(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 124 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Lords amendment 49D engages Commons financial privilege. If Lords amendment 49D is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Before Clause 138
Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models
2.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.
I want to start by putting on record something that I should perhaps have said a bit more about in this place. I cherish the UK creative industries—their immense contribution to our national and personal lives; their embodiment of the best of human creativity—and I appreciate the sincerity of their concerns about the future. I want to express my genuine gratitude to the whole of the creative sector, from national treasures such as Sir Ian McKellen, Kate Bush and, yes, Sir Elton John, whose performances enrich our lives—having seen all of them perform live, I can say how much that has personally enriched my life—to local artists such as Pauly the painter, whose paintings of Hove enrich my ministerial office in Whitehall. However, this is not a competition about who loves the sector most; it is an argument about how best to champion the interests of creatives, large and small, and to protect and promote them into the future.
The purpose of the Data (Use and Access) Bill is to better harness data for economic growth, to improve public services and to support modern digital government, and I acknowledge the agreements reached in the other place on scientific research and sex data to that end. The Bill before us today is one step closer to completion, and I am grateful to Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch for her work on these important issues. I am sure the House will unite in wishing her a happy birthday today—it is a significant birthday, but I will not do her the discourtesy of mentioning which one.
This Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. However, the other place has yet again suggested that there be an amendment on this issue, despite hon. Members of this elected House having already removed a similar amendment twice before. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also note your decision that the amendment from the other place still conflicts with the financial privileges of this place. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has stated repeatedly, we absolutely recognise that a workable solution on transparency is a key part of tackling this issue, but we absolutely disagree that this Bill or this amendment is the right way to address it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for mentioning Kate Bush; she is the love of my life and has been since I was nine.
We have repeatedly spoken about the need for a tech solution to address this issue. I have a background in data and technology and have been meeting several companies that seem between them to have a possible tech solution. Will the Secretary of State meet me and them to discuss it?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, for her love of Kate Bush, which I share, and for her passion for finding a workable solution and way forward. As I go through my remarks, I hope she will see that I propose a way to formalise the insight, wisdom and experience of the kinds of companies that she references, so that they can move forward. It is because of the complexities around AI copyright law and the understandable sensitivities of content creators that this needs to be done properly and carefully in a considered, measured and reasoned way. That is what this Government intend to do.
In order to make progress all of us need to work to find some common ground and reflect on things that we could have done better. In that spirit, let me say to this House and the other place that I regret the timing of the consultation on copyright and AI and the consideration of this Bill and the way that the two collided, and I regret that by indicating a preferred option it appeared to some that I had taken a side in the debate before everyone felt that they had been listened to.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s words; it is great to hear words such as “cherish” and “champion” in this House. I acknowledge that there is no opt-out in the Bill, but the Secretary of State mentioned the consultation that was launched alongside it, which adjoins these very issues. Will my right hon. Friend confirm once and for all that the Government’s preferred opt-out for reserving copyright is now abandoned?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Just to clarify, this is a legacy Bill which has been in Parliament several times before, including under the previous Government, so it was always inevitable that at whatever time the consultation was launched it would have coincided with the Bill going through Parliament. That was never my intention but, as I have just said, I accept that that was the impression given. When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
This afternoon, we will go to the Ivor Novello awards to celebrate the ability and talent of the best of our songwriters from across this country—it will be a magnificent and wonderful display. Those writers are seriously concerned that their works will be ingested and churned out in an inferior way. The Government are not offering anything to our creators. The amendment that the Lords have presented seems to be reasonable, so what is wrong with it as a way forward?
