Chris Bryant MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to subscribe to conspiracy theories. I have had no role in any negotiations with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington or with Downing Street on these matters, and I have not taken into consideration anything in relation to what Donald Trump might think about this field. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) said that he is 32, which is obviously very difficult to believe. He referred to smartphones in 2007, but 3G was launched in 2001. I am slightly conscious that when I was at school, the only thing we were rowing about was whether we were allowed to take electronic calculators into O-level maths exams, so I sometimes feel a little out of my depth with all these young expressions of interest.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have seen an awful lot of Bills in my time, since 2001, and nearly every one has contained something that did not actually need to be in legislation but that, none the less, was put in as a declaratory statement by the House. When a Bill has big support, it tends to be something that effects change. That might very well be the same effect that we have today.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly what the Government will do.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will run through some of the contributions to the debate and then give specific answers to some of the points that have been made. First, I will probably have the unanimous support of the House in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am slightly worried that he was referred to as a patron saint earlier, because the danger with patron saints is that they tend to be martyred at some point in their career, and I do not wish that for him. As I said earlier, I am not going to make any of the arguments that he told me not to make, because I do not subscribe to them. I am also not going to make any arguments today against action—that is an important point that the House needs to recognise. Everybody accepts that action in this sphere is inevitable. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) gave us some shocking statistics from her constituency, as have many other Members. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who is no longer in her place— [ Interruption. ] Oh, she is here; sorry, I would not want to mislead the House. She fessed up to her own social media use, but she did not tell us how many hours a day it is, so we were watching her throughout the debate to see how much time she was spending on social media. It is absolutely true that many of us are just as addicted as many young people, and while our specific concern is about the effects on the mental health of children, there are of course issues for the whole of society. Other Members have referred to misinformation and how it is propagated, and how to access good, reliable information in a world that is profoundly chaotic, where algorithms do not necessarily subscribe to truth in the way that previous understandings of the media used to. I note that the hon. Member for Reigate said that the state must step in—we will hold her to that on many more occasions in future. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) made some very important points, including that it is sometimes the most vulnerable children who experience these effects. She also pointed—as did several other Members—to the desensitising effect on boys, in particular, who see versions of sex online that normalise a set of expectations about what a relationship with another person might be and what sex might involve that are wholly alien to most people’s understanding of what they should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) made a point that was also made in a previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue: does the burden of proof lie with those trying to prove that there is no harm, or with those trying to prove that there is harm? It is important that we look at the evidence in the round and come to a coherent, sensible, one-Government decision on how we can make progress in this field.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You’re not old enough.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, the hon. Member will have to repeat that question. I did not hear it, I am afraid.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of everyone in the nation. Well, Thames Water does not cover the whole nation, although it gets quite a lot of water from Wales, which we are very happy to provide. The hon. Member made a good point, and yes, this is part of holding all those with underground assets to account. That is the practical aspect of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned digging for infrastructure projects. Much of the infrastructure that we once thought of as a “nice to have” is now critical to people’s lives, particularly broadband connectivity. A local hospital or GP clinic simply could not survive without a broadband connection as it would not be able to look at X-rays or run off the labels for blood tests, and so on. Everything is so intrinsically connected, so it is important that we get this secured. Question put and agreed to. Clause 56, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 1 agreed to. Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 58 National Underground Asset Register: Northern Ireland

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was under the impression that all the clauses in this part were grouped. It might be convenient for the Committee if they were.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I was saying, clause 63 inserts proposed new section 38B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which enables the Minister to make regulations in relation to duties under the Act to sign the births or deaths register where electronic registers are kept. Regulations under that power will specify the requirements that an informant will need to comply with when registering a birth, stillbirth or death. A person who complies with the requirements is to be treated as having signed the register and to have done so in the presence of the registrar. The removal of the requirement for an informant to attend at the register office to sign the register in the presence of the registrar allows us to transform how births and deaths are registered in future. Regulations made by the Minister under proposed new section 38B will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clause 64 covers the treatment of the existing registers of