefing - Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] (PDF) - was published for the second reading debate.

The bill was considered by a public bill committee over four sittings between 4 and 11 March 2025. The non-government amendments made to the bill at report stage in the Lords were overturned.

On deepfake images, most of the non-government amendments made to the bill in the Lords were overturned. However, the committee accepted the principle of some (but not all) of the non-government amendments (moved by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge at Lords third reading) that the Lords had made to clause 135. Clause 135 would create new offences of creating or requesting the creation of purported intimate images. Baroness Owen’s amendment to allow for a custodial sentence (as well as a fine) was left in place, and her amendment to include an offence of “soliciting” the creation of an image was accepted in spirit but re-drafted as an offence of “requesting” the creation of an image.

The bill [bill 199] (PDF), as amended in committee, was published.