Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas

   I apologise; I am going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes to try to get you all in. I would like to listen to the next speaker for hours, but he has only two minutes. I call Peter Prinsley.

   Hansard source
2. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas

   Last but not least, Matt Rodda.

   Hansard source
3. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas

   We have got everybody in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

   Hansard source
4. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

   India-Pakistan: Escalation

   The Minister has rightly underlined the fact that we face an incredibly dangerous moment, but that Britain has a uniquely deep, historical and influential relationship with both these great countries, which we must now deploy with great energy and skill. Does he agree that the Government of Pakistan must take more action against the terrorist organisations that operate from their soil? Does he also understand the outrage that Indian people, including the diaspora in Royal Sutton Coldfield, feel at these dreadful events?

   Hansard source
5. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

   India-Pakistan: Escalation

   What role does the Minister envisage the Commonwealth playing as an honest broker in discussions between India and Pakistan? Will he also assure the House that, given the fact that the trade deal with India was signed just yesterday, there will be a clear demarcation of Government response and the Government will not feel in any way fettered, as a result of that trade deal, in acting as an honest broker between the two countries? This is an important matter and I hope that he can assure the House on it.

   Hansard source
6. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

   Topical Questions

   I am a great believer in Britain being one of the greatest meritocracies in the world, where—at least in our party—people can rise to the very top, irrespective of race, religion or gender. The Government’s consultation on reforming equality law is a litany of activist demands and bureaucratic burdens, with no proof that any of the measures would reduce inequality. Why are the Government so determined to put people into boxes on the basis of race, instead of promoting equality of opportunity for all?

   Hansard source
7. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Violence against Women and Girls

   My constituent Keith Levell was sexually abused at school, and was referred to as a number, not a name, during the investigations. He has been holding out for the redress scheme for victims of child sexual abuse, and for a written apology for the life-changing experiences to which he was subjected. On behalf of Keith and many others in his situation, why have the Government reportedly scrapped the Conservative plans for a redress scheme in England and Wales?

   Hansard source
8. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

   I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The automotive industry is an important part of the UK economy, contributing £93 billion in turnover and £22 billion in value added. It invests around £4 billion each year in research and development and employs around 0.8 million people across the wider industry. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paid jobs, of which a considerable proportion are outside London and the south-east, but I am pleased to say that some of these high-value jobs are in the south-east, in places like my constituency of Reigate. In Burgh Heath, just down the road from Epsom, we find the UK headquarters of Toyota. It is not only one of the biggest employers in the local area; it is also an eco-HQ. In a project that started in 2014, Toyota partnered with Kew royal botanic gardens and the Surrey Wildlife Trust to create a landscaped oasis full of native species from the surrounding countryside, complete with an orchard and meadow. It is wonderful to see a business taking the time and energy to ensure its HQ fits into our special corner of Surrey. And it does not stop there. Outside the site, Toyota has supported many local initiatives, from providing rooms for community meetings to providing buses for local groups and charities. In 2024, more than £40,000 in grants were given to support the work of local groups, including, to name just a few: the Brigitte Trust; Home-Start Epsom, Ewell and Banstead; St Catherine’s hospice; and Warren Mead school parents and friends association. Before I talk more broadly about the automotive industry, I want to take the opportunity to thank Toyota GB for its significant contribution to the Banstead, Burgh Heath and Epsom area. The automotive industry is important to this country and our economy, and it is vital that it is not smothered by over-regulation, over-taxation and green initiatives. Only by creating an environment that is conducive to growth will we see the creation of more high-quality jobs. UK car and commercial vehicle production saw a significant decline of 11.6% in February 2025. Worryingly, that marks the 12th consecutive month of declining car production. This must be an important wake-up call. More must be done to protect the automotive industry we already have, to help it grow and to encourage inward investment in new plants and new technologies. It can only continue to create new jobs and innovative technologies with growth-supporting policies. The automotive industry accounts for over 12% of total UK goods exports, generating £115 billion of trade in total automotive imports and exports. Eight out of 10 cars produced in the UK are exported overseas to 140 different countries, but automotive manufacturers now face additional US tariff costs of around £1.9 billion, which will have a significant and detrimental impact on the industry. The USA is the UK’s second largest car export market after the EU, with exports of over 101,000 units in 2024. These tariffs have material implications for competitiveness, investment and export potential, and it is vital that the Government’s policymaking reflects this new protectionist and uncertain environment. With this massive setback to the industry, it is now even more important that we get things right domestically, to create an environment that stimulates growth for this important industry. I want to raise some of the biggest challenges here in the UK, and I ask the Minister to confirm her plans to address them. In simple terms, for an industry to thrive, it needs to be able to manufacture products at competitive cost, employ people with the skills it needs, have free access to a market for its products without barriers or restrictions, and not be taxed to high heaven, so that it can reinvest in innovation and growth. A good product will always do well. If it is something someone needs, if it provides value for money and if it makes their life easier, they will buy it—it really is that straightforward—so let us talk about the zero emission vehicle mandate challenge first. The ZEV mandate sets out the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans that manufacturers are required to produce each year up to 2030: 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans sold in Great Britain must be electric vehicles by 2030, increasing to 100% by 2035. Part of the reason for introducing this policy was to provide investment certainty for the charging sector to expand the network, given that lack of charging points is one of the things that puts consumers off buying an electric car. There can be no doubt that it is a well-intentioned policy, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Notably, the moving of goalposts by Governments of various colours in recent years has been deeply unhelpful. The previous Government made the decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars by five years, from 2030 to 2035, whereas the new Government have reversed that. Putting aside the question of which position is the correct one, such chopping and changing is not fair on the automotive industry, which needs certainty and consistency so that it can deliver what is expected of it while still growing its businesses. I do, however, recognise the Government’s recent announcement about increasing the flexibility of the ZEV mandate, which is welcomed by the industry and shows that the Government are listening. In particular, I welcome the reduction in fines for missing targets and the allowance for all forms of hybrid cars until 2035. However, I would suggest that the whole approach in this area needs to be reconsidered as a priority. Tinkering is not enough. The ZEV mandate targets are incredibly challenging for businesses to meet. It makes no sense to expect businesses to dictate what products their customers should buy, when we all know that consumer preference and need should drive the products that a business sells, and rightly so. In 2025, ZEV sales will need to increase by 43% for cars and 171% for vans for automotive businesses to achieve the mandate targets. That is not achievable, and a fine of £12,000 per vehicle is levied on those businesses for every missed EV sale. The automotive industry cannot win on this one. Consumers are not ready to buy EVs yet, because of the lack of charging infrastructure, the battery range issues and the cost, but the automotive businesses will be held responsible and expected to pay the price. If we continue in that way, we will see contraction of the industry, plant closures and job losses, all in the name of net zero. That has already started, with Vauxhall owner Stellantis announcing plans to close a van factory in Luton that employs around 1,100 people. The industry has already invested billions in bringing more than 130 ZEV models to market. Despite spending some £4.5 billion in market support for EVs in 2024, it still missed last year’s target by some way. Such a level of support from industry is unsustainable and is diverting resources away from investment in new technology, models, plants, and research and development. I urge the Government to take responsibility for their role in delivering charging infrastructure and lowering energy costs, rather than beating businesses over the head for their own failings. I also urge the Minister to review the mandate targets as soon as possible and to consider other, more effective ways of driving growth in EV take-up. It would make much more sense to incentivise consumers, rather than penalising businesses. The ZEV mandate targets cannot magically drive demand out of thin air. What we need is more carrot and less stick. Has the Minister considered such alternative options as reducing the VAT on EV sales and public charging, or offering plug-in grants for cars? Those could be straightforward and effective ways of boosting consumer demand. If the Government are wedded to the current draconian ZEV mandate approach, the fair thing would be for them to commit to delivering public charging infrastructure on equivalent targets. For example, in 2025 the target is for 28% of new car sales to be electric, so the Government must ensure there are sufficient public charging points across the UK to serve those new EVs by the end of 2025. If the Government fail to do that, the shortfall should be offset against the fines levied on the automotive industry, reducing what it has to pay. Surely that is fairer. The Government need to play their role and must also be held to account when they do not deliver. Before moving on, I want to touch on domestic energy prices, which apply to all manufacturing industries, not just automotive.