Peter Kyle
As I have said, and as I will elaborate, the Government and I believe that there is a better way forward to give the creative sectors and creators the protections that they need. It would deliver them the certainties, protections and ability to have transparency and to be renumerated, and provide more possibilities to large creators, or those who represent them, to deliver licences into the future. We need to take the issues in the round, not just one part of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a great time at the Ivor Novello awards. I congratulate everyone who wins, has been nominated or is participating today, especially U2, who are I think receiving an award—other creators who I have seen live many times.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have told me that they feel that their works have already been scraped, and that AI development has already trampled over their rights. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give me that we already recognise that this is a time-limited issue and that action is required?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. It is true that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models, usually from other territories and under the current law. Nothing illustrates the need to have a comprehensive think about the way forward than the example that he has just given.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I see that the right hon. Lady, the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, is on her feet, and, of course, I give way.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I appreciate the tone in which the Secretary of State has started his speech. Ministers keep repeating a mantra about “the uncertainty” of what our copyright law says about AI training. However, there is no uncertainty: commercial generative AI training on UK copyright work is illegal in the UK, but what rightsholders need is what this amendment says:
“clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information”
about
“the use of their copyright works used, and the means by which those works were accessed”.
A legislative vehicle in the future, however welcome, will be simply too late to protect the livelihoods of so many of the UK’s 2.5 million creative workers, who fear that this uncertainty line is just an excuse to undermine copyright law. Is the Government really committed to proactively enforcing our copyright law? If they do not do so through this Bill now, how will they do it and when?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, which is thoughtful as always. May I pick her up on one substantial point? I have not used the word “uncertainty” or implied that the challenge we have is uncertainty. Existing copyright law is very certain, but it is not fit for purpose. All the dangers and the existing loss into AI models have happened within the existing law. The challenges that we have, which I will go into further, are happening currently.
We need to ensure that we can have a domestic legal system that is fit for the digital age; we cannot rely on legislation that was created for, and is still only effective in, the analogue age. I want to give certainty. The reason that I am making this speech is to give certainty, not only in my words but most importantly in legislation, in the most rapid fashion possible, so that creatives and the AI sector can move forward together.
Unfortunately, at times the Bill has been presented as a battle between creative industries and new technology companies, but nothing could be further from the truth
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his tone and for the direction of travel that he is setting out. Bearing in mind that he is talking about “the most rapid fashion possible”, why are the Government refusing to put notice of backstop powers for transparency in the Bill? That is what the creative industries would like to see, in order to give reassurance that, in anticipation of further legislation along the line, the Secretary of State and the Government give themselves the powers to act, when and if they see that the current rules are being broken systemically by AI and tech companies.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—nobody speaks with more passion and insight on the subject than she does. I simply say that the amendment is not comprehensive enough and does not tackle the needs and opportunities of both sectors. The only way that our country will benefit from the maximum potential that both these sectors present is if we can bring them together to find a way forward. Pitting one against the other is unnecessarily divisive and damages both.
The truth is that growing Britain’s economy needs both sectors to succeed and to prosper. Britain has to be the place where the creative industries, every bit as much as AI companies, can invest and grow, confident that their future prosperity is assured. We have to become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both. There is an investment battle for Britain happening, and we must win it.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend’s tone is most welcome, but it is also consistent with how he has been both in private and public on this matter, and I thank him for that, while sharing much of his taste in music. Does he agree that transparency should be a prerequisite for all AI development, not a matter for copyright to handle? If not now, will he commit to including such powers in secondary legislation, should the voluntary approach fail?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s tone and for the way that he has engaged so fruitfully, passionately and effectively, both on the record and in the conversations that we have had together.
Transparency is the foundation upon which we will build the future solutions to this problem. In a moment, I will go on to talk a bit more about how I intend to deliver that progress, but in order to have remuneration, solutions and the empowerment that creatives need in the digital age, of course we need transparency, which is essential and immutable. I will strive on behalf of creatives to deliver those things in a way that is also enforceable and will make the tangible difference, to give them the grip that they need in a digital age that they are currently lacking in the age that we live in.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about delivering certainty, but does he not see that the certainty he is giving is to large multinational tech companies that will be able to get away with scraping original content that is copyrighted? Through the Bill, he will give such companies the certainty to abuse the rights of creatives.
