Artificial Intelligence: National Security Implications

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Kidron]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the decision of the government of the United States to restrict foreign national access to Anthropic’s Claude AI models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom’s security; and what alternative sovereign UK systems or partnerships they are pursuing, if any.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, no Government take AI sovereignty and security more seriously than this one. The UK is not a bystander when it comes to the security of AI. Our world-leading AI Security Institute was one of only a handful of organisations with access to both Mythos and Fable before they were released; they were used to identify risks in advance. We are investing £1.6 billion in the UK’s sovereign AI capabilities, made up of £500 million directly in UK AI firms via our sovereign AI fund and £1.1 billion via our AI hardware plan.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that response. President Trump gave less than 90 minutes for Anthropic to make Mythos and Fable unavailable to any non-US citizens. In doing so, the White House went from a position of no AI regulation at all to 100% control. These systems are extremely powerful and anticipated to be able to break any other AI system, putting all critical industries and systems into meltdown, and we know other systems of the same ilk will shortly follow. In light of these developments, will the Government ask the AI Security Institute to develop red lines for AI systems deployed in the UK, including those used by government, and bring them forward in the promised AI Bill? Does the Minister not agree that the Government’s increasing dependency on US companies in health, education and security is creating a critical vulnerability for national security?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We continue to support the AI Security Institute. It is very well respected by developers. That is why it has early access and is able to test the risks. Those risks are obviously going to develop as the models themselves evolve. It is also looking closely at the question of alignment, and that is something we are supporting in particular. In respect of sovereign AI, our approach is about building strength over key parts of the value chain to bring to the table technologies that no one else can do without.

For the UK, one of the most promising sectors is in AI hardware. We have brilliant start-ups in that area. That is why we announced the £1.1 billion AI hardware plan, which includes up to £400 million to purchase these new types of chips. In respect of regulation, as the noble Baroness knows, we are working with our regulators to support them to take account of the risks posed by AI and the opportunities brought by AI for increased productivity and effective regulation.

Online Hate Speech

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, social media is where many people and most young people get their news, but it is owned or controlled by a handful of tech billionaires whose views are shared disproportionately and who represent an existential risk to democracy—as we saw when Elon Musk, the owner of X, tweeted in support of the riots. Does the Minister agree with me that our public square has now been privatised and that, for the future of democracy and news, we need to consider an alternative way of sharing news with young people?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The importance of accurate, trusted news is essential. The noble Baroness touched on many different matters in her question. In respect of young people and their access to social media, as I will be talking about shortly, we have put down proposals that will restrict social media platforms in providing content to under-16s. Providing accurate news is hugely important more generally and, as I mentioned on the previous question, we are looking at the role that algorithms play in social cohesion and the spread of online hate. The noble Baroness raises the very important point of media literacy, and we are working with young people and more generally through our media literacy plan to improve the ability of all people, whether young or old, to discern misinformation and disinformation in this important area.

Sovereign AI Fund

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The UK benefits from access to many international service providers, whether from America or elsewhere. The way we think about sovereignty is in ensuring that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs to ensure that the technologies that will shape our economy do so in the interests of the UK. The reason we have focused on the areas I mentioned before for the AI sovereign fund is to increase our economic resilience and reduce strategic dependency by building areas where the UK can realistically develop a comparative advantage.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Representatives of the sovereign AI unit have repeatedly said that the companies it funds or supports with compute must comply with “applicable UK law”, including when copyright law applies to their training activity. However, they have been unwilling to say whether they will fund or support companies that scrape UK copyrighted material overseas without a licence. Will the Minister confirm that the UK sovereign AI fund will not use taxpayers’ money to support companies that train on copyrighted work without a licence, irrespective of where that training happens, whether in the UK or elsewhere? If she is unable to answer categorically, will she undertake to write with a complete answer?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct to highlight that we have been clear that copyright rules should be respected and the use of copyright works to train AI in the UK requires a licence unless an exception applies. Companies supported by the sovereign AI fund are expected to comply with applicable UK law, including copyright. When we are talking about compliance in relation to grant-funded compute allocations, they equally must comply with copyright law while undertaking that funded activity.

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks, and for her expertise and input over the course of many years in this area. On the take-down time, we are looking at the experience in other jurisdictions, as I mentioned. We are also looking at the experience of the timelines that are implemented in this country; that is something that Ofcom will look at. We will look at both the scope and the speed of both those jurisdictions. As I think noble Lords have seen, we will look at measures, and if we believe that they are effective and speak to the harms that we are seeing, we will take action.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I was in the other place when the Secretary of State made her Statement. I commend her for the strength of her words, but we are beyond words now. We are living in a country where any woman or child can be stripped to a bikini and turned into abuse material, as the price and entry point of being online. I do not accept the Government’s defence. There are many ways to communicate with the electorate, and to choose a company that monetises the humiliation and degradation of women and girls as part of its business proposition is to demonstrate that this is business as usual. It is not action for change.

I also disagree very strongly with the Minister: it has not been shocking. We have had the amendments that the noble Baroness referred to—most of those came from Members of this House, including the AI CSAM amendment that she referred to. In the last few weeks, the Government have pushed back on the amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and, before that, to the data Bill. We have amendments on these issues. We foresaw it and, to be honest, we foresaw it in the Online Safety Act, so even on the other side this is not a shock.

I ask the Minister now to commit to placing the violence against women and girls guidance on a statutory footing, accepting amendments on chatbots and LLM risk assessments, and making a move with Ofcom to say that companies are not required only to do a risk assessment; they must, on a mandatory basis, mitigate those very risks that they find. We must not legitimise a platform which sows division, degrades women and sexually humiliates children.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her points and for her expertise that she brings to the House. I should have mentioned that I commend all those who have been speaking up from a position of experience. It is a very difficult thing to do, and it brings a unique perspective into the debate.

I spoke before about the Government withdrawing from using these platforms; we do not think that would be effective. We understand why people feel strongly about it. It is something that we keep under review.

The noble Baroness raised a number of other important issues. We are monitoring how Ofcom’s code on violence against women is being implemented. We think it is very important. I will discuss the many other areas she raised with my colleague who is taking that Bill through and, indeed, with the noble Baroness outside the House if that would be of interest.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kidron has been inspiring during the passage of the Bill. She has inspired me to take up the cudgels on behalf of our creative industries: writers, painters, filmmakers, newspapers and composers. Indeed, almost every aspect of life today is underwritten by somebody’s good idea. I believe all sides of the House agree that they should benefit from, and own, that creativity. Noble Lords who have written a novel or an article, created a picture or produced a film will know what it is like to feel ownership of their ideas, and how they would feel if they were purloined. I declare my interest as a composer.

I do not want to divide the House, but if there is no meaningful response from the Government I will have no choice. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I told your Lordships’ House last week that we did not want to collapse—to use the Minister’s phrase—the data Bill. Indeed, we are not playing ping-pong with Amendment 49.

Rather, and in return, we are seeking a beneficial relationship with the Government. After all, many of the ideas going into AI were initially developed by the creative industries, which, like the Government, want to be at the forefront of what is to come in AI: things that are impossible to imagine and that will, I have no doubt, take our breath away.

Peter Kyle in the other place said that he did not want to deal with these issues piecemeal, but we know from experience that not putting in protection at an early stage can lead to the tail wagging the dog. Streaming would be a perfect example. In enacting new law, surely there is a duty to build in transparency in order that we can safeguard the copyright that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has promised will remain in place.

