Monday 2nd June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberData (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 104-I Marshalled List for Consideration of Commons Reason - (30 May 2025)
17:15 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 116 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49E.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start today’s debate by repeating some of the sentiments set out by the Secretary of State before the Whitsun Recess, when the elected House once again overturned the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to the Bill. I am sure many noble Lords will have read these in Hansard, but for those who have not, I urge them to do so, as they were well received. The single remaining issue—AI and copyright—is one I know that many noble Lords care deeply about, and with good reason. It is imperative that we become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both AI and our world-leading creative industries, a country whose economy thrives and which remains innovative, creative and, very importantly, fair.
As I have said before, we must get this right to ensure that we promote innovation and creativity, transparency and access, recognition and reward. The Secretary of State noted his regret about how the consultation and the Bill collided and how, by indicating a preferred option, the Government appeared to have prematurely taken a side in this important debate.
I also want to ensure that noble Lords have complete clarity on our approach and how it has always been separate from the data Bill, which includes no provision to change anything in copyright law. To reiterate, the Government have an open mind about the outcome of the consultation. We will listen intently to the views of the many people who have responded to it, many of whom have interesting ideas which deserve full consideration.
It is completely understandable that noble Lords have sought to use this Bill to set a direction of travel for future regulation in this area. They are right to have asked the questions that they have. I hope that the additional assurances that I will give today provide confidence that despite continuing to resist the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we truly want to solve these issues and have a plan to do so.
Outside the legislative process, the Government will continue to do our utmost to analyse and resolve the issues. We are studiously considering the thousands of responses to the consultation. The Secretary of State is setting up expert working groups to bring people together from technology and the creative sectors to chart the way forward in a full range of areas, with a particular emphasis on transparency and technical standards. We are committed to listening—genuinely listening—to a broad range of views. The noble Baroness’s assertion that government only ever listens to big tech is as unfair as it is unfounded. The Secretary of State and Minister Bryant have met representatives of the creative industries as well as Members of both Houses to hear from them. We will of course make sure that noble Lords are informed about the progress and outcomes of the working groups at every stage possible, not least as I am sure that there will be many questions tabled on this by noble Lords. I look forward to answering them.
As noble Lords know, we have committed in the Bill to report on economic impacts and the use of copyright in the development of AI systems within 12 months of Royal Assent. This will be an important staging post as we move forward with the consultation process and subsequent regulatory change. Today, I want to give some further reassurances on the Government’s trajectory and commitments to speed and parliamentary accountability.
First, I can confirm that the Government’s report on the use of copyright work in the development of AI systems will address two additional areas, specifically highlighted by the noble Baroness’s original amendment: how to deal with models trained overseas; and how rules should be enforced and by whom. The first issue has been raised in this House, including by my noble friend Lord Brennan and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The latter is an issue that has invoked financial privilege in the other place, but where it is right for the Government to put forward their view.
Secondly, to reflect our shared view that these issues need to be resolved quickly, we will publish an economic impact assessment—and the report required by the Bill—within nine months of Royal Assent, rather than 12. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. Thirdly, if we are not in a position to publish final documents within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament a report setting out the progress being made towards their publication. I hope that this gives noble Lords the assurances that they need that our work will not be done behind closed doors. We want to make progress in a manner that involves Parliament and relevant stakeholders.
As a final word, I know that this debate has been heated at times. The wider world looks to us in this place to debate with courtesy—“to disagree agreeably”, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in response to last summer’s King’s Speech. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider their words today, to avoid the language of betrayal and conflict and to try to find a measured and civil tone through which we can trace our path forward. Finding the right way forward means dealing with the issues together and coming up with workable, considered solutions. It is in nobody’s interest if we rush towards the wrong conclusion or ineffective regulation.