Peter Kyle
In all sincerity, I am confused by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The Bill before us does not mention AI or copyright—it has nothing to do with those items. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is as I described at the beginning of my remarks. If there is a clause, sentence or paragraph of the legislation that is before us and for consideration that damages either the AI sectors or the creative industries, then I would like him to stand up and read that out. What I am proposing is a comprehensive solution in legislation to both the opportunities and the challenges presented to the AI sector, which is a barrier for companies in that sector investing here, and to the current direction of travel that is posing an existential threat to the nature of the creative sector as we know it. That is what I am proposing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill before us does not damage any of those interests in the way that he suggests.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he is comprehensively showing our commitment to the creative industries. Like him, I am a huge nerd when it comes to amazing new innovations in data and AI. I am hugely enthusiastic about them, but I also share his equally huge enthusiasm for the creative industries. I appreciate what he is saying about transparency—for me, that is the absolutely key point—but what is the backstop if the voluntary approach does not create the transparency that creators need to understand how their creations are being used and if they are being remunerated properly for that?
Peter Kyle
The reason I opened the consultation in the first place was to try to understand where the concerns are and where the tech companies can provide their suggested solutions, on the back of which we can come together as two Houses of Parliament and two separate sectors to find the way forward. If we cannot answer the question that my hon. Friend poses, how will the legislation, which I will propose as soon as I can, get through either House?
We need to bring both sectors together. We need to have workable, implementable solutions that have grip in the digital age as well as the confidence of both Houses to get the legislation forward. I ask Members across this House and in the other place to offer me a degree of trust that I will lead it through the difficult, challenging process—which has bedevilled not just the current situation, but the Government before—needed to deliver it for those who need it the most.
Peter Kyle
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who was the first on his feet, then I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
Mr Alaba
I appreciate the tone with which the Secretary of State is conducting this discussion, and I thank him for that. Having spent two decades running businesses and projects in the creative sector before entering this House, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm when the Government intend to bring forward the promised AI and IP Bill? Will he commit to prioritising transparency obligations in the next Parliament or even to finding a suitable vehicle? Finally, will stakeholders be formally consulted before that Bill is introduced?
Peter Kyle
We can see what a fast learner my hon. Friend has become since he has been in this place, as he got three questions into a 30-second intervention. I will take them in reverse order. I assure him that I will engage with both sectors and give a meaningful voice, including finding ways of engaging views across the House in that process. On his first two questions, I have striven to speak—perhaps even stretched the boundaries of the clarity with which I am allowed to speak—about the future when it comes to legislation and the processes and formalities of this House, in which we are governed by traditions, conventions and the wrath of the Leader of the House.
I know and hope that when I offer my words, Members with varying degrees of experience will understand that there are meanings behind them about the speed, enthusiasm and determination to get this issue resolved swiftly, but the legislative programme of the House is in the hands of His Majesty the King and the Leader of the House, for whom we have high regard—I know that she will be watching somewhere in this building, ready to pounce should I step one millimetre out of line. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford will understand as I go through my remarks and speak in a bit more detail about my intentions that the necessity for speed and alacrity underpins every single one of my words.
Ms Billington
On the point about speed, determination and the conventions of this House with regard to the legislative programme, in some ways that gives the Secretary of State a case for putting backstop powers on the face of this Bill to create the confidence that the creative industries require, so that we do not have to wait for full legislation. Having some confidence now would give the Government the power to enforce if they saw something that passed the test and there were some transgressions. There is a case for what we are asking for because of those constraints.
Peter Kyle
Let me be as direct as I possibly can. The amendment before us does not include powers of enforcement; it would give powers to the Secretary of State, but it gives no indication of how those powers should be used. Given that ambiguity, it would be incumbent on me to use the powers in a way in which I saw fit, and I would see fit to do a thorough engagement on the back of such powers before using them, if I decided to use them at all. Any of my successors in the post could well use those powers in vastly different ways, which would lead to great instability in an area where I am determined to create stability. Finally, it would be disempowering for this place to have all those powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State when what we really need is a comprehensive set of legislative measures that this place and the other place have fully endorsed, is on statute and can give the security that both sectors need into the future.