However, for the creatives themselves to be able to enforce that copyright, they need to know who is using—and possibly stealing—their work. If you do not know that theft is occurring, you cannot do much about it. So, I am going to take a slightly different tack today. My amendment amends the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, making copyright law enforceable by requiring AI firms to make a public statement about their use of copyright works and the means by which they access those works. However, AI firms would not be required to disclose the use of copyright works if they have agreed a licence with the rights holder—which seems only fair. This removes burdens for ethical AI firms while also acting as a strong incentive to abide by copyright law.

The data used in AI training is now the key point of competitive advantage for AI firms—far more so than a model’s algorithms or architecture. Therefore, the requirement will give AI firms a strong incentive to license creative comment and avoid public disclosure. For those AI firms that persist in theft of copyright, holders will be able to identify their stolen content in the public disclosures and seek redress.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is enforceable via private action, as the Minister himself set out in the other place yesterday. So, this amendment is intended to respect the financial primacy of the Commons. In fact, yesterday, Minister Bryant—perhaps without realising—did away with the financial privilege argument by saying, correctly, that it was not the job of government to pursue breaches of copyright. That is why the creators need transparency, so that they can do the policing that is not—I agree with Chris Bryant—the Government’s job.

I say to the Government—now, after all, led by a musician, a flautist, and how welcome it was to find that we have a musician at the helm—that we feel that the traffic so far has all been one way. However, the essence of creativity, as the PM must know, whether on the stage or the concert hall, whether in research and development studios or the laboratory, is the ability to listen and to exchange ideas. That is how curiosity and intelligence come together to create a better world that respects the ideas of our creators, whether it be Elton John—just think how much he and his colleagues have brought in to the Treasury—or, as he said himself, the young, impoverished artist sitting in a garret and bursting with the great ideas that just may be the next thing to take the world by storm. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the Government’s Motion A. The timing of this debate and the pretence that these are in any meaningful sense amendments in lieu are more process and nonsense. I will leave other noble Lords to reflect on the Government’s stunning rebuke of your Lordships’ House, but to the Minister I say that it is disrespectful to millions of people to bring back amendments as if they had not been resoundingly rejected already.

I explicitly left the protection of the property and livelihood of millions of British workers, the UK AI industry and the UK’s creative and IP-rich companies in the Government’s hands. Despite actively acknowledging that creative work is being stolen at scale, the Government chose once again to remove transparency provisions your Lordships provided, allowing the tech sector to continue to rob the creative industries blind. It is as cynical as it is bewildering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I repeat again our absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with it to help it flourish and grow. This is London Tech Week. All Ministers, including me and my colleagues, have been involved in that, showcasing the UK’s rising tech talent to the world. I do not feel I should apologise for our involvement with the tech sector in that regard.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

Perhaps the Minister could note that I said that of course they should be meeting. It was the fact that the creative industries did not get a response that was at issue here.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise to the creative sector if it did not get a response. I can follow that up, but I was responding to a different point made by other people casting aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector, which is an important sector for our economy.

It is clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the Government’s plan. I understand their concerns, even if I do not share them—just as I am sure that they understand our concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if they do not share them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is a matter of fact that the Bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law. We believe in transparency, protection and enforcement, and we agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But the Government’s firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, the technical or parliamentary working groups or the proposals resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 49F.”

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I did not expect to be here today. I am disappointed, frustrated and, to be honest, quite sad to be here and to have to make this argument again. I will make just four points and then I will listen to the House and to the Minister.

First, it is not fair, reasonable, just, balanced, or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work and their property. It is not neutral; it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House “widespread theft”. We have asked, both privately and repeatedly on the Floor of both Houses, what the Government are going to do to stop the work of creatives being stolen right now. The answer is nothing.

Secondly, the Government may be new—ish—but your Lordships’ House is full of people with long political histories. They see time and delay in the consultation, in working groups, and in Statements to Parliament. Inaction is a powerful tool in politics.

In opposition, Labour wrote a manifesto for the creative industries that it took into the election with a raft of promises, including to

“support, maintain and promote the UK’s strong copyright regime”.

The manifesto stated:

“The success of British creative industries to date is thanks in part to our copyright framework”.


Yet we are struggling to get the Government to act on that promise, or to act on that knowledge.

The Government are aware of the stealing, aware of the law, and aware that creative work morally and financially belongs to its creator. The Government are aware that the success of creative industries depends in large part on the copyright regime, and that mass theft is breaking the press, the arts and other IP-rich businesses, and hampering the UK AI community. Inaction is not neutral. It is hurting our community and it is hurting the Government’s future prosperity.

Thirdly, all noble Lords, including me, are concerned about the primacy of the Commons. We are being accused of constitutional wrongdoing. I was very disappointed in the Minister’s opening speech. We are not trying to collapse the Bill. This Bill is a Lords starter. If we vote, we will not be double-insisting. That is entirely, 100%, in the hands of the Commons. Even though we have been here several times—largely because the Commons evoked financial privilege twice, with a very low bar—today is the first time the House would be insisting on any of its amendments. That point has been made by many noble Lords who have been in the House a great deal longer than I have.

If we were to send the Bill back for Commons consideration today, the other place would have three choices. It could choose to accept the amendment, it could choose to replace it with its own amendment in lieu, or it could choose to double-insist—and crash the Bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make. This is our last chance to ask the Government to provide a meaningful solution, and it will be in their hands alone to provide one.

Yesterday in the other place, Conservative and Liberal colleagues voted for this amendment enthusiastically, on the basis that it was a minimum that we could ask for—an amendment that the Government told me in advance of our debate that they would overturn. And indeed they did, in 38 minutes. I thank those on the Opposition Benches in the other place, many of whom have written to me this morning expressing support and the hope that noble Lords will, as they say, keep going. I thank colleagues across your Lordships’ House for their eloquent contributions and extraordinary support throughout.

I also thank again Labour colleagues who have sat on their hands and occasionally come through the Lobby with us. I know it is hard, but it is the role of your Lordships’ House to ask the Government to think again, and it is both against convention and a rebuke to the House, a rebuke to the true feelings of their own Back Benchers, a rebuke to a £126 billion industrial sector and a rebuke to the 2.4 million creative workers, to return again and again with no solution to the stealing. Unless this is a tacit deal with big tech, it makes no sense to refuse to take a power just in case, and to refuse to create a timeline or a legislative vehicle for transparency on behalf of our second-biggest industrial sector when it is crying out for our support—the very support that Labour promised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will start by reiterating something I said in my opening remarks to make it absolutely clear to anyone who was not in the Chamber at that time. If we vote on this amendment, one of three things will happen: the Commons can consider the amendment and accept it; the Commons can put an amendment in lieu, or—and as the noble Lord said, this would be inexplicable—the Commons can collapse the Bill. That is the situation.

I also say to the House that, when I set that out in my opening remarks, I also said that if we choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does. The Commons can accept the amendment; it can put in its own in lieu or it can collapse the Bill, but I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case. I have made that utterly clear, and I want that to be on the record before anybody makes up their mind about what they are going to do today.

I also say to my friends on the Labour Benches—if I can bypass the normal convention—that the Government have not listened. I am afraid that the Government told me before we had our debate on Monday that they would overturn the amendment, and they overturned it in 36 minutes; they did not take the full hour. This whole palaver is not a constitutional crisis, but it is an attempt to get the convention whereby this House is heard by the other House, they bring something back and we compromise. I understand and believe in the pre-eminence of the elected Chamber, and I want everybody to know that—in fact, when the Lord Speaker had me on his podcast, I said, “I am a turkey that will vote for Christmas”.

The other thing that I must say before we get on with this—I beg your Lordships’ forgiveness—is that I was disturbed by the Minister suggesting that I would do anything to undermine the whole of the Bill. It will not be my choice. Those amendments in the Bill to do with bereaved parents and the coroners were amendments in my name and the names of other noble Lords around this House and were the result of a similar campaign to what I am trying to do right now. I resent that.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

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.””

