Lords Chamber

Monday 12th May 2025

(began 7 hours, 12 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Spielman and Lord Jack of Courance
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling, do by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Amanda Mary Victoria spill To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Spielman.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Spielman. To have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Forenoon of the ninth day of May, in the third year of are in. By warrant under the King's sign- manual.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

On, Amanda Baroness Spielman, who swear by almighty that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting.

Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Councillor, Sir well beloved, Councillor, Sir Alistair William, a Knight Commander of our most excellent order of the British Empire. To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Jack of in our honour of Baron Jack of in our county of Dumfriesshire.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Of . To have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons. And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Afternoon of the ninth day of May, in the third year of our reign. By warrant under the King's sign- By warrant under the King's sign- Do Do swear Do swear by Do swear by Almighty Do swear by Almighty God Do swear by Almighty God that Do swear by Almighty God that I Do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to
14:49
14:50
14:51
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
neurodiversity as it was more inclusive. Neurodiversity is very Is a very specific addition. Can I ask my noble friend to think again, perhaps and reassure the House that this umbrella term will not be used when responding to the review. There is a danger that the needs of autistic people will be overlooked and with the Baroness's permission to tell the House that she shares that view. What the Butland review

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is specifically about people with autism.. A friend for that question. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A friend for that question. I commend him for work in this area. The review reported to the last government and the last government, most of those were to employers. Several recommendations relating to Several recommendations relating to government are being progress including working to reform confidence. Boarding figures to confidence. Boarding figures to address all neurodivergent people, address all neurodivergent people, specifically those with autism. You have more than one condition. Our have more than one condition.

Our academic panel reviewing the evidence recommendations and the insight with the Buckland Review so insight with the Buckland Review so they do not get lost. It might reassure him to know that the panel specifically includes expertise on specifically includes expertise on autism. And although this government won't be responding specifically on
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
Baroness Gustafsson Portrait Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Does or is she not as confused as I was to hear the ambassador to the US yesterday say that this was a finalised agreement and that has no impact assessment we have been presented within Parliament. When is that going to be laid before Parliament, the impact assessment? Film technology were included but there is no reference to that within the text that was announced of the framework to start the negotiations last week. And is it the government's intent that this will not be laid as a treaty which will then be ratified by Parliament, and if it is not, and it is not a preferential trading agreement, does she agree that we will have to apply all of the terms in this framework to all other countries under the rules?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To clarify, there are a lot of key sectors that are covered in this key sectors that are covered in this framework. And this framework is a final decision on how those key sectors will be treated with comes sectors will be treated with comes to trading between the UK and the US and those sectors are things like automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals but also beef and ethanol that we have heard so much about. They are not all of the sectors where trade not all of the sectors where trade is a part of the UK and the US, and it could be area such as to the G and how we are thing about the relationship with that.

So yes, this is a final agreement for the sectors is a final agreement for the sectors that have been covered, but it doesn't necessarily cover all the sectors and there is still work to sectors and there is still work to be done to understand what those future trading relationships look like with respect to those other sectors. With regard to how this sectors. With regard to how this will be treated in parliament and whether it will be ratified at whether it will be ratified at Street, I couldn't comment on that.

I quickly run shallow of my Parliamentary journey of knowledge which is still at its early stages but I will be sure to write up to you on the specifics.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to my declaration of interest, does noble Lord the Minister believe that British agriculture was four dignity will be increased or diminished by this arrangement?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

arrangement? What we are seeing in this relationship is thinking about the relationship is thinking about the US opportunity to presents to all of US opportunity to presents to all of our British industries and how we can open that up to best effect. I think when we think about farming, think when we think about farming, the key area, the trading beef, is a real opportunity here and for the first time what we have seen is the
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:29
15:29
15:31
15:31
15:33
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third reading of the... Third reading of the Armed Forces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commissioner Bill, Lord Coaker. I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrowed a time. -- Be read. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I beg to move the bill do now pass. I send my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to a detailed and meaningful scrutiny of this bill, everyone who has this bill, everyone who has contributed individually, I hope members will understand, there are a members will understand, there are a few specific cues. Could I thank Baroness Goldie and almond toe for Baroness Goldie and almond toe for their cooperation and efforts to improve the bill.

-- Almond toe. I improve the bill. -- Almond toe. I appreciate the productive way that they have contributed and I thank they have contributed and I thank them very much for that. If you could pass that onto the tile I would be great. And Baroness Smith, for the Democrats, to say thank you for the discussions and contributions, that is very much appreciated as well. Our private office and officials, the public office and various other officials of the House, the current ombudsman, and the German commissioner who was not his example we have used.

-- Whose example we have used. Finally, as a number of you will know first hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. On all sides of the House we thank those men and women for their service, and for working tirelessly to keep us safe. We are our serving personnel and their families commissioner with a single mission, aiming to improve the service life. And with that I beg to move stopped
15:35
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now pass. From these benches are would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From these benches are would like to extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the bill. And in particular I think it's appropriate at this time, obviously to welcome the Commissioner, the role of the Commissioner, but also role of the Commissioner, but also to note that one of the aims is to to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson, but also add various stages of the bill also add various stages of the bill be talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues the Commissioner will look issues the Commissioner will look into.

One said would be LGBT+ service personnel and I would like service personnel and I would like to pay tribute to the late noble to pay tribute to the late noble Lord Overton for the work he put into the reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming Armed Forces Commissioner once this legislation does pass will not having to look at such difficult situations in the future. Again I would like to thank the Minister, would like to thank the Minister, the Liberal Democrat with soft, -- whips office, and I wish the bill well.

well.
15:37
15:37
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
May I first of all thank the Minister for his very kind remarks and I shall ensure they get to the Earl of Minto. The passage of the bill, His Majesty Official Opposition has welcomed the bill from beginning, and it's been a privilege to participate in its passage through this House. The creation of the Commissioner is not only going to strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating the investigation of wider welfare issues but I hope it will also the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice of independence for them, and any steps we can take to improve the offerings for our servicemen and women, we should vigourously pursue.

In that regard I have introduced a new duty on the Commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I want to thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment at report, particularly appreciative the contributions of noble Baronesses Lady Kramer, Lady Smith of Newnham, noble Lord Lord Adonis, Lord Wrottesley and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for their words of support and encouragement for delivering that support in the divisional B. The resounding message, especially servicewomen who feel the voices have not been heard, is that we are on your side.

As this bill now goes back to the other place I entreat the government to reflect carefully on how the address my amendment. This is not the time for ambivalence and uncertainty. This is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the government will accept, as this House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the bill. Finally, I think the noble Lord the Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet with myself and my noble friend the Earl of Minto.

I think the noble Lord Lord Coaker has been exemplary throughout the been exemplary throughout the passage of the bill. And I hope over the government appoints as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It's a high task that has been set. It's a high task that has been set. It's a high bar and much works still to be done but look forward to continuing his goodness the government efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our armed forces personnel and I was our armed forces personnel and I was the government will in the creation of this new office.

of this new office.
15:40
15:41
15:41
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question... The question is that the Commons Amendments be now that the Commons Amendments be now considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment one, Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that house agree with the comments in the amendment one. With the leave of house I will one. With the leave of house I will also speak to amendment two. I would like to thank noble Lords for their like to thank noble Lords for their continued interest and engagement in this important legislation. Some noble Lords will be disappointed to see the other place overturn the amendment inserted biologics house amendment inserted biologics house relating to the scope of the new mechanism.

I hope I can offer some mechanism. I hope I can offer some reassurance today on this matter. As noble Lords will know, this bill is noble Lords will know, this bill is intended to enhance the toolkit to the government has to manage the the government has to manage the failure of a banking institution. In particular it seeks to provide a new particular it seeks to provide a new source of funding to cover certain costs associated with resolution, and in doing so strengthen the protections for the taxpayer given the importance of protecting public funds in the event of bank fails.

That said, I'd understand the concerns noble Lords have about any potential costs that will be placed in the banking sector, if the bills mechanism were used to support the resolution of some of the largest banks. Here I would reiterate that is the government strong expectation that this mechanism would not be used to support the failure of the largest firms. Noble Lords will recall the government published draft updates to its code of practice in October last year which contained important language clarifying this expectation.

I also met with many noble Lords in person during the passage of the bill to listen carefully to concerns and to seek explain the government's views on this matter. Ultimately the other place has taken the view, the scope of the mechanism should not be limited. The government continues to believe is important to retain some proximity for the Bank of England and I would like to make three further points to help explain that position. Firstly as I have mentioned the government published draft updates to the code of practice to clarify our expectation in the Bank of England bailing all readily available that a bank holds on top of regulatory capital that must be bailed in before using this mechanism.

The government envisages that mechanism would only be used on larger banks as a backstop and any funds required would only be a top up to these other sources of recapitalisation. Secondly, land bank of again the option of using the recapitalisation mechanism on larger banks means it will be more able to respond to unexpected factors when resolving a bank. One of course the Bank of England works hard to ensure they are fully prepared for a failure scenario, the manner in which banks fail is because -- always highly uncertain.

It is important to ensure the bill is not overly restrictive in containing the bank's ability to use the mechanism flexibly. As we have discussed in previous debates, there are some circumstances where retaining this proximity could help to protect public funds. Although unlikely, there are circumstances in which large banks not be sufficiently capitalised to self- insure against their own failure, even if the banking question has been directed to maintain in-state requirements. An example of this might be if the firm was subject to a large dress claim resulting in larger recapitalisation requirements than envisaged.

Changes in the market value of the firms assets over time could also result in higher losses than expected at the point of failure stock and resulting in high recapitalisation requirements to manage the failure of the firm in question. While unlikely these demonstrate a clear benefit of having the Flex ability to source additional resources from the mechanism having already written Restricting the scope of the bill would prevent the mechanism being available in such scenarios, leaving public funds and the taxpayer exposed instead.

The government therefore considers the theoretical consideration that using the recapitalisation mechanism would prove a prudent step public prove a prudent step public Levying compensation scheme to recover funds, provided to the Bank of England will be subject to an affordability cap set by the regulation authority, which is currently £1.5 million, per year. In line with its safety and sales objective, they consider the affordability of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme a levy for firms, providing an important safeguard against the sector being hit by unaffordable levies to prop I do hope these points will go some I do hope these points will go some way to reassure noble Lords, that they will be able to support the bill, as it now stands.

I will also very briefly address Amendment two. very briefly address Amendment two. The noble Lords will note this is a straightforward amendment, to remove the Financial Privilege amendment inserted at third reading, but to move.
15:47
15:48
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
lot of confidence and confidence in his question. In the last six months, there have been various comments that have come from the Bank of England about the fact that this act, as it will be may allow them to take some banks out of the process. I just wonder if the noble Lord might wish to comment on that and whether there are any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences the other way round? I have to say to the Minister I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say to the Minister I appreciate the explanation we just had, but I think I and others remain very disturbed by the government's very disturbed by the government's decision not to accept, what was it decision not to accept, what was it not just irrational but very well crafted amendment that was introduced, by your Lordships, into introduced, by your Lordships, into this House. The underlying bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save providing a mechanism to save significant small banks, by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer.

Regulated banks, as to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as of this House will know are then required to replenish the FC FC, when it is depleted for any reason. But because the thrust of the language was around small banks, that was the intent. That is the that was the intent. That is the discussion that is in all the notes. This House I think very much agreed with just a few points of probing engaged. But thank goodness, we have a lot of very good brains in this House, I have to say that that combination of the Baroneseses, Lord notes, Lord Vere.

There was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning any of this could be applied to the larger banks, it was only as they were pursuing the legislation, became more aware of the locations of its content. Now we have a bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as it's a mechanism to rescue large banks. Let's be frank, it completely changes the whole profile of both the risk and consequences. The amendment, so effectively would have closed that loophole.

The larger banks, the Minister have said already have their own dedicated process to re- calculating failure. A processor that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold charge, or if we speak in plain English, ailing bonds, which can be converted to capital, by the regulator, in the case of a situation where the consequences of the bank are there by rescued, by those bailing bonds. we need to understand why that is not considered to be an adequate system, by the government? The Minister has just said that actually the regulator will, if I understood it, require that bailing bonds are used first and the FC FC is a resource of last resort.

That is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn 1st to allows the regulator to turn 1st to the FS... Sorry, FS CS, to ignore bailing altogether. He will be conscious, the Swiss regulator the failure of credit Suisse, completely avoid the bailing capability and chose other routes to manage the risk of credit Suisse. Those who hold bailing bonds, the investors who buy them are extremely well remunerated. In order to carry the risk that is associated with a bailing bond.

I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefit of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds, but never actually find that those bonds are first into use, in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code, to continue to determine that bailing will be the determine that bailing will be the first result and not a resort at all. If the government are now saying that there are many circumstances identified which bailing is neither usable or adequate.

I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences of that for financial stability? If we are sailing that bailing is a slightly busting system. Have there been blandishments of the various investments that have purchased bailing bonds. Trying to create an ultimate route. In the end, what are the consequences of our small and medium-sized banks, if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure, the Minister says of course the , will not ask an unaffordable contribution, from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is a mechanism that ensures small depositors accounts, who is going to do the replenishment, if the number is too great, to ask the banks to commit to that replenishment.

I am In responsibility where risk lies, is embedded in this bill. If the Minister is so so sure that the ideas should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced, onto this bill as part of the legislation.
15:53
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
This is an important bill, providing the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly that of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. And it of course reflects proposals by the last government in the light of experience, with the devise of -- demise of Silicon It started in the Lords. It was a good example of expert scrutiny, across the House. Special thanks go to my noble friend, and predecessor Baroness Vere, to my noble friend, Baroneseses and Oakes and Baroness Penn, to the noble Lord Lord Vaux of Harrowden, to Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles and to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.

And to officials on all sides, not forgetting the Whips. And above all to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore. I thank him, both the government amendments, notably that that was made to clause 3, on the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which I believe helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he is already Banking financial services are very important to the success of the British economy.

In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of over £27 trillion. And in 2023, the financial services sector contributed 208 billion to the UK economy. So legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness. The need to be easy to navigate and use and they must balance ambition, with prudence. And understandable driver of this particular bill. Noble Lord will recall the amendment we successfully added, championed by my noble friend, Baroness Vere.

This sought to prohibit the use of the financial services compensation scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions. It reached an end state inquiry. The object was to reflect, in law, the government's stated objective of using the resolution framework, in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention. Thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the banking act, 2009, provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks. That have achieved MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an exposed levy of the banking sector, through the FCF sea in times of trouble.

Resources should be focused on SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness Kramer has reiterated. In view of this I'm joined by noble Lords across at the House and expressing disappointment that members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the bill. We are confident that this would have improved the bill in meeting its objectives, and how to embed the balance at that I spoke about at the beginning. However, I think we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support, in the other place, which is to maintain flexibility, for example as the Minister has just explained, to deal with a large unexpected redress claim, left, left the taxpayer exposed.

Albeit, very much a backstop arrangement, with 1.5 billion cap as in the Minister has just confirmed. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again. It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues, in the other place, in good faith. I hope the Government will, regardless consider these proposals seriously, as we try together to create a system that is balanced and simple, promotes growth and an objective We support the thrust of the bill, which continues the work that we did in government, in supporting our banking sector, in protecting consumers and safeguarding public finances.

However there are still outstanding questions, which I hope the Government can correct today, or in writing. They are even more important now that the fear amendment has been rejected. The financial conduct authority and the prudent potential regulation authority have proposed an SCS operating budget for the year, 2025 to 26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FCS's administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation. Financial years and 2021 to 2024. The SCS paid just £10 million in compensation, relating to deposit claims.

Primarily due to 11 credit unions and one small bank. And the level of the Minister outlined the steps the government is taking to minimise the operating cross of the FSCS. It is a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses industry funding models doesn't change that fact. The money and the operating budget is a money that is not being utilised at the banking sector, which employs the needs of people and contributes billions to our economy and growth.