   Hansard source
9. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

   I agree with the hon. Member on the importance of supporting businesses. We must make sure that we remove obstacles and barriers that hinder growth. I hope that conversation starts today and that we can get to a better place where we support our amazing automotive industry, which delivers so much for this country, including Northern Ireland. Energy costs must come down. The industry cannot manufacture at a competitive cost with energy costs being so high compared with what other countries pay. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot with a net zero obsession. We must make sensible decisions on the energy mix to ensure energy security and value for money so that our manufacturing industry can compete on the global stage. That means investing in nuclear and not making the mistake of thinking that solar and wind are a silver bullet. I urge the Minister to share her views on how she intends to reduce energy costs for manufacturing industries in the short to long term so that they are better able to compete. I recognise that some of this goes across many briefs, so I appreciate that this is not something over which she has full control. Another important challenge is ensuring that we have a skilled workforce. Research by the Institute of the Motor Industry suggests that around 107,000 additional technicians will be needed by 2030. That is an amazing opportunity for this country. The more the industry grows, the more jobs and opportunity there will be, but we must ensure that we have people here with the skills to take up the jobs to ensure the industry’s success. That is why it is so important to support apprenticeships, which are a great way for young people to gain the skills they need while working. A survey from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in February 2025 found that the UK automotive sector will increase apprenticeship numbers by 16% in 2025, with opportunities spanning manufacturing, supply chain logistics and vehicle maintenance. The most in-demand roles are design and development engineers, EV technicians and specialists in batteries and power electronics. That equates to over 700 new apprenticeships available among UK automakers. I want to take this opportunity to mention East Surrey college in my constituency, which offers full-time and part-time qualifications in vehicle technology, maintenance and electric/hybrid vehicles. I recently visited and was impressed by the expert teachers, the well-equipped workshops with industry standard equipment, and the very talented and engaged students. We must ensure that we provide the right courses so that people with the right skills will be available to fill job opportunities in the industry. East Surrey college is certainly playing its part. I ask the Minister to clarify what the impact of abolishing level 7 apprenticeships will be on the automotive industry and how she plans to mitigate any detriment. Additionally, I urge her to consider how the new Government’s Employment Rights Bill will impact on the automotive industry. In February 2025, a Motor Ombudsman survey found that 58% of businesses reported difficulty in recruiting qualified technicians to meet growing workload, and that those difficulties would be made worse by the Employment Rights Bill, which is causing businesses to re-evaluate their hiring strategies. It is vital that the UK remains competitive and that the industry is not further burdened when it already faces so many challenges. It is clear that the rise in employer national insurance contributions is putting additional pressure on the automotive industry, with a cost of £200 million. The increased cost of doing business in the UK will reduce inward investment, economic growth and ultimately jobs. The Institute of the Motor Industry stated: “These changes are likely to have a significant impact on costs for small businesses that operate in the automotive sector, which is already facing a skills gap of 20,000+ vacancies.” It went on to say that the additional costs will “dampen investment in training and continuous professional development”. If the Government are really committed to boosting job opportunities and growth in the automotive sector, they need to reflect on some of their recent policies. Just saying that growth is a priority does not make it so. They need policies that do not put obstacles in the way. Lastly, I want to raise the challenge of taxation. In the interests of time I will not speak in detail, but the automotive industry has raised concerns about recent announcements on proposals to ban employee car ownership schemes and changes to capital allowances and benefit-in-kind treatment for double-cab pick-up vehicles. The SMMT is concerned that those changes will “undermine the market, hit profitability and viability and have serious consequences for UK tax returns, automotive OEMs and their employees, and sole trader/small business operations.” Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to remove or adjust the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement? That is enough from me for now. I will bring my comments to a close so that anyone else who wishes to contribute has the time to do so. I thank all hon. Members for attending the debate and showing their support for the automotive industry.

   Hansard source
10. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

    Thanks to everyone who has attended this important debate today, particularly the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who I thank for their powerful speeches. It is so clear how much they care about JLR and what it brings to their constituencies. I am grateful to them for coming along and providing more on the manufacturing piece, which is not in my constituency. It was really good to hear that from them. What came through is that tariffs are the big and urgent issue right now. Clearly, getting that deal must be the No. 1 priority. Obviously, energy costs are also an issue, and all of us here today have spoken about them. I was struck by the fact, which the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned, that Nissan’s plant is the most expensive to run in the world due to energy costs. That in itself should be a massive wake-up call. For the medium to long-term success of the automotive industry—and all manufacturing throughout the country —we clearly need to address that. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for the excellent questions raised. A lot of us are asking the same questions, which is really helpful. I was not sure whether there would be anyone else in the room with the same view on the ZEV mandate as me. I was heartened to hear—funnily enough, from the same side of the room—that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) is also sceptical about whether that is the right approach. I appreciate that the Government are trying to make that work as best as they can, and to make the adjustments. Lastly, I thank the Minister for a clear, constructive and logical response. I am grateful that they have gone through and addressed all the concerns raised. I am reassured that they are looking into those. I acknowledge that the India deal may well be beneficial for the automotive industry, because the cost of employing those people will be lower, but we also need to think more broadly about that, because we could disincentivise the recruitment of local residents. The deal needs to be viewed through a wider-angle lens, and those concerns need to be considered too. I thank everyone for attending this important debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for employment in the automotive manufacturing sector.