Time and again in previous Sessions, promises were made and legislation rushed through only for us to go through the entire process again when it was found to be inadequate. We said that we would legislate better and we are determined to do so. That means consulting properly, following the additional deliberative processes that I have set out, and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament and both sides of the argument can have confidence in. I urge noble Lords on all sides of this House: let us get on with sorting out this issue, rather than creating yet another standoff with the House of Commons and delaying the processes that we have put in the Bill. The creative and technology industries want certainty, not constitutional crises.
I hope that my remarks today give noble Lords confidence in the Government’s approach, which has accountability at its heart and will allow us to put this important Bill to bed. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Kidron
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D—
“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.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I propose to be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in a formidable speech, has set out all the issues. Still, I will make a couple of points.
The first is that I do not like protracted ping-pong. I think it is constitutionally not great. When it happened when I was a Minister in the other place, I was none too pleased. However, the difference between then and now is that when your Lordships sent something to the other place, first, it was established that the Government would not comment on it until they had considered it properly, and, secondly, you would have discussions with whoever had proposed the amendment and try to find an accommodation in the interests of ensuring that good legislation got on to the statute book. On many occasions when I was irritated, I came to realise that actually what the House of Lords was saying was absolutely right, and that in that House there were lots of people who knew what they were talking about—and today the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is one of those people.
The second is that on this occasion I think it is perfectly apparent that Ministers’ response has been to stick their fingers in their ears and basically continue saying the same thing, notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister’s introductory remarks today, although when a Minister starts complaining about the tone of the debate you know they have lost the argument.
To me, as a Conservative, this is a vital issue. For a Conservative, the protection of private property is absolutely central to having a free society. That is a fundamental principle which I believe is shared on all sides of the House; in respect of the last debate that we had, we saw a huge majority in the House asking the Government to think again.
I have not always been a Conservative; when I went up to university, I thought I was a socialist.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
One of the things that I believed then and still believe now is that people have a right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, that people have the right to be able to own their property and that they have the right to sell their labour in a fair and reasonable manner. I am afraid that the Government are running headstrong against that basic principle, which again I would have thought could be accepted on both sides of the House.
What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with something we are absolutely brilliant at. I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the Channel 4 programme “The Piano”, where people turn up at railway stations and play the piano. The talent in this country that we do not know about is amazing—unbelievable talent, people who can compose and play the piano to a level that is just extraordinary. Those people will have no chance to develop their careers if their work can just be scooped up by big tech.
Now I am going to say something that will upset the Minister, and she will say that I am being unfair to the Government. It just looks to me as though crony capitalism and the Government have got into bed together and the Government are being told, “Just give this away and we will give you data centres outside your main cities”—quite where the electricity is going to come from to run this is another issue, but I will not divert—“and you will be leaders in the world”. Only a very naive Minister would believe that kind of nonsense. Where does it end?
What makes the Government think that the other place, or the Government, have the authority to give away people’s property and their right to earn a living? That is the issue raised here today. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that, although I deprecate extended ping-pong, on this occasion, the House of Lords is doing its duty, which is speaking up for the interests of the country. I hope that the Government will listen, that the noble Baroness’s amendment will be carried with a good majority, and that the Government will think again.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I find it worrying that I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is probably more worrying for him.
Now is not the time for long speeches but for commitment. I support this amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on so brilliantly moving it. I refer to my registered interests as a rights holder. To the Government Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, I say that, as a rights holder and a royalties holder, reassurances do not, sadly, pay the rent, but royalties do.
When it comes to technology, creatives have embraced every single challenge of developing technology—from the printing press to cable and satellite television, television on demand, streaming, Spotify and so on. We have always proceeded on the basis that the user must pay. Now is not the time to deflect from that principle and now is not too late for the Government to embrace that principle.
It is incomprehensible for me to believe that jobbing actors, singers, writers and other creatives—people at the beginning or at the end of their careers—will be able to police the internet in such a way as to find those using their material so that they can then opt in or opt out. That is not part of the reality of people in the creative professions.
It is for those most in need of the protection of copyright that I speak—it is they who will lose the most. It is for them that I urge your Lordships to support the amendment. It is reasonable, and I believe any reasonable Secretary of State should welcome and indeed embrace it.