So does the noble Lord the Minister agree FSCS should focus on efficiency in keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in their own operating budgets. And indeed like other gators they should have regard to the government's overall objectives. I end by saying this is objectives. I end by saying this is a broadly a sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances and ensure the security of the financial sector and limit public risk.

We will support the public risk. We will support the government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of this bill. achieve the objectives of this bill. But I hope the level of the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and take the opportunity to clear up some of the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.
16:00
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I would again like to thank all noble Lords for their efforts, on this bill, since July, last year and all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate today. I'm also grateful to all three noble Lords for agreeing they were not oppose this bill further. I will briefly attempt to respond to the questions and points made, in this brief debate. Firstly, I would like to reiterate what Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe said about the expertise in this House.

I was on the receiving end of much of that expertise and it certainly tested me. I do think to a large extent this bill was improved by the debates that we had, in this House. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for that. Lord Faulks spoke about the gap for us returning to this ping- pong session. That is somewhat out of my hands. I do agree with him, did feel like rather a long time before we debated these issues will he asked about the circumstances with which this power will be used.

I hope it did cover that my opening speech. He also wrote some of the The Bank of England sets requirements independently of government, but within a framework set out in legislation. The government has consulted on proposals to seek to ensure the regime remains proportionate and involves over time. The government is engaging closely with the Bank of England as it considers its responses to that consultation and this engagement includes consideration of the impact on economic growth. Baroness Kramer talked about Enbrel being used as the first result.

There, believes there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that shareholders creditors are exposed to losses before the new mechanism is used, including the principal and legislation requiring the government to ensure shareholders and creditors balances on a banking institution fails. A set out in the draft updates to the code of practice the Bank of England would look to write down are otherwise exposed loss already available resources, before requiring recanalisation payment from the FACS. Noting these points the government believes specifying the extent of losses that must be posed before it is used would be an unnecessary restriction on the Bank of England's ability.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked about the budget and minimising operation costs is in fact a legal duty on them to minimise those costs, and I would expect them to adhere to that legal duty of course. She also spoke about the importance of financial services to growth of the UK economy, something I very much agree with her on. This bill plays a vital role in upgrading the UK's toolkit to manage... Which are in turn key to the government's number one priority of economic growth.

I look forward to the bill's enactment and I hope to the bill's enactment and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the amendments made in the other place. I beg to move.
16:03
16:06
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
amendments made in the other place, starting with amendments 1 to 31. These will ensure that smart data These will ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally and that part one is as clear as that part one is as clear as possible. Similarly amendments 35 to 42 from the other place reflect discussions on the national register with the devolved governments. Finally, amendments 70 to 79 make Finally, amendments 70 to 79 make necessary consequential updates to the final provisions of the bill and some updates to schedules 11 and 15.

I will now speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords starting with tabled by noble Lords starting with those relating to sex data. Starting with amendment 30 2A, which is with amendment 30 2A, which is agrees with the motion to agree subsection 3 and four in clause 28, and instead proposes changes to the initial drafting of these subsections. These would require the subsections. These would require the Secretary of State when preparing the trust framework to assess whether the 15 specified public authorities are able to reliably ascertain the data they collect, record and share.

Amendment 32, B, limits this assessment to sex data as defined through amendment 32, C. By definition limits sex to biological sex only and provides a definition of acquired gender. I think it also relevant to speak at the same time to amendment 52, A, which disagrees with the motion to remove clause 140 from the bill and instead suggest changes to the drafting. Clause 140 as amended by amendment 52, B, seeks to through a regulating, recreation making power give the Secretary of State the ready to define sex as the only biological sex as, in certain areas, or across public sector data processing more widely.

Let me start by making clear that this government accepts the recent Supreme Court judgement on the definition of sex. We need to work through the effects of this ruling holistically and with care, sensitivity, and dare I say it, kindness. In line with the law, taking care not to inappropriately extend its reach. This is not best done by giving the Secretary of State the power to define sex as biological in all cases to secondary. Without appropriate scrutiny, given the potential impact on people's human rights, privacy and dignity, and with the potential to create legal uncertainty.

Likewise giving the Secretary of State a role in reviewing how other public authorities process sex data in all circumstances based on that definition, would be inappropriate and disproportionate. Noting that the Supreme Court's ruling is specifically in relation to the meaning of sex inequalities legislation. The driver behind this amendment has been the importance of sex data being accurate when processed by public authorities. I strongly agree with that aim, accurate data is essential. This government takes data accuracy, including existing legislation, which requires personal data to be accurate, and data standards, seriously.

That is why we are addressing the question of sex information in public-sector data. First, the EHRC has updated its statutory code of practice support service providers in light of the Supreme Court judgement. Second, the Data Standards Authority is developing data standards and the monitoring of diversity information including sex and gender data, and the effect of the Supreme Court judgement will be considered as part of that. Third, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity data last year, and fourth, the Office for National Statistics published a work plan in December 2010 before developing harmonised standards on data generally.

Finally, the department's currently considering the imitation of the Sullivan review published this year, which I welcome. When it comes to digital verification services, I can reassure noble Lords that these measures do not change the evidence that individuals rely on to prove things about themselves. The measures simply enable that to be done digitally. This government is clear that data must be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used and must not be fleeting. It should be clear the digital verification services what the information public authorities are sharing with them means.

For example, and this is an important one, if an organisation needs to know person's biological sex, this government is clear that a cheque cannot be made against passport data because it does not capture biological sex. Devious only verify logical sex using data which records that attribute specifically and not one that records sex and gender more widely. This is a concern of the noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot and I hope this provides reassurance. Data accuracy principle of GDPR is part of existing law.

That includes where data is misleading, a point I will return to. I hope noble Lords find this commitment reassuring and as such agree with Commons Amendment 32. I now turn to amendment 34, A, 34, B, and C, regarding the asset register. Security has always been at the heart of the national underground asset register. We have therefore listened to the well thought through concerns which fronted the amendment previously tabled by the noble Viscount Lord Camoys regarding cybersecurity. Following consideration the government is proposing instead and amendment we have drafted with the support of colleagues in the security services.

We believe this addresses the intention of ensuring the security of the national underground asset register data, with three key improvements. First, it broadens the scope from cybersecurity only to the general security of information kept in order obtained from the national underground asset register. This will ensure that front end users have guidance on range of measures for security good practice. For example personal vetting which should be considered for implementation. While avoiding the need to publish specific cyber security features that should not be in the public domain.

Secondly it specifies the audience for this guidance is, namely users accessing it. Finally it broadens the scope of the amendment to include Northern Ireland alongside England and Wales, consistent with the measures. Clearly, it remains the case that access to data can only be approved for purposes by eligible users with access controlled and auditable. I hope such noble Lords will be content to support government amendments 34, ABC. Turning to amendments 43 on scientific research, this removes the public interest test inserted into the definition of scientific research by the noble Viscount.

Whilst recognising the concern that the noble Viscount raises, I want to be clear that anything that does not count as scientific research now would not do so under this bill. We have tightened the requirement and added a test. The bill contains strong safeguards. Adding precise definitions on the face of the bill will not strengthen these productions but will impose significant new legal obligation on our research community. This is a time when in line with the good work of the previous government we are trying to reduce bureaucracy for researchers, not increase it with new processes.

The test proposed will lead to burgeoning bureaucracy and will damage our world leading research. Chilling basic and curiosity driven research, disproportionate step is not one that we can support. My Lords, I beg that we can support. My Lords, I beg to move that house to agree with the Commons and the amendment one with the leave of the House I have spoken the leave of the House I have spoken to the author amendments. -- Other amendments were stopped at the question is that the House to agree question is that the House to agree with the Commons in the amendment one.
16:14
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
I will start first by thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his as ever clear and compelling remarks. I should also thank all noble Lords who have been working in the collegiate, collaboratively to find a way forward on the few but important remaining points of disagreement the government. Before I come to the issue of accurate recording of personal data, let me also thank the noble Baroness the Minister for tabling the government amendments on the national underground asset register and not least for her constructive engagement throughout the progress of the bill.

As noble Lords will recall, I set out our case for stronger statutory measures to require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to relevant stakeholders on the cyber security measures which should be in place before they receive information from the national underground asset register. I'm delighted of course that the government have responded to the arguments we and others made and have now tabled the own versions of my amendment which require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the security of this data.

And we are happy to support them in that. Turning to the amendments 32, A, and 52, A, standing in mining, which seek to ensure data is recorded accurately, these motions amend the original amendment which my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot took three Lordship's House. My noble friends Lord Lucas is sadly unable to attend today but I'm delighted to bring these amendments forward from The conservative Frontbench table new clause 31 which would have delivered a conclusive solution to the problem.

We are now limited by the set of amendments, so we were not able to read table that, in my view, excellent amendment, in your Lordships' House macro. As several noble Lords said when we discussed this issue at report stage, we absolutely must have clarity on the recording of sex and gender. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord the Minister attest to this position, as well. The amendments I have tabled builds on Lord Lucas's amendment, in light of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court.

It is now very clear that we need accurate sex data recorder for a whole host of reasons, including medical research and for the protection of same-sex basis. There is no reason why gender may not also be recorded in a separate field. It is important that gender data is accurate too. The level of the Minister was kind enough to meet me this morning to set out his case. The bill, as it stands addresses our concerns. Even if it does so going forward, the Sullivan report notes that the data, is currently held by public bodies and may not be reliable.

In fact it is almost certainly not reliable, in many cases. Whatever the rules They were passing on inaccuracies, already present, in the sex and gender data. As was observed in a earlier debate, when it comes to databases, garbage in, garbage out. I know noble Lords on the benches that I left were satisfied by the noble Lord the Minister's previous assurances that workers already ongoing, in this area. Today I think we have the opportunity to take a step forward on this. I hope all noble Lords can take their opportunity to deliver the accurate data according to need, not least to protect the same-sex basis.

Finally, turning to the noble Lord Kobel's amendment. He has worked tirelessly on this issue. We understand the argument he is making unsupported as an amendment at report stage -- Lord Coe voile. The amendment is an element that is intended to tighten up this definition. I have course appreciate and recognise the government's concerns to avoid burdening researchers with unnecessary and. I am not yet satisfied that we have the right balance here, between regulatory burden and public good. I still feel burden and public good.

I still feel it is crucial to resolve this, we will therefore support Lord Colville will therefore support Lord Colville in the lobbies if he chooses to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile I intend to test the opinion of the House when merged motion 32 a or motion 52 a are called.
16:18
16:20
16:22
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
Sandy supporter 43 a. I welcome so much of this bill. I want this to be a champion of technology and I too hope that becomes and attracts hundreds of millions pounds of investment in the development of AI. I understand the concerns expressed I am still pressing ahead with this amendment. This country to have control of their data and how it is used. This amendment is a pushback about the way that the AI companies have been abusing the data in training their AI models.

I only have to mention the way that last year, Meta reused data from Instagram users without their consent, to train up their AI model. Once that this was discovered that there was a huge outcry from the owners of the data and appeal to the ICO. Meta stopped the process and the ICO said it is crucial that the public can trust the privacy rights will be respected. I want to make sure that this bill becomes, when it becomes law, it will reassure the people of this country, it can trust the new technology.

The battle to stop the abuse of data is a concern, which is essential to my noble and indomitable friend, Baroness Kidron. Sitting beside me. Who's amendment is in the next group. In response to vector copyright, belonging to millions of creatives, including authors and artists by AI companies. As it stands, clause 67 gives a very powerful exemption, allowing AI companies to reuse data, without consent. If they can show that their work aligns with the definition of scientific research is set out in scientific research is set out in the bill.

I feel this definition is so widely drawn, it will allow AI models to reuse data, without consent, claiming that they are carrying out scientific research when in fact they are using it for product development and their own profit. I want to thank the Ada Lovelace Institute, for their constant support, throughout the lengthy progress in this bill. I expressed my concern that both the committee and report stages of the bill, in this House and she and very respected check the size technology innovation in the other place to put forward a similar amendment.

Despite meetings of Ministers they have offered nothing to assuage concerns. Which is a force me to push this amendment to the stage. Two a will tighten the definition of what counts as scientific research. Taken for the manual, developed by the OECD, in order to compare R&D efforts, made by different companies and identify what key features. The government supports the definition. The Minister of the committee stage said at the researcher test set out in this bill, that it will not operate alone any said it will be in the guidance.

The guidance are merely guidance and the codification would bring aboard and burdens. The codification of the existing standard set by the ICO. A central feature of this part of the amendment is that scientific research should increase the stock of human knowledge. The Minister has told your Lordships that not all scientific research will be new knowledge. Scientific research is often refuted, or confirmed as previous findings or some scientific research will fail. My Lords, if there is refutation or confirmation, that is an extension of human knowledge.

Even if the research fails, research will know that the experiment doesn't work. That My Lords is a new knowledge. The requirement for scientific research to increase the stock of knowledge is a sensible precaution, preserve data from abuse. Redirect that tech companies were piggybacking for their own profit. For the purpose of this amendment it is not just that definition, it is also to make sure that researchers have to consider it, when they start to deploy the exemption for the use of data.

May the noble of the Minister say it will lead to undue burden on scientists and stop research on going ahead. This definition is already being used by the ICO. The problem for whose data is being abuse. If they want to appeal against its use, without consent, have to go to the ICO and they have to apply the definition. The ICO's latest addition shows a data protection claims and not meeting the target. Surely that means it is too late for an appeal against the reuse of data, without consent.

The data will already have been absorbed into the AI training model and as we have been continually told it is harder AI researchers to identify data once it is included in the model. Two a of this amendment will stop this happening, by having a definition on the face of the bill that the AI researchers will have to do so before reusing the model for the data. It will stop them having to appeal to the ICO if they are concerned. The second part of this amendment to be response to the government's claim that the reasonably described tests, in this clause is a tightening of the definition of scientific research.

Over 14 of our leading law companies have looked at the governments test as set out in the bill and described it as, "Loosening, expanding, or broadening the definition. " Clause 67 asks the question whether research can be scientific. The ICO or the courts will have to consider is it irrational to call this a scientific research? It is a very hard to prove irrationality. It is a high bar. As we hope nibblers will agree, would a reasonable person conducting from scientific research perform this activity, in this matter.

This conduct actual conduct against an objective standard with what constitutes proper scientific research. The amendments realises what is already in requirement. Such research be conducted, in line with standards based in the UK research practice, research. It will ensure transparency the use of scientific research. I am sure during the course of the debate we will hear from scientists who say this debate will stifle research and stop work. This requirement is minimal and the information required is that which researcher should already have to hand.

I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, when you vote, that this amendment would give transparency into how people's data is being reuse. The new test laid out in my amendment will be a powerful weapon in the abuse of people data. I want the new technologies to be successful, but it will only be successful if we have the trust of the people of the country people think of the government caved into tech companies and allow them to pillage our data, for their own financial gain, rather than for the progress of human knowledge, most people will be outraged.

I ask the noble Lord the Minister to assuage these fears and to help that the bill provides data in the people's interest. Meanwhile I consider that interest. Meanwhile I consider that I will ask the opinion of the House? I will ask the opinion of the House?
16:30
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
I'm late, to this debate. I haven't participated here before and I would only have done so, because of conversations I had over the weekend and it really relates to a point by my noble friend. I'm not going to oppose my noble friends amendment, it may well be right. I didn't express my anxiety, because there were exciting so expressed by my honourable friend he came to see me. On the question of the judgement of the Supreme Court, I'm very much in favour of it.

I think it was wholly right and am very glad that the government has found finality. It does raise problems, which I do not think have yet been fully considered. That is what makes me reluctant to support my noble reluctant to support my noble Now, the friend who came to see me as a friend I have known for a number of years. In fact, she married and had a child. And she has then transitioned and transitioned fully to the female gender. And she is fully certificated.

