Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Baker of Dorking Excerpts

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

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will very briefly make two points. The first is to perhaps allay some fears that noble colleagues may have about the constitutional propriety of where we find ourselves, and for this, I thank our wonderful Library.

This is a Lords starter Bill—it started in your Lordships’ House. Since 1997, there have been no fewer than 14 Bills which started in the Lords and have gone backwards and forwards for ping-pong three times or more. Of the 14 Bills, two of them got a score of five, one got a score of four and 11 got a score of three, so we are not in virgin or new territory. This is tried and tested and it is what happens when there are fundamental disagreements, and there is nothing unconstitutional about trying to settle a genuine disagreement in a way which gets each side to listen to the other, to acknowledge the other side’s strength of view and to come up with some sort of accommodation which both sides can live with. We are having a problem arriving at that, but we are not in a state of constitutional impropriety. That is the first point that I wish to make.

The second is to emphasise the point my noble friend was making on the urgency of this. I have some sympathy for His Majesty’s Government here. When I spoke briefly on Monday, I tried to indicate the background and the dilemma that our Government find themselves in, and I have a lot of sympathy for that.

Under the previous Government, noble Lords may recall that our penultimate Prime Minister was a great fan of AI and made great play of trying to attract interest in AI, positioning the United Kingdom as potentially a major base of the AI sector outside the United States. The new Government have continued that theme and recognised AI as a core element in one of their many missions for growth. However, if we look at where the United States is coming from, we see that its position is very clear, and it is deeply uncomfortable for us. Vice-President Vance said on 11 February at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris that

“with the president’s recent executive order on AI, we’re developing an AI Action Plan that avoids an overly precautionary regulatory regime while ensuring that all Americans benefit from the technology and its transformative potential … Now, we invite your countries to work with us and to follow that model if it makes sense for your nations. However, the Trump Administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on U.S. tech companies with international footprints. Now, America cannot and will not accept that, and we think it’s a terrible mistake not just for the United States of America but for your own countries”.

What could be clearer than that?

OpenAI, one of the major companies involved in this, says that America needs a global strategy that adopts American AI systems, not anybody else’s, and a copyright strategy that protects

“the rights and interests of content creators”,

and preserves

“American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material”.

After the consultation in this country with our Government, it said:

“The UK has a rare opportunity to cement itself”,


—it makes one think of being in cement under Brooklyn Bridge—

“as the AI capital of Europe by making choices that avoid policy uncertainty, foster innovation, and drive economic growth”,

calling for a broad copyright exemption.

Lastly, Google said that rights holders can already effectively exercise “choice and control”, but suggested those who opt out of AI training would not necessarily have a right to remuneration if they still appeared on a model’s training data—so, basically, “We’ve stolen it, but too bad”. It further said that

“we believe training on the open web must be free”,

and it warned that

“excessive transparency requirements … could hinder AI development and impact the UK’s competitiveness in the space”.

This is the very uncomfortable dilemma we are in. I would welcome transparency from His Majesty’s Government about the fact that we are in an uncomfortable place and that we all need to work together to find a solution that is in the best interests of our country and of our creative sector. We obviously need to come to an accommodation with the United States of America, but on the basis of the last two months since “Freedom Day”, one day after April Fools’ Day, we are in dangerous territory. We just need to be honest with one another.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her determination and consistency in promoting this cause. It is very worth while, and, as she said, she is the spokesperson for at least 2.5 million people who constitute the cultural history of our country.

What I find rather extraordinary about this Government is that, within a period of a year, they have sought to turn huge numbers of people sharply against them. First, they turned the pensioners against them, then they turned on the farmers, and now they are turning on the creators of our culture, which are very much larger than the farmers. If this is passed tonight, I am sure it will go to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, who must begin to wonder, if he is managing to turn all these groups into enemies, how many will support them in 2029 This has political implications.

There is no doubt that the whole cultural world of our country—not just the writers but the composers and painters as well—feels that it would have its livelihood severely limited, if not almost eliminated. Not only does that go for the famous writers such as Ishiguro but last Thursday, Antony Gormley, our leading sculptor —some would say he is a genius—said that it was our duty to defend the moral integrity of creators. I hope that the Minister also believes in what he said about defending the moral integrity of creators. That is what this Bill is about. Once we remove the protection of royalty, we make copying very easy and very quick. If the Bill stands on the statute book like this, it will also enhance criminality, because not only the big four but anybody in their garage in Wolverhampton could ask ChatGPT, or AI, or Microsoft to create a picture by a great painter, and then they could sell it. Only if the painter were alive and said, “Well, I never painted it” would they be able to stop it. When they are dead, anybody can do it. In fact, I think some would do it.

I know the Minister is under pressure from the big American companies, but I draw her attention to comments in the Financial Times this week by someone who is described normally as the godfather of AI, a Canadian called Yoshua Bengio. He says that, at this moment, all sorts of people are experimenting in AI and trying to find a way to accommodate it and protect themselves from it but also benefit from it. He said very clearly that he was scared by recent events,

“because we don’t want to create a competitor to human beings on this planet, especially if they’re smarter than us”.

That is of course the danger of AI, particularly in the creative world. Once the creators have lost control of their royalties, what will they depend on? There is absolutely no doubt that many of them will suffer financially because of this Bill. Last week, as I already mentioned, Antony Gormley—our famous sculptor; some would say he is a genius—said on the “Today” programme that there is a duty to defend the moral dignity of our creators. That is at the heart of the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled.