Finally, for the record, much has been said about Minister Peter Kyle. He is a good, decent, fair and highly intelligent person, and a friend of many years. I say to him and to the Government that the art of compromise is to give a little in order that we all win a lot—and I am not talking about the dog food. Therefore, I think it is in the Government’s domain to move forward, to compromise and to accept the amendment as—to quote the Minister—a workable solution, because it makes sense.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening statement. Once again, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her mission to protect the future of our creative industries, its rights and its intellectual property. Technological progress does not always make things better for humanity and it often comes with hidden long-term consequences. That is why the Government have to be wise and put measures in place to protect us, before it is too late.
So many people have contacted me to express their anger that the Government are selling them down the river. I feel it is my duty, once again, to voice their concerns. This includes those in the publishing world. Many publishers are deeply worried that their content has already been stolen and that there is no provision in current copyright law to stop this happening. They are anxious that, if the tech companies are allowed to freely steal content, it will destroy the publishing world as we know it and take away their long-term livelihood.
It is not just those in the publishing world, but people across our world-class, highly respected and admired creative industries: film, television, music, photography, arts, performers—the list is endless. This sector is one that brings in billions to the economy. That is why it is essential that, even as we embrace the benefits of AI, we must also enforce the long-standing UK copyright law, first established at the beginning of the 18th century, which formed the basis of worldwide copyright law. We cannot allow this to be undermined.
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.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. In the United States, a revealing battle is under way, not only about competing with China but about whose interests AI regulation should serve. Thirty-one US states have passed AI laws. They understand that transparency does not stifle innovation; it enables it by providing certainty and accountability. So fierce is federal resistance that House Republicans now seek to roll back state AI laws entirely, imposing a decade-long moratorium. AI experts call this an abdication of responsibility, yet the states persist, introducing 550 new Bills this year alone.
We face the same choice. For years, we condemned China’s intellectual property theft, the foundation of its economic rise. Now, we permit Silicon Valley the same privilege. The Government’s wait-and-see prevarication is inexplicable. This amendment demands transparency alone: no new law, no regulatory burden, simply the right to know when your work is taken. This amendment grants the Government complete discretion over enforcement and preserves their consultation. It demands only visibility. This is a test of whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI by giving creators the simple right to see who is taking their work. I therefore urge the House to support this amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the Labour Benches, may I say that I actually support the Government’s position on this occasion? The reason is this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has, with great force of personality, made a very considerable case for action needed to protect intellectual property, and I think she has won that battle. It would be impossible in future, in the coming year or so, for a Government to act in a way that did not take account of her very real concerns.
I am a massive supporter of the creative industries, which make an enormous and growing contribution to the country—and not just an economic one. They are part of the knowledge and service economy which we now are. As my noble friend Lord Bragg has often said, they offer people of all social classes the opportunity to fulfil themselves in ways that otherwise might not have been possible. So, while I am very sympathetic, I do not think that this simple amendment is the right vehicle to put in place a whole new copyright law.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Well, I do not quite see how passing this amendment is going to solve the problem; let us put it like that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord is very selectively quoting from what the Secretary of State had to say. The Secretary of State did change his position and acknowledged that existing copyright law is very certain. However, he went on to say that the law was not fit for purpose. That is an absolute giveaway in the circumstances. Whose agenda is he pursuing, in that case? Big tech’s?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.
Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House who were sitting in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago listening to the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and myself. During that brief debate—as usual, it was time-limited—there were no fewer than 13 interventions on the Secretary of State from around the House. Of the 13, nine came from Labour’s own Back Benches. Every single one of those 13 interventions expressed concern to varying degrees; not a single person said, “You have got it right, we accept all these apologies and we are going in the right direction”.
If you read some of the comments by the somewhat hirsute Vice-President of the United States at the February AI summit in Paris, it is very clear what the White House and the Trump Administration are intending to do. It is America first, America second, America third, up to the power 10. That is their very clear intent.