    Hansard source
11. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Educational Opportunities in Semi-rural Areas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing today’s important debate on tackling the barriers to educational opportunity faced by young people in semi-rural areas. This issue touches communities across the country, including parts of my constituency, so I am pleased that we are in Westminster Hall giving it the attention it deserves. I have certainly felt that, for too long, much of the discussion around educational disadvantage has focused to a large extent on inner cities. While there are undeniable challenges in urban settings, that somewhat narrow framing has obscured the realities faced by young people growing up in less densely populated areas. On the surface, rural and semi-rural pupils appear to perform well, often even outperforming their urban counterparts in headline attainment measures, but averages can be deceptive. Recent research from the University of Exeter has shown that when the data is disaggregated, a very different picture emerges. Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in rural and semi-rural communities actually do worse—sometimes significantly worse—than similarly disadvantaged pupils in urban areas. At GCSE level, the attainment gap can be as high as eight percentage points. We also need to be honest about the practical barriers that young people in semi-rural communities face—barriers that, while often not obvious to central Government, are plain to see for anyone who has spent time listening to families, school leaders or employers in these areas. The first and arguably the most pressing, which has been repeatedly raised today, is transport. The lack of affordable reliable public transport comes up again and again in conversations with headteachers, apprenticeship providers and young people themselves. The result is that some young people simply cannot take up the opportunities that exist, whether that is a college course in the next town, a part-time job or a work placement that would open doors. Employers, too, are feeling the strain, reporting that inadequate public transport limits their ability to recruit young staff. That is simply not good enough. No less important is solid digital infrastructure. In 2025, it should go without saying that high-speed broadband is a basic educational necessity, yet across pockets of semi-rural England, people still struggle to access reliable internet at home. During the pandemic, when learning moved online, that digital divide was laid bare, but it did not begin there and it has not gone away. Even now, slow speeds and patchy connections undermine students’ ability to complete homework, access the virtual tutoring used by their peers and easily apply for jobs and apprenticeships. The failure to deliver truly universal digital access is becoming a core driver of poorer outcomes in rural and semi-rural education. The third barrier relates to choice and proximity. In many semi-rural areas, the number of local education providers is limited, as we have heard today. That can mean fewer subject options at A-level, less availability of vocational and technical qualifications and more pressure on local schools to stretch resources across a wide catchment. Whereas a student in a city might have a dozen sixth-form or college options within easy reach, a student in a rural town might face a daily bus journey of more than an hour each way, if the bus runs at all. Schools and colleges everywhere are feeling the strain on their budgets, but for smaller settings in semi-rural communities the financial pressure is acute. The Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions has added costs to education budgets. For a teacher earning £40,000, the combination of national insurance and teachers’ pension scheme changes means an additional cost of nearly £3,000 per year per staff member. The reality is that semi-rural schools and colleges are often the most vulnerable to cuts. Their smaller size limits economies of scale, their geographical isolation makes recruitment more difficult and their budgets are less buffered by reserves or alternative income streams. When costs go up and funding falls short, they feel it first and they feel it hardest, and it will have an impact on the most vulnerable students. In many semi-rural areas, students face a stark lack of choice as to further education and skills pathways post 16. The push for T-levels and other reforms has not been matched by the transport funding or delivery infrastructure needed to make them a realistic option outside urban centres. The promise of parity between academic and technical routes is laudable, but is hollow if it depends on travel that students cannot afford or on opportunities that do not exist locally. I ask the Minister: what is the strategy to ensure that young people in semi-rural areas can access the full range of educational opportunities, regardless of where they live? Where is the investment in transport links, digital infrastructure and sustainable funding settlements for small schools? When it comes to education, geography should never be destiny. We believe that every child, whether they have grown up in a city suburb, in a coastal town or in a rural village, should have access to a high-quality education that allows them to thrive. Despite our policy differences, I know that the Minister shares that aspiration. This has been an extremely valuable debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford for securing it. I will speak no longer, because we all want to hear from the Minister.

    Hansard source
12. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    On 22 April, terrorists brutally killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam in a barbaric and savage act of violence. Most victims were killed at point blank range by gunshots to their head. My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by that murderous, violent terrorism in Pahalgam. It was an act of terrorism, and we must reflect on the fact that Pahalgam has joined Mumbai, New Delhi and other places in India in being forever scarred by an act of terror. This is clearly a precarious moment. We want to see tensions ease between India and Pakistan. We want to avoid state-on-state military escalation. We are also clear that India has the right to take reasonable and proportionate steps to defend itself, and to dismantle the vile terrorist infrastructure that has caused death and continues to threaten it. Terrorists based in Pakistan threaten India and western interests—it was the country that Osama bin Laden was hiding in—and because of the long history of violence being inflicted by terrorists on India, the UK has in place long-standing security co-operation agreements with India. In fact, last week in the House, I reminded the Government of those agreements, why they exist, and why they should matter to us in the UK. Given those links, the UK Government should be at the forefront in working with our friends and allies to tackle the terrorist threats that we face collectively. The Minister will not be able to speak about intelligence sharing between the UK and India, but will he at least confirm whether our intelligence and security services have been in contact with India about the incidents that took place, and whether they are supporting its investigations? Have the Government provided any specific security assistance to India in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Kashmir? Could Britain offer specific support that might help avert escalation? Does the Minister agree with India’s assessment that the Resistance Front, which claims responsibility for the 22 April attacks, is a front for the proscribed Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has a clear history of committing acts of terror against India, and has reported links to Hamas? There are reports that Hamas representatives met it earlier this year. Will the Minister confirm whether the UK Government are aware of any co-operation and links between Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hamas? I asked him that last week, and he did not respond, so I would welcome an answer on that important point today. Does he know which terror groups are currently operating in Pakistan, and their links to other terrorist groups that threaten our interests? Last week, the Minister said: “We are playing our role to try to ensure that tensions do not escalate.”—[Official Report, 29 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 176.] The British Government have a role to play, and need to leverage their influence to help ease tensions. What direct discussions have been taking place between the India and Pakistan Governments since those attacks two weeks ago? Was the UK informed in advance of the actions being undertaken? Does the Minister have a plan to support easing those tensions? The Minister referred to the Foreign Secretary’s calls with counterparts and his engagement. Will he give more evidence of those discussions? Have Ministers undertaken an assessment of the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan? Has he had discussions with the Pakistan Government on this matter? Can Ministers give assurances that there are sufficient measures in place to ensure that no British aid to Pakistan, either bilaterally or through multilateral sources, ends up in the wrong hands? The diaspora communities in the UK have strong links to both India and Pakistan, as the Minister said, so can he give an update on the actions that will be taken to prevent the escalation of tensions affecting communities in our country? Can he give details of extra consular capacity and support that the UK will give to the high commissions in both countries for British nationals in Pakistan and India? Finally, will the Minister now be more forthcoming with the House about the Government’s assessment of who carried out the terror attack in Kashmir and whether they were working with any other malign actors? Is he working through the security implications for the UK?

