Ms Nusrat Ghani
MP for Sussex Weald · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Before we come to the urgent question, I must say how disappointing it is that the Government were not forthcoming with a proactive ministerial statement on this matter. The disruption to aviation and the impact on many constituents has been considerable.”
“The point of order and its content are not a matter for the Chair. I have not been notified of any Minister coming forward at this point, but I have only just come into the Chair. If the hon.”
“(3) Regulations under section 14Z45B must provide that, where an out-of-hospital service is to be provided to a patient, the integrated care board must— (a) offer the patient a choice of at least two providers capable of providing the service, which may include NHS bodies and independent sector providers approved to provide that service u…”
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relevant requirements are— (a) that the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC plan meets the needs identified by an EHC needs assessment; (b) that ICBs can be required to provide such special educational provision; (c) that ICBs must provide such special educational provis…”
“(3) The Charter must— (a) set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS; (b) include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data…”
“(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) must, so far as reasonably practicable, provide for— (a) general practitioners, dentists, pharmacists and other relevant primary care professionals to work together as part of integrated local primary care teams; (b) the sharing of relevant patient information between those professionals through secur…”
The complete record
Every one of 4,837 lines we hold for Ms Nusrat Ghani, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 97.
“There are many colleagues hoping to contribute; to enable hon. Members to prepare, I inform the House that after the next speaker there will be a speaking limit of four minutes.”
“Order. I want to retain the tone of this debate, but to get everybody in, we will have a speaking limit of seven minutes, which is still quite a long time.”
“We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Work and Pensions Committee. Debbie Abrahams will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches—hopefully, people understand the difference between those two things. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Chair of the Committee, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.”
“I know that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) takes her work incredibly seriously, and we could see the emotion when she delivered her statement.”
“I thank hon. Members for working with me—we got all the Back-Bench contributions in. We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.”
“(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— (Kate Dearden.) Question agreed to.”
“That is noted, and no doubt on the record again, as it has been previously. Thank you. I will continue with the business. Lords amendment 2B agreed to. Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A( 7 )), That the following provisions shall apply to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 February 2025 (Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]: Programme): Consideration of Lords Message (1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. Subsequent stages (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.”
“I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 49B, the Lords disagreement with the Commons in Commons amendment 52 and Lords amendments 52B and 52C engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal . Clause 28 DVS trust framework”
“With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions: That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34. That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B. That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement. That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55. That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B”
“To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He is entirely correct to say that the House took an urgent question earlier today on the provisions of the ministerial code. Those provisions make clear that when the House of Commons is sitting, major Government announcements should be made to the House first. That point has been made repeatedly from the Chair, including on multiple recent occasions. Ministers are accountable to this House, and should make every effort to inform this House of policy developments via statements wherever it is possible to do so. While I have been in the Chair, I have had no warning that a statement is due today. The Government and, no doubt, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the point of order and my response, and I trust they will act accordingly and with some urgency.”
“Due to the hon. Member’s experience, I think he will know that the matter is not down to the Chair. He will appreciate that Mr Speaker respects timely responses to correspondence and requests for answers to questions from Back Benchers. There is no doubt that not only has the hon. Member put his point on the record, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will relay that swiftly to the appropriate Department.”
“We have no more speakers, so we will go straight to the Minister. Forgive me, I thought we had another person bobbing, but they no longer seem to be in the Chamber. Minister Eagle, you get the lucky extra few minutes for the winding-up.”
“New Clause 21 Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”— (Lisa Smart.) This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied. Brought up. Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.”
“It has been brought to my attention that not all the Division bells are working. We are trying to rectify that as soon as possible. I urge colleagues to remain close to the Chamber and the estate, and to keep their eyes on the annunciators.”
“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.”
“Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 234).”
“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 tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 233) with explanatory notes (Bill 233 - EN). Immigration and Visas Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“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.”
“(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.”
“(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.”
“(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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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)”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(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.”
“(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’.”
“(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.”
“(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) 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.”
“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.”
“(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 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.”
“(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.”
“(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.”
“(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).”
“(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.”
“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).”
“(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.”