Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what representations, if any, they have made to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation about the fact that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation has not published its financial statements in any year since 2000, with the exception of the financial year 2019-20.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Commonwealth Telecommunication Organisation (CTO) is an international organisation, and the United Kingdom is one of 33 Member States. The CTO Secretariat presents statements of annual accounts to its governing Council, which consists of CTO Member States. From 2000 to 2019, annual financial audits of the CTO were carried out on time, presented to successive CTO Council meetings, and formally approved. Audited reports for 2019-20 and 2020-21 were approved by the CTO Council on 24 February 2023. An audited report for the financial year 2021-22 was approved by the CTO Council on 23 April 2026. Audited reports for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 will be presented shortly. The CTO Council has agreed to reappoint its Auditor to conduct the audits for 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the judgment in PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12 on the ability of UK designers to enforce registered design rights; and what consideration they have given to implementing legislative changes to broaden the scope of protection afforded to particularly novel and innovative designs.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Following the judgement in PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12, the UK IPO issued guidance to help applicants define their intended scope of protection when registering a design.
The government has undertaken an in-depth review of the legislative framework for designs, followed by a wide-ranging consultation which took place in the autumn of 2025. The consultation included proposals to improve the validity of registered designs, make the designs system more accessible to designers and small businesses and improve access to enforcement. A government response to the consultation will be published later this year.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, as a condition of receiving public funding or access to public compute through the Sovereign AI Fund, AI companies are required to demonstrate lawful access to copyrighted works used in the training or development of their AI models, including by providing evidence of licences from rightsholders or reliance on a specific statutory exception under UK copyright law.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Sovereign AI Fund operates on a commercial basis and within the UK’s existing legal framework. Companies receiving equity investment through Sovereign AI undergo due diligence before receiving funds or other support and are expected to comply with all applicable laws, including UK copyright law.
The Government has been clear that copyright rules should be respected. 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.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is currently possible for the Sovereign AI Fund to award (1) equity investment, or (2) access to the AI Research Resource supercomputer network, without assessing whether the training or development of AI models by the AI companies concerned complies with UK copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Sovereign AI Fund operates on a commercial basis and within the UK’s existing legal framework. Companies receiving equity investment through Sovereign AI undergo due diligence before receiving funds or other support and are expected to comply with all applicable laws, including UK copyright law.
The Government has been clear that copyright rules should be respected. 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.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, when deciding to award (1) equity investment through the Sovereign AI Fund, or (2) access to the AI Research Resource supercomputer network, an assessment is made of whether companies’ training or development of AI models complies with UK copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Sovereign AI Fund operates on a commercial basis and within the UK’s existing legal framework. Companies receiving equity investment through Sovereign AI undergo due diligence before receiving funds or other support and are expected to comply with all applicable laws, including UK copyright law.
The Government has been clear that copyright rules should be respected. 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.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many prosecutions have been brought under section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949 for the intentional copying of a registered design since the offence was introduced; and what assessment they have made of the practicality of extending similar criminal sanctions to the intentional infringement of unregistered design rights.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Since the criminal offence for unauthorised copying of a registered design was introduced by the Intellectual Property Act 2014, there is one reported case on record which included a conviction for an offence under section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949.
The government included a call for evidence on extending criminal sanctions to the unauthorised copying of unregistered designs in the consultation on changes to the UK designs framework which closed on 27 November 2025. At this stage, no decisions have been made and the evidence received is still being analysed. A government response to the consultation will be published later this year.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the Intellectual Property Office’s design registration fee structure to lower the cost for individual designers and small businesses filing single-design applications; and what assessment they have made of the impact on the overall size and usability of the register of the current discounts for bulk electronic filings.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Fees are reviewed regularly to ensure the UK intellectual property framework remains accessible. The recent increase in statutory fees was a general uplift which did not alter the structure of designs fees.
The outcome of the recent consultation on changes to the UK designs framework may require a re-examination of the fee structure for designs, however the government is aware that users of the UK designs system value the low-cost of registering designs compared to other jurisdictions.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to simplify the UK's unregistered design framework, in light of the post-Brexit coexistence of the UK Unregistered Design Right and the EU Supplementary Unregistered Design Right.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The government is aware that there are aspects of design law which would benefit from simplification, consolidation and streamlining to make it easier for UK designers to protect their work.
The government’s consultation last year on changes to the UK design framework sought views on a range of measures to simplify the complexity of unregistered designs and help businesses who want to protect designs in the UK and EU. The government is currently reviewing responses to the consultation, and a response will be published later this year.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what binding contractual terms, conditions of use, monitoring arrangements or audit mechanisms apply to access to the AI Research Resource supercomputer network, to ensure that public compute is not used for the training or development of AI models in a manner that would infringe UK copyright law; and what consequences apply in the event of non-compliance.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Access to the AI Research Resource (AIRR) is governed by binding contractual and operational conditions to ensure that publicly funded compute is used responsibly and in line with UK law, including UK copyright law.
All users are required to enter into formal access agreements with the relevant host institutions and funders. The AIRR is currently delivered through systems hosted by the University of Bristol (Isambard‑AI) and the University of Cambridge (Dawn), with funding provided by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) on behalf of the Government. DSIT have been clear that copyright rules should also be respected: use of copyright works to train AI in the UK will require a licence unless an exception applies.
Where there is evidence or reasonable suspicion of breach of the AIRR conditions of use, remedial actions may include investigation by the host institution, suspension or termination of access, withdrawal of compute allocations, and, where appropriate, the application of contractual remedies.
Asked by: Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to prevent the abuse of the UK design register by traders registering invalid old designs to maliciously block competitors on online marketplaces; and what consideration they have given to reintroducing substantive examination or the use of artificial intelligence search tools to identify invalid applications prior to registration.
Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The government is aware that some applicants are abusing the UK design system and seeking to register designs for well-known products or products that don’t belong to them.
The 2025 consultation on changes to the UK design framework sought views on a wide range of measures around search and examination to improve the validity of registered designs. The government is currently reviewing responses to the consultation, and a response will be issued later this year.