    Hansard source
13. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

    I commend my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Does he agree that boroughs such as mine—Bromley—face many of the frustrations that his constituents in Havering face, and that we are also contributing huge amounts of money to the Mayor of London?

    Hansard source
14. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
15. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    Order. Members need to temper their language and not use statements such as “misleading the House”.

    Hansard source
16. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his intention to make this point of order. The Chair is not responsible for public appointments or for the pre-appointment hearing process, but the hon. Member has put his point on the record. He might also like to raise it with the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and who is in the Chamber.

    Hansard source
17. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair—we are not responsible for the statements that Government Ministers make. However, she has put her point on the record, and no doubt those on the Treasury Front Benchers are listening and will pass on her concerns. Bills Presented Victims and Courts Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Angela Rayner, Secretary Liz Kendall, Secretary John Healey and Secretary Peter Kyle, presented a Bill to make provision about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system; about the functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; and about procedure and the administration of criminal justice. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 233) with explanatory notes (Bill 233-EN). Immigration and Visas Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Chris Philp, supported by Matt Vickers, Katie Lam, Harriet Cross, Sarah Bool, Nick Timothy, Jack Rankin and SirAshley Fox, presented a Bill to make provision about the disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to immigration law; to make provision about certain immigration statuses; to require the Secretary of State to set an annual limit on the number of people entering the United Kingdom through non-visitor visa routes; to make provision about the removal from the United Kingdom of certain persons including foreign national offenders; to create exemptions from the Data Protection Act 2018 provisions relating to illegal migration; to make provision about age assessments for immigration law purposes; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 234).

