Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Commons Reasons

Motion A

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49E.

49E: Because the Amendment would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

My Lords, I want to start today’s debate by repeating some of the sentiments set out by the Secretary of State before the Whitsun Recess, when the elected House once again overturned the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to the Bill. I am sure many noble Lords will have read these in Hansard, but for those who have not, I urge them to do so, as they were well received. The single remaining issue—AI and copyright—is one I know that many noble Lords care deeply about, and with good reason. It is imperative that we become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both AI and our world-leading creative industries, a country whose economy thrives and which remains innovative, creative and, very importantly, fair.

As I have said before, we must get this right to ensure that we promote innovation and creativity, transparency and access, recognition and reward. The Secretary of State noted his regret about how the consultation and the Bill collided and how, by indicating a preferred option, the Government appeared to have prematurely taken a side in this important debate.

I also want to ensure that noble Lords have complete clarity on our approach and how it has always been separate from the data Bill, which includes no provision to change anything in copyright law. To reiterate, the Government have an open mind about the outcome of the consultation. We will listen intently to the views of the many people who have responded to it, many of whom have interesting ideas which deserve full consideration.

It is completely understandable that noble Lords have sought to use this Bill to set a direction of travel for future regulation in this area. They are right to have asked the questions that they have. I hope that the additional assurances that I will give today provide confidence that despite continuing to resist the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we truly want to solve these issues and have a plan to do so.

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D—

49F: Before Clause 138, insert the following new Clause— “Statement and bringing forward of a draft Bill: copyright infringement, AI models, and transparency over inputs (1) Within three months of the publication of the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out his or her view on— (a) the scale of copyright infringement of works used as a data input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, where that infringement is conducted by a relevant trader or by third parties from which they source data inputs, and whether conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas, (b) the impact of such copyright infringement on the United Kingdom economy, businesses, and individual copyright owners, (c) the impact of such copyright infringement on the ability of UK-registered companies, in particular small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, to compete on a level playing field in the market for AI models with relevant traders that conduct such copyright infringement (especially overseas), and (d) the adequacy of existing statutory and regulatory powers which support copyright owners in identifying and preventing such copyright infringement, including but not limited to transparency requirements on relevant traders. (2) On the same date as the statement, the Government must publish a draft Bill containing legislative proposals to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models made available by relevant traders. (3) In this section a “relevant trader” is a trader which operates a service which— (a) includes the making available of an AI model, and (b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (4). (4) The service has links with the United Kingdom if— (a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or (b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market). (5) The draft Bill must require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information that will allow them to identify— (a) the use of their copyright works used, (b) the means by which those works were accessed, and (c) the identity of third parties from which data inputs were sourced, in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model. (6) The draft Bill may require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with other information from that which is required under subsection (5) to allow them to identify the legal basis for the use of their copyright works as data inputs to the AI models. (7) The draft Bill may contain provisions that apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered. (8) The draft Bill must make provision for enforcement of its provisions. (9) The Secretary of State must, in the statement required under subsection (1) or in an accompanying document, set out his or her view on the expected effectiveness of the legislative proposals set out in the draft Bill required under subsection (2) for supporting copyright owners in identifying and preventing copyright infringement by relevant traders and third parties from which they source data inputs, whether that infringement is conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas. (10) The Secretary of State must lay the draft Bill before the relevant Parliamentary Committee in both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny. (11) The “relevant Parliamentary Committee” is a reference to the Parliamentary Committee in each House, or the joint Committee of both Houses, which— (a) is charged with responsibility by its House or by both Houses for the purposes of this section, and (b) has notified the Secretary of State that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.””

My Lords, most noble Lords have made their minds up about the substance, but I think it is important to say why we are here again. There is no argument that copyright material is being stolen. The Secretary of State has already said at the Dispatch Box in the other place that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models. There is no longer an argument about whether copyright law is uncertain. All three Ministers have now declared that UK copyright law is untouched by the data Bill and any previous suggestions that it was uncertain are now discredited.

Ministers continue to say, however, that this is the wrong Bill, yet the press release heralded the Bill as unlocking the power of data to grow the economy. The prevention of mass theft and the inevitable resulting growth of a dynamic licensing market would indeed grow the economy. Meanwhile, the Public Bill Office and the clerks in the other place have no problem. Indeed, thanks to your Lordships’ House, transparency has been in the Bill three times. There is only one problem: political will.

The first iteration of a copyright amendment in my name was during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill when Labour was still in opposition. At the time, the noble Baroness, who is now the Minister, said that she hoped that that Bill would

“deliver that long-overdue copyright protection that we all seek”.—[Official Report, 22/1/24; col. GC 162.]

Eighteen months ago, there were no concerns on the Labour Benches about enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they recognised that the issue warranted immediate intervention. Since that time, a comprehensive transparency regime that included enforcement was put forward by your Lordships, but the Government voted to take it out, saying that it was too comprehensive. The next amendment followed the Government’s own timeline and scope, but made provision for regulation. The Government voted that out too, saying that it was too soon—too soon to uphold the law, too soon to stop stealing, acknowledged by all.

The Government are being extraordinarily cavalier about opening our markets with no friction to big tech companies, giving away the future of two sectors so central to their industrial strategy and undermining their top priority of economic growth. The creative industries account for 7% of UK jobs—jobs that are located around the whole country and 70% of which are outside London.