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

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.

Noble Lords, artists, musicians, designers, writers, conductors and even the UK indigenous AI community—who we have worked with side by side, throughout—are baffled as to why the Government are deliberately standing in the way of UK citizens and companies who are trying to control and protect their own property. Some are suggesting that the Government, the Civil Service and No. 10 are all wage-earners. They simply do not understand that the £126 billion creative industry is largely made up of freelancers whose income, sickness benefit, pension, maternity and holiday pay are not contractual but provided by royalties—royalties that are dependent on copyright.

Some think that the Government are too proud to admit the mistakes of their ill-fated consultation, which was widely condemned as too little, too late, and the proposals within it considered partisan—so much so that even Ministers had to backtrack. It has no timeline and, indeed, a successful campaign by rights holders has overwhelmed the process. The vast majority of the 11,500 submissions are from creative companies and individuals whose work is being stolen right now and who need the transparency to create a level playing field. Yet rather than respond to their urgent cry, the Secretary of State, as he stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place defending the Government’s decision to overthrow the Lords’ transparency amendment, said that it would not be fair to one to sector privilege another.

It is extraordinary that the Government’s decided, immovable and strongly held position is that enforcing the law to prevent the theft of UK citizens’ property is unfair to the sector doing the stealing. In what other industrial context does being fair require a national Government to support thieves to continue their plunder while simultaneously removing tools of protection from the victim? Balancing and being fair sounds reasonable, but it is not fair, balanced or reasonable to stand by while one sector steals from another in full view.

The amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on 19 May did not demand that the Government take a side; it simply provided transparency so that the creative industry could protect itself. The Government have voted and will vote again today to make indigenous AI and creative industries defenceless.

Before recess, I hosted a five-hour meeting at which creatives were joined by many AI companies and experts to discuss technical issues around transparency. There were myriad technical solutions but all agreed that changing the incentives is what is urgent and that the tech would follow.

AI is the technology of now and the future. It requires vast swathes of data—sometimes very high-quality data, sometimes both. It is built on data. Data is a valuable component of AI. As I said to the House last time we debated the Bill, some of that data is the most valuable in British hands. It can be made available under licence—indeed, it is often licensed already—but, more often, it is still being taken without permission and without payment. This Government, in all their actions, are not only giving tacit permission to steal, but are determinedly standing in the way of UK property owners identifying the thief.

It is bewildering to me that Ministers looking back on the last two decades of the tech sector business model believe that we should damage or give away our second biggest industrial sector on the promise that we will be overwhelmed by benefits in the future. They are sacrificing both the UK creative industries and the UK AI and digital industries by leaving our valuable content and data freely open to big tech companies. These incumbents will destroy a sector that amounts to 5% of the UK economy, just as they previously torpedoed the commercial viability of UK media. They will prevent UK AI start-ups from growing by allowing big tech to sew up that market too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and all the Ministers in the department have made it absolutely clear how vital it is that the creative sector’s interests are protected in the discussions. The sector will be part of the working groups, have a seat at the table and have its voice heard. We have a job to do in reassuring those people that this is a workable solution, but they will see that the long-term workable solution which we are attempting to achieve would be for everyone.

Those working groups will address the issue of transparency and technical standards in a way that supports the creative industries as well as the tech sector. Those working groups, alongside the consultation responses, will inform the reports, the proposal and the economic assessment that the Government have already committed to in this Bill. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed upon and implemented. However, we must see what comes out of the process, rather than imposing preconditions at this stage.

As I said earlier, His Majesty’s Government have made three additional commitments on this matter. First, these reports will be expanded with two additional topics—extraterritoriality and enforcement. Secondly, the report’s proposals and economic impact assessment will be published more quickly—within nine months. Thirdly, if we have not completed these reports within six months, the Secretary of State will provide a progress report to Parliament.

Turning to the first proposed new subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree that the scale of unauthorised use of works as inputs to AI models, and the impact of such use on copyright owners, AI developers and the wider economy should all be considered as we develop our policy approach and put forward our proposals, as should the adequacy of the legislative framework to support copyright owners. I am pleased to confirm that these aspects will already be considered as part of the impact assessment. The Government will report as we go along and are committed to publishing that. We intend for that impact assessment and report to be published within nine months and to make a progress statement after six months if needed. I hope that gives clarity to noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government agree that these issues are important and are actively working on them. We disagree with this part of the noble Baroness’s amendment only on the basis that an additional statement is not needed.

However, turning to the second proposed new subsection of the noble Baroness’s amendment, I can see the appeal of requiring the Government to make progress with legislation in this space. The Government have heard noble Lords’ concerns about the pace of progress. The Secretary of State said in the other place that he proposes legislation to be tabled as soon as possible. He has set out a plan for determining what such legislation should contain, assessing the consultation responses, convening technical working groups and then producing reports and economic impact assessments on our proposals.

Many of the things in the noble Baroness’s amendment may coincide with the outcomes of this plan. She has great foresight, but none of us have a crystal ball. It is fundamentally wrong to prejudge and pre-empt the process now being prescribed in the content of the legislation. What would noble Lords say to the 11,500 people who took the time to submit detailed responses to the consultation—that their considered thoughts are irrelevant because the outcome has already been put in statute? What to the working groups of technical experts that, rather than work with us to come up with a comprehensive solution that works for all sides, must abide by regulations that ignore their input and cover only one or two issues? What to the elected House, which has already voted these amendments down three times? Rather than respect one of our core constitutional principles, cited indeed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, before the recess, do we believe in consulting and properly legislating, but just not today?

This cannot be what anybody thinks is right, either on this issue or indeed as a matter of principle. I repeat: the Government have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House and set out their plan to address them. This must be allowed to run its course. I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment, nor to support the noble Baroness’s new amendment. Doing so will further delay our plan for dealing with the issues at hand and delay all the other good that this Bill will do; for example, allowing the EU to make its decision on data adequacy for the UK; providing for data preservation notices for coroners to support bereaved parents; introducing new offences tackling intimate image deepfake abuse; and enabling digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy. All these things are waiting in the wings once the data Bill is passed.

I hope that noble Lords will reflect on this. We are making compromises—indeed, we have made a compromise—and we are trying to work quickly. Our only concern is with the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which we do not feel will give us the comprehensive and detailed solution that we know is necessary to reassure the creative and technology sectors in the UK that we can make this work.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I first thank everyone who has spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who thinks that I have won. I therefore hope that he expects and anticipates that one of my amendments will make it into the Bill, because that is what winning looks like to me.

I want to make a broader point about winning and losing. I did not want to be here again. I know that the Minister has told the House to be very careful about how we speak, but I think that she would acknowledge that, in private, I have reached out to all sides of the Government to discuss this and to try to get a compromise. I think she will also know that the small changes that she mentioned—which are all very welcome, but do not add up to a real change—are not something that the Government came to me with before the debate; this was the first that I heard of them. That is probably because she knows that they are not profound or significant.

I wish that the Minister had not gone back on this issue of stealing. I just want to make it utterly clear—I hope my words were clear; I will re-read Hansard—that stealing is happening, and standing in the way of transparency allows stealing to continue. That is the argument that I have made; I have been very careful in making it. As many people around the House have said on the previous amendment, the Government cannot have it both ways. They do not like the drafting, but they do not draft anything else; they do not like the comprehensive one, but this one is not comprehensive enough. This is ping-pong in the round—the Government are forcing ping-pong on us. My real wish is that the Government find some strength, some humility and some way of coming forward with what we passed last time, which was a power to make regulation in their own image once their report had been done. That was a good amendment. That is the amendment that the Government should be backing. Today’s amendment is a “just in case”.