I hope the Government will therefore consider not only that this is a bad Bill but that it has been done far too quickly. Normally in our legislation, we have consultation before we get to Report, but the Minister says that they are now consulting everywhere on the impacts of this measure. That is entirely the wrong way to behave, and I hope we will send the Bill back to the Commons later tonight.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Baker of Dorking Excerpts

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

The Government need to create a framework that is fair and transparent, where innovation can co-exist with AI—and not some time in the future but right now. We need assurances. We must not sell ourselves short. I urge the Government to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to introduce transparency, with regulations in place to give creators peace of mind for their future innovation, creation and livelihood, and especially for the sake of our children’s and young people’s future. I declare an interest as per the register.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on this measure, because I had assumed that, after the Bill had gone to the House of Commons, it would accept the arguments that have been adduced in this place in the previous debates and realise that this is not only a wrong Bill but a very harmful one for the creative talents in our countries.

What I find particularly strange about it is that it is totally alien to the attitude taken by the Labour Party since 1900. In 1900, the trade unions and the early people—the Fabians—were totally in favour of supporting British culture. No one was more so, strangely enough, than Keir Hardie. One of my grandfathers knew Keir Hardie. My grandfather was the secretary of a trade union, and got the post because he was one of the few dock workers who could read and write. He became a friend of Keir Hardie, who often stayed with him when he came down to Newport. My grandfather persuaded Keir Hardie to realise that, if the lot of the working class was really to be improved, and they were able to enjoy the great culture of Britain, they first had to read and be easy in reading. That has been one of the main features of the Labour Party since 1900. The party has been prominent in that and takes great pride in it.

In 1936, when Allen Lane published the first Penguin—a paperback book that cost only sixpence—it was a revolution, and Clement Attlee recognised it as such. The cost of a hardbound book with a dust jacket was £1. How could a working man in 1936—when the average wage of a labourer was only £5 a week—afford a book costing £1? Clement Attlee realised that that was a real revolution and spoke out in favour of it, and when he became Prime Minister after the war the Arts Council was set up. In the first Labour Government, from 1964 to 1970, Jennie Lee became the first Minister for the Arts. Not only that but she trebled the amount of money that the Arts Council had and did much to promote the National Theatre—she laid the foundation stone of it.

So Labour has always in its history supported culture, British culture and creative people. This is directly against the tradition of Labour, and it should realise that. Where are the spokesmen on the Back Benches in this House or in the House of Commons who are getting up and supporting the Government? They do not exist, as far as I can see. Does anybody on the Labour Back Benches want to get up and support the Government? The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is going to support the amendment—they should have the courage to follow him.

The Minister did not really talk about the damage that could be done to the creative talents of our country, but perhaps she could look at last week’s Times Literary Supplement, in which there are eight articles by British authors, all of whom are very worried by this. They fear that they are having their particular characteristics taken away and stolen for nothing, and they will not be able to earn a living. One of those writers is Katherine Rundell, a fellow of All Souls and a quite brilliant writer of children’s fantasy books. Another great writer, Ishiguro, has also attacked the Bill, as has Salman Rushdie, the most read English writer in the world. So where are the supporters for this proposal?

The Minister should stop listening to the large tech companies in America, many of which have existed for only four years, and listen to the great cultural experts in our country, who are celebrating a culture that extends over 1,000 years. That is what we should be proud of. The Government should realise that this is a wrong Bill and a disgraceful Bill, and I do not think that a wrong and disgraceful Bill should lie on our statute books.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I, too, have an aversion to ping-pong, having spent 23 years in the House of Commons and having been a Minister—and having experienced it overnight, with people having to sleep in their offices. Often, it became more “pong” than “ping”, after that extended period of time.

In this instance, there is a lot of justification for your Lordships’ House insisting on the Government taking another look and perhaps coming forward with their own compromise, which many noble Lords have called for. I very much welcome the tone taken by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons, who spoke at the Dispatch Box himself on that occasion to admit that errors may have been made in issuing the consultation and in the position taken by the Government then, which may have triggered a lot of the debate we are having on the Bill.

Although he is also a Gwent boy, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who said that this is a terrible Bill. It is not a terrible Bill, but it does have a massive lacuna: the issue of AI and its impact on creators and their livelihoods. It is a matter of livelihoods, of people paying their rent, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said.

I also welcome the tone of and comments made by my noble friend the Minister in her opening remarks. I welcome what she said about enforcement, economic impact assessments and committing to bring forward a report in six rather than nine months. Those are all welcome additional commitments that we have not necessarily heard before. However, she felt that not adding these amendments or something similar to the Bill would give greater certainty, and here, I disagree with her. She said that creative industries and the tech industries want certainty. In my view, certainty would be provided if we accepted today’s amendment, or indeed the previous amendments the noble Baroness has proposed, because they give greater certainty to everyone that copyright will be enforced in this country and that the means to enforce it will be available through greater transparency.

Last Thursday, some of us in this place—I refer to my declaration of interests, including as a member of the Ivors Academy—went along to the Ivor Novello awards, which celebrates the great songwriters and composers of this country. Ivor Novello, whose original name was Ivor Davies, was born in my old constituency of Cardiff West, and there is a plaque on the very street around the corner from my house indicating where he was born. The Ivor Novello awards are a reminder that we are world leaders in creativity, as other noble Lords have said, and that we are net exporters of that creativity. Our great creativity is a foreign currency earner for this country, and we should not get into bed with anyone who seeks to undermine that.

The amendment being put forward by the noble Baroness is a modest amendment—some might say too modest, compared to what could be done if the Government came forward with their own in lieu. But that is exactly what the Government should do: they should make their case, rather than invoking financial privilege on every occasion. Although it is the Commons’ right to do that, in my view the argument should be made. If this is the wrong pathway, why is it the wrong pathway? Transparency is what is needed, and it is needed now.