Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce
legislation on the United Kingdom’s data protection framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
My Lords, the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2)
Bill was introduced to Parliament on 8 March. It seizes our
post-Brexit opportunity to create a new UK data rights regime. It
will now be subject to the usual parliamentary processes,
starting with Second Reading in the other place, the date for
which will be announced in due course.
(Lab)
I first welcome the Minister to his new role on the Front Bench,
particularly given his undoubted expertise. However, I must ask
him whether he understands the concerns of many at the proposal
to allow NHS data to be uploaded to a data system based on tech
from Palantir—of Cambridge Analytica infamy—that will offer
inadequate data protection to patients? These concerns have only
been increased by the Secretary of State’s claim that one of the
purposes of the Bill is to give organisations greater confidence
about the circumstances
“in which they can process personal data without consent.”
In other words, the Bill will reduce protection to individuals,
not increase it, with one result being that some people will not
seek the medical attention that they require.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. My first observation is
that Palantir is a very good illustration of some of the new
technology providers we are seeing, because the value it was able
to provide and demonstrate is very great. However, the perfectly
legitimate concerns about data privacy are, none the less,
equally great. Any organisation operating in the UK or processing
the personal data of people in the UK must comply with our strong
and internationally renowned data protection laws, and those laws
set out robust penalties for those who do not, including, as
necessary, Palantir. Lastly, with respect to the Secretary of
State’s remarks, the intention is by no means to reduce the
requirement for data protection, merely in some cases to make it
more straightforward to demonstrate that the requirements are
being met.
(LD)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble Viscount to the Dispatch
Box in his role as the first Minister for AI and IP—I think it is
the first time those two responsibilities have been joined
together. I wish him every success. Given that there is a new
data protection Bill in the Commons, does he agree that it would
be highly damaging to our AI developers if we were to diverge too
widely from the EU GDPR and risk access to the datasets on which
they rely so heavily?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his expertise and
knowledge in the area, of which I look forward to taking full
advantage. The EU adequacy requirements are uppermost in our
minds in continuing our ability to maintain the data relationship
with it. I note that EU adequacy does not set out any particular
legislative requirements to maintain adequacy, judged as it is on
outcomes of data protection rather than its specific mechanisms.
I am told that there are currently 14 jurisdictions that meet EU
adequacy but have different legislative approaches to acquiring
it. Our well-founded ambition is to be among them as well.
(Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and
declare my technology interest. Does he agree that data is
completely pervasive and all around us, that data literacy is
critical and should be taught from the kindergarten right through
life, and that data privacy is a key element of such data
literacy teaching?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and pay tribute to his
well-known expertise in the area. Public confidence in the huge
mass of data and in the changing systems and tools that use it is
absolutely key. This goes into AI, cybersecurity and a range of
other areas. That is why education for public confidence will be
a key part of the Government’s strategy.
The (CB)
My Lords, I suggest that the Minister looks at the EU’s data
adequacy decision. It is 52 pages long. The decision is a dynamic
one and comes up for renewal on 27 June 2025, which is quite
close by. It was good to hear that the Government are having
regard to all the various international data adequacy decisions
that we benefit from, but I suggest that it is important to
engage in conversation and discussions with the EU to bring it
along. This is quite complex, and its decision is quite nuanced.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his suggestion. We
will of course be engaging with the EU throughout, and we are
under no illusions as to the importance of maintaining our
adequacy arrangements with the EU.
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount to his new position. He
says that the new Bill should be an opportunity to develop data
regulations to put Britain at the forefront of the data
revolution. However, instead of setting out a clear regime for
the sector, it further complicates what is an overcomplex
legislative area. I urge the noble Viscount to work with the
Labour Party to ensure that this Bill is what the country needs,
rather than just a series of patchwork amendments and more
sweeping powers.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words of welcome. I am
absolutely willing to work with the Labour Party. I do not
believe there is an ideological divide in approach, but more a
pragmatic question of how we get this done. I observe that the
overall economic impact of the Bill will contribute £4.7 billion
of growth over the next 10 years; it is important to bear that in
mind. When we discuss the Bill further, the noble Lord may come
to feel that the characterisation of it as patchwork or
disorganised is not entirely fair, but I look forward to working
with him.
(Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place. The AI regulation
policy paper published last July set out a framework for
fostering responsible innovation in AI. It included principles
such as ensuring AI is secure and operates as designed, is
transparent and explainable, and embeds principles of fairness
and redress. Given the accelerating LLM models and their rapid
inclusion in daily life, can the Minister give the House some
idea of how these principles might be included in the upcoming
Bill?
(Con)
The AI regulation White Paper is due for publication next week
and my noble friend will see a lot of that detail set out in it.
I observe for the time being that the approach is, as far as
possible, to maintain sectoral regulation where it is but apply
the principles that she mentioned over the top of it. I look
forward to working with her on the AI White Paper, which I hope
will set her concerns to rest.
(LD)
My Lords, following up previous questions on adequacy, the
Minister will be aware that these are ultimately matters for the
European Court of Justice, where any Commission decisions can be
challenged—and are often struck down, as the United States has
found to its cost. Given the likelihood that any decisions of
adequacy in respect of the revised UK law will be challenged,
what preparations are the Government making so that they are out
there, defending the interests of British business in front of
the European Court of Justice in future? That is an easy question
for the Minister’s first day out.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord and am always very much in favour of easy
questions. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, we will
indeed be engaging with the EU, as he suggests. I share his view
that this is something we have to take extremely seriously and
have proper preparation and engagement throughout.
(Lab)
I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and his new role. In
this new role, particularly its AI aspects, can he go across
government—particularly into the MoD—to look at the use of AI and
weapon systems and how that is moving forward, because there are
some worrying areas?
(Con)
I thank the Lord for his welcome. I should declare that I was
previously a member of the Committee on AI and Weapon Systems
before taking up my ministerial post. As for the niceties of the
machinery of government, I must confess that I do not yet
understand them, but I am very happy to write to the noble Lord
once I understand more.