The Government should not worry about the bulk of the 11,500. They would be very happy if the Government acted now. That is not a problem, and I am willing to take that, but the Government have offered no timeline. They have proposed voluntary systems, while the longer issue will continue; they have said “as soon as we can”. I do not doubt that every Minister has in their heart the right motivation—let me say that on the record—but the actions of the Government are blocking an entire industry from protecting their property. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I appear to have this socialist inclination that people should have a fair day’s pay for their labour. I seek the agreement of the House.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

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

49D: Before Clause 138, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of copyrighted works used in relation to AI models
(1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must by regulations make provision as set out in this section in relation to a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2).
(2) 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).
(3) The regulations 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, and
(b) the means by which those works were accessed,
in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(4) The regulations may provide that the regulations 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.
(5) Regulations made under this section may make provision for enforcement of their provisions.
(6) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations made under this section within six months of the publication of the report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems), and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.””

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, last week, we had a decisive vote in favour of transparency for UK copyright holders—a first step towards protecting the labour and property of UK creators and creative businesses. Sadly, despite powerful interventions in the other place from all sides, including the Government Benches, those provisions were overturned on the basis of financial privilege.

Members of your Lordships’ House are rightly mindful of the primacy of the elected Chamber, so today I speak to Amendment 49D in lieu, which accepts the Government’s report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems already enshrined in the Bill as the mechanism by which they will come to a view on how best to frame transparency measures, while also ensuring that clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information will be provided to copyright owners so that they can identify the use of their copyright works and the means by which those works were accessed.

The amendment also takes at face value Statements made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box that creatives, UK AI companies and global brands will be in the room for discussions about copyright on no less a basis than Silicon Valley representatives. It accepts the Government’s will that they have free reign on enforcement procedures, so there are no financial commitments for enforcement as a result of this provision.

However, the amendment does require the Government to bring forward transparency regulation within six months of the report being completed. The Government have three times rejected my more comprehensive drafting, but they have also failed to bring forth something of their own. The amendment before us was drafted by an eminent lawyer with the very helpful support of the Public Bill Office.

If the Government are not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of their own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling wide-spread theft of UK copyright into the long grass. In the real world, failing to accept a timeline means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive. Ministers talk about balancing the interests of AI and creative companies, as if that is reasonable. Not only are they failing to listen to UK AI companies, but the idea is a little extraordinary. No other industrial sector in the UK is required by government policy to give its property or labour to another sector that is in direct competition with it, on a compulsory basis, in the name of balance.

The Government should have leapt at this opportunity to save a much-valued and valuable UK industrial sector, central to their own industrial strategy, but they have not. The amendment before us would provide certainty that a transparency regime will be forthcoming within 18 months of Royal Assent and would signal once and for all that UK copyright law is indeed the law of the land, a fact that has now been confirmed, under duress, by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but still they have taken no action to defend it.

This combination, giving creators, and by extension the courts, the information they need to enforce the law is the minimum viable action from the Government if we are to believe their warm words about the value of the creative sector. What you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The amendment would allow UK copyright owners to police their own property, leaving the Government to consider further legislative issues in a process that even Government Ministers admit may bear no fruit until the end of the decade.

We have had compelling speeches at each stage of our debate and, I must say, some notable acts of resistance and support, and I am deeply grateful for all of them.

Undermining copyright is a multigenerational harm because copyright not only supports today’s creators but is essential to create opportunities for the creators of the future. I want to put on record that young people refute the suggestion that emanates from government that everything is already stolen. Not only do models constantly need to be retrained, fine-tuned or augmented with up-to-date information but some people have not yet started their creative journey and some things remain to be created. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we do not squander the future of the young.

The amendment protects property rights of UK citizens and creative corporations. It asserts the right for any worker, including a creative worker, to be paid for their labour. It is also about coherence of policy. Why change benefits or implement new workers’ rights if at the same time the Government undermine copyright in the creative industry, which acts as sick pay, pension and wages across a £126 billion industrial sector?

The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, which has stolen—and continues to steal every day we take no action—the UK’s extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output. Silicon Valley has persuaded the Government that it is easier to redefine “theft” than make it pay for what it stole.

This amendment recognises the primacy of the elected House, and I urge all noble Lords, from all Benches, whatever their allegiance and whatever their whip, to stand behind our creative industries and our indigenous AI community.

I have tried everything to persuade the Government in private—everything. If the Government continue on their current intransient path with no meaningful alternatives, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry—an industry fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy, and it is entirely avoidable. It is a choice that the Government and we in this House can make today.

The UK creative industries embody our history, they hold our shared truth and tell our national story. A nation with a contested story is a troubled nation. A nation that gives away its capacity to tell its own story is a fragile place indeed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, I acknowledge the passion and depth of feeling from those noble Lords who have spoken and, again, I emphasise that we are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries, while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI.

Of course, we have listened, and are continuing to listen, to the views that have been expressed. We are still going through the 11,500 responses to our consultation, and I have to tell noble Lords that people have proposed some incredibly creative solutions to this debate which also have a right to be heard.

This is not about Silicon Valley; it is about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors that protects both. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, now endorses the Government’s reports as the right way to identify the right solutions; however, I will address some of her other points directly.

First, she talked about her amendment providing certainty to the creative industries. I can provide that certainty now, as Minister Bryant did in the other place last week. Copyright law in the UK is unchanged by this Bill. Works are protected unless one of the exemptions, which have existed for some time, such as those for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holders have guaranteed permission for their work to be used. That is the law now and it will be the law tomorrow.

I also want to reassure my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who talked about us stripping away rights today. I want to be clear that the Government have proposed no legislation on this issue; the Bill does no such thing. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would provide no certainty other than that of more uncertainty—of continuous regulations, stacked one upon another in a pile of instruments. This cannot be what anyone desires, and it is why the Government do not agree to it.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, suggested that her amendment, requiring regulations on only one issue ahead of all others and via a different process, would somehow leave Parliament free to consider all the other issues independently. I am afraid that this is not the case; this is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others, especially because, as I said earlier, this is a global issue, and we cannot ring-fence the UK from the rest of the world.

We refute the suggestion that we are being complacent on this. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that I of course agree that the UK should be a global leader, but we need to make sure that we have the right approach before we plant our flag on that. There is a reason that no other territory has cracked this either. The EU, for example, is still struggling to find a workable solution. It is not easy, but we are working quickly.

The noble Baroness once again raised enforcement, and she has left the mechanism to the discretion of the Government in her new amendment. While we are pleased that the noble Baroness has changed her approach on enforcement in light of the Commons reasons, we all agree that for new transparency requirements to work, enforcement mechanisms will be needed and must be effective.

The noble Baroness said she has tried everything to persuade the Government, and I would have welcomed a further meeting with her to discuss this and other aspects of her revised proposals. Unfortunately, however, that invitation was not accepted. To reiterate, in spite of all our different positions on this Bill, we are all working towards the same goal.

Following proper consideration of consultation responses and publication of our technical reports, we will bring forward comprehensive and workable proposals that will give certainty to all sides. If the House has strong views when the proposals come forward, there will of course be the opportunity for us to debate them. We have made it clear that our reports will be delivered within 12 months and earlier if we can. I remind noble Lords that the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will not take effect for 18 months. There is not an instant solution, as many noble Lords want to hear today. Neither the noble Baroness’s nor our amendment is an instant solution; it will take time, and we have to recognise that.

We do not believe, in the meantime, that protracted ping-pong on this one remaining issue in the Bill is in anyone’s interest. The elected House has spoken twice and through legislative and non-legislative commitments, the Government have shown they are committed to regulating quickly and effectively. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will accept these assurances and continue working with the Government to make progress on this important issue.