births, stillbirths and deaths. Every superintendent registrar is required to continue to keep any registers of live births or deaths in their custody immediately before the repeal of section 28 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act comes into force with the records of the office. Any unfilled registers of stillbirths will be deposited with the Registrar General for keeping at the General Register Office. The clause also specifies how copies of birth and death records that are being held in an electronic format are to be treated following commencement. Where a copy of a register of births or deaths was also kept electronically during the time beginning on 1 July 2009 and ending immediately before the day that clause 61 comes into force, the register is to be treated as kept in electronic form and signatures within it will continue to be effective for the purpose of the Act. Clause 65 introduces schedule 3, which contains minor and consequential amendments to the Births and Deaths Registration Act and the Registration Service Act, and minor amendments to other Acts, as a consequence of the move from paper registers to the registration of births and deaths in an electronic register. All those provisions were, of course, in previous iterations of the Bill.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No, because we think that the desire is inappropriate. Why would the Government want to reveal cyber-security measures to third parties? It seems incorrect to require the Government to provide that information. I am not aware of any other Bill—perhaps the shadow Minister can think of one—that would require the Government to provide information on cyber-security measures to third parties.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it is certainly a vulnerability. I started the restoration and renewal process when I was Deputy Leader of the House many years ago. Many people told me that one of the problems in Parliament was the danger of fire, which is certainly the case. We have done some work to make sure the risers cannot take fire from one part of the building to another very rapidly. However, I have always said that just as problematic is everything underneath the building, including both the sewers and the pipework that carries the telecommunications networks. Parliament simply could not work if there were any kind of critical breach. Several hon. Members raised that point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North said it is extraordinary that such a register does not already exist—she is absolutely right. That is no particular criticism of the previous Government; they tried for some time to get this going. I wish it had happened five, six or seven years ago, because we would be in a much better place today. Several Members have asked when we will see the economic benefits. There are dramatic benefits for contractors if they have a swifter process, because they will know precisely what they are digging up and why. I also have responsibility for the telecoms brief in Government, and one of the major problems I have—I fear this might elicit comments from colleagues—is the issue of ducts and poles. When rolling out gigabit-capable broadband, we have encouraged operators and undertakers should share ducts wherever possible. However, in many places we simply do not know whether there is an available duct, whether the duct already has a full sleeve—because it has all the cabling that could possibly fit—or, frankly, whether it is just a buried cable. If we kept that kind of information more reliably, we would be able to make much better decisions. Operators would be able to make better investment decisions about where to go fastest and how to share ducts and poles. It would be beneficial for people who would not have to see their road repeatedly dug up by different operators providing, in essence, the same service. That is bound to be of financial significance. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip spoke about the advantages of having a national system, and he is absolutely right. There is no point in having different systems around the country; we need a single national system, not least because much of the pipework and cabling does not follow the boundaries of local authorities or parliamentary constituencies, however they may be constructed at any particular time. That goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North about the changing devolution settlement in particular areas. That is a matter for another Department, but it is why it is so important to have a national system rather than individual systems. Several colleagues asked whether local authorities will have to pay fees. A local authority would have to pay only if it were a contractor. The whole point of the clause is that the undertakers will pay for the NUAR. My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick gave us a classic example of the kind of issue we want to resolve in these situations. He is a relatively new MP, but I have done more than 20 years of dealing with these issues. It is the bane of an MP’s life, because MPs have relatively few levers to pull. Councillors have more responsibilities and often more levers to bring about change, although just occasionally a letter containing the letters “MP” and a portcullis still impresses some contractors and changes their view. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this will help to improve the delivery of public services and help us to grow the economy. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted made a constituency point.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These amendments broadly seek to do the same thing. As has been said, an estimated 4 million km of pipes and cables are buried underground across the UK. A hole is dug every seven seconds to install, fix and maintain the apparatus that is critical to keeping our water running, our gas and electricity flowing and our communications with the outside world connected. The provisions governing access to information kept in the NUAR are established by clause 56 for England and Wales, and by clause 58 for Northern Ireland. Those clauses respectively insert section 106C into the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and 45C into the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The amendments would particularly affect the NUAR’s operation in Northern Ireland. It should be noted that the equivalent provision to that made by clause 58 is also made for England and Wales by clause 56, which we have already agreed. Only amending clause 58 