    Hansard source
18. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 17—Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems. New clause 1—Age of consent for social media data processing— “(1) The UK GDPR is as amended as follows. (2) In Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services) After paragraph 1 insert— ‘(1A) References to 13 years old in paragraph 1 shall be read as 16 years old in the case of social networking services processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, including targeted advertising and algorithmically curated recommendations. (1B) For the purposes of paragraph 1A “social networking services” means any online service that— (a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and (b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images, or videos, with a wider audience. (1C) Paragraph 1B does not apply to— (a) educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings, where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes. (b) health and well-being services, including NHS digital services, mental health support applications, and crisis helplines, where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care and support’”. This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16. New clause 2—Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision (including any such provision as might be made by Act of Parliament), requiring the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to comply with United Kingdom copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts relating to the pre-training, development and operation of those web crawlers and general-purpose AI models take place. (2) Provision made under subsection (1) must apply to the entire lifecycle of a general-purpose AI model, including but not limited to— (a) pre-training and training, (b) fine tuning, (c) grounding and retrieval-augmented generation, and (d) the collection of data for the said purposes. (3) 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 procedure.” This new clause requires web crawlers and general-purpose AI models with UK links to comply with UK copyright law across all stages of AI development. New clause 3—Transparency of crawler identity, purpose and segmentation— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding the identity of crawlers used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to— (a) the name of the crawler, (b) the legal entity responsible for the crawler, (c) the specific purposes for which each crawler is used, (d) the legal entities to which operators provide data scraped by the crawlers they operate, and (e) a single point of contact to enable copyright owners to communicate 35 with them and to lodge complaints about the use of their copyrighted works. (2) The information disclosed under subsection (1) must be available on an easily accessible platform and updated at the same time as any change. (3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to deploy distinct crawlers for different purposes, including but not limited to— (a) web indexing for search engine results pages, (b) general-purpose AI model pre-training, and (c) retrieval-augmented generation. (4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to ensure that the exclusion of a crawler by a copyright owner does not negatively impact the findability of the copyright owner’s content in a search engine. (5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This new clause requires operators of web crawlers and AI models to disclose their identity, purpose, data-sharing practices, and use separate crawlers for different functions. New clause 4—Transparency of copyrighted works scraped— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general purpose AI models, including but not limited to— (a) the URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by them or by third parties on their behalf or from whom they have obtained text or data, (b) the text and data used for the pre-training, training and fine-tuning, including the type and provenance of the text and data and the means by which it was obtained, and (c) information that can be used to identify individual works, and (d) the timeframe of data collection. (2) The disclosure of information under subsection (1) must be updated on a monthly basis in such form as the regulations may prescribe and be published in such manner as the regulations may prescribe so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request. (3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory 35 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 procedure.” This new clause mandates transparency about the sources and types of data used in AI training, requiring monthly updates accessible to copyright owners. New clause 5—Enforcement— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the Information Commission (under section 114 of the Data Protection Act 2018) (‘the Commissioner’) to monitor and secure compliance with the duties by an operator of a web crawler or general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) model whose service has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (‘a relevant operator’), including but not limited to the following— (a) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘information notice’) to require a relevant operator to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of investigating a suspected failure to comply with the duties; (b) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘assessment notice’) to require and to permit the Commissioner to carry out an assessment of whether a relevant operator has complied or is complying with the duties and to require a relevant operator to do any of the acts set out in section 146(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018; (c) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied 15 that a relevant operator has failed, or is failing to comply with the duties, the Commissioner may give the relevant operator a written notice (an ‘enforcement notice’) which requires it— (i) to take steps specified in the notice, or (ii) to refrain from taking steps specified in the notice; (d) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied that a relevant operator has failed or is failing to comply with the duties or has failed to comply with an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice, the Commissioner may, by written notice (a ‘penalty notice’), require the person to pay to the Commissioner an amount in sterling specified in the notice, the maximum amount of the penalty that may be imposed by a penalty notice being the ‘higher maximum amount’ as defined in section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018; and (e) the regulations may provide for the procedure and rights of appeal 30 in relation to the giving of an information notice, an assessment notice, an enforcement notice or a penalty notice. (2) The regulations must provide that any failure to comply with the duties by a relevant operator shall be directly actionable by any copyright owner who is adversely affected by such failure, and that such copyright owner will be entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered and to injunctive relief. (3) The regulations must provide that the powers of the Commissioner and the rights of a copyright owner will apply in relation to a relevant operator providing a service from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such one provided from within the United Kingdom). (4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This new clause grants the Information Commissioner enforcement powers to ensure compliance with AI and web crawler transparency rules, including penalties for breaches. New clause 6—Technical solutions— “(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the technical solutions that may be adopted by copyright owners and by the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent and to identify the unauthorised scraping or other unauthorised use of copyright owners’ text and data. (2) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must report on such technical solutions and must issue guidance as to the technical solutions to be adopted and other recommendations for the protection of the interests of copyright owners.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on technical measures to prevent unauthorised data scraping by web crawlers and AI models. New clause 7—Right to use non-digital verification services— “(1) This section applies when an organisation— (a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and (b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose. (2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must— (a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and (b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.” This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable. New clause 8—Data Vision and Strategy— “Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a ‘Data Vision and Strategy’ which outlines— (a) the Government’s data transformation priorities for the next five years; and (b) steps the Government will take to ensure the digitisation of Government services.” New clause 9—Departmental Board Appointments— “(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed— (a) Government departments; (b) NHS England; and (c) NHS trusts shall appoint to their departmental board or equivalent body at least one of the following— (i) Chief Information Officer; (ii) Chief Technology Officer; (iii) Chief Digital Information Officer; (iv) Service Transformation Leader; or (v) equivalent postholder. (2) The person or persons appointed as under subsection (1) shall provide an annual report on the progress of the department or body towards the Government’s Data Vision and Strategy.” This new clause would require digital leaders to be represented at executive level within Government departments and other bodies. New clause 10—Data use in Public Service Delivery Review— “(1) The Secretary of State must, every 12 months, lay before Parliament a ‘Data use in Public Service Delivery Review’. (2) The Data use in Public Service Delivery Review shall include, but is not limited to assessment of the steps being taken to— (a) improve the Government’s use of data in public service delivery over the previous 12 months; (b) expand the use of data to support increased and improved digital services in public service delivery; (c) improve expertise and digital talent within Government departments to help expand the use of data for public service delivery; and (d) facilitate and regulate for better use of data in the delivery of public services.” This new clause would require an annual assessment by the Secretary of State to examine the steps being taken to facilitate and regulate the use of data in the delivery of public services using digital and online technologies. New clause 11—Access to a deceased child’s social media data— “(1) Where a person under 18 years of age has deceased, a parent or legal guardian (the ‘requestor’) may request from any internet service provider (ISP) the child’s user data from up to 12 months prior to the date of death. (2) The ISP must provide a copy of the requested data, or direct account access, upon verification of the requestor’s identity and relationship to the deceased person, and no court order shall be required for such disclosure. (3) ‘User data’ includes all content, communications, or metadata generated by or associated with the deceased person’s online activity, including stored messages and posts, except where the deceased person had explicitly directed otherwise prior to death. (4) The ISP may refuse or redact specific data only where— (a) disclosure would unduly infringe the privacy rights of another individual, (b) the deceased person had explicitly opted out before death, (c) there is a conflicting court order, or (d) a serious risk to public safety or national security would result. (5) In providing data under this section, the ISP must comply with data protection legislation. (6) This section constitutes a lawful basis for disclosure under Article 6 of the UK GDPR. (7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure— (a) provide guidance on verifying parent or guardian status, (b) clarify any additional grounds for refusal, and (c) prescribe safeguards to protect third-party confidentiality. (8) For the purposes of this section— ‘internet service provider (ISP)’ includes any provider of social media, messaging, or other online platforms; and ‘data protection legislation’ has the meaning given in section 51 of this Act.” This new clause would allow parents of a deceased minor to obtain that child’s social media data without a court order, subject to privacy safeguards for third parties. New clause 12—Raising the minimum age at which users can consent to processing of personal data— “(1) The UK GDPR is amended in accordance with subsection (2) of this section. (2) (2) After paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services) insert— ‘(1A) References to “13 years old” and “age of 13 years” in paragraph 1 shall be read as “16 years old” and “age of 16 years” in the case of processing of personal data. (1B) Paragraph (1A) does not apply to— (a) platform systems and services operated where the primary purpose of processing of personal data is for the advancement of a charitable purpose as defined in the Charities Act 2011; (b) publicly owned platform systems and services operated for the primary purpose of law enforcement, child protection, education, or healthcare; (c) cases in which the Secretary of State determines it is in the best interests of the child for an operator to accept the child’s own consent.’” This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data from 13 to 16 years old with certain exceptions for charitable purposes and child safety. New clause 13—Code of practice for the use of children’s educational data— “(1) Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the Information Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains such guidance as the Information Commissioner considers appropriate on the processing of children’s data in connection with the provision of education. (2) Guidance under subsection (1) must consider— (a) all aspects of the provision of education including learning, school management, and safeguarding; (b) all types of schools and learning settings in the development of guidance; (c) the use of AI systems in the provision of education; (d) the impact of profiling and automated decision-making on children’s access to education opportunities; (e) children’s consent to the way their personal data is generated, collected, processed, stored and shared; (f) parental consent to the way their children’s personal data is being generated, collected, processed, stored and shared; (g) the security of children’s data; (h) the exchange of information for safeguarding purposes.” This new clause requires the Information Commissioner to produce a code of practice for accessing children’s educational data. New clause 14—Transparency of business and customer data used in training Artificial Intelligence models— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of general-purpose AI models to disclose upon request information about business data and customer data processed for the purposes of pre-training, training, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation in an AI model, or any other data input to an AI model. (2) Business data and customer data must include, but is not limited to, the whole or any substantial part of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast included in any text, images and data used for the purposes set out in subsection (1). (3) Information disclosable under subsection (1) must include but is not limited to: (i) Digital Object Identifiers and file names; (ii) Details of how the work was identified, including metadata; (iii) The source from which it was scraped or otherwise obtained; and (iv) The URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by operators, or by third parties, to obtain the data. (4) The owner of rights in any individual work identifiable in information disclosed under subsection (1) must be provided upon request to the relevant operator with information as to whether and how they have complied with the laws of the United Kingdom in respect to that work. (5) 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 procedure.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out transparency provisions requiring generative AI developers to provide information to enable individuals and creative businesses to determine whether their data, works and other subject matter have been used in training datasets. New clause 15—Complaints procedure for vulnerable individuals— “(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4). (2) After section 165(3) insert— ‘(3A) For complaints under subsection (2), the Information Commissioner must provide appropriate complaints-handling procedures for— (a) victims of modern slavery, (b) victims of domestic abuse, (c) victims of gender-based violence, or (d) data subjects otherwise in a position of vulnerability. (3B) Procedures under subsection (3A) must include— (a) appropriate support for vulnerable individuals; (b) provision of specialised officers for sensitive cases; (c) signposting to support services; (d) provision of a helpline; (e) de-escalation protocols.’ (3) After section 166(1)(c) insert— ‘(d) fails to investigate a complaint appropriately or take adequate action to remedy findings of inadequacy.’ (4) After section 166(2)(b), insert— ‘(c) to use formal powers as appropriate to investigate a complaint and to remedy any findings of inadequacy, unless the request from the data subject is manifestly unfounded or excessive.’” This new clause would require the Information Commission to introduce a statutory complaints procedure for individuals in a position of vulnerability and new grounds of appeal to an Information Tribunal. New clause 18—Report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies— “(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the passing of this Act— (a) prepare and publish a report examining the need for a specific statutory public interest test to determine and safeguard access to NHS data by third-parties and companies. (b) within 28 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate and votable motion on the findings of the report in each House. (2) The report must consider— (a) whether and in what situations it would be necessary, proportionate and lawful to share NHS data with third-parties and companies when the interests and risks to both the individual and/or public is considered. (b) when it would be in the public interest and in the best interests of patients and the NHS to allow access by third-parties and companies to NHS data in relation to the provision of health care services and for promotion of health.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies and then to schedule a debate on it in each House. New clause 19—Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent of this Act, have conducted a review and published a report into the operation of Article 8 (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services) of the UK GDPR in relation to the data processed by social media platforms of children under the age of 16. (2) As part of this review, the Secretary of State must consider— (a) the desirability of increasing the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR from 13 to 16, taking into account the available evidence in relation to the impact of social media platforms on the educational, social and emotional development of children; and (b) the viability of increasing the digital age of consent under Article 8 of the UK GDPR in relation to specific social media platforms which are shown by the evidence to be unsuitable for use by children under the age of 16. (3) Within six months of the publication of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a plan before Parliament for raising the digital age of consent to 16 through amendments to Article 8 GDPR, unless the review concludes that such changes are unnecessary.” New clause 20—Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the use by web-crawlers and artificial intelligence models of creative content— “The Secretary of State must— (a) by 16 September 2025, issue a statement, by way of a copyright notice issued by the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise, in relation to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities conducted by web-crawlers or artificial intelligence models which may infringe the copyright attaching to creative works; (b) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to help ensure proportionate and effective measures for transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, refining, tuning and generative activities in AI; (c) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data; (d) by 1 July 2026, publish a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content and relevant information associated with the licence.” New clause 21—Directions to public authorities on recording of sex data— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, issue regulations relating to the code of practice set out in section 49 of this Act which require public authorities to— (a) collect, process and retain sex data only where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation; (b) request and record sex data accurately, in every circumstance where sex data is collected, in accordance with following category terms and definitions— (i) ‘Sex’ meaning male or female only based on ‘sex at birth’, ‘natal sex’ or ‘biological sex’ (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably); and, (ii) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, ‘Acquired Gender’ meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004; (c) have updated relevant organisation guidance to stipulate that, where sex data is collected, this must be done in accordance with the definitions set out by subsection (1)(b) within three months of these regulations coming into force; (d) have conducted a review of the accuracy of data held in relation to the sex of data subjects to ensure that the data is accurate in recording sex at birth and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate within 12 months of these regulations coming into force; (e) have taken every reasonable step to ensure that any data held in relation to the sex and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate of a data subject that is found to be inaccurate is rectified or erased within 18 months of these regulations coming into force; and (f) have produced and submitted to the Secretary of State a report setting out the findings of its review in relation to the matters set out by subsection (1)(d) and, where relevant, a description of the steps taken to ensure that the data held by the relevant public authority is accurate within the definitions set out subsection (1)(b) with 18 months of these regulations coming into force. (2) The Secretary of State may, on receipt of a report in accordance with subsection (1)(f) instruct a public authority to take any further remedial steps within a specified timeframe reasonably necessary to ensure the accuracy of the sex and acquired gender data held by the relevant public authority. (3) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passage of this Act, establish and maintain a register of public authorities approved to act as sources of data relating to the attribute of sex for persons providing digital verification services. (4) The register in subsection (3) must be published on the website of the Office for Digital Identities & Attributes or any successor body. (5) Until such time as a public authority is added to the register under subsection (3), persons providing digital verification services may only obtain data on the sex of an individual requesting the provision of digital verification services from the record of births held by the General Register Office in accordance with subsection (6). (6) Information supplied by the General Register Office pursuant to subsection (5) must specify sex as recorded at birth, as well as any subsequent corrections to the register in the field marked ‘Sex’. (7) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, add public authorities to the register as under subsection (3) only upon being satisfied on the basis of a report issued under subsection (1)(f), or satisfaction of such further steps required by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) that the data held by the relevant public authority in relation to sex and, where relevant, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate, as defined in subsection (1)(b), is accurate.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue regulations relating to the code of practice in section 49 requiring public authorities to record sex data in line with these regulations when data are collected. This clause is linked to amendments 39 and 40. New clause 22—Recording of ethnicity data for the purposes of public service delivery— “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data in the process of public service delivery and associated data collection. (2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories. (3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be collected in the process of public service delivery. New clause 23—Recording of ethnicity data on the Register of Births and Deaths— “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data during birth and death registration. (2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories. (3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be able to be collected during birth and death registration. Government amendments 11 to 32. Amendment 39, in clause 45, page 42, line 30, at the beginning insert— “Save in respect of data relating to sex,”. This amendment is consequential on NC21. Amendment 40, page 43, line 15, at end insert— “”gender recognition certificate” means a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.” This amendment is consequential on NC21. Government amendments 1 to 8. Amendment 37, in clause 67, page 75, line 24, at end insert— “(2A) For the purposes of paragraph 2, ‘scientific research’ means creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge. (2B) To meet the reasonableness test in paragraph 2, the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.” This amendment incorporates clarifications to help reduce potential misuse of the scientific research exception. The first is a definition of scientific research based on the Frascati Manual. The second is a requirement that research be conducted in line with frameworks and standards in the UKRI Code of Practice for Research. Amendment 41, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert— “3. For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a human’s involvement is only meaningful if they are a natural person with the necessary competence, authority and capacity to understand, challenge and alter the decision.” See explanatory statement for Amendment 44. Amendment 45, page 96, line 2, at end insert— “5. Consent in accordance with paragraph 2 cannot be given by persons under the age of 18 where— (a) the automated decision-making is likely to produce legal or similarly significant effects on the child, or (b) the processing involves the profiling of a child to determine access to essential services, education, or other significant opportunities. 6. The controller shall not be obliged to maintain, acquire or process additional information in order to identify the age of a data subject for the sole purpose of complying with this Regulation. 7. A significant decision may not be taken based solely on automated processing, if the data subject is a child or may be a child unless the provider is satisfied that the decision is in, and compatible with, the best interests of a child, taking into account their rights and development stage, authorised by law to which the controller is subject, and after suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are made publicly available. 8. Profiling or solely automated processing of children’s data may not occur for the purposes of targeted advertising or behavioural analysis.” This amendment ensures that automated decision-making cannot take place in circumstances where it would affect a child’s access to significant opportunities or would not be in their best interests, as well as protections against practices such as behavioural analysis. Amendment 46, page 96, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert— “(a) communicate to the data subject before and after the decision is taken the fact that automated decision-making is involved in the decision, the extent of any human involvement, and the availability of safeguards under this Article; (b) provide the data subject with information about decisions described in paragraph 1 taken in relation to the data subject including meaningful information about the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject, and a personalised explanation for the decision; (c) enable the data subject to make representations about such decisions; (d) enable the data subject to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller in relation to such decisions; (e) enable the data subject to contest such decisions. 3. For the purposes of paragraph 2(b), a personalised explanation must— (a) be clear, concise and in plain language of the data subject’s choice in a readily available format; (b) be understandable, and assume limited technical knowledge of algorithmic systems; (c) address the reasons for the decision and how the decision affects the individual personally, which must include— (i) the inputs, including any personal data; (ii) parameters that were likely to have influenced or were decisive to decision or a counterfactual of what change would have resulted in a more favourable outcome; (iii) the sources of parameters and inputs; (d) be available free of charge and conveniently accessible to the data subject, free of deceptive design patterns. 4. Where the safeguards apply after a decision is made, the controller must give effect to data subject requests as soon as reasonably practicable and within one month of the request. 5. The controller must ensure the safeguards are fully in place and complete a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 before a decision under Article 22A is taken, documenting their implementation of the safeguards in addition to the requirements of that Article. 6. The controller must publish details of their implementation of the safeguards and how data subjects can make use of them.” This amendment would ensure that data subjects are informed of automated decisions made about them in a timely way, and that that explanation is personalised to enable them to understand why it was made. It also ensures processors are incentivised to put the safeguards in place before commencing automated decision-making. Amendment 42, page 96, line 23, after “Article 22A(1)(a),” insert “and subject to Article 22A(3)”. See explanatory statement for Amendment 44. Amendment 43, page 97, line 19, at end insert— “(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, the review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.” See explanatory statement for Amendment 44. Amendment 44, page 98, line 31, after “and 50C(3)(c),” insert “and subject to 50A(3)”. This amendment and Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful, the review must be carried out by a competent person who is empowered to change the decision in practice. Amendment 9, in clause 81, page 100, line 7, at end insert— “Age assurance 1C. Information society services which are likely to be accessed by children must use highly effective age verification or age estimation measures for the purpose of delivering on children’s higher protection matters.” This amendment requires services which are likely to be accessed by children to use highly effective age verification measures. Amendment 38, in clause 86, page 103, line 22, at end insert— “(2A) Where personal data is processed for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act (‘reuse’), the processor or controller must publish details of the data sources used. (2B) These details must as a minimum include a description of the scientific research, the provenance and method of acquisition of the personal data being reused, the original lawful basis for processing, the number of data subjects affected, and whether the data subjects have been notified of the reuse. (2C) The processor or controller must notify the Information Commission when processing data for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act with the same details.” This amendment ensures transparency for the use of scientific research exemptions by requiring those reusing personal data to publish details of that reuse and notify the Information Commission of that reuse. Government amendments 33 and 34. Amendment 10, in schedule 7, page 201, line 5, at end insert— “(1B) A third country cannot be considered adequate or capable of providing appropriate safeguards by any authority where there exists no credible means to enforce data subject rights or obtain legal remedy. (1C) For the purposes of paragraph 1A, the Secretary of State must make a determination as to whether credible means are present in a third country. (1D) In making a determination regarding credible means, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the view of the Information Commissioner. (1E) Credible means do not exist where the Secretary of State considers that any of the following are true: (a) judicial protection of persons whose personal data is transferred to that third country is insufficient; (b) effective administrative and judicial redress are not present; (c) effective judicial review mechanisms do not exist; and (d) there is no statutory right to effective legal remedy for data subjects.” The amendment would prohibit personal data transfer to countries where data subject rights cannot be adequately upheld and prohibit private entities from using contracts to give the impression that data security exists. Government amendments 35 and 36.

