Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Lords Amemdment 49D - Government Motion To Disagree. Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Hove and Portslade, Labour)

- -

14:37

Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been agreed to buy the house. Is honourable members no, the substance of this bill began with the previous government in recognition of the need to streamline the use of data to grow the economy and drive improvement in public services. As I said before, when this bill started life, most of us had no idea it would be the vehicle for addressing some of the most important social and technological issues of our time. While I welcome the huge benefits the data bill will bring to the economy and public services when it comes into force, I fear this bill will go down in the record as the bill of missed opportunities.

A missed opportunity to fix our datasets which present a barrier to tackling inequalities, a missed opportunity to commit to a review of opportunity to commit to a review of protections for children and the use of social media platforms and commit to taking action to increase those protections where the evidence shows there is good reason, and a missed opportunity to provide much-needed certainty to 2 of our key growth industries. The creative sectors over how they could interact to promote their mutual growth and flourishing.

It can be seen somewhat dispiriting to be back at the despatch boxes having a debate of copyright and AI. But I see there has been an upgrade since our last outing at the dispatch. I would like to say that I do pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the approach, particularly with mistakes made. I think we don't say sorry or recognise mistakes where we want things to have gone better enough, and I appreciate him making the statements at the despatch boxes, but the fact is that it is a testament to determination and sincere concern of both benches with the concern that we must not miss this opportunity to find a solution to such a significant challenge.

Our colleagues in the other place of spoken about their commitment to this house and they are reticent to delay the passage of this bill even further than is necessary. There resolve looks at the importance of this issue to members of both houses and the stakeholders they represent. The government has spoken repeatedly about creating the industries, but their action is still yet to match their rhetoric. It would appear that, today, reviews have been upgraded to working groups. Many excuses had been made for why the government feels unable to act now.

government feels unable to act now. Lords of axed in good faith on the state of concerns and sought to address them in the latest iteration of transparency amendment or copyright and AI. Lords Amendments provides flexibility for the government to put in place proportionate regulations on the transparency of enterprises. Importantly, it allows reasonable timeframes for the government to complete its review of responses in its consultation before the Secretary of State is compelled to lay transparency regulations before lay transparency regulations before Parliament.

For the third time, immense on this topic received the overwhelming support of honourable members and the other place, and the debate in the last round showed the strength of feeling is mirrored in this house. Amendment 40 9D is a clause which puts in place a much- needed long stop date to provide certainty that creatives have been calling for as the honourable member suggested a backstop so to speak. The government has run out of excuses for failing to act. Today we have an opportunity to do something rare in the climate to create effective balance legislation based on cross-party compromise.

It is important to show that we are able to put sound principles at the politics when need arises. The government has an opportunity today to let's make sure it is not a to let's make sure it is not a

14:41

Victoria Collins MP (Harpenden and Berkhamsted, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rice to speak on amendments as the Bill returns to this house in the House of Lords. I am grateful to fight for creatives, while securing the principle of proportionality. I'm also grateful for cross-party working support in this house and movements from the Secretary of movements from the Secretary of State today. I know many of you have signed various amendment standing up for creatives, and a call for colleagues to consider how they vote today on this amendment.

At its very core, the amendment will look at companies to provide copyright and as with relevant information about how their works are being used for development and training. This is between the data holder and the copyright owner to make sure it is accessible to copyright owners upon request, and behind this are real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people, real communities and a rich tapestry of 126 billion creative industries. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. My constituency of Stratford-upon-Avon has always been Stratford-upon-Avon has always been a place where arts and creativity flourish. Does my friend agree that flourish. Does my friend agree that government action is needed now to ensure that a British artist, musician, artist and William Shakespeare's of the future are Shakespeare's of the future are fully protected and compensated by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the big tech companies? Indeed, I was going to say, I'm sure that every MP here will have sure that every MP here will have local creatives from artists. I have Tabatha Mary who has pictures from Tabatha Mary who has pictures from around towns in my constituency. We have musicians, and in have musicians, and in Hertfordshire, we have film studios such as Elstree, Warner Brothers, leaf stem, and I'm sure many of these will be following this debate. Their life's work, their paintings, performances, they are feeding into systems 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, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I was recently approached by the British deaf Association with concerns about AI companies getting videos of BSL without consent from original signers, and I was curious what AI would say about this issue, so I asked it to write in the style of one of the members. I didn't ask the Secretary of State, but I thought it would be quite interesting.