And we discuss together the implications of the judgement for her. And although I strongly support the judgement of the Supreme Court, a number of points that she made were very troubling. Most particularly as regards people who have not fully transitioned and how they are going Lordships which is as regards passports. This is a woman who I have known for 10 or so years. In every material respect, she passes as a woman. That is what I have always treated her as being.

Her passport, at the moment, shows female. But where there is the requirement for sex she is deeply concerned that the passport may have to be altered to state mail because that is her natal gender. And she made if it is unclear what happens and if you go through immigration control or passport control either in this country or somewhere else where there would be a manifest divergence of appearance, on the one hand the passport says that she is male.

On the other hand, what she appears for all purposes. And the point that I took away from that is that there are still lots of things we are going to have to address. And my particular suggestion to your Lordships house is that we should set up a Select Committee in due time when this House is well first and able to do that. Set up a Select Committee to consider what the implications of a Supreme Court judgement are across a broad- spectrum of consideration.

If I come back, forgive me, I will not supported. Not because I think he is wrong, but because I think it is premature to come to statutory interventions when there is still a lot to be considered. And I would fearful that if this has accepted my Noble Friends amendments, and they may be right, they would be treated as unprecedented, which, it is at least conceivable, they would come to regret.
16:33
16:35
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would speak to amendment 32 and 52, and as the Noble Lady has said, these appear to be eminently sensible. The Noble Lord the Minister, and I also grateful to him for the meetings he was able to join, has assured us that we can trust the digital verification service because it will be based on the data accuracy of the GDPR. But that principle has been in place for a decade, during which, as Professor Alex Sullivan recounted in her important report which the Noble Lord the Minister welcomed earlier, statistics have become utterly confused.

Particularly in this area. Because sex and gender identity have been collected and conflated in a single data field. Such that the meaning of sex has been obscured. And, as he said, and I welcome his support for the supreme judgement, that judgement confirmed that sex and the Equality Act can only, has only ever meant biological sex. But that has been the case for 15 years. During which all of this has taken place. So, the Minister tells us that we can trust the Government to respect the judgement, and to ingest the amendments.

Before sort of considering that, can he just answer a few questions. Why is it not appropriate to ensure in this bill, which is a data use and access bill, specifically talking about a digital verification failure, why is it not appropriate in this bill to ensure that unreliable datasets are not used for digital verification? I mean, if not in this timely digital legislation, then when? He backs to the forthcoming ecology and human rights commission guidance, but I would suggest that in this particular area we do not have to wait for that guidance.

We have this bill and it is surely appropriate to enshrine everything the Minister has said in this legislation. And could I also secondly ask how the Government considers how the digital verification system will work? With what is estimated to be 100,000 people who have a different record for their sets across different public bodies, for example the birth register, the passport office, driving licence authority and the NHS. How is that going to pan out? How is the Government going to ensure that the mixed data such as the passport sets are not relied on as an authoritative source of answering the question in the DVS system? While respecting the concerns that the Noble Lord and Viscount have, rightly, raised.

So, the point is how are we going to ensure that the data verified for the sex field in irrespective any other field in the DVS is accurate and responds to biological sex? Will the Government publish clear guidance for data users so they know which sources of sex data can be trusted? And others which remain conflated. And how are they going to put technical measures in place to ensure that unreliable sources do not come through the information gateway. Is it impossible that a person who expresses themselves as gender fluid or non-binary could have two different digital verification services? Perhaps one that is female and one the other is male, both digital verification trust, I mean that may seem not going to be terribly common, but it is a possibility.

I think that we need an answer about. And, finally, the Government has argued it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used for applications such as single sex services, and the points have been well-made about people, a woman who wants a woman healthcare provider at health screening. And, by the way, this is important for trans people as well to make sure that they are appropriately treated in services like health. If the aim of the DVS system is to provide trusted, interoperable digital identities which people can use to prove facts about themselves, isn't it likely that this will, in fact, be used in the services that the Supreme Court judgement spoke about? And advised with perfectly legitimate need to be kept as single sex based on biological sex.

If the Government does not like these amendments from the Noble Lord Camrose but agrees with their aim, I cannot honestly see why he should object to enshrining them in more than the data accuracy principle which, as I have said in the last decade, has been respected in the breach, than in the reality. I have not really had been reassured that his assurance, as much as I respect his sincerity, and his personal sincerity and integrity, are enough sincerity and integrity, are enough for us to rely on as opposed to having something actually on the statute.
16:40
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise also to speak on amendment 32 a and 52 a, and just to follow on from the noble Baroness, I really appreciate if the Noble Lord the Minister understood the concerns of these amendments, but as the noble Baroness pointed out there have been reassurances given in this House over many debates, in fact, that there was nothing to worry about in terms of confusion in relation to sex and gender, and actually we now have ascertained via the Supreme Court that they needed some clarity and we have now got it, but I do not want us to make the same mistake again.

I did want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister to clarify one thing he said in his opening remarks. Which was that it would be overreached to ask the Secretary of State to declare biological sex as a material reality in all instances. I think that is what he said. But I would like to point out that biological sex is a material reality in all instances. And despite the comments of the Noble Lord in relation to his friend, I just wanted to clarify that it is not about passing or appearances.

It is about biological material reality. And, actually, in that instance, it is also the Noble Lord the Minister starting having called on us to have kindness. And, of course, we should all have kind as all of the time in every instance. But nobody here is trying to be unkind. But, to clarify, and something that the noble Minister said when he stated we must have a simple version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify, consistently, and there needs to be rules, and I agree.

It is not about kindness or unkindness. It is about clarification. I also think that just in addition to what has already been argued that this surely has to be about trust. And I can tell the House that quite a lot of people that I have spoken to are actually rather distrustful of digital ID of any sort. They are already cynical and anxious about what is going on with the data collection. I am not raising that point other than to say that the one thing that we would want is that this particular measure is trustworthy in order to counter such worries.

And yet what we are talking about here is an officially talking about here is an officially sanctioned app that will allow the falsification of sex. Even if that is not its intent. And that is to quote an article from Joan Smith. It can be a form of self ID that appears to be endorsed by a Government trust mark based on Governments that could be based on gender identity rather than sex. A Government trust mark old to be trustworthy.

It is supposed to guarantee that the data it contains is accurate. And that includes sex. I think that something important happened with the Supreme Court clarification, but of course this is an ongoing discussion in terms of how it has implications on a wider range of public policy, and I understand that, but I do think there are times when people suggest that we should leave the Supreme Court on some sort of relativistic mishmash, I mean what is your reading of it? I do not think it is about the reading.

It is a clarification of the law, and I do think that if this is the bill inadvertently adding to that relative eyes tomorrow in excuse for dismissing the Supreme Court that would be an unintended consequence of what the Government is doing and it could be simply sorted out by the Government itself.
16:45
16:46
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I sat through the Committee stage of this bill and did not speak then because I was so clear that the noble Lord Lord Colville's Amendment was inappropriate. Indeed, it was the speech of the noble Lord my honourable friend Lord Vallance that made you feel that speaking was unnecessary. I regret that because I should have pointed out something very important. The first thing to say is to just come back to what the noble Lady has just said.

The definitions in this bill are flawed to start with. The idea to devise new applications of available knowledge is not the work of scientists, it is the work of technologists. There is a big difference between technology and science. Technology has all sorts of downsides that we don't expect. Science does not have an ethical dimension. That has been stated by many very distinguished philosophers in the past. I want to suggest that every single invention that we make, every single innovation has a downside that we do not expect.

I would challenge the noble Lord, and would challenge the noble Lord, and I have set on a scientific committee with him and we have enjoyed each other's company, but I would argue there is not a single case where he can argue where there has not been an unexpected downside to every scientific invention. That is potentially why this is a flawed problem. Let me go through one thing. There are three problems I think that are facing humanity and the world at the moment. One clearly is nuclear war.

One clearly is climate change and perhaps the most important one would be risk of antibiotic resistance. It turns out that actually, all these risks were completely unseen when these technologies were started. Indeed, Marie Curie had no idea that the X- rays she was producing would be dangerous to her and would result in her death unfortunately at the end of cancer. She did not recognise there might be such a thing as nuclear explosions. When it comes to climate change, it's obvious the Industrial Revolution and all the things we have now, we would not want to avoid having, just as we would not want to avoid having X- rays, but we have to understand the control has come later.

And lastly, the most important thing, the possibility is that infection at the moment is one of the greatest problems that humanity faces on earth. The invention of antibiotics has made it worse because we have arising out of infections which are due to resistance. Therefore I begged the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I believe it is well-meaning and I understand what he is trying to say, but I hope the opposition, when they listen to this, will consider at least abstaining from voting.

Risky as it might bring the House of Lords into disrepute as it stands.
16:49
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak on amendment 40 3A. As someone with regular day-to- day experience of scientific research. Since I started my PhD in 1981 I have had the privilege of spending more than half of my working life doing scientific research in the UK. The last 20 years working with very sensitive data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in collaboration with Meditech, AI and pharmaceutical companies. This has required me to become familiar with many three letter and four letter acronyms.

DBS you will know about, but you may not know about RSO, and many others. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical colleagues to fill in integrated research application systems forms. research application systems forms. The system is used to apply for HRA approval for research projects involving the NHS, social care or the criminal justice system. I have appeared before not only medical research ethics committees, which test if scientific research is ethical and valid, but also other committees which consider the suitability of individual researchers and local issues.

I was involved in a research project which reuse data acquired from patients on a COVID isolation ward during the first two waves of the pandemic. Research projects ought to understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical grade variables we used to monitor these high-risk patients during COVID. It took our research team more than 18 months to obtain the relevant permissions to reuse the data for our proposed analysis. Our application was reviewed by the confidentiality advisory group, which provides independent expert to vice in the use of confidential patient information without consent for research a research purposes.

They already consider whether accessing the confidential data is justified by public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make decisions about whether or not to grant access to the confidential data. My Lords, the existing provisions to allow access to data for research purposes are stringent in this country and it is entirely right that they should be. The UK is respected the world over for the checks and balances of its research governance.

Relevant safeguards already exist within the current legislation. Adding a further public interest test will only increase the amount of bureaucracy which will inevitably be reintroduced by the RSO's and the translational research offices of our universities, who are very good at doing this. The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves. Some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment I am afraid will have the unintended consequences of having a negative consequences of having a negative impact on research in this country and so I cannot support it.

and so I cannot support it.
16:53
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I think an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this particular group of amendments, but I do thank the Minister for his introduction and to the other noble lords and Viscount Falkland to their amendments so clearly. First of all, starting with the noble Viscount's amendments, I do acknowledge that these amendments are considerably less prescriptive than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons in C 21 which seem to require public authorities to comb through every record to rectify data which went further than the Supreme Court judgement and potentially fail to account for the privacy afforded to GRC holders under the gender act.

However, the Liberal Democrats on these benches will be abstaining from votes on the proposed amendments were -- for several reasons. The EHRC is updating its Code of Practice to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of set and the equality act. This guidance as I understand it will be specifically intended to support service providers, public bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in light of the judgement.

Therefore undertaking a public consultation to understand how the practical implications can best be reflected. These amendments in our view are an attempt to jump the gun, second- guess and or at the least pre-empt the EHCR's Code of Practice. In these benches we believe that any changes or clarifications regarding data standards should be informed by the official guidance and implemented consistently in a coherent and workable manner. We should allow time for the EHRC's guidance to be finalised, ensuring any changes or clarifications regarding data standards are informed by their advice and implemented consistently across public authorities in a inherent and workable manner.

-- In a coherent and workable manner. When we have concerns about clarity, although the Viscount's amendments are less prescriptive, we have concerns about the practical implementation. Questions arise about how public authorities would reliably ascertain biological set if somebody has a gender recognition certificate and has updated their birth certificate. I have long supported same-sex wards in the NHS, but I do not believe that these amendments are helpful in pursuing clarity following the Supreme Court judgement and, my Lords, we have heard what the Minister had to say about passports.

I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgement, but there are clearly implications, both tactical and legal, to be worked out. I trust, such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount Hailsham, and I think he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the right result. I agree that dating is to be accurate and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend, but in summary, we will be abstaining.

We believe that the EHRC process needs to conclude and provide comprehensive guidance, while also reflecting concerns about the workability and appropriateness of specific legislative interventions on data standards at this time. I want to move on to the amendments put forward by the noble Viscount Colville. This amendment might not reinstate the precise wording conducted in the public interest, but it introduces safeguards that seek to address the very same fundamental concerns articulated during our debate at report stage.

It does two important things. First, it provides a definition of scientific research, clarifying it as creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge and this directly addresses the concerns raised at report stage that the line between development and scientific research is often blurred, with developers positing efforts to increase model capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish genuine research from commercial activity. Secondly and critically, amendment 40 3B is required to meet reasonable test.

The activity is described as scientific research and must be conducted along the frameworks, legal obligations and standards. This requirement sinks to embed within the reasonable test principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement at report stage. Is the same as the amendment put forward by the chair of the science in select committee, which ties the definition to the definition in the OECD's manual of research and experimental development and as creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.

The Frascati framework is used worldwide by governments, universities and research institutions to report R&D, to inform science policy and underpin R&D tax credit schemes. It serves as a common language and reference point for policy decisions related to scientific research and innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the very purposes we previously identified in the public interest test. Ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends, addressing harmful applications and aligning standards.

Amendment 40 3B is a for counterproposal. It is Parliament's opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust the responsible conduct rooted in established frameworks must remain central to the definition of scientific research that benefits from data reuse exceptions. I heard what the noble Lord Winston had to say in his very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the noble Viscount's amendment cuts across everything that he wants to see in the outcomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of research. He might recall the situation only 45 years ago when there was only 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation. When there were overwhelming votes against in vitro overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both houses on two occasions and finally a Private occasions and finally a Private Members' Bill was brought that would have abolished IVF in this country. have abolished IVF in this country.

If that had happened, this would have been, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have happening in England and would have made a colossal difference to not only our knowledge of embryo growth, only our knowledge of embryo growth, but of ageing, cancer, all sorts of things that we did not expect from things that we did not expect from human embryology. I begged the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

human embryology. I begged the noble I have a misspent youth over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a misspent youth over the last 15 years and when I read the wording in the amendment I cannot see, as a lawyer, I cannot see the outcome that he suggested. This wording does not come across anything that he has had to say and I genuinely believe that and I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat. And I do not believe that wording is and I would say I understand entirely what the Lord has to say, but this was about the frustration and some of the controls over health data, and that does not apply in other areas of scientific set research.

And this formula is universal and well accepted and I think the viscount made an extremely good case that we should be supporting it.
17:03
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
That -- might I thank the noble That -- might I thank the noble viscount for his amendments. I would reiterate that this Government has been clear and accepts the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of sex for equality legislation. However, as the noble viscount says, However, as the noble viscount says, it is critically important that the Government works to the effect of Government works to the effect of this with care, sensitivity, and minding the law. When it comes to public sector data, we work through public sector data, we work through these impacts properly.

This would involve considering the scope of the judgement and the upcoming guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has the statutory code of practice for the purposes of this in light of the ruling and this this in light of the ruling and this would include some of the examples would include some of the examples used including the raised by my novel from the Baroness Hayter. Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has updated proposals once the EHRC has updated the draft.

It is right that the Government and the Parliament fully considers this before amending the with the public authorities collect, hold, and otherwise processed data, a point that the Noble Lord has made about the EHRC. I set out in my opening speech this Government takes this issue seriously and that is why there were numerous existing work streams addressing the way in which the sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed across the sector. The digital verification services amendments we have discussed today are misplaced because the bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content used by verification services, in stead this requires them to do digitally what they can do physically and it is through organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their particular circumstances and how they go about doing that.

Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically what calls further confusion. What the Government understands and the primary imminence the consent about the way in which the process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance and the equalities regulator, and the specific requirements of public authorities. It is very unlikely that the digital verification services would be used for many of the cases used by many noble Lords and we expect EVs to be primarily used for the right to work, age, address, or professional education and qualification.

The noble viscount Lord rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect with human for private and family life under the Human Rights Act. In effect, indiscriminately, indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. And I raised the example that has been up several times by the noble Baroness Lady Fox. It is not relevant for the French passport officer to know your biological sex.

That is not the purpose of the passport. However, we do acknowledge that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including those by Viscount Camrose and regarding information under clause 45, but without presenting issues that cut across that and guidance. I would remind the House that the data accuracy principle is already included in law and the principle requires that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used. And there are, again, work streams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the Noble Lord.

And, indeed, by the Baroness Butler-Sloss. Baroness Ludford asked the question about why it was not accurate for 15 years, and what that means about our reliance on this accuracy. I am afraid the fact is that it sort of was accurate for 15 years because there is a model on what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex. That is the case now. And in response to the question of could you end up with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different sources of verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no. I thank the House is indulgence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the House is indulgence in the Ministers interruption here, but the fact is the Supreme Court but the fact is the Supreme Court has confirmed what was always the law. That 16 Equality Act movement law. That 16 Equality Act movement biological sex, so it is not true that the data accuracy principle has reassured that the law has been followed for the last 15 years. And followed for the last 15 years. And I am sorry, I find that answer a little dismissive and I do not think little dismissive and I do not think we can kind of rely on that sort of assurance.

I apologise for saying that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she found that dismissive. My point was to say that actually there point was to say that actually there is a very clear imperative under the new situation to have biological sex verified as biological sex. As a result of that, not in all cases, have given an example where it would be inappropriate to have that information, but where you need that, it would not be possible to answer her second question. To have two different sources of verification that they gave two different biological sexes.

When information is shared through the gateway, it will be very clear what information, what that information represents, including a relation to sex and gender. In light of the Supreme Court judgement, I want to further reassure members by clarifying that before the information gateway provision commenced, the Government will carefully consider how and when the biological sex may be relevant in the context of digital verification checks and will take that into account when preparing the DBS code of practice. I hope that these commitments and the assurance about the EHRC will provide noble Lords with reassurances that their concerns will indeed be taken into account.

The amendments proposed do not fully take into account the fact that gender recognition act gives those with gender recognition certificate level of privacy and control over who has access to their gender history. It is essential the Government has the chance to fully assess the supreme court judgement and update guidance accordingly. Given the need to consider this area holistically to ensure that it will align with existing legislation in the guidance, the breadth of work already being carried out in data harmonisation and statistics and the specific reassurance on the accuracy principle, I hope the honourable member feels comfortable withdrawing his amendments.

Turning to amendment 43 a from the noble viscount Lord the scientific research is one of the U.K.'s great strengths. We are home to one of the four largest universities in the bill, one of the top three in terms of scientific outputs. Today's researchers depend on data, the UK data protection framework contains certain accommodations for those processing certain accommodations for those that meet the definition of scientific research in clause 67. I understand that noble Lords intention to avoid the misuse of these provisions, but the Royal Society has said the reason for this test in this bill provides accurate protection against this and the bill tightens this with the ICO able to use the reasonable test.

Reasonable does not mean this objective of an uninformed person, it means that objective, fair observer of good judgement and relevant facts. Such tests are well known to UK courts. The bill does not extend and expand the definition. If something is not considered scientific research now but will not be under the bill. Similarly, the bill does not provide any new information for reusing data for other research purposes. Moreover, further safeguards provided in clause 86 and the wider UK GDPR including the requirement that this be in effect.

This requires that they must have a lawful basis, putting an end to previous confusion on the matter. Adding further specific conditions to the definition of law would be unnecessary and impose a disproportionate burden on researchers that already said there has been too much time on redtape. The previous Government started to tackle the pernicious research. And bureaucracy. Should not add more. If nothing was, this could exclude genuine researchers. The manual provides useful guidance. It is not, however, a legal definition. Requiring researchers to start complying with any legal standard upon one that my change would undoubtedly create more committees, more bureaucracy.

The very thing that Mac spirits argued against in his guidelines on research. My Noble Friend Lord Winston has given powerful examples. Let me give two examples of where the proposals might cause problems. Does requiring research to be creative under the essential task, the really essential task of reducing or reproducing findings? Does the manual definition of systematic which means budgeted exclude unfunded very early research trying to get a foothold? Let's not dampen the U.K.'s world leading research active for production that was already included in the bill.

I was already included in the bill. I do sympathise with and let me say the bill contains a power to add to the existing sake of the narrow the search provisions if necessary full so the Government would not hesitate to use that power if it became necessary to tackle the issues. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House to agree with the comments in amendment one. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment to the Baroness Jones of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. With the leave of the House I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House I wish to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment to 231. The question is that the House to agree with the comments in amendments to 231 en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
17:13
17:14
None Portrait Division
-

be data of high quality when it is currently today, as we know from the Sullivan report, as a result of all of his eloquence I beg to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion 32 a, as an amendment to the Minister's as an amendment to the Minister's motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The the contrary, "Not content", The contents decided by a division. I contents decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is that motion 32 AB agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne. Not contents to the left by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted. Contents, 200. Not contents 183. So My My Lords, My Lords, amendment My Lords, amendment 33,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 33, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move formally that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment 33. The question is that the House do agree with the comments in their agree with the comments in their amendment 33. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 34, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Big to move amendment 34 a formally and that this has to do agree with the comments and to propose amendments 34 amendments 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

propose amendments 34 amendments 30 4B and 30 4C. The question is that motion 34 AB agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 35,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 35-42 en bloc. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 32-45 en bloc. As many as amendments 32-45 en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 43,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment 43. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment 43.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not convinced that my amendment. The research as amendment. The research as suggested. However it will detect user data as the technological user data as the technological revolution unfolds. So I moved formally and asked to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. The question is that motion 43 as an amendment to the Ministers motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open.

Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion The question is that motion 43 The question is that motion 43 AB agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 43

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted content to hundred and 89, not content 168, Amendment Amendment 44, Amendment 44, Baroness Amendment 44, Baroness Jones Amendment 44, Baroness Jones of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. My Lords, I big to move the House to agree with Commons in their
17:40
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
to agree with Commons in their amendment 44. I believe the House will also speak to amendment 45 to amendment 178. My Lords, there has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one. I hope noble Lords will agree with me as I set out the government's position which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. So, can I make it clear this bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider intellectual regulation.

It does not introduce a tax system, nor does it contain any powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI training in exactly the way it did before this was introduced. This Government recognises the enormous economic and social value of our creative industries. We saw that just last week as the nation came together to commemorate the anniversary of VE day. Our creative sector entertains and informs us.

It is the best of us as a nation. In our manifesto, quite rightly, pledged to work at the collective industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble Lords will know, the creative industries are worth 124 billion GBA and support to .4 lean jobs. Since 2010 they have grown 1.5 times the rate of the rest of the economy. And the creative industries are one of our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. The January January 2025 as the first step to developing that strategy we announced that the British loan will enhance its support for businesses to help access the finances they need to grow.

That UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to drive R&D led growth. That shorter duration apprenticeships as a first step towards growing flexible skills step towards growing flexible skills levy that meets the industry and employers needs will be introduced. A commitment to devolved funding to seek priority mayoral authorities to drive the growth created. And a £19 million package of funding for programs, including the UK games fund, a global screen fund, using exports for growth schemes, and the programs.

The Government will build on the support from the upcoming industry sector plan which we will publish very soon. Our manifesto also recognises both the opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledge to take only action and one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future of copyright reform. To ensure that they are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a very large volume of responses, something in the region of 11,000 and 5,000 and assessing the evidence we have received.

Our proposals will be based on that evidence, and what works and rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do properly, and as such the Government did not and does not believe that this bill is the right vehicle to take any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act quickly. But we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that policy outcome is the one that best valances the potential of AI and the need to support rights of AI and the need to support rights holders.

Although we do not believe that this bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we do understand the need to demonstrate that this Government, unlike others, once to follow best practice, engage them on all sides and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant amendments passed the stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in a fair evidence-based way. Of course, we agree there should be greater transparency about the use of protective material to train AI models.

We agreed that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that would empower rights holders to decide whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to all sides and ensure a reformed copyright regime is carefully thought through, carefully and effectively supported by the ends. And as our amendment set out, we will report on full substantive areas within 12 months. These will clearly signpost what we want to deliver and how we propose to deliver.

We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view. I applaud the to a settled view. I applaud the strong support, the dedicated advocacy, for the creative industries and your Lordships house, and I welcome the tireless campaigning from the Noble Lady Baroness Kidron and thank her for her engagement that we have had I also thank noble Viscount for his engagement. To do with the amendments in order, the text would add extra elements to the government's report including a plan regarding barriers for AI providers.

Extraterritorial uses of work and technological standards for machine-readable watermarks. The Should AI system may be considered in scope. These amendments are designed to be constructive and I thank the noble Lord for the 40 has put into them. I would however suggest that in the main they are already covered by government amendments. The noble Lord is a passionate advocate for a global digital watermarking scheme and as my noble friend has said on previous occasions there is merit in those discussions taking place. However as the noble Lord would readily admit, this would need to be a global effort and therefore would not be for the UK government to take unilateral action.

The amendments tabled by Baroness Kidron, 49 a and 40 9B on the Marshalled List, whilst well-intentioned are limited in their focus and would lead straight to implementing an outcome without affording time to properly develop the Wallace. They would require substantial policy change in one of the areas identified in the government's amendments to be implemented in the form of secondary legislation. Noble Lords may find it refreshing for a minister to say this from the dispatch box, but in our view it would not be an appropriate delegation of power.

We consulted for a reason and whilst we will act as quickly as possible, we must legislate properly. Arbitrary statutory deadlines will not create better policy outcomes. The government recognises the strength of feeling across your Lordships House and we agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be greater transparency and control over the use of creative works to train AI. We also share the wish of the noble Lady Baroness Kidron to see more licensing of content so our creative in share in the value created by those new technologies.

We must also ensure that AI companies are able to access the data they need to build leading models in a legal and efficient way. The British public and economy should be able to adopt and benefit from the most capable models available. We cannot pull up the shutters around our island, leaving AI development to take place overseas, outside of the influence of British right holders and legislators. So this is not an easy problem to solve. This is why we must use the best economic data and evidence that we can gather and follow a proper policy process to determine the best way forward.

We will get to the right outcomes and we will get those outcomes as quickly as we can. We want to work with noble Lords across the chamber to get there. However, despite the good intentions on display in these amendments, the government cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support them. I therefore beg to move our amendments. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 44. I thank the noble Lady the Minister for setting out the government's case so clearly. I rise
17:50
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
government's case so clearly. I rise to speak to my amendment, 40 6A, which seeks to improve the report which the government brought forward in the other place. This is needless to say an issue that is causing real concern for copyright owners and so many others in the creative in. Let us remind noble Lords that the creative in contributed £124 billion in gross value-added to the UK economy in 2023. The creative into outperformed the UK economy during the period between 2010-2023 in terms of growth.

The government is wisely and write prioritising growth over other concerns in the creative into going to have to be an essential part of this, but they will only be to the extent that they have a trusted and efficient marketplace for intellectual property. Our amendment improves the government's proposed report by adding consideration of extraterritorial use of creators copyright works by operators of web crawlers and AI systems, as well as considerations of establishing a digital watermark for identifying licensed content.

I take on board the point that this has to be international to work, but I suggest that few countries if any would have better or greater convening power to better or greater convening power to initiate the process of creating such digital standards. I urge the government to pursue that avenue. I should pay tribute to all noble Lords who have raised and continue to raise the issue of copyright in the passage of this bill. My thanks, of course, as I am sure I will be adding to the others, but thank you to Baroness Kidron in particular he has led such a powerful campaign on this issue.

Throughout the passage of the bill we recognise the serious concerns raised by the creative sector and at report stage tabled an amendment to bring forward a digital watermark to identify content and to protect copyright owners. I am very pleased that the government has taken the first step by amending the bill in the other place to put a report on the face of the bill. That said, we continue to feel the report needs to go further and if the government are unwilling to accept our changes, I will seek to test the opinion of the House when my motion is called.

Turning briefly to motion 49A, in the name of Lady Kidron, I again paid tribute to the work she has done to make progress on this. Whilst we have concerns about the drafting of her amendment in report stage, I am very pleased that she has tabled this motion today. With the additional parts of the motion specifically targeted at supporting small businesses and micro-entities, we are delighted to be able to support it today. It is increasingly clear that the government must do the right thing for our creative into and we are delighted to offer our support to motion for 9A.

I intend to test the opinion of the House amendment for 6A it is called. House amendment for 6A it is called.
17:53
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment for nine a in my name and I wish to offer my support to amendment for 6A in the name of the Noble Viscount Camrose. It's a sensible amendment and I hope the government will find a way to accept it without challenge. Let me start by rebutting three assertions that have been circling over the past few weeks. First, I wish to reject the notion that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are against technology.

And here I quote the secretary of state, who I am dilated to see is below bar this afternoon who said to the FT, just as in every other time, there is change in society, there will be some people who will either resist change, or try to make change to difficult to deliver. Well, my Lords, creative people are early adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices are innovative, and speaking personally in my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film industry transform from working on celluloid to the UK being a world leading centre of digital production.

And for the last five years at the Institute of ethics of AI in Oxford, where I am an adviser, I have been delighted to watch the leaps and bounds of AI development. Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers and creative people are natural innovators. The government's attempt to divide us is wrong. The transformational impact of technology is something that all the signatories of this weekend's letter to the Prime Minister understand. Creators do not deny the economic value and creative value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work.

Then rent it back with our work. Then rent it back from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress, it is an argument about value. The AI companies fiercely defend their own IP, but denied the value of our work. My Lords, not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but we, creative into embodied by change we, creative into embodied by change The notion that we are standing in the way of change.

We are setting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK's future growth. Secondly, there is no confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of the creative industry that the government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property rights. In our last debate my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made an unequivocal statement to that effect, which has been widely supported by other legal opinion.

So the government's spokesman who has greeted every press enquiry of the last few weeks by saying government is consulting to sort out the confusion in copyright in relation to AI is at best misinformed. Let me be clear, the amendment does not change copyright, we do not need to change copyright law, we need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law because what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. Thirdly and finally I want to rebut the idea of this is the wrong bill and the wrong time.

AI did not exist in the public realm until the early 2020s and the speed and scale of which copyright works are being stolen is eye watering. Property that people have invested in, creative, traded and that they rely on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value stolen at all parts of the value chain. My Lords, it is an assault on the British economy and it is happening at scale to a sector worth 120 billion to the UK and an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import.

My Lords, it is happening now and we have not even begun to catch up with the devastating consequences. The government have taken our amendments out of the bill and replace them with a couple of toothless reports. My Lords, whatever these reports bring forward, whatever the consultation offers, we need the amendment in front of us today now because if this bill does not protect copyright, by the time they work out their policy, there will be little to save. The language of AI, scraping, training, LAM's, data modules, does not evoke the full picture of what is being done.

They are corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their information seeking monopolies are not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK's most valuable cultural and economic assets. It is Harry Potter, it is the entire back catalogue of every single music publisher in the UK, it is the voice of Hugh Grant, the design of an iconic handbag, the IP of our universities, museums and library collections. Even the news is stolen in real time, or without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore.

