📊 Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

• Purpose of the Bill: The Data (Use and Access) Bill aims to grow the economy, create jobs, and improve public services by enhancing the use of data across various sectors. The legislation seeks to address longstanding issues that have slowed down progress and innovation in the UK.

• Government’s Stance: The Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, emphasized the Bill’s importance in unleashing wealth and opportunity by modernizing data usage. The Bill builds on previous Conservative legislation but introduces new measures tailored to current needs.

• Key Provisions:
  • Smart Data Measures: The Bill aims to simplify switching services like energy suppliers, promoting competition and benefiting consumers.
  • Digital Verification: The legislation will introduce digital verification services to speed up processes like payroll onboarding for new job starters.
  • National Underground Asset Register: A new digital map of underground infrastructure will reduce construction delays and improve infrastructure maintenance.
  • Healthcare Data: The Bill will improve data flow in the NHS to reduce redundancy and errors, enhancing patient care.
  • Public Sector Efficiency: It proposes to save time for public servants, especially police and NHS staff, by reducing administrative tasks.
• Amendments and Concerns:
  • Data Protection and Privacy: The Bill includes strengthened data protection for children and provisions to enhance transparency in data processing.
  • AI and Copyright: There was significant discussion on protecting the creative industries from the potential misuse of their data by AI. The Bill includes amendments to ensure transparency and safeguard copyright, though some MPs expressed concerns about proposed opt-out mechanisms.
  • Automated Decision Making: Clauses in the Bill allow for more automated decision-making processes, sparking debate on the need for human oversight and accountability.
  • Deepfakes and Intimate Images: Amendments address online safety, specifically targeting non-consensual intimate images and deepfakes, aiming to prevent abuse and protect victims.

• Economic Impact and Growth: The Bill is projected to boost the economy by £10 billion by facilitating more effective use of data across industries. It’s seen as a step towards making the UK a leader in the data-driven economy.

• Public Trust and Transparency: The importance of maintaining public trust was highlighted, with measures in the Bill designed to ensure data is used ethically and transparently. The government committed to ongoing transparency about data usage and algorithms.

• Next Steps: The Bill will proceed to a Public Bill Committee for further scrutiny, with a focus on ensuring the proposed changes work effectively in practice and address all the concerns raised during the Second Reading.

The session on the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the topics of copyright, artificial intelligence (AI), and data use in the creative industries. Here is a detailed analysis of the disagreements observed:

1. Copyright and AI: A significant point of contention was the use of generative AI in relation to copyright and the creative industries. Several members expressed strong concerns about the potential threat AI poses to the creative sectors. For example, Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) highlighted how AI models were being trained on copyrighted materials without consent, describing it as theft on an industrial scale. This sentiment was echoed by Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire), who advocated for clauses that enforce transparency and a redress procedure for copyright owners.

2. Opt-In vs. Opt-Out Mechanism: The debate over whether to implement an opt-in or opt-out mechanism for AI using copyrighted materials was notably divisive. Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) expressed reservations about the opt-out system, arguing that it reversed the principle of copyright law. This view was supported by Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) and Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham), who explicitly backed an opt-in system for protecting the intellectual property of creatives. In contrast, Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) from the Conservative side was reluctant to commit to a specific position, citing the complexity of the issue and the ongoing consultation.

3. Data Accuracy and Safeguards: Concerns were raised about the accuracy of data, particularly in relation to healthcare and gendered data. Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) stressed the importance of accurate data, especially in the context of defining sex for medical purposes, warning about potential misapplications of the data. Chris Bryant (Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms) responded reassuringly, stating that public authorities must assess information for specific purposes, and data accuracy is protected under current legislation.

4. Broader Data Protection Concerns: There were also general worries about the reduction in data protection safeguards, voiced by members such as Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley), who expressed apprehensions about clauses that could weaken personal data processing protections and the potential misuse of executive powers to amend definitions of legitimate interests without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

5. Positive Aspects and Cross-Party Support: Despite the disagreements, there was broad support for aspects of the Bill such as improvements to NHS data sharing and digital verification services. Members like Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) and Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) highlighted the potential positive impacts of these reforms on public services and the economy.

Overall, while there were clear disagreements, particularly in the realm of copyright and AI, there was also evident cross-party consensus on certain aspects of the Bill. This mix of contention and agreement supports a rating of 3 out of 5 for the level of disagreement displayed during the session.