It was remiss of me to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), even though it was an important one, before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, to whom I turn now.
Rachael Maskell
I do take a word spoken at the Dispatch Box as a commitment, so I really welcome what the Secretary of State is saying. Will he ensure that, beyond transparency, there will be accountability? That is the missing element in the Lords amendment in particular. We need accountability for those businesses and platforms that go on to make profit out of our creatives’ work. They should be held to account as the Secretary of State approaches this issue in a more comprehensive way, working with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
Peter Kyle
The range of interventions shows several things, including the breadth of wisdom and experience in this House and the complex nature of the issue at hand. That is all being dealt with by one amendment that does not actually touch on many of the issues that I am being questioned about. Again, that reinforces the need to deal with this issue in the round and in its entirety, with all its complexities.
I will turn to the point that my hon. Friend raises shortly, but the extraterritorial nature of the way in which AI is being consumed, scraped and brought into the models adds challenges to getting a grip on it. That is why having a Bill that incentivises investment in this country, alongside giving modern digital rights and obligations to creatives in the digital age, is a way in which we can incentivise companies to come and obey the law of this land as we move forward.
I believe one more Member was on their feet to whom I am yet to give way.
Sally Jameson
While I agree with most of the Secretary of State’s music recommendations, I pay tribute to Girls Aloud, who are the ultimate pop icons in the British music industry.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Sugababes, surely!
Sally Jameson
A close second. Will the Secretary of State commit to chairing a cross-sector working group with the AI industries and the creative sector in the room to help to inform any future legislation?
Peter Kyle
I kind of regret taking that intervention, because it contains the first reference to a band I have not seen live. I have some life goals yet, so I will add it to my bucket list.
I will turn to the point that my hon. Friend made then make progress, because we have limited time here, and I want to ensure that Opposition figures have all the time that they need to make their points. These issues need serious and dedicated consideration. We have never needed the language of conflict, betrayal or slavery in this debate.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress. I will try to give way a bit later.
It is time to tone down the unnecessary rhetoric and instead recognise that the country needs to strike a balance between content and creativity, transparency and training, and recognition and reward. That cannot be done by well-meaning but ultimately imperfect amendments to a Bill that was never intended to do such a thing. The issue of AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. To that end, I can tell the House that I am now setting up a series of expert working groups to bring together people from both sectors on the issues of transparency, licensing and other technical standards to chart a workable way forward. I will ensure that the outcome of these endeavours is made available to Members of both Houses.
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress, but other voices will be heard.
Much of the creative content on the internet has already been scraped elsewhere in the world. We cannot turn back time, and nor should we kid ourselves that we can exercise extraterritorial reach that we simply do not have. My determination is to get this absolutely right, not just rush it right now, which would make us feel better but would make no real improvements to the status quo. Let me be absolutely clear to the House: I get it, and I will get it right.
Finally, just as I regret that this has been portrayed as a choice between creatives and artificial intelligence, it is regrettable to me that this has become an issue of contention between this House and the other place. This House is not putting the interests of one sector above those of another—that would be the wrong approach. The right approach is to recognise that this is too important and complex an issue to be rushed. It deserves proper consideration, and it requires us to accept our responsibility to do this right, in a way that reflects the seriousness of the situation and the sensitivities of both sectors. For now, let us just put this data Bill behind us.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the constructive tone that the Secretary of State is taking today, would he like to say a word of praise for the upper House, without whose determination to keep revisiting this matter he might not have felt it quite so necessary to come to this House today and outline in such detail the constructive alternatives he wishes to put forward?