It costs UK corporations and individuals their hard earned wealth and the Treasury hard earned wealth and the Treasury much-needed revenue. And it did nudes the opportunities of the next generation because if work is stolen at every turn, then whether you are a corporation or individual, you cannot survive. The time is now in the bill in front of us is the vehicle. Amendment 49A superseded the previous package of amendments and I wish to pay tribute to Lord Stevenson's who wishes he could be with us, Lord Clement-Jones and his colleagues who have been uncompromising in their support and my noble friend Lord Freyberg.

Amendment 49 simply provides that a copyright holder be able to see who, what, when and why there work has been taken, allowing them a reasonable route to assert their moral right to determine if they wish to have their work used and if so, on what terms. It is a slimmer version of the previous package of amendments, but it covers the same ground and importantly, it puts a timeline of 12 months and bringing forward these provisions and it makes specific provision for SME and micro-entities and for UK headquartered AI companies.

My Lords, there are two terrible The first is that Government is undermining one of our greatest industrial sector is also the second as Government may be on a support to court for all 10 the U.K.'s opportunity to take its rightful lease in the world of AI as a global leader in the AI supplied. Generative AI depends on skill, energy for computers, and high quality data. We punch above our weight on skills, but are no match for the US and China without lowering our energy costs fivefold, the natural choice will be for AI firms to train elsewhere, but the UK has a disproportionate amount of quality data.

A huge proportion of which is the Intellectual Property Office by our powerhouse creative industries. We should be creating market conditions that ensure our creators can continue to contribute to the culture of soft power and the to the culture of soft power and the long-term sustainable growth of our four nations. The economic argument is overwhelming. It is a crucial part of our nations assets, and the foundation of its future in the AI economy. That cannot be replaced by a handful of data centres.

And the moral argument is unassailable. Creators work as the result of their Creators work as the result of their labour. It is their property and it is for them to determine what they do with it, so I do ask the Noble Lady the Minister how does the Government justify turning their back while offshore companies steal UK property and how can you stand, how can the Government stand tall in that light of pre-election promises to put creativity back in the DNA of the country? When their best offer is a review on an infinite timeline? And why is the Government not protecting UK growth? When we know the monopoly power of the US and Chinese tech giants means that the benefits will accrue disproportionately off-line.

Finally, my Lords, I have been inundated by people who are materially affected of this issue. Many of whom are watching our proceedings. Let me just finish with some thanks to the hundreds of creators of the emails Britain's spoken campaigns in support of this amendment, to the UK AI trade group who have shown that the grassroots UK tech industry and broader AI ecosystem, unlike the proxies of big tech, want to work with, not steal from creatives. To the UK businesses who put billions into building iconic brands who want that this policy puts their investments at risk.

To the security community, incredulous that this may carelessly legitimised where in a community where cyber security is of vital importance and the sector both here and in the US have made clear to me that diminishing copyright does not, as Ministers suggest, open the US market to the UK, but, instead, opens the UK market to anyone who wants to take our data offshore. To the news media who put aside their differences in the interest of protecting the future of news with their make it fair campaign, to the creative rights KPI coalition.

As demonstrating the complete uniformity of the movement across the sector from the biggest record labels to freelance photographers just starting out to those on both houses on all sides of the political spectrum who have chosen to stand with the creative industries sometimes against the wish of their whip. And, finally, to the young people who have contacted me furious that the Government Ministers who so recently have been given the privilege of fulfilling their own ambitions are carelessly throwing away the possibility that the next generation of creators fulfil theirs.

Whatever your party allegiance is, I ask you to make clear to the 2.4 million people who make up the creative industries to their dependents, to the would-be creatives of the future, and to the citizens of the UK that enjoy and benefit from their creativity, that their property, their labour is worthy of your protection. Because apart from anything else, it is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ours to give away. The deputy chairman of the
18:06
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The deputy chairman of the Telegraph media group. It is a great pleasure to follow the Noble Lady. I pleasure to follow the Noble Lady. I strongly support Amendment 49 in her name. All who value the creative life of our country or her an enormous debt of gratitude for her campaigning and I agree with everything she said about thanking all those who have taken part. At the heart of this debate there are two complex policy issues and the Noble Lady the Minister made that point.

These are complex issues. The rapid development and regulation of AI and the operational copyright law. Both can seem a bit daunting to those not directly involved. And this is scary and complex and many would be forgiven simply for wanting to steer clear, but not one of us can turn our back today with impunity on this issue. All of us have a responsibility today because if you strip this debate back to its basics, there are three very simple principles at stake that affect all our lives and our central to everything that this House stands for.

The first is the defence of property. A century since the Copyright act of own nine since an individual has crated something, a film, April, they have retained ownership of it. It is their property and the law protects them. That is centuries old and under threat for the first time because the Government refuses to properly apply the law to Artificial Intelligence, allowing simply that plugging of someone else's work and profiting from it. It is putting AI beyond the scope of the law by failing to give great is the transparency they need to inform it.

At heart, this is dead simple. Unless this bill is amended, it is the equivalent of saying to a home owner, once you have bought a house and filled it with your possessions, the Government once you to leave the front door wide-open, invite anonymous passers-by to come in and take anything they want for free, allow them to go away and sell it for their own profit, and you have no protection at all in law. It is legalising theft. This amendment simply allows those who create content in an age of rapacious AI to put a lock on their door and protect their property by letting them know when theft is taking place and giving them a form of redress.

If this House stands for anything, it must stand for protection of property. Second is the nurturing of human creativity. It was, I think my Beethoven, the Noble Lord Berkeley will correct me if I got this wrong, who once said there is a divine spark of creative genius in all of us. Whether we paint a picture, taking photograph, write a piece of music, we all have something in us that allows us to express ourselves and enrich the lives of others in doing so.

It is copyright that protects our ability to do that. That is why the creative right of the UK has always been so vibrant, colourful, entertaining, colourful. It is why our creative industries flourish and play such a vital role in economic growth. But if you take away copyright protection, you snuff out that divine spark and endanger the livelihoods of those who depend on their creative ability. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for creativity for the divine spark.

Finally, and most importantly, the defence of democracy itself. It has been said once in this House, it has been said 1,000 times, democracy depends on the existence of a free independent press empowering the electorate with reliable information and scrutinising those in power. That role is even more important in the age of disinformation and unverified unregulated AI generated content with editorial judgement oversight overtaken buyout rhythms and the tyranny of recycled distorted circular information, but the provision of independent verified regulated news will be among the very first victims of AI if this amendment is not passed and we act very soon.

I do not say this lightly, and having spent almost my whole career in the media, I am choosing mime words very carefully, but I have to give the House this morning. AI has the capacity to utterly destroy organisations because it feasts on the millions of articles written by journalist without any attribution or payment, destroying the business model that makes the free pass possible. Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of cyberspace were no legal framework exists.

The advertising that supports taking platforms is content stolen by AI. There will only be a husk left. The answer is this amendment which will turbocharge an embryonic licensing market to ensure fair payment for creators and access to high-quality information and AI models. If the AI developers are forced to declare whose content they are taking, then they will know they will end up in the courts if they do not negotiate a license. The term existential threat is bandied around too much.

But this is not crying wolf. Unless we introduce transparency, control over content and fair renumeration within make licensing market, the threat to free media is generally existential, and as a consequence, the threat to democracy itself is also, genuinely existential. If this House stands for anything it must stand for democracy. We have to act now. The bills laissez-faire approach to copyright protection and craven obeisance to the platforms means that we will not get any action on transparency until well neither the end of the parliament, but for many public publications, for that point, the end will have already come.

And once lost, there will be no way of recreating the plural competitive media that has sustained parliamentary democracy for centuries. It is game over. That may sound alarming, but it is absolutely At stake here. Any Noble Lord considering voting against this amendment, I say it is already 11:55 for our free press and our democracy, and unless we back this today, this will damned the House with its most deadly words. Too late. late.
18:13
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, my noble Lords, friends, and those of a creative disposition. Lend me your ears. Even though I have come late to this bill, yes, I wonder what Shakespeare would have had to say about AI. Last night I presented the special BAFTA award for ITV4 commissioning that landmark drama, the debates versus the post office, which is British television at its best. And I wondered if AI would have had the intuitive instinct to create such an important drama which brought about societal change.

That is why I rise to strongly support my Noble Friend, the intrepid Baroness Kidron on amendment 49. And I declare an interest as per register. As this Span a fascinating and perhaps unsettling crossroads in the world of creativity. And the rise of Artificial Intelligence is no longer a futuristic fantasy. It is a tangible force reshaping the very fabric of our creative industry. And, potentially, stealing livelihoods. And, most of all, our children's future.

Does the Government really want that to be part of their legacy? My Lords, for centuries, the essence of acting and singing has been a unique connection between a human performer and an audience. We pour our emotions, experiences, and understanding of the human condition into convincing characters. Telling stories that emotionally connect. Now, AI is stepping onto our stage. Offering digital doubles, synthesised voices, and the potential of entirely AI generated programs, including animation, children's programs. The immediate impacts already being felt, AI tools can now replicate an actor's likeness, and act as voice, raising concerns about the unauthorised use of identities, both living and deceased.

The ability to create digital doubles or stunts or even entire scenes would reduce the Some argue that AI will be a tall to enhance our craft, aiding and adding to voice training, accent, or even music and script writing. The underlying anxiety about job displacement is real and valid. My Lords, our ability to connect with an audience on an emotional level, to bring authenticity and vulnerability to a role remains a uniquely human attribute.

Thousands and thousands of people tell me I did just that when they watched me almost 50 years ago on Playschool. It had a lasting emotional effect on them, right through to the .org because as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. My Lords, it terrifies me to think that future generations of children may never experience a human being connection with them, with their souls, either on-screen or onstage, or inspired them to pursue a career in the creative in.

No government should have that on their conscience. It requires us to legislate for ethical guidelines, for regulations and transparency that protect our copyrights and intellectual property, our professions, our creativity for the sake of our children. This is our responsibility to do just that. Without doubt we must collaborate with these new technologies in ways that enhance rather than replace the human element of creativity. My Lords, let us not shy away from this challenge, no. It may in vertically affect our children's future.

We need to confront it with open eyes and United voices, ensuring that the art of creativity in all its human richness can continue to thrive in this evolving world. My Lords, for these reasons I wholeheartedly support Baroness Kidron's amendment and urge others to do just the same.
18:18
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
This is my first contribution on this bill, although I have sat in every debate on this issue going back to Committee stage. I do not have a creative nerve in my body. I have nothing to declare, but my life and hundreds of millions of others has been enhanced by writers, actors, music makers across the world. And it is sad in a way, and this is not a criticism of anybody personally who is around at the present time, but the nature of labour in Parliament has changed.

When I arrived in the Commons 51 years ago, on the Labour benches was Morris Edelmann, a writer of fiction and non-fiction of note. My near near neighbour was Andrew Foulds. Jet Morgan in Journey into Space. I have been thinking how the little people, the little helpers for the Prime Minister in the other place would cope with Andrew today. He was a formidable character who could scare the life out of his friends. 30 years after that I joined this place.

Ruthven Dell on the benches. David Putnam joined some years later, a world-renowned producer. My noble friend, Lord Cashman. I make this personal. I don't speak for any of them. I haven't spoken to anybody about what I would say, although I indicated I was going to speak to Baroness Kidron at the weekend. I am being asked to deliver wholesale the work of these people to Big Tech. Well, I am not doing it. I have not got the slightest intention of doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it and that is why I shall vote for this amendment. As I said at the previous stage
18:20
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said at the previous stage of this bill, it surely goes without of this bill, it surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property from Artificial Intelligence companies. As the noble Baroness is present -- as the noble Baroness's amendment shows we should allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure all your Lordships would agree with that aim.

As well as being well aware of the strong human rights backup support to ask with the 46 state affiliation of the Council of Europe of which the United Kingdom is a prominent member. As many of your Lordships no first and foremost article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights in intellectual property rights in copyright.

Article 5 on cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data whilst article 10 stipulates offences relating to infringements of copyright and related rights. Thirdly, article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe framework safeguards privacy and personal data. Regarding copyright also and it emphasised at the earliest stage of our discussions that we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom records which granted legal protection to the publishers of books.

We must uphold the high standards of that the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide the good practice and I am here today supporting the noble here today supporting the noble Baroness's amendment. It is the Baroness's amendment. It is the clear example of it being a liability not to.
18:23
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
I speak because it's a simple amendment. It's putting the principle of transparency of these models on the face of this bill. We need to know what goes into these models and we need to know for two reasons. One, so that any form of copyright can be prosecuted. So at the moment, even our current copyright laws, how can we know whether they have been broken if we do not know what goes into these models? It does not matter if the government is thinking about changing the copyright rules, whatever copyright rules we have, we need to know what is being used in the models.

And the other reason is because of the outputs of these models. We need to know what these models were trained on in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. The noble Lord said it himself in order to answer an Oral Question from Baroness Cousins. If the data that has gone into the model is not transparent, we cannot ascertain its strengths and weaknesses without extensive Roxy measures and probing. On these two principles it's important that this simple amendment goes through today, and the fact that it has got some added benefits in terms of being able to legislate separately for smaller need enterprises, micro industries and UK businesses as to the fact that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment has been carefully crafted to give us exactly what we need in this bill today. Baroness Benjamin posed a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Benjamin posed a very appropriate question. What would Shakespeare make of AI? I think the Shakespeare make of AI? I think the answer so far is rather like the proverbial million monkeys on their typewriters. So far it has failed to
18:25
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
typewriters. So far it has failed to reduce a credible version of Shakespeare, but it has provided several improved versions of The Art of the Deal. I rise also to speak to Baroness Kidron's amendments and the government's amendments that have come back from the other place, the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for her engagement on this in the briefing she gave to noble friends and colleagues across the House. And also to my good friend Minister Chris Bryant, whose charismatic presence I've felt around us, almost as if he was observing our proceedings earlier on.

And also to the Secretary of State for confirming fire 1/3 party in last weekend's press that the government has changed its position in relation to having the opt out in the consultation as the preferred position. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that on the Minister could confirm that on the House of the -- on the floor of the House today. It was delivered by a spokesperson rather than the Secretary of State. It is a helpful change and I welcome the fact that the government has made some movement in the amendments it has put forward.

I hope it is now part put forward. I hope it is now part I am I am a I am a member I am a member of I am a member of the I am a member of the musicians I am a member of the musicians union and I draw attention to my entry in the register. Just to say that creative remuneration has been, for me, one of the central issues that I have worked on as a parliamentarian in the 23 years I was in the House of commons.

Certainly on the front benches in opposition, and also as the sponsor of the Private Members' Bill in the Commons, which although it did not get into law I think had it did not get into law I think had quite a significant influence. The copyright remuneration bill which is sitting within the offices of the intellectual property office. There has been strong ministerial engagement from Minister Chris Bryant, trying to hold to account everyone concerned in the music industry to improve remuneration for musicians.

I have never understood, and this is not just about rights holders, I've never actually understood why anybody in the creative into started of, for example, with a love of music and got involved in being an Executive in the creative industry, could start off with a level of music and creativity and some thinking they are worthy of being paid more than the people who actually create the wonderful content that Lord Rooker was speaking about earlier on. How can somebody reward themselves with greater remuneration than the entire remuneration of every songwriter in this country as a music industry Executive.

There is only one explanation and I think it is by the personal attrition of their soul, but that is another matter altogether. But in this instance it is an opportunity that we have, I think, within this bill. The key point is this, yes, obviously the elected House should have its way. I believe that very strongly as a former member, but it is important that this House has its say along the way, if you like, and that transparency is absolutely key. We cannot enforce copyright, rights holders cannot enforce their rights unless there is transparency.

This particular bill, this particular bus, the government should be getting on it, rather than waiting for a bus several years down the road in the form of future legislation. There is an opportunity for compromise and should be sent the amendments back to the other place, the government should look for a way to give commitment to ensuring it can through this bill take powers in order to regulate in relation to transparency in the near future. I was fortunate enough last week, and this is an absolutely blatant namedrop, but I was fortunate enough last week to accompany a member of ABBA.