If you look at the comments of OpenAI and Google when they talk about their input into the consultation that is taking place with our own Government, you see that their position and intent are crystal clear; they are against transparency and are basically saying that it is too late to act on all the information they have already taken as they have the ability to use it, and in fact they want and need even more.
However, the backdrop to that—as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said—is that there is an intense debate going on in the United States about this. Two weeks ago, the US Office of Copyright—if you like, the guardian of copyright in US law—issued a report which directly challenges many of the premises that these large AI companies are putting forth about their right to rob, rape and pillage intellectual property wherever they wish in the world. They are trying to subjugate the 50 states of the union to make sure the White House can override them, and they intend to do exactly the same with any foreign jurisdiction which chooses to stand up to what the White House views as its own best interest. That is the reality.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
Three months after the Government’s own report, this amendment allows Parliament to be informed on the scale of theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.
Does the Minister agree that those measures assist the process of copyright protection here while setting a useful standard abroad, including within the 46 states’ human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a much-respected member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman?
In sending out the right message from the United Kingdom, not least is this proposed amendment also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, safeguarding, privacy and personal data.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I will make a short intervention, not least because my noble roommate, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has just spoken, and we share a birthday—this week, 5 June. It is the first time in this Chamber that two people with the same birthday have spoken consecutively, and that is an important point to note.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
We only need the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who also shares our birthday, to speak after me, and we will be making history, even if we do not pass this amendment.
I will steer a middle course, if I may, because, if this amendment is not passed, I do not believe—I know this is heresy to say so—that the creative industries will collapse. However, nor do I believe that, if the amendment is passed, the AI revolution and Britain’s lead in it will come to a grinding halt.
This is the third time we have debated this, and a lot of heat and light is being generated. I said earlier in the Chamber during Questions that, in my opinion, Ofcom is a fine regulator doing a fine job of implementing the Online Safety Act. Regulation we do well in this country; I know that sounds like heresy. It may sound like heresy to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but I remind him that I never dallied with socialism, not even at university or at school. As a true Conservative, I am entitled to say that regulation can be a good thing. We can pass this amendment and bring in proper regulation with a good regulator such as Ofcom. That is an important point.
I also to a certain extent want to admonish my own side, the side devoted to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and everything she is doing. I accept that big tech has a seat at the table, but, from my own experience as a Minister, I know that one has to navigate a difficult course between the different competing interests when they clash: creative industries, big tech and so on.
I say with great care that I do not think it is right to undermine the motives of people who are working very closely with this Government to achieve the right solution. I think I know to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was referring as the investor who advises the Government. As far as I am concerned, he has devoted a great deal of time not just to this Government but to the previous Government in wanting to do what is right, which is to keep Britain at the forefront of AI innovation. I simply want to put that comment on the record.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what I said last time, the Minister will be pleased to hear, but there are one or two things that have arisen today which I wish to address. We were told by the Minister that the Government’s view is that we might be in danger of privileging one section of the creative industries as against another, or one section of the community that is likely to be affected by AI. However, copyright underlines everything. It is universal. If you are talking about film, television, a work of literature or anything else, copyright is the essential ingredient.
On the issue of going in small parts, with one thing leading to another, I want to mention something that happened a few years ago and that we are still trying to deal with. Before Brexit, I and others made the point to the Government that it was going to cause a serious problem for touring musicians and artists. Boris Johnson’s Government said, “We can see that; we’re not going to let it happen”. Well, we have been trying to sort it out ever since. My point is simply this: getting small issues right is incredibly important because, further down the line, they become massive. That is why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right to keep pushing. Like many other noble Lords here, I am very concerned about ping-pong—especially when we seem to be frustrating the mandated Chamber—but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, once said to me, there are sometimes issues where you just have to stand firm for as long as possible. I believe that this is one of them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is my first time speaking on this Bill, so the Government Chief Whip will be pleased to know that I am not able to repeat comments I have previously made. I have followed the debates on it closely and followed, with great admiration, the campaign led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just in this Chamber but far beyond it.