A lot has been said in this debate about the importance of transparency. To my noble friend Lord Brennan, I say that the Government have said from the very beginning that we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do. Transparency is essential to licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to AI being high quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. These are the challenges we are facing, but all these things have to be addressed in the round and together, not in a piecemeal fashion. However, noble Lords are absolutely right to say that, without transparency, it is, of course, worth nothing.

On enforcement, the Government are sympathetic to the argument that it is a different matter for individuals to enforce their rights via the courts as opposed to large creative agencies. This is the kind of the thing that the working groups I have mentioned will explore. As Minister Bryant said last week, we want to make the new regime effective for everybody, large and small.

I will finish with some things I am sure we can all agree on: the urgency of the problem; the need to be evidence-based; that solutions will require collaboration between the creative and the AI sectors; and the solutions must work for everyone. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that everybody will have a seat at the table in the discussions. I hope noble Lords will agree with me and truly support the innovators and creators in the UK by voting with the Government on this Motion, which will deliver a full, comprehensive package that will make a difference to the creative sector for years to come in this country.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken on this issue in the House and outside of the House. I particularly thank the Members on the Government Benches; I know it comes hard to disagree with your party, and I really appreciate it, as do all those outside the House.

I am going to try to take the high road from the Minister’s passionate defence. If the Government had spent as much time talking to me as they did to their own Back Bench to say, “Please do not rebel”, we would be in a different place. I did say that I was not able to be there at a particular time, but there were quite a lot of other occasions on which other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, knew where I was.

To go to the crux of the matter, the noble Baroness the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that this is UK law and the Government have done nothing to change it. This is precisely the problem: it is UK law, but it is unenforceable because what you cannot see you cannot enforce—period. That is the problem we are trying to solve, and it is a separate and different problem from the enormity of all the other issues she rightly raises. While I accepted the report as the mechanism and the idea that the Government could have their enforcement procedure in their own timeline, nothing that any Minister has said in either the other place or your Lordships’ House has put a timeline on it. It will take years and, by that time, there will be no creative industry left, or it will be in tatters.

I was interested in the contribution that said that AI companies have transparency and renumeration; that is the fundamental principle. I will not detain the House any longer. I am so grateful for everybody’s contributions to all our debates. This was a Lords starter; this does not challenge the primacy of the Commons. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too will speak to Motions 32A and 52A. Just to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I really appreciated that the Minister understood the concerns of those who moved these amendments. But, as the noble Baroness pointed out, reassurances have been given in this House, over many debates, that there was nothing to worry about in terms of confusion in relation to sex and gender. We have now ascertained via the Supreme Court that we needed some clarity and we have now got it. I do not want us to make the same mistake again.

I ask the Minister to clarify one thing he said in his opening remarks: that it would be overreach to ask the Secretary of State to declare biological sex as a material reality in all instances. I think that is what he said. I point out that biological sex is a material reality in all instances. Despite the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in relation to his friend, it is not, to clarify, about passing or appearances; it is about biological material reality. In that instance, the Minister called on us to have kindness. Of course, we should all have kindness all the time, in every instance. However, nobody here is trying to be unkind; the intent is to clarify. I liked something the Minister said in the past when he stated that

“we must have a single version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify it consistently and there need to be rules”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1620.]

I agree. It is not about kindness or unkindness; it is about clarification.

In addition to what has already been argued, this surely has to be about trust. I can tell the House that quite a lot of people I have spoken to are rather distrustful of digital ID of any sort. They are already cynical and anxious about what is going on with this data collection. I do not raise that point other than to say that the one thing you would want in order to counter such worries is that this particular measure should be trustworthy. Yet, to quote an article by Joan Smith in UnHerd, we are talking about “an officially sanctioned app” that will allow the falsification of sex, even if that is not its intent.

It would be a form of self-ID that appears to be endorsed by a government TrustMark based on documents that could be based on gender identity rather than sex. A government TrustMark ought to be trustworthy. It is supposed to guarantee that the data it contains is accurate, and that includes sex.

Something important happened with the Supreme Court’s clarification, but, of course, this is an ongoing discussion of the implications it has on a wide range of public policy. I understand that, but I fear that there are times when people suggest we should leave the Supreme Court to some kind of relativistic mishmash. People keep saying to me, “What’s your reading of it?” It is not about a reading; it is a clarification of the law. If this Bill inadvertently adds to that relativised muddle or is used as an excuse to dismiss the Supreme Court, that would be an unintended consequence of what the Government are doing. It could be simply sorted out by the Government themselves.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I want briefly to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Colville, to say that in Committee I asked a number of times whether the science of conditioning—that is, the science of persuasive design that would extend the use of children—could be considered science under the current definition, and I never got an answer. So, although I am very sympathetic to the idea that science must be possible, whatever we do with the Bill, I would like to ensure that it is not, as the noble Viscount says, an excuse for any kind of commercial activity that could be perpetrated on the user.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s case so clearly. I will speak to my Amendment 46A, which seeks to improve the report that the Government brought forward in the other place. This issue is causing real concern for copyright owners and so many others in the creative industries. Let us remind ourselves that the creative industries contributed £124 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and outperformed the UK economy between 2010 and 2023 in terms of growth. The Government are, wisely and rightly, prioritising growth over other concerns, and the creative industries will have to be an essential part of this—but only to the extent that they have a trusted and efficient marketplace for intellectual property.

Our amendment would improve the Government’s proposed report by adding consideration of extra territorial use of creators’ copyright works by operators of web crawlers and AI systems, as well as consideration of establishing a digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content. I very much take on board the Minister’s point that this must be international to work, but few countries, if any, would have better or greater convening power to initiate the process of creating such digital standards. I urge the Government to pursue that avenue.

I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have raised the issue of copyright during the passage of this Bill. I am sure that I will be joining many others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led such a powerful and successful campaign on this issue. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have recognised the serious concerns raised by the creative sector and, on Report, we tabled an amendment seeking to create a digital watermark to identify this content and to protect copyright owners. I am very pleased that the Government have taken the first step by amending the Bill in the other place to put a report in it. That being said, the report needs to go further. If the Government are unwilling to accept our changes, I will test the opinion of the House when my amendment is called.

I turn briefly to Motion 49A, I the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I once again pay tribute to the work that she has done to make progress on this. While we had concerns about the drafting of her amendment on Report, I am very pleased that she has tabled her Amendment 49B today. With the additional parts of it targeted at supporting small businesses and micro-entities, we are delighted to support it. It is increasingly clear that the Government must do the right thing for our creative industries, and we are delighted to offer our support to Motoin 49A. I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 46A when it is called.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion 49A and offer my support to Amendment 46A in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. It is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Government find a way to accept it without challenge.

I start by rebutting three assertions that have been circling over the past few weeks. First, I reject the notion that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are against technology. I quote the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, who I am delighted to see is below Bar this afternoon. He said to the FT that:

“Just as in every other time there is change in society, there will be some people who will either resist change or try to make change too difficult to deliver”.


Well, creative people are early adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices innovative. In my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film industry transform from working on celluloid to being a world-leading centre of digital production. For the past five years at Oxford’s Institute for Ethics in AI, where I am an advisor, I have been delighted to watch the leaps and bounds of AI development. Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers, and creative people are natural innovators. The Government’s attempt to divide us is wrong.

The transformational impact of technology is something that all the signatories of this weekend’s letter to the Prime Minister understand. Creators do not deny the creative and economic value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work and then rent it back from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress but about value. The AI companies fiercely defend their own IP but deny the value of our work. Not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but we, the creative industries, embody both change and tradition, and we reject the assertion that we are standing in the way of change. We are merely asserting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK’s future growth.