I note that Lord Vaizey objects, he would never do such a thing. He introduced me to the founder of Motown records on one occasion in these corridors, but he would never do something similar himself. When I showed him the role gallery, he took particular interest in one of the murals and asked who is that in that mural. Sorry, it is not a mural, it is a fresco. He asked who is in the fresco. He asked who is in the fresco.

I told him. I said somebody should write a song about that and he said, yes, that is a great idea. It could be a metaphor for a love affair. I said, I'm surprised you have not thought of that before. We never mentioned the word Waterloo once.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords... I think it is the crossbenches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is the crossbenches turn. Noble Lord law black mentioned, and in declaring my interest as a composer I should also mention that I have acted as an expert with this in cases of musical
18:31
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
copyright. While doing that I was asked by one of my learned friends what constitutes something is worthy Because that in terms of the law is a substantial idea. So the whole notion of copyright comes down to something which is valuable and it doesn't matter how long it is or how short it is. Creativity in the UK is already, I'm afraid and somewhat hollow state, and any erosion of copyright will be adding yet another cut to noisy wounded body.

The noble Lady the Minister mentioned technology, and of course we all use technology. We all want to use technology. The famous composers, the songwriters who have headed the letter to the Prime Minister, Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting, wonderful songwriters, have used technology to great effect. And with the greatest respect, I think it slightly insulting to say to them they are pulling the shutters, we are pulling the shutters down, because we want to know who is using our music.

That cannot be something intellectually which holds water. People need to know how the music is being used, they have the right to know. Why also is an important factor. Let me give you an example which I mentioned once before, of what happened with screaming. In other words we have been bitten once already. -- With streaming. In a way I welcome opening music and the arts to the whole world through the Internet and streaming certainly does that.

But what did it do? Very well musician said to me other day, a top-10 artist, word us -- would at all this money go? It doesn't go to us. If you ask or Elton John hosting how their royalties have changed over the years, they will say they've gone down massively. This is not just about famous musicians. McCartney, Elton Jean, Sting, will be the first to say, this is also about the little-known songwriters who at the moment make a pittance but who are hoping to make something.

It's also, we are led to believe, obviously those famous names attract attention and it's quite right they do and I'm really grateful for their support. But there's also a whole other section, the contemporary classical music sector, and I know they support the local four lead at the Baroness, and this is a very dangerous bill if we cannot curtail, and I'm glad the lady is listening and wants to help and wants to find a way through because I believe that if we don't make improvements to this, we really could be shortchanging something that brings an absolute fortune into the Treasury.

But not just a fortune in terms of money. The fortune in terms of joy. I've mentioned Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting. Think what they brought into people's lives. And although my section, the contemporary classical section may be less famous and less well-known, they, too, have a right to be heard and therefore is that if you allow, for example training, it suggested that maybe it would be OK to allow people to use our products in training. But we know that that is the thin end of the wedge.

When streaming came in the record industry virtually disappeared. I know, the manager of a classical record company, who said to me, why would we want to record this piece? It's already out there on the Internet. You have to think about what follows on from opening this World Cup and I think the government is listening. And I think many noble Lords have pointed out exactly what the dangers are. So I certainly will support the noble Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Kidron.

She has done sterling work. I don't think we are making a fuss about nothing. I think this is the thin end of the wedge and we have got to try and curtail it now, for the future of music in this country, and indeed all the other arts. other arts.
18:36
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
I welcome the government additions to the bill, and I endorse my noble friend Viscount Camrose's amendments today, especially that relating to removing barriers to entry. Because it is vital that AI does not end up controlled by the same tech firms who dominate cloud search and social media. And this in my view, this important nature resents opportunity for challenge fans and new markets to emerge. And much of what I will say in the moment is very much with them in mind.

As to the noble Baroness Lady Kidron's amendment on transparency, in the context of copyright, she is right to prioritise transparency. As I've argued before, whatever kind of solution is eventually adopted, opt out or opt in, transparency will be necessary for that solution to work. I also think the noble Baroness is right to press the urgency of this, content creators really cannot afford to wait, so she has my support and my vote. And indeed, with the support of both the Conservative and LibDem benches today, the government could well be defeated and in my view that would be most welcome.

I'm sure the noble Baroness the Minister doesn't like me to say, but that is my view. However, that said, I do think there are some aspects of the noble Baroness Lady Kidron's amendment which may be at this juncture a little bit too prescriptive for primary legislation ahead of a policy decision on the solution for how to copyright, so what I want to focus on briefly is what happens next, if the government is defeated tonight. And what I would strongly urge the government not to do is what it can, which is just to remove the clause that the noble Baroness Lady Kidron would add to the, once Lady Kidron would add to the, once it got back down the other end.

I would as the government to bring back an amendment in you. -- In Leigh. We all want a future for a eyewear the creative industries and the tech sectors, ' can be confident that the playing field for competition is fair, and when it comes to the use of copyrighted content, that they can strike mutually beneficial deals. We may be a little way off from achieving that way forward, as is reflected in the government's additions to the bill and the work that it has promised over the next 12 months.

But that work should not preclude the government taking power in this bill to bring back secondary to address transparency as soon as it's finished work client in the amendment 46. -- The work outlined in amendment 46. Transparency is needed now and as I have said, it will be relevant to whatever solution the government decides. So a requirement contact in this area is not unreasonable. And from the perspective of content creators, who it has to be said may well be immensely powerful in ensuring that they get publicity and coverage of the cause, the future looks highly uncertain.

A binding commitment with a deadline to bring forward transparency regulations, at this juncture, as in whilst this bill is going through Parliament, is reasonable if such a new clause is not overly prescriptive. And so that is what I would advise the government to do next, assuming they are defeated tonight. I rise to speak as the friend of
18:41
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
two nice burnouts and I draw the house's attention to the founder of house's attention to the founder of the University of Oxford uses IIF healthcare application. And the author of three copyrighted books. author of three copyrighted books. Since these amendments were last debated in the House of Lords, there has been a lot of high-profile has been a lot of high-profile comment, but very few attempts, if any, to bring AI developers and any, to bring AI developers and creators together in the same room.

creators together in the same room. During the same period however, more businesses from the creative industries and the publishing sector have actually agreed content have actually agreed content licensing deals. That's because access to curated, high-quality access to curated, high-quality content to fine tune large language models, the step after the models, the step after the pretraining which then provides higher greasy responses, is increasingly being monetised. Even increasingly being monetised. Even the Guardian Media Group, a strong supporter of the creative industries, announced in February the strategic partnership with OpenAI to ensure compensation for the use of its high quality journalism.

That shows it is possible, without any change in the law, for the creative industries and Big Tech companies to come to licensing agreements. The main technological development since our last debate is the demonstration that training LLMs no longer requires a massive computer facilities and huge data centres of the Big Tech companies in the US. Since the beginning of the year, Chinese company deep sea because least open source LLMs hundreds of times smaller than the models like GPT-4.

These models, typically with 10 billion rates, have been developed through the process of distillation, and they achieve almost the same level of performance as the hyper- scale models. So why is that important? It means users of LLM no longer have to send queries to the hyper- scale models which are then processed by OpenAI, Google or anthropic, using the huge computer facilities, with thousands of GP using the data centres. Instead, any AI developer can now train and run versions of this LLMs, locally on their laptops.

Deep sea because the first AI company to show how powerful the process of distillation is in the context of LLM. Other companies are jumping on the bandwagon. A new LLM was created, a model that can be run anywhere from smartphones to laptops and has the ability to handle text, images and short videos. The point is that these open source LLMs are now being used by thousands of AI developers in the UK and elsewhere, who are training and fine tuning them using content, some of which may be copyrighted, publicly available on the web.

Training and LLM on the laptop using data from the open web will become as commonplace as searching the web. This is already happening, both in our computer science department UK universities but also within the rich ecosystem of AI start-ups and University spin out in the UK. A survey of 500 developers in the UKAR ecosystem carried out by jail partners last month had 94% of them, reporting that there work relied on AI models built using publicly available data from the web.

If the data laws in the UK were more restrictive than elsewhere, 66% of them reported their projects would move to other countries. So we need to consider the impact on the U.K.'s AI industry of these transparency provisions. The requirement to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data use in the pretraining, training and fine tuning of general-purpose AI. The use of content from behind pay walls or from pirated databases such as books 3 or Lib Jan is clearly illegal.

However for data publicly available on the open web would like to do a simple thought experiment to show that the transparency requirements in amendment 49, A, R unworkable. In the UK, unlike the US, there is no copyright database. Usually a copyright rests with the author of the work there are exceptions. Such as when the work is created by an employee in the course of the job, and copyright may also be assigned or transferred to a third-party. I'm going to assume it might take only one second, just one second on average, to ascertain the copyright status of an article, book, image or video recording on the web.

Just one second. If it only takes one second, it would require 31 years and eight months to check the copyright status of the 1 billion data points in typical LLM training. No mind setting up licensing deals with the millions of rights holders. For the distilled models now being trained or fine- tuned by UK developers, is excellent, these are 100 times smaller but the copyright status check would still require 1/3 of the year, still an entirely unworkable The DCMS task force which the government committed in last week's debate in the other place, to set up, should work with international bodies, such as the internet engineering task force to Information in a machine-readable way, using formats such as the creative Commons right expression language, for example.

That is one suggestion on how copyright, protection may actually be implemented in the age of AI. There are also bound to be any other helpful suggestions, amongst the 11.5 thousand submissions to the copyright and AI consultation which closed at the end of February. Entrepreneurs, within the U.K.'s AI industry do not understand why this amendment has been tabled. Some of them are amongst those who put in a submission to the consultation was not as one of the signatories related to the DSIT Secretary of State, which was published today said to me, why have a consultation if restrictive legislation is going to be introduced, before we know about the response to the consultation? This amendment, Amendment 40 9A, will not prevent UK content creators having their content creators having their content scraped, or operating in other jurisdictions.

However, it will harm the development and use of AI, in the UK. It will make a very difficult, if not impossible, for a UK AI start-up, developer software product, for example for optimising cancer treatment. Using LMMs, trained in fine tuned on a combination of our sovereign NHS dataset and the last two seconds of oncology exports and research. Most of which are copyrighted material. I agree Amendment 49, applying the Companies and differently to UK registered companies is attractive. But there are difficulties, for example what would have happened when a deep mind, a UK company was acquired by Google.

I do not believe that amendment 40 9A will have much other impact on the big tech companies. They continue to train their models, outside of the UK. It is very likely to inflict serious damage to the U.K.'s AI start-up and spin out ecosystem. We should wait for the outcome of the copyright and AI consultation, engage with the task forces and, with more appropriate ways of helping both our AI and our creative industries to thrive. I was IP Minister for nearly 3
18:50
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
years and I been a long-standing years and I been a long-standing member of the IPP. I was hoping to speak to support the noble Lady, speak to support the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron and her amendment and my noble friend Lord Camrose and and my noble friend Lord Camrose and his. What concerns me is we are witnessing an assault on a sector worth £160 billion to the UK, as we worth £160 billion to the UK, as we have heard.

Actually, I suspect that is an underestimate, because IP and is an underestimate, because IP and copyright are to be found in the nooks and crannies of so much of our nooks and crannies of so much of our life and our industry. There is been life and our industry. There is been a lot of mention of music and media, a lot of mention of music and media, nobody has mentioned racehorses, or information on art and antiques, or close to my heart, the design by close to my heart, the design by young graduates of gorgeous new clothing and fancy footwear, that I wear.

It is the small, small operators who are most at risk. That is why I am speaking today. I think we are going to too slowly. I think amendments have been knocked back, Baroness Kidron has been trying her hardest, with a great deal of support, right across Britain. And as time goes by, the AI models are stealing more of our creativity, hitting UK businesses. I believe that the government must get on. It is not easy, but it is a challenge they have got to rise to and rise to very quickly.

very quickly.
18:51
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to support Baroness Kidron in her amendment, Amendment 49 and I also want to address the claims that we've heard repeatedly in this debate, the transparency of AI data is technically unfeasible. This claim forcibly pushed by technology giants, like Google is not only unsupported by evidence, but deliberately misleading. Someone with a long standing background in the visual arts and is a member of DACs, the copyright Society have witnessed how it can be exploited without consent or compensation.

I've listened very carefully to the concerns, both emails to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs, to the Secretary of State. Well I deeply respect their expertise, and commitment to innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion dollars to corporations. The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible has been thoroughly debunked. The dataset already meticulously documents over 5 billion images, with granular detail. Companies operate crawler services on this dataset, to identify images belonging to specific rights holders.

This irrefutably demonstrates the transparency and scale is not only possible, but already practised, when it suits corporate interests. Let's be clear about what is happening. Seo companies ingesting billions of copyrighted works, without permission or payment. Claiming it would be too difficult to tell, creators which works have been taken. This is a theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as the inevitable technological progress. The claim that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups are sparing US technology giants is entirely backwards.

Transparency would actually level the playing field, benefiting innovative British companies, while preventing larger firms from exploiting creative works, without permission. I must respectfully suggest the concerns about potential harms to AI start- ups should be balanced against the devastating impact on our creative industries. Thousands of small businesses and individual creators, whose livelihoods depend on proper recognition and compensation for their work. Their continued viability depends, fundamentally on protecting intellectual property rights. Without transparency, how can creators even begin to enforce these rights.

The question answers itself. This isn't about choosing itself. This isn't about choosing technology and creativity, it is about ensuring both sectors can thrive, through fair collaboration, based on consent and compensation. Transparency isn't an obstacle to innovation, it is the foundation upon which responsible, sustainable innovation is built. Google's preferred approach would reverse the fundamental basis of UK copyright law. Placing an unreasonable burden on the rights holders to opt out of on the rights holders to opt out of having their work stolen.

This approach is unworkable. And would effectively legalise a mass copyright theft, to benefit primarily American technology corporations. Rather than waiting for a consultation outcome that may take years, while creative works continue to be misappropriated, this amendment offers a practical step forward, that benefits both the tears, while upholding existing law. tears, while upholding existing law. I urge that this House to support amendment 49 I urge that this House amendment 49 I urge that this House to support amendment 40 -- 49
18:55
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Than a Baroness Kidron has open the floodgates to expressions will of creativity today. I think of taking her amendment. I also thank the Minister for setting out the government's position and their support for the creative industries. I suppose I straddle the world of AI and creativity as much as anybody in this House. I co-founded the All- Party group on AI and I have been a member of the All-Party intellectual property group is not that is reflected in my interest both as an adviser on AI policy and regulation and as chair newly appointed of the office licensing collecting society.

I do declare those interest My Lords which are more than merely formal. So, the subject matter of the amendments, in this group, My Lords are of profound importance for the importance of our creative industries and the development of AI, in the UK, in terms of the critical intersection of AI training Law and specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the number Baroness Kidron has described, the rapid development of AI, particularly large language models relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training and this is brought into sharp focus the way copyright law applies to such activity.

Until My Lords it was impossible to miss the letter, over the weekend, from 400, really important creatives, media and creative business leaders, urging creative business leaders, urging support for her amendment, 49A, in the marshalled List, My Lords. Rights holders from musicians, authors, and visual artists are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material, to train AI models, often without permission or renumeration, as we have heard today, My Lords. They seek greater control over their content and renumeration, when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater this purpose, alongside greater I beg to Baroness Kidron, who throughout the passage of this bill has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries, in her tabling of a series of crucial amendments.

Her original report stage amendments passed in this House, but deleted by passed in this House, but deleted by the Government in the Commons, then re-tabled in the Commons at report stage, by my honourable friends, aims to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of generative AI. Core argument behind those amendments, which, encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, today, is there innovation in the AI field should not come at the expense of the individuals and industry creating original content.

