Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  New clause 5 sets out that any future changes to data safeguards, including those related to recognised legitimate interests, automated decision making and special category data, must be subject to greater scrutiny in Parliament. It is essential that significant changes to our data protection go through that democratic process. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining the purpose, scope and timeline of any additional variations to recognised legitimate interests, again supporting greater transparency and accountability. The new clauses are there to help improve public trust around data and improve the adoption and inclusion of the growing range of technology and its benefits. They are for the Government to look at when thinking about how we ensure that we bring people along with us. They will help to maintain trust and ensure that we have safeguards in line with recognised legitimate interests. If we are to accept clause 70, the Government must again assure us that robust checks and balances are truly in place.

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

  More

  In the interest of time, I would like to talk about all the amendments together.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert— “(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, a review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.” This amendment would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful a review must be carried out by a competent person.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for those points. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but it is important to highlight that that person needs to have the necessary competence, training and authority around those decisions, so that that meaningful human involvement is very clear.

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

  More

  I have found these discussions among Members across the House about AI and copyright to be a delightful exchange about the creative industries that we love. I understand the Minister’s comments about there being different spaces for that debate and that this may not be the place for that, but I would like to speak to the new clauses that were proposed in the other House. To highlight one of the creative industries that I love, this weekend I went to The Rex cinema in Berkhamsted, one of the best cinemas in the world—if any Members want to come, they are all very welcome. Sitting there, watching “A Complete Unknown”— about Bob Dylan and his songs—in a local movie theatre reminded me just how important it is to ensure that the creative industries can maintain their creativity, because it speaks to our soul and our society. They are beyond machine learning. They are humans who actually understand us and help to tell our stories in different ways. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed new clauses 135 to 139 that were tabled in the other place. We also welcome the consultation from the Government and are pleased to hear that there have been over 11,000 responses. Members will find responses from us in there, because we wanted to make sure that the Liberal Democrats made representations at every stage. It is disappointing that the change that the Government have set out means there is an “opt in by default” provision, and the message has come across from the creative industries that they are calling for an open consultation, so we can make sure that their views are heard. We support their voices being heard and, indeed, striking that balance where the creative industries can work with innovation, as they have been. This is about getting that right. We are proud of those industries in the UK. We must work together and truly listen to those thousands of voices up and down this country. That is what we stand for, and we will support the Government moving forward in that way.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 70, page 78, leave out lines 15 to 19. This amendment would remove subsections (2)(b) and (c) from the Bill which would create a new lawful ground for processing personal data by way of inserting a new Article into the UK GDPR.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I shall talk about amendments 49, 53 and 50, which would remove the core of clause 70 that allows the direct establishment of “recognised legitimate interests”. Clause 70 risks bypassing essential parliamentary scrutiny, a point underscored by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which expressed concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight. The amendments are essential to ensure that the Data (Use and Access) Bill fosters innovation responsibly without sacrificing fundamental data protection. I urge Government to look over the proposals, which would help improve the adoption and inclusion of growing technology and its benefits. I would also welcome any proposals to improve this scrutiny when we reach Report.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave , withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  Amendment 51 directly addresses the ambiguity around meaningful human involvement in automated decision making. Clause 80 raises significant concerns around the future of automated decision making. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of data to drive innovation, we must remember that, behind those automated decisions, are people’s lives. Amendment 51 directly addresses that ambiguity and seeks to ensure that any human review is “performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.” That would help to clarify the crucial definition of “meaningful”.

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

  More

  For us, the amendment is again in the spirit of ensuring proper scrutiny. However, I welcome the Minister’s comments and am happy not to press it. Question put and agreed to . Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clauses 93 and 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 95 Regulations under this Part: Parliamentary procedure and consultation

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

  More

  Clause 70 introduces “recognised legitimate interests” as a new basis for processing personal data. Although the Liberal Democrats recognise the potential of the benefits of data, we have serious concerns that clause 70, as it stands, grants excessive and unchecked power to the Secretary of State, risking the erosion of fundamental rights. Our key message is that trust and innovation go hand in hand. For us to advance and share the benefits of innovation, we must foster trust. In the name of constructive opposition, I will talk about the several amendments that we have tabled—amendments 49, 50, 53, new clause 5 and new clause 22, which was also tabled by colleagues in the other place. These amendments are crucial to ensure vital safeguards, ensure proper parliamentary oversight and demand greater transparency. They respond directly to concerns raised on Second Reading. Moreover, they echo the concerns of new civil society organisations, including—

