Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, when we considered the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill earlier in the year, I confessed to feeling somewhat out of my depth and at the edge of my comfort zone. It is with some trepidation that I enter this debate, in particular following the brilliant speeches by my noble friends Lord Knight and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who lead in this field and understand the subject much better than I do.

Like others, I am delighted by the changes that the Bill brings forward, not least because, when we were in opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I attacked the DPDI Bill for being incoherent and lacking vision. It was simply a bundle of proposals that many people did not want. Although this data Bill is still a considerably large piece of legislation, it is much narrower and the better for it. Firms and data subjects alike will more easily understand it. Therefore, I hope it keeps us much closer to the EU’s rules, as we approach its crucial review of the UK’s data adequacy decision.

The Minister correctly set this new Bill in the context of driving economic growth. The Bill rightly focuses on harnessing data for economic growth, supporting modern digital government, and improving or seeking to improve the lives of our citizens. The last Administration sought to dramatically water down the rights of data subjects, particularly around data subject access requests and high-risk processing. This Bill has dropped many of those proposals, leaving in place the requirement to have UK-based representatives and maintaining the duties of data protection officers, which include carrying out impact assessments. This should reassure individuals that their data will continue to be kept safe.

The last Bill contained some egregious measures—others have referred to the DWP measures that would have required banks and financial organisations to provide data about accounts linked to benefits claimants, including the state pension. That, thankfully, has gone, with Labour’s promise to introduce a separate Bill tackling fraud and error.

Gone too are the plans to give the Secretary of State a veto on codes of practice prepared by the Information Commissioner, which called into question the commissioner’s independence. Similarly, the Government have taken out plans to abolish the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, rightly mentioned. A number of colleagues expressed concern about the implications of this, when the use of such data and equipment was becoming more widespread, rather than less. Again, this Bill does not include these measures, leaving those officers and the requirements on them very much in place.

The last Government sought to change data rules on political parties, allowing them to use certain datasets for campaigning purposes. Former Ministers could not properly explain what this would mean in practice or where the request had come from, so removing these measures from the Bill is, again, welcome.

When introduced, the DPDI Bill did not contain measures on coroners’ access to data, despite that having been promised to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As Opposition Front-Benchers, I and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made commitments to her that we would take this forward. This Bill delivers on that manifesto commitment. Similarly, we worked collaboratively with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, during the passage of what became the Online Safety Act to promote access to data for researchers. The inclusion of such measures in this Bill again shows that the Labour Party is following through on its commitments, including those given at the time of the election.

Like other noble Lords, I have received a number of briefing papers, some of which raise highly interesting questions and points. The Law Society says it remains concerned about the UK’s ability to ensure that we meet EU data adequacy standards. I recall that we were concerned about this in opposition. It suggests that Clause 84 deregulates the transfer of data across borders and international organisations, so can the Minister reassure the House and me that this will not put the UK at risk during the 2025 assessment of data adequacy? In a similar vein, can she assure noble Lords that the newly formed information commission will maintain sufficient independence from government and entrench our EU-UK data adequacy in that respect?

Another issue raised during debates on the DPDI Bill was the need to ensure that there is meaningful human involvement in decisions where automated decision-making processes are in play. Other noble Lords have raised this again. Can we have an assurance that the ethical principles of safety, transparency, fairness and contestability will be properly in place?

One other area which I know the Minister is interested in and excited by is the potential of the legislation in relation to the national underground asset register. We probed this in opposition; are we satisfied in government that the move to an NUAR over the next year or so will take into account the existence of the private sector company LinesearchbeforeUdig and ensure that there is a smooth transition to a national network? Given the current impact on critical national infrastructure of £2.4 billion-worth of accidents in our various grids, we must make sure that we harvest the benefit of the new technology to protect that critical part of infra- structure and our national economy.

Finally, I raise the concerns expressed by the News Media Association about the unlicensed use of data created by the media and broader creative industries. It argues that this represents intellectual property theft by AI developers. The consequences of AI firms being free to scrape the web without remunerating creators can be profound. Its long-term fear is that this will reduce investment in trusted journalism. If less and less human-authored intellectual property is produced, tech developers may find ultimately that the high-quality data essential for generative AI is lacking. I realise that this Bill does not cover AI, but it is important that, if we are to drive growth and innovation using AI, we consider developing a dynamic licensing market by making the UK’s copyright regime enforceable. Can the Minister offer some insight into government thinking on that point?