I would highlight it said that the Minister was known for his old articulates style, often leaving sharp analysis with a touch of wit but I will let others be the judge of whether AI has encapsulated that. Ladies and gentlemen, we stand at a crossroads, one where technology and creativity are colliding, not in conflict but collaboration. For centuries, imagination has driven progress, art, design and innovation, and now, AI is in the mix, not replace human ingenuity but to challenge it, expand it, and the question isn't whether AI is coming, it is here, the real question is how do we harness it to elevate human creativity? It asked a very good question, and to harness and elevate that human creativity, they are calling for transparency, so today, we are at the crossroads with the opportunity to debate this, so as the bill is nearing completion, I urge the government to look at this compromise and accept that the tone and the movement today is very welcome and this is very much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needed. Will the member agree with me that what this proves is that AI that what this proves is that AI can't capture the wit and humour can't capture the wit and humour that is brought to this chamber, and it is a poor copy of what it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is a poor copy of what it I think the House has spoken on that. True leadership in AI means building in respectful creativity including in the House of Commons, including in the House of Commons, and we can build an AI power future where technology and human ingenuity 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 creativity technology to work for creativity technology to work together.

So I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us today in supporting amendment 49 D and setting the direction for transparency. And the principle in the age of AI that human creativity still matters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

14:46

Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)

- -

This is the second time we have considered this amendment in this House was not this is the second time the government has just said trust me I want to get on with it. They say they want to set up all sorts of working groups, and none of sorts of working groups, and none of us have any definitive objection to what the government wants to do. What we want is action now. The Secretary of State stood and said there is no certainty in the copyright laws just now.

There is absolute certainty, that is exactly what there is. You can check back in Hansard. That is what he said. That is where the concern and anxiety comes in. They might get a technical victory today because of the financial issues once again. But it will come back again from the House of Lords. Everyone is united with the House of Lords when it comes to these issues. And everyone wants a solution, nobody agrees with the government position except that AI firms that seek to benefit from the unauthorised use of our culture.

The anger is growing. Our constituents get increasingly concerned about how our artists are being treated. If you look at Sir Elton John's reaction on Thursday, not just against the government front bench the way he feels so dismissed, that he is even threatening legal action. Surely reform is compromised. And surely it goes some way towards the creative sector in giving them something that they want, this Lords Amendment presents that approach. It respects the financial prerogatives of this government, and it has taken on board what the Frontbench have said.

I would urge the government, please reconsider its position, and engage seriously on the substance of the amendment. The amendment addresses copyright holders calls for transparency without imposing immediate enforcement costs. It does do is require AI developers to provide copyright rules with clear, accurate, relevant and accessible distribution on how their works have been used. Nothing could be fairer than that. What it allows is the than that. What it allows is the government to decide and therefore avoiding obligations on spending.

We must surely start to work together on the basis of what has been agreed between both houses, and try and ensure that we get something that meets everybody's concerns. That has to start with this Lords Amendment. I urge at this late stage for the government to accept it, and encourage the backbenchers who have made fantastic contributions. Who have stood up to this government, vote against them, will show exactly how strong we feel about this issue. So encourage Labour colleagues to back us today this amendment.

14:49

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to say I'm slightly surprised the lack of any government backbencher willing to speak in support of the government's position which means I will have more time available to speak than I had initially thought to be the case. I am not going to repeat a lot of the arguments that we have had in that lengthy debates that have taken place. But I wanted to make one or two map points. The Secretary of State in his contribution said that he had never mentioned the word uncertainty.

I have to say that does contrast with an off a lot of the debate we have had previously when his colleague the Minister for Care rate of industries has talked about there being uncertainty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You must've missed several debates why express said I do not think there was any uncertainty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think there was any uncertainty about the law as it presently stands. I think the ministerial forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the ministerial forward to the consultation paper actually suggests there was uncertainty. That has been consistently one of the has been consistently one of the reasons why the government says it needs to carry out all of these consultations. Even if the law is consultations. Even if the law is clear, as the secretary of state suggests, I personally believe it is clear, the important thing is it can clear, the important thing is it can only be enforced if those who had their copyright breached are aware their copyright breached are aware that it is taking place.

That is why transparency is critical, something transparency is critical, something I know the Government has acknowledged. The Secretary of State this afternoon has said he will this afternoon has said he will setup more working parties. The concern we have is, as the Secretary of State has just said, large amount of copyrighted material are already scraped by generative AI. In his working parties and further consultation, and we wait to hear when legislation might actually arrive, means it will be another few years before we actually have this 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, they 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 for AI generative companies to properly remunerate licence holders. The other provisions I would like to mention, the government have said that the amendment from the House of Lords engages Financial Privilege.