Secondly, there is no confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of the creative industries that the Government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property rights. In our last debate, my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made an unequivocal statement to that effect which has been widely supported by other legal opinion. The Government’s spokesman, who has greeted every press inquiry of the last few weeks by saying that the Government are consulting to sort out the confusion in copyright in relation to AI is, at best, misinformed. Let me be clear: the amendment would not change copyright. We do not need to change copyright law. We need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law, because what you cannot see you cannot enforce.

Thirdly, I rebut the idea that this is the wrong Bill and the wrong time. AI did not exist in the public realm until the early 2020s. The speed and scale at which copyright works are being stolen is eye-watering. Property that people have invested in, have created, have traded and that they rely on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value chain. It is an assault on the British economy, happening at scale to a sector worth £120 billion to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import. It is happening now, and we have not even begun to catch up with the devastating consequences. The Government have taken our amendments out of the Bill and replaced them with a couple of toothless reports. Whatever these reports bring forward and whatever the consultation offers, we need the amendment in front of us today now. If this Bill does not protect copyright then, by the time that the Government work out their policy, there will be little to save.

The language of AI—scraping, training, data modules, LLMs—does not evoke the full picture of what is being done. AI corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their existing information monopolies, are not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK’s most valuable cultural and economic assets—Harry Potter, the entire back catalogue of every music publisher in the UK, the voice of Hugh Grant, the design of an iconic handbag and the IP of our universities, great museums and library collections. Even the news is stolen in real time, all without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore. It costs UK corporations and individuals their hard-earned wealth and the Treasury much needed revenue. It also denudes the opportunities of the next generation because, whether you are a corporation or an individual, if work is stolen at every turn, you cannot survive. The time is now, and this Bill is the vehicle.

Motion 49A replaces the previous package of Lords amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who wishes he could be with us; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his colleagues, who have been uncompromising in their support; and my noble friend Lord Freyberg, who were all co-sponsors of the original amendment.

Amendment 49B would simply provide that a copyright holder be able to see who took their work, what was taken, when and why, allowing them a reasonable route to assert their moral right to determine whether they wish to have their work used, and if so, on what terms. It is a slimmer version of the previous package of amendments, but it covers the same ground and, importantly, it puts a timeline of 12 months on bringing forward these provisions and makes specific provision for SMEs and micro-entities and for UK-headquartered AI companies.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

49A: At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—

49B: Before Clause 138, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of business data used in relation to AI models
(1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must by regulations make provision as set out in this section in relation to a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2), and in relation to a data holder for the business data of such a trader.
(2) 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).
(3) A “data holder” for the business data of such a trader means—
(a) the trader, or
(b) a person who, in the course of a business, processes that data.
(4) The regulations must require specified business data to be published by the trader or the data holder so as to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(5) The regulations must require the business data to be published by the trader or the data holder in such form, at such intervals and in such manner as the regulations may prescribe, in particular so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.
(6) The regulations must require the trader or the data holder, when publishing the business data as required under subsections (4) and (5), to provide an effective mechanism to allow copyright owners to identify all individual works that they own that are used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(7) The regulations may provide that the regulations 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 regulations must require the trader, if bots are used in the making available of its AI model, to disclose information regarding the identity of such bots used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—
(a) the name of the bot,
(b) the legal entity responsible for the bot, and
(c) the specific purposes for which each bot is used.
(9) In this section “bot” means an autonomous software application that can interact with systems or users (including crawlers and fetchers) and which obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions.
(10) The regulations must make provision for enforcement of the regulations made under this section in accordance with sections 8 (enforcement of regulations under this Part), 9 (restrictions on powers of investigation etc) and 10 (financial penalties) of this Act as if this section were in Part 1 of this Act.
(11) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.””

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their fantastic contributions from all sides of the House. I say simply to the Government: I understand that they are trying to collect evidence, but the evidence is in front of their eyes that the wholesale stealing of UK copyright has gone on, is going on and will go on until we take action. I am afraid that a task force, a consultation, a review and listening is not adequate to the moment.

I will just push back on one thing: the Government did pick a side. They have forgotten that they had a preferred option for many months until this House spoke. So I ask all noble Lords, please, on whatever side of the House they sit, to show the creative industries that this House has their back. I wish to divide the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak primarily to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. We need to be crystal clear that we would not be here and we would not have come as far as we have—notwithstanding residual concerns—but for her work. Her entry into your Lordships’ House was greeted by the most shocking barrage of misogynistic innuendo and abuse, including from a septuagenarian, privileged veteran of progressive journalism who really ought to have known better. It was pretty ghastly to watch.

However, it has been a joy of equal measure to witness the noble Baroness’s response to her critics, and this has been the best kind of response. With her campaign—backed by supporters across the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supporters in civil society and the academy—she has made, in less than two years, a greater contribution to the most vital part of the legislative work of this House than many make in decades. Perhaps the young have something to teach their elders, after all, particularly about the new and all-too-lawless continent of the internet, which we have been discussing for some time today.

After nearly 30 years at the interface between criminal policy and the ECHR, I share the analysis of the harm caused by this 21st-century cybersex offence that has been offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. By contrast, I fear that Whitehall has displayed a breathtaking lack of empathy for the mostly women and girl victims of this conduct—a lack of empathy that, at times, verges on the obtuse. That has gone on for some years, as the noble Baroness indicated. It accounts for the time taken by the Government to agree to the offence being imprisonable, but I am glad that we finally got there.

Now, at the 11th hour, I too fear the sheer breadth of the Government’s reasonable excuse defence, which might drive a coach and horses through the protection. This kind of degrading conduct is no light-hearted matter. The creation of deepfake intimate image without a person’s consent is capable of destroying their dignity, mental health and life. More broadly, it is capable of changing the whole flavour of our society: in the classroom, in the workplace and wherever men and women rub along together. That is what is at stake.

“Reasonable excuse” defences are appropriate and necessary in the context of broad, strict liability offences capable of catching otherwise innocent behaviour. The classic example is the strict liability offence of being in possession of a blade in a public place. Without that “reasonable excuse” defence, any of us could be criminalised on the way back from the kitchen department at John Lewis, so there is an obvious reason for a reasonable excuse defence to that strict liability offence.

I put it to the House that we would not dream of a “reasonable excuse” defence for sexual assault. The offence requires intention, action and the sexualised aspect. Once these are established, there simply is no reasonable excuse. I believe that the creation of a deepfake intimate image is equivalent to sexual assault if it is without consent. I learn that the Government are concerned about freedom of expression in the context of creating deepfake intimate images without someone’s consent. Let us please remember that freedom of expression is not an absolute; it must be balanced with proportionate interference to protect the rights of others, hence laws against breach of copyright, child pornography and so on all over the world, including in the United States—famously, the land of the First Amendment.

I really must press my noble friend the Minister to explain in some detail—more than we have heard so far—why the tighter “reasonable excuse” defences from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, of red teaming and political satire do not do the trick? In other words, what are these other reasonable excuses for pernicious conduct of this kind? Why should there be any reasonable excuse for the solicitation offence? Where is the freedom of expression in soliciting that someone else creates the deepfake image?

I noticed the introduction of the concern about covert policing—I think my noble friend the Minister raised it—but surely he recalls the covert human intelligence Act, a very controversial Act of 2020 that I am still very concerned about, which allows the authorities to grant advanced immunity to people committing criminal conduct in the course of their covert surveillance. I am a bit concerned about that suddenly popping up as a reasonable excuse of government at the 11th hour on this offence.

