Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

While I agree with most of the Secretary of State’s music recommendations, I pay tribute to Girls Aloud, who are the ultimate pop icons in the British music industry.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Sugababes, surely!

[Sally Jameson]

A close second. Will the Secretary of State commit to chairing a cross-sector working group with the AI industries and the creative sector in the room to help to inform any future legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Darlington]

Does the hon. Member agree that what that quote proves is that AI cannot capture the wit and humour that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) brings to this Chamber?

[Chris Bryant]

And fashion.

[Emily Darlington]

And fashion. In fact, AI is a poor copy of what my hon. Friend represents and bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have to say that I am slightly surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is willing to speak in support of the Government’s position, but it means that I have more time to speak than I had initially thought would be the case. I will not repeat the arguments that we have had in the lengthy debates on these measures that have already taken place, but I want to make one or two points.

In his contribution, the Secretary of State said that he had never mentioned the word “uncertainty” and implied that he thought that copyright law is clear. I have to say that that contrasts with an awful lot of the debates we have had previously, in which his colleague, the Minister for the Creative Industries, has talked about there being uncertainty.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Member must have missed several of the debates in which I expressly said that I did not think there was any uncertainty about the law as it presently stands.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Well, the ministerial foreword to the consultation paper suggests there was uncertainty, and that has consistently been one of the reasons why the Government have said they need to carry out all these consultations. Even if the law is clear, as the Secretary of State suggests—personally, I believe it is clear—the important thing is that it can only be enforced if those who have their copyright breached are aware that that has taken place. That is why transparency is of critical importance, as I know the Government have acknowledged.

The Secretary of State has said this afternoon that he is going to set up more working parties. Our concern is that, as the Secretary of State has just said, a large amount of copyrighted material is already being scraped by generative AI. His working parties and further consultations—we wait to hear when legislation might arrive—mean that it will be another few years before we actually have this measure on the statute book. There is an opportunity to have something on the statute book now, and he will be aware that the existing provisions—the robots.txt provisions—are simply being ignored. They are not working, and it is important that we act immediately to send a very clear signal that we expect transparency to be in place and for generative AI companies to properly remunerate licence holders.

I want to mention some of the other provisions. On the Order Paper, the Government have said that Lords amendment 49D “engages financial privilege”.