The central plank of the noble Baroness's proposals, today, and one we strongly support, on these benches, is the requirement for transparency from AI developers, regarding copyrighted material, used in their training data. Remember 49A specifically requires that the Secretary of State to make regulations, setting out strict transparency requirements for web trawlers and general-purpose AI Disclosing the identity and purpose of crawlers used to identify the owners and crucially keeping records of where and when the copyrighted material is gathered. This transparency is vital for ensuring accountability and enabling copyright holders to identify potential infringements and enforce their rights.

The Minister described the consultation process, in the consultation on AI and copyright published last December, that consultation proposed text and data mining exception which would allow AI developers to train material, and less the rights holder expressly reserved their rights, or opted out. The argument against this proposed opt out mechanism are compelling and have been made by many noble Lords have been made by many noble Lords today. And have been voiced by many outside as we've seen.

It shifts the burden onto creators to police the use of their work and to actively opt out, placing undue responsibility on them. This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively rewarding the widespread harvesting, or scraping of copyrighted material. It has occurred without permission or fair remuneration. The proposed text and data mining exception, which it appears that the government is no longer proposing, as the number Lord Brennan asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify, the government's position and confirm that that is indeed the case.

Risks harming creators of a small group of tech companies. It could erode trust in the AI sector. As the noble Baroness has observed, this approach is selling the creative industries down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency, proposed by the government or insufficient, clear government or insufficient, clear It is already some point out that innovative AI developers already demonstrate business models based on licensing datasets from creators, and indeed the noble Lord pointed that out. Those licenses are available but I'm afraid the noble Lord actually misunderstands the way in which collecting societies operate.

Those models are available and collecting societies could administer them perfectly well and can testify to that. This proves that opt out is not the only viable path and it's notable that organisations such as UKAR do not support the government's opt out position -- UK AI. Tom Flagg, CEO said UK AI concludes that existing copyright law is adequate and should not be changed to an opt out model. The proposed opt out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve minimal gain for a small group of gold changing the copyright law will erode public trust and create unnecessary conflict.

This will undermine economic growth more than any benefits the opt out could deliver. And that is UK AI which represent a very large group of AI developers. We have however seen some positive developments and I do welcome the amendments that the government have tabled which require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in AI development and an economic assessment. The should have been offered at the very beginning of the AI and copyright consultation but they don't go far enough.

Commitments along with lines do not provide the necessary legal framework for the immediate transparency needed to protect creators. We have heard from noble Viscount Camrose in opposing his amendments which seeks to ensure the report considers aspects like the -- impact on UK copyright holders and identify barriers to market entry for developers. We welcome these and indeed the change of position by the Conservative frontbench Germany on the absolute need for transparency which I'm sure is very welcome on the benches behind him.

His amendments were strengthen the government proposed reporting but they remain additions to the reporting requirement, not the substantive legal change that is required. What is needed is substantive provision in the bill itself that mandates transparency and this is precisely what Baroness Kidron's amendment supported strongly on these benches throughout the passage of this bill aim to achieve. They seek to inject transparency in what has been described as a clandestine lab box, making it technically feasible and easy for rights holders to understand when and how their work is being used.

So I would say to the government, and I do very much like the phraseology used by the noble Lord Lord Brennan, get on the bus,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords. I did stand up when Lord Clement-Jones stood up but unfortunately as is so often in my life he completely ignored me. I'm life he completely ignored me. I'm going to sleep in after him and before our frontbench and I declare before our frontbench and I declare my measure of interest is adviser to a company that seeks to pay royalty
19:05
Lord Vaizey of Didcot Portrait Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative)
-
-
a company that seeks to pay royalty is to creators for the use of the content in AI models. It was good to see not only the Secretary of State being cast standing at the bar but also the creative industries minister, Chris Bryant, shows that something is up and they were very clearly wanting to be seen by the 400 also creatives that roach the newspapers over the weekend expressing concerns about the government AI legislation. And also government AI legislation. And also to see as we all did carry favour with Baroness Kidron who has led so well on so many of these issues.

As she was speaking, and making the point that creatives and technologists are not a part of but not a part at all but are together, it reminds me that I was the creative industries minister and the reason I became a technology sister is that I was the only minister meeting the technology companies and the reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual of the creative industries. At that time in 2010, you would sit down with Google and say, anyone can search for any material on your website and come up with it illegally and stream it and download it without paying the creators of that material.

They said that they would not do anything. The Labour government had passed legislation which was included in the wash up in 2010 which effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading the music just as perhaps some of us who were teenagers might have taped music from the radio the past. I knew when I became minister that legislation was completely unworkable, it was pointless to be prosecuting teenagers and you should be taking on Big Tech. But actually the music industry found a solution by using the fraud act, and began to take action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP which allowed courts to order those websites to be blocked.

I also knew that there would be no solution until there was a commercial solution. And in fact that commercial solution has come about. In 2010 people were predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the film industry, the death of television. They have never been healthier because there are commercial models because more people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify or Netflix or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price.

So a commercial solution is possible when people work together. And it was interesting hearing Lord Clement- Jones talking about the opt out model because the opt out model implies that you can have a conversation between Big Tech and the creators, the creators can either opt out or opt in. We have referred earlier to licensing deals. It is, if anyone reads the FT weekend, in fact everybody in this chamber does, it is the Bible of the chattering classes. Sam Walker is of course lunch with the FT and an honour he shares with Baroness Kidron, I texted her when she had lunch with the empty, and I said that is better than a period.

At the beginning of the luncheon says the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI. It is possible to have licensing deals. What I think none of us can really stand as the other hypocrisy of people saying that we have two, for the national interest, have to rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You wouldn't find a single text you saying, I think it's fine if people take our patterns because that is how you get economic growth, just take my pattern.

In fact you will not find CEO saying that, you will hear them saying in court I have been ripped off and I want my money back. That is intellectual property that Big Tech is prepared to fight for yet it is still prepared to tell us that... They can only grow by ripping off the IP of the creative industries. And let's face it, there may be a start it's that need AI, it's But we are still talking about Big Tech, we are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, ex-AI, and matter.

You talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again. This is where he could start. This is where he could start.
19:09
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, of course I would like to thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many adequate and well-made speeches. And of course, the government share with a passion that has been displayed About the creative sector, we all want to see them flourish. We want to find ways to make that a reality. What we are talking about here is the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way and that is what we are addressing delay.

Nobody doubts the absolutely fantastic contribution the creative sector makes to the UK and I thought that I would set out some of that, some of those issues in my opening speech but I'm very happy to confirm it again. In terms of the practicalities of this, the amendments tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Kidron sets out wide- ranging obligations on witnesses who make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce them.

Of course I agree with the noble Lady that the creative sector have always been early adopters of technology and that the creative and AI sectors go hand-in-hand together, and number of noble Lords made that point and it's a point very well made. And I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators, again a point well made a number of noble Lords, and their great cultural and economic contributions to society, as the noble Lord Lord Black, Lord Berkeley, Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about.

It's the government a few, and moreover morally right that creators can licence and be paid for the use of the content. The government has always been clear we want to see more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the noble Baroness kitchen's amendment they would affect a wide range of businesses and would require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to identify individual works but it's very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet this requirement when a significant proportion of the material on the Internet doesn't have clear method data to facilitate this.

The scale of the impact on those businesses is unknown. But without a proper impact assessment is a real risk that it could lead to AI innovators including many home- grown British companies thinking twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services in the UK. We agree that if transparent, transfers the obligations are to be created in this way, they will need to be provision for their oversight and enforcement. But that isn't something that can be dropped on the first brigade that comes to mind.

There is currently nobody with the skills and resources to perform this function. There needs to be a proper discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are needed and a whole range of other questions that need to be answered. It should also be noted that one of the main issues that creative industries are struggling with at the moment is enforcement of their rights under the current rules. And as has been said earlier, and I'm happy to reiterate it, we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken, it's the question of enforcing that's at the heart.

Whilst transparency would help with knowing what is being used, it alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses seeking redress through a legal system. There are as many noble Lords will know life court cases in train at the moment both the UK and in other key jurisdictions. And of course I and the government recognise the urgency of the problem, as fantastically put by the noble Baroness Benjamin. This is why DCMS and the setback ministers are parroting meetings with the creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top priority.

And indeed have already held meetings and discussions with both sectors in September last year. We have moved quickly to consult and hosted roundtables and bilateral meetings with creatives and their representatives will stop these have been a great value and we will continue to hold those meetings. However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed as a full working approach. The noble Lady Baroness Kidron's amendment does not offer an instant solution either. Instead asking the government, with regulations in 12 months.

We cannot make such significant interventions without properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on force substantive issues within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. And as I said in my opening speech, our proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses, evidence from the 11,500 responses, and indeed will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As noble Lord Lord Tarassenko said the solution must indeed involve preachers and AI developers being in the same room and this is what we will endeavour to do.

I agree with the noble Lord that AI shouldn't become a way to whitewash copyright privacy, the government supports strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree it's important to support transparency. I can't say this strongly enough. Overlords seem to suggest that we were taken that seriously. Of course we are stop the government fully supports and is encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora who are developing new standards to help identify meta data which will make this easier.

I would also add that there has been some misinformation on the government's position. Let me on the government's position. Let me be clear, as I say, there has not been proposed any changes to the copyright in this bill, there has not been an opt out system put into the bell and copyright continues to apply for the use of materials for AI training as it did before this bill was introduced. So what we're looking at is as I say, an issue of enforcement. I would also like to turn to amendments 46, A, and B, the marshalled list, the Sudan extra elements to the government report including a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for AI developers, the impact on UK copyright holders of extraterritorial uses of their work and technological standards They also They also define They also define what They also define what might They also define what might be They also define what might be in scope.

I recognise that these amendments are constructive and I thank the noble Lord for the 40 is put into them. I would suggest that they are already covered by the government amendment. In the case of watermarking as I said earlier, that may not be possible for the government to meet. Amendment 46 a will require the government to publish a plan to reduce barriers relating to copyright and data access. But that is already the main focus of subsection 3B. Any report under that section, would naturally consider include consideration could be done to improve the situation.

Looking at the impact of extraterritorial activity on copyright holders. This is already in report. If it is a useful I am happy to state on the record that the report should include these international effects. The other element of amendment 40 6B is to require the government to report on technological standards for machine readable watermarks, identifying licence content, including the publication of the proposed standard -- 46, D. Technological standards and measures support holders and their content including access to that content and its licensing and is very important.

This is what the government has committed to reporting on the technological measures and standards in a clause 46, subsection 8, this will include consideration of watermarks and their use, to identify content and relevant licensing information. As I've said before and I think the noble Lord acknowledged I feel that the proposal for the government to publish a standard in this area may be unworkable. We are encouraged by standards that are emerging in this space. These are rightly been developed by industry.

The government may indeed want to recommend the development of one or two industry standards and implement measures to do this. A government standard may well not be the right approach on this. Our reporting commitment will however allow us to consider this and other ways to achieve the objectives of this amendment. And will make recommendations on technological recommendations on technological standards. In light of this I would request the noble Lord withdrawals of those proposed amendments, but I would very much welcome a conversation with him about the material he would like to see included in those reports, before officials are tasked to produce them.

The finish I would like to reiterate that the government is not making any changes to copyright as making any changes to copyright as part of the law. We are committed, instead, to a proper robust and transparent approach to determining the right policy, which will deliver the best outcome for all parties. Allow us to support both the AI and Allow us to support both the AI and And we won't be developing this policy in isolation. As a my noble friend, the Minister, stated in the other place, we have a task force of several departments working hard on this.

And we will be engaging with experts from the relevant sectors through a working group that is being set up as well as talking to international parties. There are lots of voices in this debate we want to make sure we have heard all of them. To be clear this is not a case of picking a side or putting AI developers against creators. These sectors are already working together and have the potential to really supercharge each other. We want to support them both in a way that is fair to everyone involved.

So my Lords, I hope the noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments and give us the space and time to bring all those forces together, to find a real proper workable solution to the challenges

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the been debated this afternoon. Big to move. The question is that the House do agree with the comments the House do agree with the comments on the amendment 44. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 45, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 45.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments 45. The question is that the laws do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the laws do agree with the Commons. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally? The question is that the formally? The question is that the House and a group with the Commons and their amendments 46? Amendment 46 amendment 40 6A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having heard the turn of the debate, it is clear that the focus and energy of the House is more on the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron's amendment. I am very happy to take amendment. I am very happy to take up the noble Lady the Ministers offer of a further meeting and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offer of a further meeting and I make leave to withdraw my amendment. Not moved. And then it is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. And then it is not move. Amendment 40 6B, Viscount move. Amendment 40 6B, Viscount Camrose. Not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 47 Baroness Jones of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch? With the leave of the House appeared to me formally that the House do agree with comments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments 47 and 48 en bloc. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on 4748 en bloc? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 49, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch? Speak the question is that the housed do agree with Commons macro and amendment 49?
19:23
19:25
None Portrait Division
-

show the creative industries that show the creative industries that this House has their back. A 49 this House has their back. A 49 The question is that motion The question is that motion 49A The question is that motion 49A 49 The question is that motion 49A 49 be agreed to. The question will be decided by division, I will advise decided by division, I will advise the House when the voting is open. The The question The question is The question is 49A The question is 49A that The question is 49A that be The question is 49A that be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The concerns will go to the right by the thrown the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 49, The question is that motion 49, A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion 49, A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted They have voted content, They have voted content, 272, They have voted content, 272, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted content, 272, not content, 125, so the contents have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 50. Amendment 50. Amendment Amendment 50. Amendment 50,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 50. Amendment 50, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. With the leave of the House I beg to move formally that has to agree with Commons in the amendments 50

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 51 en bloc. The question is that the House agree... As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 52, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch moved formally. The questions that house to agree with the Commons in the amendment 52. Motion 42, A. Motion 42, A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a little time has a lapse but I beggarly to test the opinion of the House. The question is that motion 52, A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion 52, A be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by division and I will advise the House when and I will advise the House when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the questions My Lords, the questions that motion 52, A, be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The The contents will go to the The The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 52A The question is that motion 52A be My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted content 164, not contents 152, so, the 164, not contents 152, so, the Amendment 53, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
19:48
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Big to me that the Holes do agree with the comments in the amendment 54, with the leave of the House will also speak to amendment 54 to 74 and amendment 79. We all agree that tackling the abuse of intimate images and image deepfakes is incredibly important. I'm delighted that these provisions are returning to this House having been strengthened in the other place and enabling us once again to discuss key issues. First of all I would like to take this moment to extend my heart felt thanks to Baroness Owen for her dedication on this issue.

I'm also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, who is unfortunately not in his place today, Lord Clement-Jones and others, who have generously given much of their time to discussing this issue, with me. Their engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues has been instrumental, as we have refined our approach to this important topic and I think it has been a fantastic example of parliamentarians working, across the House to get policy, in the strongest possible position. During the third reading, in this House, I committed that the government would bring forward further amendments, in the Commons, including on the issue of solicitation and time limits.

We have delivered on those commitments. Let me begin with the Commons Amendment number 56, introducing the requested offence, which addresses the commitment made on solicitation. This replaces and delivers the same intent as the amendment your Lordships are made, to the bill. It is comprehensive, comprehensively criminalising asking someone to create a deep fake intimate image, for you, without the consent of the person, in the image, or your belief in their consent. This is an offence regardless of where the person you are asking is based, or where the image was in fact created.

Turning to the commitment on time limits. Commons Amendment 63 was passed to extend the statutory time limit, so that prosecutions can be brought at any date, that is both within six months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor's knowledge and within three years, from when the offence was committed. This means that perpetrators will not get away with creating or requesting the creation of a deep fake, just because no one knew about it, at the time. A further change, made in the Commons was Commons Amendment 55, to add defence and reasonable excuse to both the creating and requesting offences.