in this way would lead to inconsistencies in how the NUAR operates. The provisions enabling access to NUAR information have been carefully designed to allow such access to be secure. On amendment 17, the existing provision set out in clause 58(3), to insert article 45C(2)(c) into the 1995 Order, and the equivalent provision in clause 56(1) to insert section 106C(2)(c) into the 1991 Act, are essential to allow the Secretary of State to establish which exceptions should apply to the sharing of NUAR data with end users of the service. That could, for example, enable the Secretary of State to exempt or otherwise restrict the sharing of data for controlled sites, which is critical for ensuring that sensitive information regarding these sites is not made available for wider access. I think we need to retain that power. Removing that provision, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk advocates, would mean the NUAR is unable to share information on apparatus without posing a risk to critical national infrastructure. That would limit the platform’s ability to share information securely, therefore risking the NUAR’s operations and the estimated £400 million of benefits per year. On amendments 18 to 20, there has been significant interest in leveraging the NUAR, as the hon. Member effectively suggested, as a national data asset to deliver additional use cases beyond excavations. More than 200 individuals from nearly 150 different organisations across the public and private sectors have identified over 100 potential use cases for NUAR information. Some of those would require aggregated data across a large space, while some would require detailed data for closely defined locations. For some of those use cases, the information can be provided free at the point of use, while some would impact on existing markets, and as such, careful consideration of how fees are collected and distributed will be required. Accepting amendments 18 to 20 would mean that information held in the NUAR is unable to be used to deliver these additional use cases, therefore limiting the NUAR’s ability to deliver additional benefits and drive growth and innovation across the public and private sectors. The amendment therefore would not put me in the Chancellor’s good books, as the hon. Member suggested. It is important to note that research and development is still being undertaken to assess which, if any, of the potential additional use cases may be taken forward. We envisage that such opportunities would only be taken forward where they are proved to have significant economic and/or social value, taking into consideration the views of stakeholders, including owners of underground apparatus and security stakeholders. I reassure the Committee that given the complexity and sensitivity of access to information held in the NUAR, these provisions have been drafted under the affirmative procedure. This will provide the appropriate level of scrutiny, unlike the negative procedure, which would mean the measures effectively pass without Parliament having an effective say. With those explanations, and noting the risk that the amendments would pose for information security and the NUAR’s ability to drive economic growth, I hope the hon. Member for North Norfolk is content to withdraw amendment 17.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not need to speak at great length about clause 58, because we already know that it is all about Northern Ireland and it is not being amended. Schedule 2 makes the equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland as schedule 1 does for England and Wales. Again, I do not need to repeat all those arguments. Clause 59 updates the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It makes the equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland as clause 57 does for England and Wales. I hope that those are adequate explanations and I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60 Pre-commencement consultation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond first to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Several colleagues have referred to the issue of accidental asset strikes, which is a really important part of why we need to do this piece of work. There was a time when a burst drain or burst pipe was significant but was not necessarily a matter of life and death. Nowadays, a major breakage to the broadband service in a local area could mean that all the telecare devices in the area do not work, so people will have no ability to protect themselves or ring for help, which could go on for several days. In some cases, it is quite literally a matter of life and death. Anybody who has been a local councillor knows that these issues plague local government endlessly, which is why it is particularly important. As I referred to earlier, I used to be a priest in the Church of England. I will not name it, but there is a very large graveyard in the north of England that used to be managed by a particular sexton who had a rather casual attitude towards his underground register. He rarely bothered to dig a grave that was six feet deep; he thought that four feet was perfectly sufficient. Because he knew most of the people who ended up being buried in the graveyard, he often judged whether they needed a six-foot hole or whatever it may be. Quite often, that meant that the coffin did not fit. That was not so much of a problem, because we could sort it out on the day. The real problem was when we had to find a space for a new grave. Not every grave is marked by a gravestone, so without a proper register of where all the existing graves were, we had real problems when we started to dig up holes and found ourselves suddenly collapsing in on coffins that were not six feet under. That set of problems is writ large across the whole underground asset register of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether Members have ever been to the torpedo room here in Parliament—everybody is looking blankly at me, so I guess they have not. It contains an enormous spherical metal object that basically takes all the sewage from inside Parliament and spits it every 20 seconds into the main town drain, which is higher than the drain that comes out of Parliament. It is one of our complete vulnerabilities in the Palace of Westminster. If that were to stop working—it has been there since something like 1877—we would be vacating Parliament for a considerable period. I have alerted the shadow Minister, who wants to talk about the torpedo room.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I don’t think so!