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

  More

  Clause 77 strongly risks bypassing individual data rights by watering down transparency of the processing of personal data for reasons such as research, archiving in the public interest or statistical purposes. Although we welcome efforts to modernise data law, modernisation should not come at the cost of transparency—a cornerstone of public trust. Clause 77 risks seriously watering down rights regarding how our data is collected and processed. Organisations such as Justice, the British Medical Association and the National Data Guardian share our concerns that this clause erodes transparency regarding the use of patient information. The National Data Guardian has specifically warned that weakening transparency obligations could negatively impact people’s trust in how our health and social care data is used for research, potentially impairing important data initiatives. Those concerns are also shared by the British Medical Association. While we still face a crisis in the provision of health and social care, I strongly welcome all possibilities to unlock innovation to achieve healthcare benefits, as already discussed today. I welcome that innovation for my constituent Catherine in Harpenden, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which is often overlooked in women; for Andy and Sarah in Redbourn, who lost their daughter at a painfully young age to a brain tumour; and for the families and others across Harpenden and Berkhamsted who are awaiting diagnosis and treatment. It is also for them, and to ensure that we unlock those healthcare benefits by ensuring that more data is used, that I caution against clause 77. The clause introduces exemptions from providing information to data subjects where that would require “disproportionate effort”. However, it is hard to see how that can improve transparency. That failure to be transparent risks that loss of public trust—a message I will repeat again and again. I urge Ministers to listen to those concerns and to remove clause 77 to ensure that we have genuine public trust and crucial data protection standards, as already discussed today.

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

  More

  I will speak only briefly about amendment 52, but I would like to think that after all the Liberal Democrat interventions today, no one will have any doubt that we take data very seriously. I realise that we have outlined a lot of proposals, but they are all in the spirit of helping to shape the data vision and of saying how important we feel it is. Amendment 52 is about the questioning of scrutiny. I am happy not to press the amendment, but again it is important to make sure we have trust in line with innovation.

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

  More

  I will speak specifically on new clause 3. On the question of trust, I know that even the British Medical Association has highlighted concerns over transparency and ensuring that we unlock that innovation and bring that data—in other words, that people are willing, ready and happy to be part of this. New clause 3 therefore highlights that health and social data, when used for research, should have clear data categories that are properly recorded, and that individuals have a right to understand how their data is used. However, I appreciate the comments from the Minister, and I am happy not to press the new clause.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  Clause 124 concerns the retention of information by internet service providers in the deeply tragic event of a child’s death. It rightly acknowledges the potential need to access such data for crucial investigations and to understand the circumstances surrounding such a loss. However, mere provision for data retention is insufficient without a mechanism to ensure its effective implementation in line with broader online safety efforts. That is why we have proposed new clause 29, which ensures Government oversight by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a compliance report within 12 months. The report will assess whether social media platforms, including category 1 services under the Online Safety Act 2023, are preserving data when needed for investigations, regulatory actions and legal proceedings. I appreciate the comments from the Minister. Although it is not in this Bill, this is an opportunity to highlight the Liberal Democrat’s belief that category 1 services should not be linked to the size of online platforms alone and that platform functionality and other characteristics should determine whether a regulated provider is classed as category 1 or 2. We know that harmful content, abuse and illegal activity leave a digital footprint but, without enforcement, key evidence may be erased before authorities can act. The new clause ensures that platforms are held accountable, preventing data from being lost if needed. It is about not just policy, but ensuring that social media companies meet their legal obligations and that enforcement is transparent and effective. Once again, I appreciate the open discussion of these issues that the Minister has put forward. Question put and agreed to. Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 126 Retention of biometric data and recordable offences Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time. It will be no surprise that the Liberal Democrats support greater collaboration with our European partners. Local people and businesses across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, as well as up and down the country, continue to highlight the importance of working with the EU and for ever closer union. New clause 2 seeks to ensure that any changes in our data laws or international commitments do not jeopardise our data adequacy, which is due to be reassessed by the EU in June this year. The Minister may be pushing through the Bill to ensure that we get our adequacy in line with that requirement, which is crucial, because the UK’s ability to transfer data internationally underpins business, research and security partnerships. Data adequacy is what allows personal data to flow freely between the UK and the EU without the need for costly and complex additional safeguards. A report by the New Economics Foundation put the cost of data inadequacy with the EU at between £1 billion to £1.6 billion for British businesses, highlighting the importance of aligning with our European neighbours on this. The UK is also party to various international agreements and conventions relating to data protection. New clause 2 ensures that we assess how our international commitments may impact the EU’s view of our data protection framework. If we fail to maintain strong data protections, we risk losing our EU data adequacy status, an outcome that could cost billions in compliance burdens, disrupt cross-border operations and hinder UK businesses from accessing global markets. That would be a hammer blow to the UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, that rely on seamless data exchange with our European partners. Supporting new clause 2 is about ensuring that Britain continues to lead on data governance, innovation and global collaboration. Data adequacy is not just a legal issue; it is a fundamental element of maintaining economic growth, international trust and our competitive edge. We welcome assurances—and indeed the discussions I have already had with the Minister—on data adequacy with Europe being maintained.

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

  More

  The Liberal Democrats very much welcome clause 141 and action taken on violence against women and girls in particular, including online. However, the clause talks about creating or soliciting the creation of purported intimate images of adults, but it does not necessarily deal with the sharing of them. How do we hold to account those who are sharing intimate images that they should not be?