Peter Kyle
I of course acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I have acknowledged a couple of times already in my speech the work of the upper House and several Members of it, and the constructive and functional way in which we have resolved disagreements on other parts of the Bill. That is the way both Houses were designed to work—in co-operation, sometimes with tension, but ultimately to deliver the legislation that the Government intend to introduce, using the primacy of this place.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is not the first time I have engaged, privately or publicly. Many of the statements I have made today have been made previously, but not in the pointed way that I am doing now, which I hope rises to the moment we are in. I have already acknowledged how, looking back, I would have taken other actions to bring this matter to a conclusion much sooner. I also hope that other Members across this House and in the other place will similarly act in a way that can put this moment behind us, so that we can focus on using the power of Government and, of course, of both Houses to get this right for those sectors that are counting on us to do just that.
From this moment, I give this House my personal commitment from the Dispatch Box to unstinting work alongside both sectors, working together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright quickly and effectively. I will report back to this House regularly on the progress made. My responsibility as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is to bring forward proposals on copyright that can deliver the balance we seek between the interests of the creative industries and those of the AI industry. We will do that, and we will get it right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has spoken for 33 minutes in a debate that is due to last for an hour, and we have yet to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. There will not be time to have a proper debate on this matter, which is of great importance to a number of people. Will the Government please make available more time beyond the 60-minute time limit?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which was not in fact a point of order. He will be aware that the programme motion has already been agreed to by the House.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
As hon. Members know, the substance of this Bill began with the previous Government, in recognition of the need to streamline and harness the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in the delivery of public services. As I have said before, when the Bill started its life, most of us had no idea that it would become the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time.
Although I welcome the huge benefits that the Bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear that it will go down on the Government’s record as the Bill of missed opportunities. It is a missed opportunity to fix our flawed public data sets, which present a barrier to tracking and tackling inequalities in areas such as women’s health; a missed opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children in their use of social media platforms, and to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason to do so; and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to two of our key growth industries, the creative and AI sectors, on how they can interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.
It could be seen as somewhat dispiriting to be back at the Dispatch Box again, having the debate on copyright and AI with the Department’s ministerial team, but I see that there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the Dispatch Box. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his tone and his approach to this debate, particularly his recognition of previous mistakes made. As politicians, we do not say sorry often enough, or recognise mistakes or where we would have wanted things to go better. I appreciate the statements he has made from the Dispatch Box, but the fact that we are here is testament to the determination and sincere concern of Members of both Houses. Whatever Benches they sit on, they are deeply concerned that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge.
Our colleagues in the other place have spoken about their commitment to the primacy of this House, and their reticence to delay the passage of this Bill any further than is absolutely necessary. Their resolve demonstrates the importance of this issue to Members of both Houses and the stakeholders they represent. The Government have spoken repeatedly of their commitment to protecting the creative industries, but their actions are still yet to match their rhetoric. It appears that “reviews” have today been upgraded to “working groups.”
Many excuses have been made for why the Government feel unable to act now. Baroness Kidron and other noble Lords have acted in good faith on the Government’s stated concerns, and have sought to address them in the latest iteration of their transparency amendment on copyright and AI. Lords amendment 49D would provide the Government with flexibility to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of AI enterprises by reference to their size. Importantly, it would allow a reasonable timeframe for the Government to complete their review of responses to their consultation, which concluded in February, before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay draft transparency regulations before Parliament.
For the third time, an amendment on this topic received the overwhelming support of Members in the other place, and the debate at the last round showed that the strength of feeling is mirrored in this House. Amendment 49D is a balanced clause that would put in place a much-needed long-stop date to provide the certainty that creatives and the technology industries alike have been calling for. As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) suggested, it is a backstop.
The Government have run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to achieve something relatively rare in our political climate: creating effective, balanced legislation based on cross-party compromise. It is important to public confidence in Government to show that we can put sound principles above politics when the overwhelming need arises. The Government have another opportunity today; let us make sure that it is not another missed one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 49D. As the Bill returns to this House, I am grateful that the other place continues to fight for creatives, and this amendment focuses on the fundamental principle of transparency while securing the principle of proportionality. I am also grateful for the cross-party work and support in this House and the movement from the Secretary of State today. I know that many Members have signed various amendments standing up for creatives, and I call on colleagues across the House to consider how they vote today on this amendment.