Without further specifics, I am really concerned about the impression that the Government just do not get it, that they do not totally understand what is being perpetrated online and that they are not properly taking the protection of women and girls sufficiently seriously. I would really regret that. This is the coalface of human rights at this moment in the 21st century. I really hope there is still time for the Government to listen further to the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and think again.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said everything I was going to say and more and better, so I want just to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, and to say that I too have witnessed her forensic fight over the last few months. I hugely admire her for it, and I congratulate her on getting this far. I absolutely share all the concerns that both noble Baronesses have expressed. Just in case I do not have the opportunity again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extraordinary work and campaigning.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of non-consensual images, first with her Private Member’s Bill and then with amendments to this Bill. She has fought it with huge skill and determination, and, rightly, she has pushed it to the wire in wanting the most robust offence and tightest defences possible. I thank the Minister for his flexibility that he has shown so far—with the emphasis on “so far”.

The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward represent a compromise, given the strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General that the defence of “reasonable excuse” is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR and that, therefore, the whole Bill risks being non-compliant if that is not contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal brick wall, despite an excellent opinion from Professor Clare McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney-General’s case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of big tech companies to red team their models on images used without consent. That is a rather peculiar basis. Why cannot the big tech companies use images with consent? They would then be red teaming in a rather different and more compliant way.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement on this issue, not just with me but with Members across the House. It has been very much appreciated, including when she was not here because she was dealing with her own health issues.

When I talk about what we do here in the House of Lords, one of the great successes I point to is the scrutiny that we gave to the Online Safety Act. We did it in a cross-party way, eventually managing to persuade the Government, as well as Ofcom, about the changes that were needed. Those changes were then taken back to the House of Commons, and Ministers there conceded them. As a result of that working together, we ended up with a much stronger Bill that will do much to protect vulnerable and young people and those most at risk of harmful content online. So it is a matter of great regret that, the first time we are debating a statutory instrument of substantive interest under this Act, we—all of us, I suspect—have to say that we are deeply disappointed by the drafting that we have seen.

On 19 July 2023, I moved a very small amendment and was grateful to the House for its support. I said at the time that one change of one word—from “and” to “or”—made for a small but powerful amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out brilliantly and comprehensively why that change was so important, so in the time available, I will not repeat what he said. The House clearly voted for change and the Minister’s own party supported that change, for which I was deeply grateful.

The other interesting thing is that Ofcom said to me that it did not object to that change. However, in its note today—I am sure that it sent the note to other Members—Ofcom talked about the harms-based approach that it is following when recommending to the Government how they should legislate under the Act. But that harms-based approach rings hollow when—through Ofcom’s interpretation, which it has given to the Government—it has ridden roughshod over looking at the risk of the small but high-harm platforms.

The draft statutory instrument is based on the number of users, and this House in its amendment made it very clear that, with harmful platforms, it is not just about the number of users they have but absolutely about the content, the functionalities and the risks that those sites will raise.

As the noble Baroness set out, Ofcom is relying on paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 11, looking at

“how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service”.

But that paragraph says that the Secretary of State “must take into account” those things, not that the Secretary of State is bound solely by those criteria. Our criticism tonight of the statutory instrument is not just about the fact that Ofcom has chosen to take those words—I would say that Ofcom in not objecting to my amendment was being disingenuous if it already knew that it was going to rely on that sub-paragraph; the bigger question for the noble Baroness tonight is the fact that the Secretary of State did not have to accept the advice that Ofcom gave them.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked, as no doubt others will, about the risk and the harm that we have seen from platforms. We will talk about the fact that for the Southport victims it needed only one person to be radicalised by a site that they were looking at to cause untold misery and devastation for families. This House voted recently on the harm caused by deepfake pornographic abuse. Again, it does not take many people to utterly ruin a victim’s life, and what about those platforms that promote suicide and self-harm content? It is not sufficient to say that this Act will impose greater burdens on illegal content. We all know from debates on the Act that there is content which is deliberately not illegal but which is deeply harmful both to victims and to the vulnerable.

As Jeremy Wright MP said in the debate on these regulations in Committee in the House of Commons, the Government are going to want or need these category 1 powers to apply to smaller, high-harm platforms before too long. Indeed, the Government’s own strategic statement published last year specifically says:

“The government would like to see Ofcom keep this approach”—


that is, the approach it has to small, risky services—

“under continual review and to keep abreast of new and emerging small but risky services, which are posing harm to users online”.

The Government and the Secretary of State already know that there are small but high-harm platforms causing immense risk which will not be caught by these regulations. As we have also heard, the flight therefore to these small, high-harm, risky platforms absolutely will happen as those who want to punt out harmful content seek to find platforms that are not bound by the most stringent regulations.

I will stop there because I know that others wish to speak. I will support the regret amendment tonight should the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, decide to put it to a vote. It has taken far too long to get to this point. I understand the Government’s desire to make progress with these regulations, but the regret amendment states that it

“calls on the Government to withdraw the Regulations and establish a revised definition of Category 1 services”.

I ask the Minister to take that opportunity, because these regulations absolutely do not reflect the will of this House in that amendment. That is a great source of disappointment given the cross-party work that we all did to make sure the Online Safety Act was as comprehensive as it could be.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, particularly as chair of 5Rights and as adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford. I wholeheartedly agree with both the previous speakers, and in fact, they have put the case so forcefully that I hope that the Government are listening.

I wanted to use my time to speak about the gap between the Act that we saw pass through this House and the outcome. What worries me the most is how we should understand the purpose of an Act of Parliament and the hierarchy of the instructions it contains. I ask this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, have already said, the Government of the day, with the express support of Members of this House, including the Front Bench of the Labour Party, agreed that categorisation would be a question of risk or size, not simply size. That was the decision of the House, it was supported in the other place, and it is in the text of the Act. So, it would be useful to understand, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, whether the text of an Act and, separately, a statement made by a Minister from the Dispatch Box, have any authority. If they do, I cannot understand how Ofcom is allowed to overturn that, or how the Secretary of State, without taking action to amend the Act, has been able to allow it to do so.

It is essential to get a clear answer from the Minister about the status of the text of the Act, because this is a pattern of behaviour where the regulator and government appear to be cherry-picking which bits of the Online Safety Act are convenient and ignoring those they consider too difficult, too disruptive, or—I really hope not—too onerous for tech companies. Ofcom has similarly determined not to observe the provisions in the OSA about functionalities contained throughout the Act; for example, at Sections 9(5), 10(4) and 11(6)—I could go on; on extended use, at Section 11(6)(f); and on the requirement to consider the needs of children in different age groups which, like functionalities, run through the Act like a golden thread.

Ofcom’s own illegal harms register risk management guidance states that

“certain ‘functionalities’ stand out as posing particular risks because of the prominent role they appear to play in the spread of illegal content and the commission and facilitation of … offences”.

Ofcom then says its regulatory framework is intended to ensure service providers put in place safeguards to manage the risks posed by functionalities. It lists end-to-end encryption, pseudonymity and anonymity, live-streaming, content recommender systems, and, quite rightly, generative AI, all as functionality that it considers to be high risk. Specifically in relation to grooming, functionalities Ofcom considers risky include network expansion prompts, direct messaging, connection lists and automated information displays.

Despite acknowledgement that functionalities create heightened risk, a clear statement that addressing risk forms part of its regulatory duties, and the clearly expressed intent of Parliament and the wording of the Act, Ofcom has failed to comprehensively address functionalities both in the published illegal harms code and the draft children’s code, and it has chosen to overrule Parliament by ignoring the requirement in Schedule 11 to consider functionalities in determining which services should be designated as category 1 services.