    Hansard source
19. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I should point out that the hon. Lady, as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party, will be speaking very shortly.

    Hansard source
20. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
21. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    Order. I point out to Mr Bryant that Dr Ben Spencer is the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
22. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

    Hansard source
23. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
24. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments? It was an honour to meet veterans at the VE Day parade on Monday and to commemorate the sacrifice of that generation. I look forward to marking VE Day at Westminster Abbey tomorrow. Does the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners?

    Hansard source
25. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The only black hole is the one the Prime Minister is digging. This issue affects some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners. His Mayor in Doncaster says it is wrong; his First Minister in Wales says it is wrong; even his own MPs are saying it is wrong. He has refused to listen to me on this, so will he at least listen to his own party and change course?

    Hansard source
26. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    We would not balance it on the backs of pensioners. Pensioners are poorer and colder because of his decisions. All the while, energy has got more expensive for everyone. Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to cut energy bills by £300?

    Hansard source
27. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister talks about clean energy. We have the second highest amount of renewables on the grid in Europe, and yet we still have the highest energy bills. This is not about clean energy. The Prime Minister has broken another promise. He will not admit it, but is the truth not that he cannot cut energy bills because of his net zero policy?

    Hansard source
28. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    This approach to net zero is “irrational”; it is “doomed to fail”. Those aren’t my words; they are Tony Blair’s. If the Prime Minister wants to throw words about, he should speak to him. The truth is that the Prime Minister is on another planet. His net zero plans mean ever more expensive energy. Across this country, jobs are disappearing. Last week, a ceramics factory in Stoke closed because of energy costs. This morning, 250 more job losses have been announced in the North sea, and yet the amount of gas the UK is importing is doubling, so why is he shutting down the North sea rather than getting our oil and gas out of the ground and making energy cheaper?

    Hansard source
29. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister has got no answer. He could not even bring himself to say something to the 250 people who found out this morning that they have lost their job. The fact is that pensioners are poorer and people are being laid off. From winter fuel to net zero, his energy policy is a disaster, and everyone knows it. We know it, the public know it, the unions know it, his MPs know it, and even Tony Blair knows it. The Prime Minister’s only answer is to go further and faster in the wrong direction. Why should we all suffer because he will not admit he has got this wrong?

    Hansard source
30. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    The barbaric terrorist attacks in Kashmir on innocent Indian and Nepali tourists caused deep distress in my constituency, which is home to many Indian nationals and those of Nepali nationality. I welcome the Minister’s tone about de-escalation—he is getting the tone just about right—but may I also urge him to ensure that none of the escalation of tensions in that part of the world happens here in the UK, and that Hindu temples in particular are offered the same funding and security given to mosques around the country?