The data Bill was not hijacked by creatives to get in the way of the Government’s growth plans. We have made grown-up interventions to rescue an AI policy written by a serial tech investor with a conflict of interest so deep that at some point it will feature in an ITV drama—a tech investor who has access to the Cabinet and who has failed to make the case for why other people’s property or, indeed, property paid for by the UK taxpayer should be given away to some of the most capitalised businesses in history—but it is based on this policy that the Government have deliberately rejected the Lords’ will to uphold property rights, and it is based on this policy that they have chosen to stand in the way of allowing creative workers and companies to protect their assets and future income for themselves.

Sector representatives and I have gone out of our way to urge the Government to bring forward something that represents a safety net for the creative industries and, in turn, a safety net for the Government and the country. It is a simple amendment that would allow a rights holder to identify who, what, when and why creative copyright was taken. Ministers are briefing that that is not possible, but I am afraid that is not true. It is something that has been done in response to amendments I have laid several times before in your Lordships’ House. Not only is it possible, but it is essential for the health of the sector and if the UK is to play a significant part in the AI economy, not be simply a footnote in its history. The amendment in front of us is worth having but make no mistake: previous amendments rejected on procedural grounds were better. This amendment simply makes sure that reports brought forward under the Bill cover the scale of theft of copyright material and identify regulatory gaps and that that information is brought to Parliament. It also requires a draft Bill to address any regulatory gaps. The first part of the amendment is there only to ensure that the Government are transparent about the needs of the draft Bill. It is not a compromise; it is not even a sticking plaster. It is essential that we have a draft Bill.

It is in the gift of the Government to bring forward something better, but there is no value in accepting anything worse because it is already the bare minimum, yet I was told by Ministers last week that it is the Government’s intention to vote this down also. That is a clear message to 2.4 million voters, the people who inform and entertain us, that this Government will resolutely defend the interests of large tech companies rather than make provision for a UK sector that means so much to our well-being, our economy and our identity. It does not have to be this way. There is a better way. The Government have used procedure not argument. I wish that they had the humility and strength to change course and make a meaningful effort to build an AI future that every UK citizen can have a stake in. My inbox is bursting with thanks from individual creators, large corporates and organisations that represent hundreds of thousands of people, thanking colleagues from all sides of this House for standing with them, voting with them and sometimes even sitting on their hands.

I know that ping-pong is a game that many noble Lords do not wish to play, and I respect that, but it is the Government who are actively failing to protect the property rights of our citizens and businesses, it is the Government who are actively failing to give UK citizens the tool to protect their own property rights, and it is the Government who have failed to answer the concerns of noble Lords who time and again have asked them to reconsider. I hope that enough noble Lords will continue to come with me until the Government think again, because 2.4 million people, a £126 million contribution to the economy, our very precious press and our national story are at stake. I beg to move.

My Lords, I propose to be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in a formidable speech, has set out all the issues. Still, I will make a couple of points.

The first is that I do not like protracted ping-pong. I think it is constitutionally not great. When it happened when I was a Minister in the other place, I was none too pleased. However, the difference between then and now is that when your Lordships sent something to the other place, first, it was established that the Government would not comment on it until they had considered it properly, and, secondly, you would have discussions with whoever had proposed the amendment and try to find an accommodation in the interests of ensuring that good legislation got on to the statute book. On many occasions when I was irritated, I came to realise that actually what the House of Lords was saying was absolutely right, and that in that House there were lots of people who knew what they were talking about—and today the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is one of those people.

The second is that on this occasion I think it is perfectly apparent that Ministers’ response has been to stick their fingers in their ears and basically continue saying the same thing, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister’s introductory remarks today, although when a Minister starts complaining about the tone of the debate you know they have lost the argument.

To me, as a Conservative, this is a vital issue. For a Conservative, the protection of private property is absolutely central to having a free society. That is a fundamental principle which I believe is shared on all sides of the House; in respect of the last debate that we had, we saw a huge majority in the House asking the Government to think again.

I have not always been a Conservative; when I went up to university, I thought I was a socialist.

Oh!

One of the things that I believed then and still believe now is that people have a right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, that people have the right to be able to own their property and that they have the right to sell their labour in a fair and reasonable manner. I am afraid that the Government are running headstrong against that basic principle, which again I would have thought could be accepted on both sides of the House.

What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with something we are absolutely brilliant at. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Channel 4 programme “The Piano”, where people turn up at railway stations and play the piano. The talent in this country that we do not know about is amazing—unbelievable talent, people who can compose and play the piano to a level that is just extraordinary. Those people will have no chance to develop their careers if their work can just be scooped up by big tech.

Now I am going to say something that will upset the Minister, and she will say that I am being unfair to the Government. It just looks to me as though crony capitalism and the Government have got into bed together and the Government are being told, “Just give this away and we will give you data centres outside your main cities”—quite where the electricity is going to come from to run this is another issue, but I will not divert—“and you will be leaders in the world”. Only a very naive Minister would believe that kind of nonsense. Where does it end?

What makes the Government think that the other place, or the Government, have the authority to give away people’s property and their right to earn a living? That is the issue raised here today. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that, although I deprecate extended ping-pong, on this occasion, the House of Lords is doing its duty, which is speaking up for the interests of the country. I hope that the Government will listen, that the noble Baroness’s amendment will be carried with a good majority, and that the Government will think again.