Meanwhile, paragraph 4(a)(vii) of Schedule 4 is crystal clear in its objective of the Act that user-to-user services

“be designed and operated in such a way that … the different needs of children at different ages are taken into account”.

Ofcom has chosen to ignore that. Volume 5 of its draft children’s code says

“our proposals focus at this stage on setting the expectation of protections for all children under the age of 18”.

Any child, any parent and anyone who has spent time with children knows that five and 15 are not the same. The assertion from Ofcom in its narrative about the children’s code is blinding in its stupidity. If common sense cannot prevail, perhaps 100 years or more of child development study that sets out the ages and stages by which children can be expected to have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand something could inform the regulator—and similarly, the age and stage by which we cannot expect a child to understand or have the intellectual capacity to deal with something.

The whole basis of child protection is that we should support the children on their journey from dependence to autonomy because we know that they do not have the capacity to do it for themselves in all contexts, because of the vulnerabilities associated with ages and development stages. Ofcom knows that the Act says that it should reflect this but somehow feels empowered to ignore or overrule the will of Parliament and, just as with categorisation, the Government appear to condone it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Ofcom’s advice was that how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated are the key factors that it needed to make the judgment. I cannot say anything more than that.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but maybe this would be a good moment to answer my question about the hierarchy of text in an Act versus the regulator’s advice. It was my understanding, when the House agreed to that amendment, that it was an instruction to the regulator rather than something “nice to have” if it decided later that it did not like it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The SI before us today, based on Ofcom’s advice, is the best way that we can find, in terms of practicality, of enforcing what was written in the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only say what I have already said on this. We are looking at “small but risky”. Ofcom is working hard on this, and we are working hard on this. We can review whether the categorisation process is working. As I have already set out, that option is available to us further down the line. But, at the moment, as with other parts of the Online Safety Act, we felt we needed to get on with it and put these measures into place. Already, the categorisation provisions will take another year or 18 months to come into effect, so it is not as though that is the most imminent part of the implementation of the Act. I hear what noble Lords say. None of these issues are off the table, but we just wanted to get the Act rolled out in as quick and as current a form as we could.

If I could move on, in response to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Parkinson, I am not able to share the legal advice, but, as I have said, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework. The current thresholds are legally valid and have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In addition to small but risky services, even though in principle there is a provision that allows a user number threshold not to be met, it does not for example allow for sub-delegations to other parties such as coroners, which was another concern of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.

The decision on the categorisation thresholds has led, as I have just been saying, some to assume that certain small high-risk services are being overlooked by the legislation. However, this is not the case, as they will be subject to the stringent illegal harm and child safety duties. I know that Members are aware that the categorisation of small but risky services would also not prevent or deter users who were determined to access harmful content on dedicated forums. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the question of small but risky services evading the core duties, such as the terms of service and user empowerment. Services that exist solely to host abusive or pro-suicide content, for example, will not have terms of service banning such content, so enforcing those terms would be ineffective in reducing harm.

In addition, the user empowerment tools will enable adult users of category 1 services to avoid certain types of content, such as harmful suicide content. We anticipate that these duties will be most beneficial when services have commercial incentives to prohibit harmful content and where users wish to avoid content they may otherwise see, but not where users are actively seeking out harmful content.

I hope that begins to explain the Secretary of State’s decision. I have to say, and have said, that it was a difficult one and, while we acknowledge the possibility of deviating from Ofcom’s advice and utilising the option to set threshold combinations without a user number, this would not have had the effect of meaningfully reducing harm on small but risky services but would risk regulating hundreds of small low-risk services.

Regarding Ofcom’s small but risky supervisor task force, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about, I am confident that Ofcom can effectively use that task force to address these issues. Ofcom already had plans to ensure compliance with the first duties that go live under the Act. These include using targeted enforcement action against small risky services where there is evidence of a significant ongoing risk of harm to users, especially children, and an apparent lack of safety measures in place. In serious cases, Ofcom can seek a court order imposing business disruption measures if there is evidence of continued non-compliance. This could mean asking a third party to withdraw from the service or asking an internet service provider to limit access.

I hope that, as the child safety and illegal content duties come into force this year and the work of the task force begins, those in this House who are concerned will be able to see how these services will not evade their responsibilities under the Act.

Regarding Wikipedia, in response to the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, the Government are not in a position to confirm which services will be designated as category 1. Indeed, this is Ofcom’s statutory obligation once the regulations have passed and are in force. It is worth noting that many of the duties on categorised services are subject to the principle of proportionality. This requires Ofcom to consider measures that are technically feasible to providers of a certain size or capacity. Where a code of practice is relevant to a duty, Ofcom must have regard to a principle of proportionality. What is proportionate for one kind of service might not be proportionate for another.

The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, also queried how Ofcom could make assessments against the definitions of certain functionalities, characteristics and user number thresholds in the statutory instrument. Once the regulations have been approved by Parliament, Ofcom will issue requests for information and will start assessing services against the threshold conditions.

I also understand that there has been concern that small low-risk platforms, such as local community forums, are being overburdened by the Act and its duties. I must reiterate that these platforms, often run by a small number of users, will not be captured by the categorisation thresholds debated today. At the same time, I acknowledge that the new illegal content and child safety duties will require some additional work from these types of services.

I assure those here today that the principles of proportionality and risk are embedded into the duties on services and Ofcom in relation to the codes of practice. This means that small and low-risk services should not be overburdened by the duties in the Online Safety Act. In efforts to ease the process for small services, Ofcom is providing support to online services to help them to understand their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. These can be found on Ofcom’s website.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson raised the question of engagement with relevant committees. I agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Online Safety Act and welcome the expertise Members of both Houses bring. The Government agree that it is vital that regulators are accountable for their services, including through existing annual reports and reporting requirements. We will continue to work with the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to support their ongoing scrutiny, as well as any other parliamentary committees that may have an interest in the Act. I am more than happy to meet my noble friend Lord Stevenson to discuss how that could be progressed further.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, I want to put on record that a letter was shared with the Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Committee in response to concerns raised during the Commons debate.

I must again stress that the Secretary of State will be holding these thresholds and the wider regulatory framework under review going forward and the Government will take whatever action is necessary to tackle risky services of any size.

I would finally like to thank all those who have contributed today: the noble Lords, Lord Clement- Jones, Lord Pannick, Lord Moylan, Lord Stevenson, Lord Russell and Lord Knight, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Kidron, Lady Penn—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who continues to put valuable work, expertise and energy into making the UK a safer place, both online and in the material world. I specifically thank user safety groups that have engaged with the Government on this matter and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his dedication to his work on these issues.

I recognise that there are some who would like to see changes to this instrument and some who believe that the decisions of the Government do not align with the intentions of the Act. I hope they understand that every decision made by this Government is made with the intention of bringing about the Act in an important and timely way. For too long, children and adults in this country have had to grapple with an unsafe online environment, and the instrument that we have debated today shows real progress.

I do not shy away from the challenge we face in navigating the ever-changing online world. I recognise that the Act is imperfect. However, it is not the destination but a significant step in the right direction. There will always be more that we can do. Years of delay and lack of progress have come at an unfathomable cost for vulnerable children and adults, with lives cut short and families’ worlds turned upside down. It is time to deliver change. I hope noble Lords will consider the time pressure and the fact that we have to get on with the rollout of the Act. I urge noble Lords to approve this vital legislation today.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I raised a number of questions and I would be grateful, if the Minister is not going to answer them in the moment, if she could write to me about the Joint Committee, the hierarchy of the Act and statements from the Dispatch Box versus this decision and other decisions.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, if I have not covered any issues, I will of course write to noble Lords to clarify any matters that are outstanding.