The clerks may have advised. I am merely suggesting that actually it is very unclear. It is very unclear how it can engage Financial Privilege, where it says that the provision of the House of Lords has made does not contain any requirement on the government to indulge in financial expenditure. And I want to say I think it is a worrying precedent, if the government is going to avoid debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the policy by suggesting that it may... Order. I do think it would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I do think it would be awful if I clarified that that is a matter for the chair. And not for the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government. I of course accept the ruling Madam Deputy Speaker. I just say Madam Deputy Speaker. I just say that it looks very strange when that it looks very strange when there is no financial requirement. I will just finish one further point. I understand the Secretary of I understand the Secretary of State's keenness to attract State's keenness to attract investment for the tech companies. I would just say to him that previously, we have debated legislation affecting tech legislation affecting tech companies, on each occasion we have heard that it may result in them being unwilling to come and invest being unwilling to come and invest in this country for that has never been the case.

I hope that the secretary of state will not listen to those who say that if we proceed to enforce copyright law may somehow result in tech companies fighting this country unattractive full stop I don't believe it is the case. I don't believe that it will jeopardise jobs which I know the Government is keen to create. But unless we proceed down this route with the amendment in the House of Lords, it will jeopardise the jobs of the 2.4 million people in this country who are employed in the creative industries.

creative industries.

14:54

Division

The question is that this house disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 49 D. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the

14:55

Division: Lords Amemdment 49D - Government Motion To Disagree.

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes Kim Eber and Christian Wakeford. Tellers for the noes Charlie Maynard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locked Locked the Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes to the right, 195. The nose to the left, 124.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nose to the left, 124. The eyes to the right were 195. The nose to the left, 124, so the The nose to the left, 124, so the eyes have it, the eyes have it. eyes have it, the eyes have it. Unlock. Minister to move that a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee be appointed to draw up reasons. I baked a move that a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I baked a move that a committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for be assigned to the Lords for Peter Kyle will be the chair of the committee. That the committee do withdraw. Collins be members of the committee. Peter care be the chair of the committee. The committee do withdraw immediately. As many of that opinion, say I of the contrary, no. opinion, say I of the contrary, no.

That concludes consideration That concludes consideration of That concludes consideration of the Lords message relating to the data use and access bill Lords. We now come to motion number two relating to business at the house today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is is on the order paper. As many of that opinion's AI. paper. As many of that opinion's AI. I think the eyes have it. We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business

15:09

Select Committee Statement: Select Committee Statement on the Sixth Report of the Business and Trade Committee, How to strengthen UK-EU relations: Policy Priorities for the Summit, HC 908

statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. Liam Byrne will speak up to 10 minutes during which speak up to 10 minutes during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will ask members to ask questions on will ask members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. They should be brief questions are not should be brief questions are not speeches. Can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee chair and not the relevant government minister.

Frontbenchers may take part in questioning.

15:09

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)

- -

Thank you. I rise to speak to the house today on behalf of business and trade committee, a roadmap for the EU reset, and in doing, I hope you will forgive me for using this moment to share my profound thanks to the members of the committee who are both diligent and hard-working, and from our earliest days together as a committee, it was very clear to all of us that relationships with the European Union had been trapped in the past while all of that was better, the past was unsatisfactory and could be richer if we chose to reset that with more ambition.

We sense that was part of the government, and we asked ourselves what could be done in order to move forward this relationship not distracted by some kind of fantasy but informed with a real hardheaded and pragmatic focus, so we travel to Brussels to Belfast, to trade unions, diplomats in the European commission, and we looked at trade barriers, and I'm afraid to say an awful lot of lost opportunities. We asked one simple question, how can we make these arrangements better.

We didn't seek to open old wounds. What surprised us is that it was not difficult to find 21 different ways in which our relationship with the European Union could be reset in a way that would make our country better and cut the red tape which is throttling trade with the EU. These are not abstract aspirations. A practical and deliverable and supported by an overwhelming coalition of business groups that we met with. The proposals that we presented were backed by business and good for our country.

We divide the work into three ambitions, opportunities to defend and add opportunities to defend and add prosperity. And third, to cut trade and border. We have coordination to tackle crime at the World Trade Organisation, including UK participation in the new dispute procedures because a rule-based order is not just idealism for us. It is insurance. On energy, we saw something extraordinary, and opportunity to unlock the potential of the Northsea as the world's biggest green energy power station.

But that demanded that we come together with the EU to bring together a single justice mechanism for trading and emissions trading. That could add up to a faster and cheaper part to net-zero for both us and European neighbours. On trade, we welcomed the ambition for an SPF agreement and a fair fisheries deal, but we pressed for some specifics. Mutual recognition of economic operator schemes, bilateral waivers, cooperation around Ro-Ro ferries, rejoining the pen convention, conformity assessment and a long- term roadmap for compatible deals.

We talked about the deeper cooperation on financial services, ensuring access and seeking out a new roadmap for mutual recognition and qualifications, producing

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page