Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Meta’s updated Commercial Terms, which from 30 October authorise it to crawl the websites of UK business users for the purposes of AI development.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
The Government recognise the concerns raised by businesses and rights holders about Meta’s updated commercial terms. Meta has delayed their introduction until 20 November, and the Competition and Markets Authority is engaging directly with Meta. We are committed to ensuring that creators can control the use of their work. In our March Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, we committed to publishing a review of mechanisms for creators to control their works online, including technical standards and best practice on input transparency. This will inform whether there is an appropriate role for government.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said but, while Meta has delayed these terms, it has not changed a word of them in doing so. It does not use the word “train” any more, but it can still crawl publishers’ websites to “develop and improve” its products. It says publishers can block its crawlers, yet the terms seem to let it get around paywalls and technical blocks. The only way out is for publishers to close the Meta business accounts that their advertising depends on. If Meta means what it says, will the Government press it to put its assurances into the terms and urge the CMA to use its powers under the Digital Markets Act before 20 November?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The CMA recognises the urgency of this matter, particularly for businesses that rely on Meta services to reach their customers. A delay does not resolve the questions raised by the effect of the new terms. We understand that the CMA is engaging directly with Meta to establish the facts. Following its evidence to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on 20 October, I understand it is working to an expedited timeline to provide the committee with a written response setting out its position. We expect that response very shortly.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to be robust on this matter and the Government to use all the powers at their disposal to stop what is essentially an abuse of market power by Meta and a threat to trusted journalism.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I assure my noble friend that the Government recognise the concerns raised about Meta’s updated commercial terms and are committed to ensuring that creators can control the use of their work. UK copyright continues to apply to the use of protected works in AI development and training. Where an activity requires permission under copyright law, that permission must be obtained unless an exception applies.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act is superior to the EU’s digital Act because it encourages the big tech firms to come forward with proposals to address the unfair competition issues that it creates, as we saw recently in the case of Microsoft and AWS in CloudSearch. The CMA is then able to convert those proposals into binding commitments without issuing strategic market status on those firms. Does the Minister agree that the same so-called participative approach would be relevant now in asking Meta to come forward with public commitments that the CMA could then create into something binding, so that we could all be clear that Meta will not continue to scrape publishers’ websites? Would the Minister back the CMA if that is what it does?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
As far as the EU is concerned, noble Lords may wish to know that on 22 October the European Commission received a formal competition complaint about Meta’s revised commercial terms. It confirmed that it would assess the complaint under its established procedures, and welcomed Meta’s subsequent decision to delay implementation until 20 November. No formal decision or enforcement action has been announced. In respect of the CMA’s powers more generally, it already has powers under existing competition law to intervene where and when appropriate and is engaging urgently with Meta to consider its next steps. I remind noble Lords that the CMA is independent of government.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests set out in the register. Meta says that website owners can use robots.txt to signal their preferences. Will the Government seek a binding commitment in Meta’s commercial terms, before 20 November, that instructions refusing crawling will be honoured, with an effective remedy for breaches?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Meta has publicly stated that website owners can use robots.txt to indicate their preferences about its crawlers, and has reiterated this in our engagement on creator control and transparency. However, we recognise the concerns raised by publishers about whether these assurances provide meaningful and enforceable control over their content. On publishing before 20 November, we recognise that the removal of the word “train” has not resolved the concerns raised about the revised terms, particularly on whether the remaining provisions could still permit content to be used for AI training. Meta disputes that interpretation, and we expect the response shortly.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, when Meta withdrew news from its platforms in Canada in response to legislation requiring it to pay for it, the gap was filled with disinformation. If UK publishers are forced to choose between surrendering their journalism and leaving Meta’s platform, what assessment have the Government made of the consequences for our public discourse and our society?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
We recognise the importance of ensuring that publishers and smaller creators can control and benefit from the use of their content, and we further understand that news publishers rely on traffic, advertising and subscription to support their work. Concerns of the sort that the noble Baroness mentions have been raised about the effects of AI systems accessing and using their content, which is why in March we committed to establish a working group to consider how the Government could support independent and smaller creative organisations in licensing their work, including in journalism. This sits alongside our review of creator control and input transparency.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, perhaps we cannot really blame Meta for exploring the limits of the policy vacuum created by the Government’s continued inaction on AI and copyright. With that in mind, could the Minister tell us what progress has been made on the Government’s review of creator control and transparency, in particular the technical standards that could enable rights holders, particularly journalists, to protect their own work?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The noble Viscount will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with his description of the Government’s strategy, work and progress on this issue. It is very clear that DCMS is in charge of AI and copyright and works across government, including with BIST on growth and the economy, and very closely with the Cabinet Office, which has the lead on the AI strategy. We are progressing our review of creator control and input transparency at pace, and are engaging extensively with stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of existing mechanisms and whether there is an appropriate role for the Government. We hope to publish our findings in the first part of next year.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, are the Government still of the same mind as the committee that reported in March that licensing, not opt-out, must be the way forward? Opt-out would be giving our intellectual property away and make it very hard to protect it. We need licensing for individual properties.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
The Government want rights holders to have the information and means to control how their work is used, to secure licences and to enforce their rights. Knowing who accesses content and who may help rights holders to exercise these rights is very important. Our work is to examine what information makes a practical difference to control, including licensing and enforcement.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the Canadian example of dealing with Meta not suggest that the British Government would do better in dealing with these monoliths from the high-tech sector by working very closely with other countries when responding—even the European Union?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Noble Lords will understand that we are in contact with the EU Commission. I have no doubt that the Government are always keen to work on this and to learn how other Governments are progressing these matters.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would not one way of building confidence in the creative industries be for people who have already stolen material to pay some compensation for the things that they have done over the years?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I am so sorry; I did not hear the end of my noble friend’s question.
Lord Watts (Lab)
I am asking why people who have stolen material should not pay compensation to those from whom they have stolen it.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I might have to write to my noble friend with the answer to that.