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister for agreeing with the legislation that was in the previous Government’s Bill—he is absolutely right that we should have been doing some of this stuff a very long time ago. It strikes me too that one of the MPs for Doncaster said to me the other day that the hospital in Doncaster still has 42 people who are solely employed in carrying physical medical records around. That is just utter madness in a modern-day NHS. How on earth can we possibly be able to transfer data, or have access to blood tests and all the rest, if it is not digitally available?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond to hon. Members’ comments and then we can have a more general debate, although I will not repeat my earlier comments about the clause. First, the previous version of the clause, in the previous version of the Bill, did not include a provision like the one inserted by Lords Members. It is extremely unusual for a Bill to include requirements for the Government to refer to security measures and provide information about them to third parties. That is why we are very hesitant. Secondly, the hon. Member for North Norfolk is absolutely right that there is an ambiguity and that the provision could be read in many different ways. That means, of course, that it could be justiciable in many different directions. That leaves the Government in a difficult place, which is one of the reasons why we are uncomfortable. Thirdly, the subsection states: “The Secretary of State must provide guidance to relevant stakeholders on cyber-security measures before they may receive information from NUAR.” I presume that “they” refers to the stakeholders rather than the Government, but why should it be “before”? None of it makes any logical sense to the Government, which is why we want to remove the subsection.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In essence, the clause requires a consultation to be undertaken before or after the Bill is passed. It will help the Department to understand stakeholders’ needs and requirements, ensuring their support and the sustainability of NUAR as a service.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, but security is at the heart of the whole NUAR platform and remains an absolute priority for us. It feels to me that the provision introduced in the Lords would undermine rather than add to the security of the NUAR. As a digital service in practice, the Government intend to work closely with persons who could access information from the NUAR and ensure that information is protected, but, as I say, we are still pushing our amendment to remove the subsection.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will have to write to the hon. Member on whether we will consult on those measures specifically. They are certainly being considered by us, but that is a different matter. Question put and agreed to. Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 61 Form in which registers of births and deaths are to be kept Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to clauses 61 to 65 and to schedule 3. As somebody who has written history books, I have always found it fascinating that it has taken us a very long time to update the system of registration of births and deaths in the United Kingdom. It was only in 1837 that mandatory, statutory provision for the registration of births, marriages and deaths was introduced in England. I was researching a book recently and I had to try to find a man called John Smith who was born in roughly 1800, which made for a difficult process. I am also conscious that, with the way the register is kept these days, it is phenomenally difficult to try to find a marriage, birth or death online. We make it very difficult for people to register, so we are hopeful that the measure will make things easier. The current system of registering births and deaths is outdated, as I said, and is based on paper processes from the 19th century.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I should correct something I said earlier. I was getting my undertakers and contractors mixed up—I think too much vicarly talk had passed. On clause 56, I said that local authorities will have to pay only if they are a contractor, which is wrong. Undertakers will pay for the service, not contractors, but if a local authority is an undertaker, it will need to pay. I am sure every other member of the Committee noted that I had made that mistake.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are indeed, but it is very similar here. I know we do not often individually come up against birth and death registrations many times in our lives, but when we do, we want it to be as simple a process as it possibly can be. There are often very difficult emotional moments for people. My father died in October last year and the process of dealing with probate, guardianships, banks and so on is a version of hell that we really need to rectify. Some of this should be able to be assisted by digital verification services, and some should be able to be assisted by the clauses we put in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West is absolutely right about improving accuracy. People’s handwriting is not always legible—that includes some people sitting to my left. It is simply a fact that some people’s handwriting means that it is quite difficult to tell sometimes what has been written on death certificates and birth certificates, so greater accuracy will help considerably. On the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, I think that this is the second or perhaps third letter that I will have to write. I do not know the precise details about the question that he asked, which is perfectly legitimate, so I will write to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick made the right point. It would be phenomenally useful to have more timely registration and be able to have more coherent data springing from digital registration. That is one benefit that we think will accrue from this legislation. Without further ado, I beg to move that the clauses stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 62 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 agreed to. Ordered , That the Order of the Committee of this day be amended as follows— (1) delete paragraph 1(b).—( Kate Dearden .) Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. —( Kate Dearden .)