At its very core, the amendment would require AI companies to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant information about how their works are being used for AI development and training. The amendment is clear that it is for the trader or data holder to ensure that the data is accessible to copyright owners upon request. Behind that are real people, real communities and the rich tapestry of a £126 billion creative industry.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituency of Stratford-on-Avon has always been a place where arts and creativity flourish. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is needed now to ensure that our British artists, musicians and writers—the William Shakespeares of the future—are fully protected and compensated by the big tech companies?
Victoria Collins
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, I was going to say that every MP here will have local creatives. The Secretary of State talked about the artists represented in his office. In mine is Tabitha Mary, who does pictures of around town in Harpenden and Berkhamsted. We have musicians such as Rock Chorus. In Hertfordshire we have film studios such as Elstree, Warner Bros Leavesden and Bovingdon, and I am that sure many of them will be following this debate. Their life’s work—their paintings, performances or films—are feeding into AI systems right now and they have no way of knowing. They want to work hand in hand with technology and AI, but our creatives are calling for a fair playing field.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I was recently approached by the British Deaf Association with concerns about AI companies requiring vast volumes of video footage of British Sign Language without proper consent or awareness from the original signers. I was curious about what an AI would say about the issue, so I asked it to write in the style of the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I did not ask it for the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore is a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I thought it would be quite interesting.
I highlight that the AI said that the Minister was known for his bold, articulate style, often weaving sharp analysis with a touch of wit, but I will let others be the judge of whether the AI has encapsulated that. This is what it had to say:
“Ladies and gentlemen, we stand at a crossroads—one where technology and creativity are colliding, not in conflict, but in collaboration. For centuries, imagination has driven progress, shaping our world through art, literature, design, and innovation. And now, AI is in the mix, not to replace human ingenuity, but to challenge it, expand it, and sometimes even surprise us. The question isn’t whether AI is coming—it’s here. The real question is: how do we harness it to elevate human creativity, rather than diminish it?”
It asks a very good question. To elevate that human creativity, creatives are calling for transparency. Today we are at that crossroads, with an opportunity to vote for that transparency.
As the Bill nears completion, I urge the Government to accept this reasonable compromise. I accept that the tone and the movement today are welcome, and that work with creatives and tech is much-needed.
Emily Darlington
Does the hon. Member agree that what that quote proves is that AI cannot capture the wit and humour that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) brings to this Chamber?
Emily Darlington
And fashion. In fact, AI is a poor copy of what my hon. Friend represents and bring.
Victoria Collins
I think the House has spoken on that. True leadership in AI means building on respect for creativity, including in the House of Commons, not exploitation. We can build an AI-powered future where technology and human ingenuity flourish together, but only if we start with transparency. We can be a world leader in setting a standard for creatives and technology to work together. I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us today in supporting amendment 49D, to set that direction and to stand up for transparency for our creators and for the principle that, in the age of AI, human creativity still matters.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
This is the second time we have considered this amendment in this House, and it is the second time we have received this, “Just trust me—I just want to get on with it” homily that all the ministerial team present when we discuss the matter. They say they want to set up all sorts of working groups and that they want to get to legislation. None of us have any difficulty with or objection to that, but what we want is action now. We get concerned when the Secretary of State, as he just did, says that there is no certainty in our copyright laws just now.
Pete Wishart
The Secretary of State can check back in Hansard. That is exactly what he said, and that is where the concern and anxiety comes in. The Government might get a technical victory today because of the invocation of financial issues, but the Bill will come back again from the House of Lords. They are not going to give up.
Everybody is united with the House of Lords when it comes to these issues; everybody wants a solution now. Nobody agrees with the Government’s position—except the AI firms that seek to benefit from the unauthorised use of our cultural work—and the anger is growing. The more the public see of this, the more our constituents get increasingly concerned about how our artists are being treated. We only need to look at Sir Elton John’s reaction on Sunday—not just the choice of language about the Government Front Benchers, but that he feels so dismissed he is even threatening legal action.