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

  More

  This is my last intervention, which I am sure the Committee will all be very sad about, and it is on data. I know that we have talked a lot about public trust, but I also want to highlight that, as Liberal Democrats, we are also excited about unlocking the opportunities from data. These new clauses speak to that. New clauses 6, 25 and 28 together would ensure that we harness the benefits of data while upholding fundamental rights. Too often, data is seen as something that happens to people rather than something that they have a say in. We have an opportunity here to unlock even more opportunities, not just in Government data systems but in how data is used across research, public services and wider society. New clause 6 calls on the Government to develop a clear strategy for public-interest data trusts and community data governance. That means allowing individuals and communities to contribute their data for socially beneficial purposes while retaining meaningful control. Imagine if patients suffering from rare diseases could securely share their data for medical research, knowing that it would be used solely for public good, not commercial gain; that is a future we can build. New clause 25 would ensure that the Government take a proactive role in shaping public-interest data governance, setting clear ethical guidelines for how data can be shared securely and fairly. This is about moving beyond reactive regulation. Instead, we should actively create frameworks that allow innovation to flourish while protecting those rights. If we want the UK to be a leader in responsible AI and data stewardship, we need clear structures that allow businesses, researchers and civil society to work together with confidence. New clause 28 would establish a framework for data altruism, ensuring that those who wish to donate their data for public interest projects can do so safely and transparently. Consider a family in my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted who want to contribute to a dementia research project. Right now, there is no clear framework guaranteeing that their data will be protected from misuse. By formalising ethical data-sharing models, we can enable research and innovation without compromising trust. These new clauses share a simple principle: data must serve people, not the other way around. We must strike the right balance, harnessing data to drive innovation while ensuring that public confidence and ethical standards remain at the core of our approach. We have a huge economic opportunity. The UK has led the way in setting high regulatory and Government standards in sectors such as fintech, law and insurance, where trust, transparency and compliance are critical. We should build on those strengths and apply the same principles to emerging fields such as AI, healthtech and responsible data sharing. By learning from what works and setting clear guidelines now, we can unlock investment, support start-ups and ensure that the UK becomes a hub for innovative, data-driven businesses. That is why I urge colleagues to consider new clauses 6, 25 and 28, as well as the principles put forward in them, to ensure that we build a data-driven future that is transparent, accountable and a gold standard for responsible innovation and public involvement.

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

  More

  I did not realise that we would be debating all these amendments today. I appreciate that my voice is probably being heard loud and clear, which was not the original intention, but these are important issues. Clause 126 addresses the sensitive issue of biometric data retention, particularly for law enforcement purposes. Amendment 54 strengthens safeguards by requiring judicial review methods before data can be retained beyond a defined period. That is where we are raising the alarm to ensure that there is a defined period, and that there is cause to ensure that data is not kept beyond that. It is a crucial protection to prevent undue encroachment on civil liberties. The use of biometric data must be carefully regulated to prevent misuse and overreach: while we acknowledge the role of such data in tackling crime, we must ensure that retention policies are both proportionate and necessary. Amendment 54 aligns the UK’s approach with best practices, ensuring that security does not come at the cost of fundamental rights.

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

  More

  Hear, hear.

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

  More

  I thank the Clerks, as well as you, Mr Turner, and other Chairs who have been on this Committee. I also thank the Government and Committee members for working together to get through the Bill very quickly. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

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

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Turner. I want to make a point about new clause 30, which I know was not selected for debate. Many will be familiar with the story of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen Roome, who lost her 14-year-old son Jools in 2022. Jools was a happy boy. He died in tragic circumstances. In her search for answers about the circumstances leading up to Jools’s death, Ellen has come up against outdated laws and social media giants taking an intransigent approach to sharing data that should naturally be hers as a bereaved parent. We are talking about things that, in the past, she would have been able to find out by looking through her child’s bedroom—things that might have been in wardrobes, stored under the bed or in scrawled notes. These days, those bits of data could be on multiple social media accounts, but parental access is denied. That is the subject of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), Ellen’s Member of Parliament. The change to the law would be known as Jools’ law, in his memory. It would give parents access rights to their deceased child’s data automatically, with certain safeguards to respect third parties, so that other grieving parents will never face the challenges and the huge legal costs that Ellen has had to endure. I know that this new clause has not been chosen for discussion, but I would welcome a meeting with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to discuss the issue further.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 6 Public-interest data trusts and communities “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for promoting data trusts and community data governance models for the public interest (referred to in this section as ‘data trusts’). (2) That strategy must include— (a) a definition of data trusts or data communities which prioritise ethical and responsible use of personal data, (b) mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participant control and governance over shared datasets, (c) potential incentives for organisations to participate in or develop such data trusts, (d) safeguards to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms when data is shared, (e) requirements for transparency in data trusts’ decision-making, including governance arrangements and any commercial partnerships, (f) arrangements for ongoing independent oversight and review, and (g) an assessment of how these models might advance innovation, economic growth, and data-driven research in socially beneficial areas such as health, climate resilience, and energy. (3) The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commission, UK Research and Innovation, relevant civil society groups, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate prior to laying the strategy under subsection (1). (4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, publish a progress report on how data trusts and data communities are being used and how they have contributed to the public interest, including any recommendations for further legislative or policy changes.”— (Victoria Collins.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a formal strategy for data trusts and to report periodically on progress. Encourages innovative but responsible data use. Brought up, and read the First time.