    Hansard source
31. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning we learned that Labour’s choice of football regulator, David Kogan, made personal donations to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary. We believe that the Government’s decision not to disclose that fact when Mr Kogan’s appointment was announced constitutes a potential breach of the governance code on public appointments, and represents a clear discourtesy to both this House and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. This appointment clearly puts cronies over clubs and favours over fans, and brings major risks to English football. Can you please advise me on the best way to ensure that this House is able to scrutinise such appointments and ensure that all rules were followed by the Government?

    Hansard source
32. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    United States Film Tariff

    Warner Brothers Studios Leavesden is in my constituency and a genuinely world-class film and TV production centre. It provides thousands of jobs, generates significant wealth for the UK economy, and earns South West Hertfordshire the reputation of Hollywood in Hertfordshire. Major international blockbusters, including “Barbie”, “Mission: Impossible”, “Paddington” and the Harry Potter franchise have been filmed there, and the recently confirmed HBO Harry Potter TV series is set to be filmed there this summer. Leaving aside the decisions that the Chancellor has made and the impact that they have had on the economy, can the Minister reassure us that he will continue to update the House and the industry more widely about how the Government will mitigate these tariffs if they come to fruition?

    Hansard source
33. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Grooming Gangs

    Despite what the Prime Minister said, speaking out for rape victims is not jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Yesterday, it was reported that No. 10’s interim spokesperson said it was “obviously disappointing” to see people “weaponising” rape gangs for “political point scoring”. How does that square with the harrowing personal testimony from Jade, Chantelle, Scarlett, Erin and Steph in Anna Hall’s Channel 4 documentary aired last week, where concerning questions continued to arise about councils, police, schools, social workers and children’s homes? It was reported that in up to 50 communities, vulnerable girls who were under age—exploited children—were unbelievably labelled as promiscuous or child prostitutes.

    Hansard source
34. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Grooming Gangs

    As a child, Jade got a criminal record during her abuse and exploitation, and now she cannot attend her children’s school trips. Chantelle rightly said, “We are not the problem. The men are the problem.” Although there are plenty of good women on the Front Bench, I have to ask: are this Government simply more interested in protecting their own than staying true to their manifesto pledge? That pledge says, “We will use every…tool to target perpetrators”. Yet Labour is turning its back on that once again; you can hear it. The Leader of the House called this “dog whistle” politics on national radio. Why will the Minister and her Front-Bench colleagues not commit to delivering a proper, national, statutory public inquiry, and finally put victims first?

    Hansard source
35. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Engagements

    As you know, Mr Speaker, Parliament has banned the charging of electric vehicles in its underground car park because of safety concerns. Yet local authorities around the country often feel powerless to stop the construction of battery energy storage systems near people’s homes and near our rivers and canals, despite three fires already this year. Will the Prime Minister look again at his Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make it easier, rather than harder, for local communities to have a meaningful say?

    Hansard source
36. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Engagements

    Q10.   Last week I was talking to Jason, a pub landlord, and he told me that he has heard a rumour about the Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Not that one, not that one. He has heard that there is a reason why the Prime Minister hates Britain’s pubs. Landlords such as Jason are being battered by Labour’s jobs tax and the slashing of small business rate relief, meaning that as many as half of Britain’s pubs could be closed by 2030. Why does he hate Britain’s pubs, and if he does not, why is he taxing them into extinction?

    Hansard source
37. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    India-Pakistan: Escalation

    May I welcome the Minister’s statement? Of course terrorism, wherever it occurs, should be condemned. On behalf of my constituents, many of whom are of Pakistani heritage and Indian heritage, may I join the Minister in calling for de-escalation and for dialogue between India and Pakistan? Ahead of the meeting in New York next week, what more can the UK do, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to ensure that the United States is fully engaged in that process?

    Hansard source
38. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    United States Film Tariff

    I very much enjoy discussing the British film industry, because Members across the House stand up and say that they have the Hollywood of Hertfordshire or Bedfordshire and everywhere else. I am blessed in Spelthorne to have Europe’s biggest film studios and the second biggest in the world in Shepperton—interestingly, it is second not to Hollywood but to China. There is a certain amount of nervousness in Spelthorne as a result of the posting on Truth Social that the Minister has come here to talk about. I agree with him that it is incredibly difficult logistically and technically to unpick the US-UK intellectual property in a film, and I think it will prove to be so. I therefore commend him for his considered run at this; I think it is the right thing to do. A couple of weeks ago I visited Cineco, one of our many British film support companies, which makes sets and props. One point it made on skills is that the apprenticeship model does not work terribly well for industries that have so many freelancers and such lumpy work schedules. As a sidebar to the Minister’s meeting with industry leaders tomorrow, would he please raise and discuss that with industry leaders?

    Hansard source
39. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on not only securing this debate but delivering a superb opening speech. She spoke with passion for the automotive sector, particularly Toyota in her constituency, and she spoke with realism about the challenges that we face, and the other way that is possible to ensure that consumers get to choose vehicles of the future that are greener and cleaner and do not rely on fossil fuels, but do not necessarily fit in with the Government’s chosen winner, despite the fact that they claim to be technology neutral. That is battery electric, whose sales figures, once we remove fleet sales, are utterly appalling because people simply do not want to buy one of those vehicles. Employment in the automotive manufacturing sector— a sector that has long been the backbone of British industry, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and driving innovation—is the foundation of regional economies across our great United Kingdom. My constituency does not have any major vehicle manufacturers, but it sits in the absolute heart of motorsport valley. The motorsport sector and its supply chains do so much to create the next big thing and innovate. They find solutions, yes, for speed and the racetrack, but there is often a direct translation from the race car to the road car. So much British innovation in motorsport has found itself in the cars that I am sure all of us in this Chamber and people across the country drive today. It is therefore with great concern that I speak about the marked lack of support for the vital automotive sector under this Labour Government. Let us be clear that this is not a new challenge: automotive manufacturing has been under pressure for many years from the combined forces of global competition, supply chain shocks and the urgent transition to cleaner technologies—note the plural, cleaner technologies; there is not just one. We now see a deeper, more systemic failure, which is rooted in the inability of this Government to deliver on their own promises and provide the strategic direction that the industry so desperately needs. Take, for instance, Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitment to “supercharge the electric vehicle revolution” and make the UK “the best place in the world to manufacture electric cars”. Those are bold words yet one year into their term, we see precious little action, only rhetoric that seems to accept an electric future rather than a technology-neutral approach.

    Hansard source
40. 7 May 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Automotive Manufacturing: Employment

    I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

    Hansard source