Harry Lambert Cited in House of Lords: Neurotechnology, Privacy, and the Future of UK Law Founder of Centre of Neurotechnology and Law
Hansard - House of Lords Wednesday 14th October 2026
Second Reading
3.33pm
Moved by
That the Bill be now read a second time.
My Lords, before we move on to the Second Reading of the Health Bill, I want to stress the importance of all noble Lords speaking to be here for the majority of the debate. Equally important is that noble Lords who speak must return at the end of the debate to hear the Front-Bench responses. The advisory speaking time is five minutes.
During this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will address the House using an AI-generated voice. This is a first in a British Parliament. As it is a first, I have advised the Whips that some leeway in the advisory time for the noble Baroness should be allowed as this is the first use of this technology. I am sure the House will agree with me.
Noble Lords
Hear, hear!
3.34pm
______________________________________________________________
[Debate continued but not copied here]
_______________________________________________________________
9.23pm
My Lords, I feel I should start by declaring that I have a son who is a senior civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Care, and also that I am not a health expert, so both he and the House will be pleased to know that my comments are entirely about the question of data.
The UK holds one of the world’s most valuable research assets in its health data, yet we risk both underusing and undervaluing it. Only this morning, 30 medical researchers wrote to me about their health data research service, a significant investment that promises to enable approved researchers to access UK health data safely and securely. These researchers, echoing concerns from NHS trusts, charities and the private sector, described a current environment with fragmented datasets, burdensome approvals and lengthy
delays, sometimes requiring permissions for each dataset. They also suggest that these proposals come after research proposals in the 10-year health plan, the life sciences sector plan and the industrial strategy—plans that span departments and commitments from other arms-length bodies. Therefore, how the data is saved, secured and shared is material. Better access could transform UK research, discovery and growth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Martin, powerfully set out.
Our health data is not only underused but also undervalued. During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, I proposed, with the support of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko, a sovereign data asset class with NHS data a prime example. Since that time, contracts and memoranda of understanding have been signed with Palantir, OpenAI, Microsoft and Anthropic, each involving access to aspects of data held in trust for the public, including that in the NHS. The controversy over Palantir usefully illustrates worries of vendor lock-in, excessive access to UK datasets and products that underdeliver or cost too much. But my concern is more fundamental. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on technology that creates capability elsewhere. Why not use the expenditure on that scale to build sovereign capability of our own? We are an enormous purchaser of technology. Government procurement should not mean accepting whatever the market offers in health or anywhere else. It should establish purpose, contractual conditions, data standards and privacy, and help create capability that we retain here in the UK.
My third point of concern is about inquest data. Coroners identify patterns where systems have failed catastrophically. Taken together, their prevention of future death reports could provide a valuable resource for public health research, identifying emerging risks and preventable deaths. Yet, unlike Canada and Australia, the UK has no systematic means of collecting and accessing them. Dr Georgia Richards of King’s College London has set up the national coronial database to gather evidence. Her herculean task could become an effective system of prevention and public health and address the inequality that the Bill sets at its heart. I hope the Government will support an amendment to collect coronial reports systematically. It is a small measure with enormous consequences.
Finally, I want briefly to talk about emerging forms of data. Neurotechnology, including consumer devices capable of reading brain activity, is developing rapidly. According to UNESCO, global private investment in neurotechnology companies increased twenty two fold between 2010 and 2020, reaching approximately $7.3 billion annually. Harry Lambert, a barrister, founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology and Law, has written a series of fantastic articles in the New Law Journal about technology that we once associated with science fiction but is already here. It offers enormous opportunities for healthcare, but without swift action risks a dystopian future with unprecedented threats to privacy and freedom of thought.
Improving access to health data, retaining its value for the public, learning systematically from preventable death reports and updating the law for emerging technologies would ease frustration, prevent harm and create opportunity for the UK.
[The Debate continued]
