📚 Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

• The Data (Use and Access) Bill, originating from the House of Lords, was examined in its first sitting by the Public Bill Committee. The session was chaired by Karl Turner, and featured contributions from various Members of Parliament, including the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, Chris Bryant.

• The Committee agreed on a programme motion that sets out the schedule for subsequent meetings and the order of proceedings, which will cover the Bill clause by clause, from Clauses 1 to 147, including new clauses and schedules.

• Clause 1 introduces definitions for ‘customer data’ and ‘business data’, setting the scope of data applicable under the Bill. It was agreed that the clause should stand part of the Bill. A new clause suggesting a multi-sector extension of consumer data rights was proposed but not pressed to a vote after discussion.

• Subsequent clauses (2 through 7) were approved to be part of the Bill. These clauses outline powers for making provisions around customer and business data, including the ability to establish decision-makers and interface bodies for managing data access and sharing.

• Amendments were made to Clause 8 to enhance enforcement capabilities and ensure consistency within the Bill. Clauses 8 and 9, which deal with enforcement and safeguards for investigatory powers, respectively, were ordered to stand part of the Bill.

• Clause 10 was amended to include provisions for managing financial penalties, ensuring consistency with other financial regulations. Clauses 11 and 12, addressing fees and levies, were also approved.

• Clause 13, enabling government financial assistance, and Clauses 14 through 17, related to the Financial Conduct Authority’s role in financial services interfaces, were discussed and approved.

• A proposed new clause advocating for non-digital verification options was debated but ultimately not added to the Bill. The discussion highlighted concerns about digital exclusion and the need to ensure accessibility for all citizens.

• Clauses 18 through 26 were reviewed and approved, covering aspects such as liability in damages, duty to review regulations, and definitions used in the Bill.

• Part 2 of the Bill, which focuses on digital verification services, was introduced with Clause 27. It defines digital verification services and sets their scope under the Bill.

• Amendments were made to Clauses 28 and 45, removing certain subsections added in the Lords related to data accuracy and additional requirements for public authorities, after debates on data protection and privacy concerns.

• The session concluded with discussions on Clauses 46 through 54, addressing information disclosure by tax authorities, the creation of a code of practice, and the establishment of a trust mark for digital verification services. These clauses were approved to stand part of the Bill.

• The Committee adjourned with plans to continue the examination of the Bill in the afternoon session.

The parliamentary session on the Data (Use and Access) Bill displays moderate levels of disagreement, resulting in a rating of 2. The session includes some debate and differing opinions, but disagreements are mostly managed through constructive dialogue and do not escalate to significant conflict or division. Here are the specific instances and details that support this rating:

1. New Clause 15 Debate: The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Victoria Collins, proposed new clause 15 to extend ‘smart data’ portability rights across multiple sectors. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, Chris Bryant, responded by discussing the government’s forthcoming strategy document, suggesting it would cover similar ground. While Collins welcomed Bryant’s approach, she highlighted the specific benefits of her clause, such as empowering consumers and enhancing competition. However, she did not push the new clause to a vote after Bryant’s explanation, indicating a disagreement that was resolved through discussion rather than division.

2. New Clause 9 Debate: Steff Aquarone’s new clause 9 sought to ensure the right to non-digital verification services, raising concerns about digital exclusion. Bryant resisted this amendment, arguing that the Bill already accommodates non-digital solutions and that digital inclusion is a governmental priority. There was a detailed exchange on this issue, with Bryant emphasizing existing legal protections such as the Equality Act 2010. Although Aquarone disagreed, indicating a worry that rights to non-digital options might wane without legal assurance, he did not press the clause to a vote, showing a managed disagreement.

3. Amendments 10 and 11 Debate: The government’s amendments 10 and 11 aimed to remove subsections added in the House of Lords, notably around data accuracy and privacy for transgender individuals. This sparked debate, particularly from Dr Ben Spencer and Joe Robertson, who voiced concerns about the importance of data accuracy and potential impacts on protected spaces. Despite disagreement, the government’s rationale, centered on privacy and compliance with existing laws, led to the amendments being passed with a committee vote. However, the disagreement was kept within bounds of respectful discourse and did not escalate beyond the necessity of a vote.

Overall, the disagreements were largely addressed through explanation and rationale provided by the Minister, and while amendments and new clauses were debated, opposition members often chose not to press them to a vote after government responses. This suggests a session characterized by manageable conflict and a focus on legislative detail rather than insurmountable disagreement.