This has never been a question of party politics. Indeed, it is striking that the initiative here has been led from the Cross Benches and the Back Benches in both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, just pointed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has led the charge. She has put her case clearly and been extremely reasonable and patient in the face of answers even more frustrating than those I used to give her when I was at the government Dispatch Box. More than that, she has been proactive in seeking solutions. The morning after her victory in the last round of ping-pong, she was up early to welcome to your Lordships’ House academics, policymakers and practitioners from not just the creative industries but the AI sector as part of the University of Oxford’s consultation on copyright and AI, as she mentioned in her opening remarks.
The Government keep making this sound like it is a binary choice between two competing sectors. It is not. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey just reminded us, responsible innovators from the AI sector know how vital design and creativity are to all parts of our economy, as well as to our society. They do not want to base their businesses on the theft of others’ intellectual property, paternity rights, maternity rights, pension rights and so much more, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It was announced last week that Taylor Swift had succeeded in buying back the rights to her first six albums, after many years of legal wrangling, for a nine-figure sum. It would be a cruel irony for her to have expended all that time and money only for her brilliant work to be stolen and fed into a large language model with no transparency and no accountability.
The creative industries have spoken with one voice on this—something that is rather unique—but well they might, for this is existential to them. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have not responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the many noble Lords who have joined her in the Division Lobbies in the previous rounds of ping-pong to express their concerns about this issue. They have not engaged on the point of substance behind her amendments but have relied on arguments of process. There is nothing in the noble Baroness’s latest amendment in lieu—her third attempt to offer a solution to the Government—that engages the financial privilege of another place.
I hope we will hear more from the Minister on the substance of the argument and on the substance of this new amendment, rather than an attempt to run down the clock or to hide behind process. I hope we might yet, even at this late stage, get a glimmer of the compromise that the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Brennan of Canton, and others have hoped for. There is a long-standing convention that your Lordships’ House respects the will of the elected one, of course. But it would not be a constitutional crisis, as the Minister put it in the closing words of her opening remarks, for noble Lords to continue to express their concerns about this Bill, because that convention relies on the Government engaging faithfully and relying not just on points of process but on points of substance.
At a time when the Government are seeking to weaken the scrutiny functions of your Lordships’ House by removing almost 90 Members—all but three of whom are from outwith their own Benches—they need to treat your Lordships’ House with a bit more respect if they want those conventions to be adhered to. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Chief Whip said at the start of this debate, we are now into the third round of ping-pong on this Bill. These issues have been extensively debated across Committee, Report and ping-pong. A cross-section of Back-Benchers has spoken, and now I invite Front-Benchers to speak.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I have spent a delightful half an hour or so listening to some very pertinent, brief speeches, and I intend, with the leave of the House, to make my own. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for helping to stand up for my professional interests and those of my family and the 2.4 million people who earn their livings, livelihoods, pensions and retirements from their creative efforts. She is doing us a great service and I am very grateful to her for that.
There is an issue of constitutional rights here: how long do we go on with ping-pong? I have said before that the elected Government of course have the right to get their business through. But those rights also come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities, above all, include at least listening to this House when it expresses a view so consistently, so coherently and on so many occasions. I do not believe that the Government have given the appearance of listening to any of what has gone on here. It is not that difficult; husbands all around the country give the appearance of listening, even in the middle of watching football matches. The Government here have not even done the basic business of saying, “Yes, I understand, and we are listening”.
The last time we discussed this, I thought it was unfortunate, if not unfair, for the Government to imply that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had turned down meetings with Ministers. That was unnecessary. It should not have been said, because that has nothing to do with the importance of her remarks. It is also deeply unhelpful when we in this House find ourselves having to come back, time and again, simply to ask the Government to listen, to offer coherent responses and not simply to dismiss what has been said here. What is this Chamber for if, after the debates we have had, the Government give absolutely nothing? They do not listen to this House or to Elton John, Paul McCartney or any of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in this industry who are saying, “Please, just do a little bit to show that you have understood the issue”.