Surely the way forward is compromise and the Government going some way toward giving the creative sector what they want. Lords amendment 49D presents that approach. It respects the financial prerogatives of this Government, and it has taken on board everything that the Front Benchers have said. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and to engage seriously on the substance of the amendment, which would address copyright holders’ calls for transparency without imposing immediate enforcement costs. It would require AI developers to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information on how their works have been used and how they were accessed. Nothing could be fairer than that.
The Government use words like “may” rather than “must”, thereby avoiding direct spending obligations. We must surely work together on the basis of what has been agreed between both Houses, and try to ensure that we get something that meets everybody’s concerns. That has to start with this Lords amendment. I urge the Government to accept it at this really late stage, and I encourage Labour Back Benchers, who have made fantastic contributions today and who have stood up to this Government, to vote against them. That will show exactly how strongly they feel about this issue. I encourage Labour colleagues to back the amendment.
Sir John Whittingdale
I have to say that I am slightly surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is willing to speak in support of the Government’s position, but it means that I have more time to speak than I had initially thought would be the case. I will not repeat the arguments that we have had in the lengthy debates on these measures that have already taken place, but I want to make one or two points.
In his contribution, the Secretary of State said that he had never mentioned the word “uncertainty” and implied that he thought that copyright law is clear. I have to say that that contrasts with an awful lot of the debates we have had previously, in which his colleague, the Minister for the Creative Industries, has talked about there being uncertainty.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Member must have missed several of the debates in which I expressly said that I did not think there was any uncertainty about the law as it presently stands.
Sir John Whittingdale
Well, the ministerial foreword to the consultation paper suggests there was uncertainty, and that has consistently been one of the reasons why the Government have said they need to carry out all these consultations. Even if the law is clear, as the Secretary of State suggests—personally, I believe it is clear—the important thing is that it can only be enforced if those who have their copyright breached are aware that that has taken place. That is why transparency is of critical importance, as I know the Government have acknowledged.
The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that he is going to set up more working parties. Our concern is that, as the Secretary of State has just said, a large amount of copyrighted material is already being scraped by generative AI. His working parties and further consultations—we wait to hear when legislation might arrive—mean that it will be another few years before we actually have this measure on the statute book. There is an opportunity to have something on the statute book now, and he will be aware that the existing provisions—the robots.txt provisions—are simply being ignored. They are not working, and it is important that we act immediately to send a very clear signal that we expect transparency to be in place and for generative AI companies to properly remunerate licence holders.
I want to mention some of the other provisions. On the Order Paper, the Government have said that Lords amendment 49D “engages financial privilege”.
Sir John Whittingdale
Well, the Clerks may have advised—[Interruption.] I merely suggest that it is very unclear. As many in the House of Lords have suggested, it is very unclear how the amendment can engage financial privilege. The amendment use the word “may”, so it does not contain any requirement on the Government to indulge in financial expenditure. It is a worrying precedent if the Government are going to avoid debate on policy by suggesting that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think it would be helpful if I clarified that that is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government.
Sir John Whittingdale
I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker; it just looks very strange to see that the amendment “engages financial privilege” when there is no financial requirement in the amendment.
I will finish on one further point. I understand the Secretary of State’s keenness to attract investment from tech companies. When we have previously debated legislation affecting tech companies, on each occasion we have heard that it may result in their being unwilling to come and invest in this country, but that has never been the case. I hope the Secretary of State will not listen to those who say that if we proceeded to enforce copyright law, it may somehow result in tech companies finding this country unattractive. I do not believe that is the case and I do not believe that it would jeopardise the jobs that the Government are keen to create. But unless we proceed down the route of accepting the Lords amendment, we will jeopardise the jobs of the 2.4 million people in this country who are employed in the creative industries.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.