This is a much more narrowly focused Bill, large though it is, and benefits from it. I think the hours we spent earlier in the year interrogating the DPDI Bill were well spent, because they paved the way for this more streamlined and pragmatic approach, which we welcome.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

57: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—
“Private copy levy on digital access(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment of an annual private copy levy, to be levied when online digital content is accessed or stored.(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The provisions made under subsection (1) must include but are not limited to—(a) establishing governance arrangements to calculate the rate and application of the levy,(b) permitting relevant copyright collecting societies to collect and distribute monies raised by the levy to rightsholder funds, and(c) distributing any surplus funds raised by the levy for the purposes of funding arts and cultural initiatives in the United Kingdom.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(5) The Secretary of State must commission an annual transparency report on the operation of the levy.(6) The Secretary of State must lay the report made under subsection (5) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to establish a private copy levy for digital content, with revenue distributed to rightsholder funds and cultural initiatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. When this Bill was introduced, I rightly praised the vision of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who has since taken it forward, in setting it in the context of driving economic growth, supporting modern digital government and improving citizens’ lives. Technological adoption has had a profound impact on creators and performers’ remuneration. This amendment seeks to ensure that tech and creative sectors can flourish together. While 81% of people consider accessing culture through digital devices important, UK creators face unprecedented challenges in making a living.

Research shows that median earnings for visual artists have decreased by some 47% to just £12,000 per annum since 2010, with over half forced to find second and other jobs. The last Labour Government left a legacy when they introduced the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations in 2006, which has, thankfully, stood the test of time in protecting over 130 million royalty payments for UK artists since its introduction.

It is my contention that we must help creators and artists flourish in this new digital environment without curtailing the use of digital technology. We would not expect other professions to work without payment. My amendment seeks to create what is described as the “smart fund” solution, inspired by private copying levies in 45 other jurisdictions. It requires manufacturers of electronic devices to make a one-off contribution when a new device is sold. This contribution is typically a small fraction of the device price. In Spain, the 2022 levy on a €909 smartphone was just over £1, or 0.12% of the sale price.

In France, €285.5 million was collected in 2022, with €212.3 million redistributed to artists and creators and over €70 million allocated to cultural projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has endorsed such proposals, estimating that this could generate between £250 million and £300 million a year in the UK, at no cost to the Government, taxpayer or consumers. If we release 25% of the total funds for arts and culture initiatives, as they do in France, that would generate an extra £75 million a year, which would more than double the £60 million that the Government announced in just the last week as a boost for creative industries.

It is my belief that we can learn from established smart funds in France, Germany and Spain on how to put in place the necessary governance to administer the smart fund, bringing together stakeholders and collecting societies to distribute to artists and use the funds to support arts and cultural purposes in high-need areas. This was particularly important post pandemic, when European countries made income from private copy levy available as part of their cultural recovery funds. Making funding available to our national arts and culture sector, as well as individuals, could help them get off their feet and turbocharge growth.

Evidence from similar smart funds shows no impact on retail device prices. Introducing a smart fund here would help align us with other European countries, addressing the challenge of artists accessing royalties from abroad. It is my contention that we must seize this opportunity to protect and reward creators in an increasingly digital environment. Creative industries contributed some £124 billion to the UK economy in the 12 months to June 2024; it is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the UK economy.

The Government agree with this; they have identified the creative industries as a growth-driving sector and want to encourage it. The smart fund can be a catalyst for further growth, due to both the potential of higher personal earnings and the multiplier effect of new arts and culture funding. We must avoid too many creators being locked out of this new potential prosperity.

In bringing forward this Bill, the Minister plays an integral role in bringing together different government departments, including DCMS, the Treasury and DSIT, to help and ensure that the digital and creative sectors flourish together. I commend the Minister for meeting me and other colleagues recently to discuss this. I realise that the amendment is not perfection in itself but if we want to do more for the creative and cultural sector, this is one way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for his Amendment 57 on the subject of private copying levies. It reinforces a point we discussed earlier about copying being covered by copyright.

The smart fund campaign seeks the introduction of a private copy levy. Such a levy would aim to indirectly compensate copyright owners for the unauthorised private copying of their works—for example, when a person takes a photo of an artwork or makes a copy of a CD—by paying copyright owners when devices capable of making private copies are sold.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in April 2024, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended that the Government introduce a private copying levy similar to that proposed by this amendment. The Government’s response to that recommendation, published on 1 November, committed the Intellectual Property Office to meet with representatives from the creative industries to discuss how to strengthen the evidence base on this issue. That process is under way. I know that a meeting with the smart fund group is planned for next week, and I can confirm that DCMS is included and invited. I know that the IPO would be glad to meet my noble friend, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to discuss this further. I also absolutely assure him that Chris Bryant is aware of this important issue and will be following this.

I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is essential that we properly engage and consider the case for intervention before legislating. Therefore, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment, to allow the Government the opportunity to properly explore these issues with creative and tech industry stakeholders.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will happily withdraw my amendment. I am delighted to hear of the progress that the Minister has set out. I view his comments as a positive endorsement of the progress made so far.

It is essential that we get more money into the hands of creators, who are an important driving force and part of our economy. It is essential too that we make more funds available for arts generally across the country. This is one way of doing it. The approach was endorsed in a recent Fabian Society publication, Arts For Us All. It identified a number of other potential sources for generating income that could be distributed to the arts and arts organisations.

I commend the Government for taking up the challenge posed by the smart fund and I look forward to playing my part, along with my colleagues on the Cross Benches and others who support this initiative. It could do much to strengthen the funding base for the arts as a cultural sector, which was sadly eroded by the previous Government over the last decade and a half. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.