I have been accused in the past of having a vivid imagination, but I wonder why this Government are so blatantly stubborn over this. If I were writing a novel, I would wonder what went on in Washington while we were doing that trade deal that was so trumpeted by this Government. Were any conversations going on behind the scenes that gave guarantees, commitments or understandings about what approach this Government would take to copyright and AI? We know that Elon Musk, who was a very powerful man in the White House, wanted the Government’s position and not the position that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is taking.
Over the past few days, this side of the House has been accused by government Members of making arguments that were made in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. That was pretty shameful. It has nothing to do with this issue, although it did make me think: are we actually looking here at a digital Munich and bending the knee to a power with which we wanted to do a deal through backdoor agreements? Can the Minister please give us an absolute guarantee that no such behind-the-scenes, unannounced undertakings have been given? Otherwise, I fail to understand why this Government are being so stubborn.
In light of the fact that the Government have a right to get their business through— but they also have responsibilities, as we have responsibilities to stand up for what we believe to be entirely obviously correct—I will intend gladly and enthusiastically once again, if the noble Baroness pushes the issue, to march into the voting Lobbies with her on this issue.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am goaded by my own Front Bench to speak for the second time in favour of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I also share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
I have been a Minister in both Houses. I have been on the receiving end of ping-pong in both Houses, and I got bloody irritated by it. But I was never in a position, along with my Secretary of State, of sending back nothing. We sought to get a compromise. I can remember back to the late 1990s: the Labour Front Bench was sent by John Smith to Templeton College in Oxford to get some training. I can remember a former senior civil servant saying to us, “Whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”. That is the position we are in now. We can avoid making a bad decision by having a degree of compromise, which has been missing throughout.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, may I also trespass on your patience? I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, live on my royalties. The AI companies have—very irritatingly—bought only one of my 20 books; they paid about £3,000, and so, as you can imagine, I am very keen that they should buy the other 19.
It strikes me that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to organise a register system or licence system—it has only just happened in the United States, with regard to Amazon buying out New York Times back copies—whereby there is no threat or danger of republication but all that is happening is the information is mined by these companies. Such a system surely can and should happen.
The reason I am supporting the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is that at the very least it will embarrass future Secretaries of State when they have to come to the House and essentially admit they have undermined one of the great British inventions. For 300 years, the law of copyright has been helping and driving creativity in this country.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I offer the unequivocal and steadfast support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which introduces Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D.
It is absolutely clear that the noble Baroness’s speeches become better and more convincing the more we go on. Indeed, the arguments being made today for these amendments become better and more convincing as time goes on. I believe we should stand firm, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said.
Time and time again, we all have had to address the narrative stated in the consultation paper and repeated by Ministers suggesting there is uncertainty or a lack of clarity in existing UK copyright law regarding AI training. We have heard that the Secretary of State has just recently acknowledged that the existing copyright law is “very certain”, but as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, he has also stated that
“it is not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1234.]
That makes the narrative even worse than saying that copyright law is uncertain.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has rightly asserted, we do not need to change copyright law. It is the view of many that existing law is clear and applies to the commercial use of copyrighted works for AI training. The issue is not a deficient law but rather the ability to enforce it in the current AI landscape. As the noble Baroness has also profoundly put it—I have got a number of speeches to draw on, as you can see—what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The core problem is a lack of transparency from AI developers: without knowing what copyrighted material has been used to train models and how it was accessed, creators and rights holders are unable to identify potential infringements and pursue appropriate licensing or legal action.
In striking down previous Lords amendments, the Government have suggested that this House was at fault for using the wrong Bill. They have repeatedly claimed that it is too soon for transparency and too late to prevent stealing, and they have asserted that accepting the Lords transparency amendment would prioritise one sector over another. But that is exactly what the Government are doing. They have suggested an expert working group, an economic impact assessment, a report on the use of copyright, and then, I think, a report on progress in what the noble Baroness the Minister had to say. But, as many noble Lords have said today, none of that gives us the legislative assurance —the certainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, put it—that we need in these circumstances.