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 12, clause 56, page 54, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 3. This amendment removes a subsection which was inserted at Report stage in the Lords. First, we should obviously celebrate the fact that you are in the Chair, Ms Hobhouse. I think this is the first time you have chaired a Bill Committee, so we will try to misbehave and see how much we can get away with. Chairing is sometimes a mission impossible, but since Tom Cruise has invested so much in the UK, I am sure you are prepared to accept that mission. We are now considering Government amendment 12, but it might be more convenient if I speak first to clause 56, which it amends, and then to clause 57 and schedule 1 stand part. Clause 56 amends the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 by inserting new sections 106A to 106J. It requires the Secretary of State to keep a register of information relating to apparatus in streets in England and Wales, referred to as the national underground asset register—I am tempted to talk about the Wombles, but I am not going to. The clause establishes a requirement for undertakers—as a former vicar, and because we later come to the register of births and deaths, I thought when I first read that in my notes that it meant undertakers who put coffins underground, but it does not; it means people who undertake undertakings. The clause establishes a requirement for undertakers who own apparatus in the street to share information with the national underground asset register. It also allows the Secretary of State to specify who can access this information and how, as well as establishing a charging scheme with associated enforcement mechanisms, which are detailed in schedule 1. Provision is also made to allow specific functions of the Secretary of State to be exercised by third parties. Those provisions will be detailed through secondary legislation, and the Secretary of State is required to consult the Welsh Ministers before making regulations under the clause. The clause will allow the national underground asset register to operate as a statutory register, delivering estimated benefits in excess of £400 million per year through increased efficiency, reduced asset strikes and reduced disruption for the public and businesses. That is critical to kick-starting economic growth, and it might also be critical to establishing people’s love of the streets in which they live, and their preparedness to see them dug up occasionally, rather than endlessly and repeatedly. Clause 57 makes amendments to sections 79 and 80 of the 1991 Act. The existing section 79 requires undertakers to record the location of their in-street apparatus and to share that information with those executing street works. The amendments in the clause require undertakers to input that and any other information, as prescribed, into the NUAR. The existing, but not yet commenced, section 80 of the 1991 Act imposes a duty on those executing works in a street who find that information about apparatus is missing or incorrect to inform the owner of the apparatus or the relevant street authority. The new section 80 updates that to require data to be shared with the NUAR where the relevant asset owner cannot be identified. The current regulation-making powers conferred on the Welsh Ministers under section 79, and those inserted by clause 57, are concurrently exercisable by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers in relation to apparatus in Wales. The Secretary of State is required to consult the Welsh Ministers before making regulations under sections 79 and 80. I will say a bit more about that in a moment. Finally, if an undertaker does not pay their NUAR service fee or does not provide information to the Secretary of State in relation to the fees as prescribed through regulations, schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to enforce these requirements through the imposition of monetary penalties. It also includes a provision for undertakers to appeal to a first-tier tribunal. The schedule is critical to ensure that undertakers who stand to benefit most pay for the NUAR service. The amount of the service fee and the level of fine will be specified in secondary legislation. The schedule ensures the long-term financial sustainability of the NUAR, safeguarding the expected benefits of the service and helping to progress our mission to grow the economy. Government amendment 12 removes new section 106C(3), inserted into clause 56 on Report in the Lords. That subsection creates a duty for the Secretary of State to provide guidance to relevant stakeholders on cyber-security measures before they may receive information from the NUAR. The NUAR hosts extremely sensitive data and is therefore supported by a suite of sophisticated security measures developed in partnership with the security services and owners of underground apparatus, which ensures that access given to data is proportionate. The amendment proposed by the Lords could expose detailed cyber-security arrangements that are not public knowledge. It could also curtail the Government’s ability to adapt security measures where needed, with support from security stakeholders, to accommodate changing circumstances. As such, we do not consider subsection (3) as drafted to be suitable, and we have consequently tabled Government amendment 12.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not think it necessary for the provision to be in the Bill at all, which is why we want to take it out. If others want to attempt a different, less ambiguous language, they can do so on Report. I think that everyone accepts that the language is ambiguous when it comes to what is meant and what the Government would be required to provide. What would a court of law determine about whether adequate cyber-security guidance had been provided to relevant stakeholders and who would be a relevant stakeholder? All that is yet more reason why we are unhappy about the subsection remaining in the Bill. That is why we propose that it be removed.