The Government have objected to being asked to introduce regulations because of financial privilege, and now, it seems—I can anticipate what the noble Baroness the Minister is going to say—are objecting to the requirement to bring forward a draft Bill with this amendment. But the Government are perfectly at liberty to bring forward their own amendment allowing for transparency via regulations, a much more expeditious and effective route that the House has already overwhelmingly supported. Transparency is the necessary foundation for a functioning licensing market, promotes trust between the AI sector and the creative industries, and allows creators to be fairly compensated when their work contributes value to AI models.
The Government have asked for a degree of trust for their plans. This amendment, while perhaps less than creators deserve—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described it as the bare minimum—is a step that would help earn that trust. It is this Government who can do that, and I urge them to heed the words of their own Back-Benchers: the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Rooker and Lord Brennan, all asked the Government to find a compromise.
I urge all noble Lords, in the face of a lack of compromise by the Government, to support Motion A1.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as this is the third round of ping-pong, as many noble Lords have observed, I will speak very briefly. If the noble Baroness the Minister has not by now understood how strongly noble Lords on all sides of the House feel about this issue, it may be too late anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has made an increasingly powerful case for the Government to act in defence of the rights of copyright owners, and we continue to call on the Government to listen. We have of course discussed this at great length. The noble Baroness has tabled a new Motion which would require Ministers to make a Statement and bring forward a draft Bill. Given that the Minister has expressed her sympathy for the concerns of your Lordships’ House previously, surely this new Motion would be acceptable to the Government as a pathway toward resolving the problem, and we again urge the Government to accept it.
However, whatever choice the Government make—I do not think anyone could claim that any part of this is an easy problem, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey pointed out—many of us are frustrated by the absence of agility, boldness and imagination in their approach. That said, speaking at least from the Front Bench of a responsible Opposition, we take the view that we cannot engage further in protracted ping-pong. We are a revising Chamber, and, although it is right to ask the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong, we feel we must ultimately respect the will of the elected Chamber.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I must once again thank all noble Lords who have spoken during this debate, and of course I continue to recognise the passion and the depth of feeling on this issue.
I did not think I needed to reiterate this, but we absolutely believe in the importance of the creative sector, and of course we want it to have a flourishing future. In previous debates, I have spelled out all the work that we are doing with the creative sector and how fundamental it is to our economic planning going forward. I do not intend to go over that, but I have said it time and again from this Dispatch Box. Our intention is to find a substantial and workable solution to this challenge that we are all facing.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others that we have had numerous discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others and have of course taken those discussions seriously. As a result, we have come today with an honest and committed plan to work together to resolve the contentious issue of AI and copyright both quickly and effectively.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she just deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others? Why, if the Government are working and looking for a compromise, have they sent this back to the House without any proposal from the Government?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when I set out my comments, I said that I have made compromises, and I will reiterate them. We are trying to find a way through on the detail of how we are going to find something that is workable and deliverable in the longer term. That is the real challenge here. We all agree that we need to find something that will support the creative sector. It is about finding a model that will work internationally as well. That is our real challenge, and that is what we are attempting to do.
I think noble Lords feel that it is simpler than it is, because this is a huge challenge for us on a global basis. Let us not just think that there is a simple solution; I do not think for one second that there is.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she accept that in order for these discussions to be fruitful in the round table and workshops that the Government have proposed, all parties need to know that they are entering those discussions on an equal footing? Although the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State have made quite a lot of play about not wanting to favour one side or another, through the consultation process and the way in which the Government have demonstrated a favouritism to one side of that discussion, there is a lack of confidence within the creative sector about their entering into these negotiations. That is what is lacking and what is needed to get those discussions to the point where they can be constructive and deliver the solution—which, I agree with her, will be very difficult to achieve.
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.