I know this is likely to be the subject of much debate today, so I will spend some time setting out the government's position. First I want to reassure that the government's priority is to create comprehensive, robust offences that ensure perpetrators cannot evade justice. It is not our intention that the defence provides them with Is important to stress, for the creation of the section defects which are so extraordinarily harmful. In our view, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a situation where someone creating a deep fake, that is a sexually explicit, will be able to prove that they have a reasonable excuse.

Indeed, we anticipate that defences would apply, wholly in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as a fought covert law enforcement operations, it is also our view that for a very small minority of cases, such as the creation of genuinely satirical images that are not sexually explicit, that relates to the creation of this is needed for it to be compatible with the UN convention of human rights. Without the reasonable excuse defence, we consider that the creating offence will not be legally robust.

And that any legal challenge to its compatibility with article 10 is likely to be successful. This will not provide the best protection for the victims. Let me labour there is a very important point. Our intention is to create a robust offences that will ensure that those who request intimate deep fake images, without consent, particularly sexual deep fake images particularly sexual deep fake images face grave consequences. I also want to stress that abuses will not be able to evade justice, by using spurious excuses.

The defendant must provide enough evidence to prove that the creation, or that particular request, without consent was reasonable. They cannot just say this is art, or satire without sufficient compelling evidence. It will be for the courts, not for the defendant to decide whether some is in fact art, or satire. From my many years as a magistrate, I can also reassure this House that it is simply not the case that the defendant can offer up any excuse and assert that it is reasonable.

The CPS will challenge spurious arguments and the court are extremely well equipped and used to dealing with such arguments quickly. Government, the government shares in this House is a desire to ensure that criminal law and these defences, in particular work as well as the government intends. I therefore speak to support the noble therefore speak to support the noble , by putting it on the face of the bill. As part of this review, we will carry out targeted engagement with external stakeholders and subject matter experts, to ensure that we make a broad and informed assessment of the defence.

I hope this addresses the concerns, about these defences. The best way to protect victims is to ensure that Parliament passes legally sound robust offences, that can bring perpetrators to justice. And I urge this House to do that by supporting 55C 56D and.
19:56
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
I declare my interest as a guest of Google at AI policy conference. I would start by thanking the level of the Minister and Minister Davies Jones for taking the time to engage on this issue and for their endless patience. I know they have worked incredibly hard to secure progress on this. I'm grateful for the efforts. We are down to the issue of where we believe a person can have a reasonable excuse to create content that looks like a photograph or film of another person, without their consent.

Noble Lords will recall that this House overwhelmingly indicated that they did not believe a reasonable excuse should be included as a defence and highlighted concern that it may be misinterpreted, or viewed too widely. I have concerns over the position of the government outlined in their letter from Minister Brian to the joint committee on human rights. Mr Bryant argues that the inclusion of reasonable excuses are necessary as without it, the offence would breach the UC HR, due to limiting the person's freedom to create photorealistic, satirical art of scenarios such as the person on the toilet, or in boxer shorts.

Additionally they argued the need to be able to ratify against this defence. I share the Government is a strong desire that we do not want this bill to have a memorandum on it, warning that it may breach the ECHR. However precarious the arguments laid out maybe. Because I do not want those who abuse women in this way to claim that the prosecution may contravene a human rights. With this in mind, I turned to my first amendments, 55 With this in mind, I turned to my first amendments, 50 5C and 50 6B.

Offering the government of the implementation of reasonable excuse, for both creation and requesting offences after two years. I'm grateful to the level of the Minister for the compromise. He will know the conflicts I feel about this issue and the great concern I have that without guardrails, reasonable excuse may be used to allow those who abuse others in a similar way to escape justice. I know the noble That the courts will be used to hearing precarious excuses. However my concern is the noble Lords no, the image based on sexual abuse has been consistently misunderstood, with the Law Commission themselves only arguing three years ago the harmful creating a non- sexual content was not strong enough to content was not strong enough to criminalise.

They found a steady year-on-year increase in recorded offences for image-based abuse, only 4% of the offenders would charge. Even when a conviction has been a achieved only 3% of cases result in the perpetrator being deprived of the images used for the offence. We see consistent failure by prosecutors to understand and tackle the issue. I therefore have a very real concern that by allowing reasonable excuse to sit in this offence, we risk it being misunderstood and the offence being undermined. Further whilst I'm grateful for the offer of a review, I am worried that if after two years we find reasonable excuse is allowing perpetrators to evade justice, there will not be a legislative vehicle in which to correct the issue in the time it takes to correct may be lengthy.

I would be grateful if the noble of the Minister could offer reassurance on this point. Additionally, I am concerned by the very premise of the argument that legislation, without reasonable excuse would breach the ECHR. Having sought legal counsel, the noble Lord Pannick AC who apologises for not being here this evening, he believes that the inclusion of reasonable excuse, in the defence is not necessary in order to be compliant with the ECHR. The noble Lord Pannick advised, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has already highlighted in their letter, the Government has previously stated that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure that an offence that could violate a qualified right under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it.

And additionally, all legislation must, so far as possible, be read and given effect to, in a manner which is compliant with the ECHR, according to section 3 of the Human Rights Act. Even if the government, even if there were to be a prosecution in the sort of circumstances contemplated by the government, the defendant could rely on article 10 rights. Thus meaning an all-encompassing reasonable excuses not necessary. Additionally, I would be grateful if the noble of the Minister, could outline to the House reasons why tech companies cannot rating by prompting with the images who do consent.

Therefore not requiring a reasonable excuse should the role fail and a knuckle creating the content it is trying to avoid. I would go as far as to say that testing prompts on a model, using the image of a person who does not consent would be deeply unethical. It is my view, it is my belief in the view of the NAB Lord Pannick and the noble Baroness Lady Chakrabarti that such specific examples do not justify general reasonable excuse. To quote my noble friend and human rights advocate, Baroness Chakrabarti spurious ECHR arguments for weakening cyber sex offences do not help the cause of those seeking to defend human rights from its many We are talking about this with fortunately sexist forms of abuse and it is of huge concern that the government's view that satire may be a reasonable excuse, legitimising the continued abuse of women in the public eye, by allowing the possibility that photorealistic images and videos may be created of them on the toilet, in their underwear, in order to not breach the creative freedom of expression under the ECHR.

Not a cartoon, a photorealistic image. However, given the place we are in, I have tabled further compromise amendment to 50 5A the uses the examples laid out by the government that seeks to limit the scope of that reasonable excuse only and how a narrow set of cases stop reduces the definition of intimate state in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that reasonable excuse cannot be used as a Trojan horse. It means that under no circumstances would anyone be allowed to use reasonable excuse if they had created content were person was participating in an act which a reasonable person would consider to be a sexual act.

Or the person doing the thing which a reasonable person would consider to be sexual. However it would allow for the circumstances that the government suggests required to be compliant with the ECHR, such as images of people toileting or inbox shorts. However it puts cartwheels around it to ensure no content is created where a person has been given less coverage in the same or greater extent than would typically be covered by underwear or to cover a person's genitals, buttocks or rests as the case may be.

-- Rests. While I'm unhappy that any reasonable excuse is included the 6 to put guardrails and prevent a Trojan horse at inside the offence. My final amendment, 50 the offence. My final amendment, 50 Noble Lords will have heard me speak on multiple occasions about the sickeningly degrading nature of forums where this content is created., Requested. I'm grateful for the way the government is listened to get this amendment to the place it is however I cannot envisage any reasonable excuse for a person to request this content of another without their consent.

Jodie the survivor who inspired this offence had to endure degrading content of her being requested on online forums and said, the inclusion of reasonable excuse defence undermines the very purpose of this offence, survivors should not be forced to navigate yet another legal loophole that allows perpetrators to justify abuse. Prosecutorial discretion would exist to protect legitimate cases, this clause risks giving abuses cover and eroding trust in the law. The law eroding trust in the law. The law My understanding is that the government does not believe the removal of reasonable excuse in a separate offence would breach the ECHR.

I'd be very grateful if the government would accept this amendment in order to make this offence as comprehensive as possible and ensure that no abuser slips through the net. I conclude by asking the Minister to give his assurance that were reasonable excuse to remain in these offences that no court in England and Wales would interpret reasonable excuse as a perpetrator claiming they were creating content for artistic purposes. The baseline should always be a woman's consent. There is nothing more important.
20:05
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I rise to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge. We need to be crystal-clear that we would that would not be here, we would not have come as far but for her work. Her entry into your Lordship's House was greeted by the most shocking barrage of misogynistic innuendo and abuse. Including, from sexagenarian veteran of progressive journalism, you really ought to have known better. It was ghastly to watch.

However, it has been a joy of equal measure to witness the noble lady's response to her critics. The best kind of response. This one. For with her campaign, supported by supporters across the House, looking no Lord Clement-Jones, but across the house, and all her supporters in civil society and in the Academy, she has made, in less than two years, a greater contribution to the most vital parts of the work of this House, the legislative work of this House.

A greater contribution in less than two years than many make in decades. So perhaps the young have something to teach their elders after all. And about the new continent of the Internet in particular, the all too lawless continent of the Internet that we have been discussing for some time today. After nearly 30 years of the interface between criminal policy and the ECHR, I share the analysis that harm caused by this 21st- century cybersex offence, the analysis offered by the noble Lady Owen and by noble Lord Pannick.

By contrast, I'm afraid, I fear that Whitehall has displayed a breathtaking lack of empathy, for the mostly women and girl victims of this conduct. A lack of empathy at times verging on the produce. And this has gone on for some years -- verging on the obtuse. Hence, by the way, the time it took for the government to agree to the offence being imprisonable, but I'm glad we finally got there. Now, at the 11th hour, I, too, fear the sheer breadth of the government's reasonable excuse defence.

Which I think might drive a coach and horses through the protection. This kind of degrading conduct is no light-hearted matter. To create a deepfake intimate image without a person's consent is capable of destroying their dignity, the mental health, a lie. -- Their life. More broadly it is capable of changing the whole flavour of our society, in the classroom, in the workplace, wherever men and women rub along together. That is what is at stake. It was a very unsettling experience, even more than that.

Reasonable excuse defences are appropriate and necessary, in the context of broad, strict liability offences, capable of catching otherwise innocent behaviour. So the classic example is a strict liability offence of being in possession of a blade public place. If we think about that my Lords, that that reasonable excuse defence, any of us could be criminalised on the way back from the kitchen department at John Lewis. There's a novice reason for reasonable excuse defence to that strict liability event -- there is an obvious reason.

I put it to the House that we would not dream of a reasonable excuse defence to sexual assault. The offence requires intention, action and the sexualised aspect. Once these are established, there simply is no reasonable excuse. I believe that the creation of a deepfake intimate image is equivalent to sexual assault if it is without consent. The government, and learning, is apparently considered about freedom of expression in the context of creating deepfake intimate images without someone's consent.

Let's please remember that freedom of expression is not an absolute. It must be balanced against a portion of interference to protect the rights of others. Hence breach of copyright, sorry to go back to that one, child pornography, etc etc. All over the world, including in the United States, famously the land of the first amendment. So I'm afraid I really best price my noble friend the Minister -- I must press my noble friend the Minister to explain in some detail, more than we have heard so far, why the noble Lady Baroness Owen is tighter reasonable excuse defences, of red teaming, and political satire, don't do the trick.

In other words, what are these other reasonable excuses for pernicious conduct of this kind? And why any reasonable excuse for the solicitation of events? Where is the freedom of expression in soliciting someone else creating this deepfake image? I notice the introduction of this concern about COVID policing, I think my noble friend the Minister raised COVID policing, but surely he raised COVID policing, but surely he recalls the COVID human intelligence act, very controversial, I'm still very concerned about it, act, off 2020 which allows the authorities to grant advanced immunity to people committing criminal conduct in the course of their COVID surveillance.

I'm a bit concerned about that, suddenly popping up as a reasonable excuse of government at the 11th hour on this offence. I'm afraid that without further specifics, I'm really concerned about the impression the government just doesn't get it. But it's not totally understanding what is being perpetrated online. And it's not properly taking the protection of women and girls sufficiently seriously. And I would so regret that. I would so regret that. This is the cold face of human rights at this moment in the 21st century so I really hope there is still time for really hope there is still time for the government to listen further to the compelling argument of the noble the compelling argument of the noble Lady Baroness Owen and think again.

Lady Baroness Owen and think again.
20:13
20:14
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and are, too, want to start by congratulating noble Baroness are in for her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of nonconsensual images. First with her private spill and then amendments to this bill, and she has footage with huge skill and determination, and rightly she has pushed into the wire in terms of wanting the most robust offence and the tightest defences possible. And I also want to thank the Minister for his flexibility, that he has shown, so far, with the emphasis on so far.

The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward today, I now represent a compromise given strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General, and the defence of reasonable excuse is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR, that therefore the whole bill risks being non-compliant if that isn't contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal recall. -- A legal brick wall. And despite what I thought was an excellent opinion from Professor Claire McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney- General's case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of Big Tech companies to read team that models on images used without consent, which is rather peculiar basis.

Why can't the Big Tech companies use images with consent? And therefore they would then beat red teaming in a rather different I did find the exchange of correspondence, the noble Baroness is referred to rather baffling. She is entirely right to put forward her compromise and seeking escape with a reasonable excuse to only a narrow set of cases that the government has outlined. Especially given the fact that the government, as previously stated, that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure that a defence that could qualify under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it.

And, of course, she is right to require the review of the way the defence operates, My Lords. As she says, as regards to her amendment fifty-five a, it uses the definition as she said in her opening speech. It uses an intimate state in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that reasonable excuse cannot be used, as a Trojan horse. In addition,, in principle, we very much support her amendment, fifty- six a. It is clear that the reasonable excuse is not required for the requesting offence, to be compliant with the EHRC the stop that should be deleted, in our view and we agree with that, My Lords.

There are, however even, where we have got to so far going to be many people who will be grateful for her efforts, given an extraordinary one in fourteen adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in seven among young women. As we know there is a clear link between gender-based violence and image- based abuse and a great many women will feel safer as a result of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Baroness is efforts. I happened to be in the House when Baroness Owen was taking her
20:18
20:19
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to declare my interest as a commissioner at the interest as a commissioner at the EHRC, first, and I've also been a campaigner and defender of free speech. I do not approach this subject are likely, at all. I have some sympathy with the government's position, that reasonable excuse is required to be compatible with article 10. However, the definition of being as broad as it is, it does reinforce the worries of the noble Baroness Owen and of Lady Chakrabarti.

I wasn't really clear, I'm concerned though, as noble colleagues have already alluded to why the defence is drafted so widely. I wasn't sure whether this was coming from EU law and if that were the case, I wanted to draw the house's attention to the very most recent EU directive on violence against women and girls. And preventing it. And if we look at that directive, clause 19, section 19, they have unequivocally decided that deepfakes should be criminalised and that such production, manipulation, I'm reading from section 19, should include the fabrication of deepfakes, particularly where these resemble existing objects, places and so on.

They then go on in a section 20 of the directive. I appreciate of course that we are no longer bound Bailly law. Given that this will be applied by the ECHR, under which we do still operate. It is interesting to note that under section 20 -- EU law. They have knowledge to the article 10 obligation. But have narrowly defined it. I have a reason to draw attention to this and to ask the government that they do take it into account and will reassure this House that they will urge guidance to be issued, if this defence has to go forward, as is currently drafted.

Any reasonable excuse, defence, retained in this clause is clearly retained in this clause is clearly confined, by guidance issued, as as soon as possible, by the CPS.
20:21
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, her amendments fall into categories and we support all her amendments. I would like to start by joining Baroness Chakrabarti and others, in terms of paying tribute to her tenacity and by standing up for women who should not have to live in fear of becoming victims of sexually explicit deepfakes. As mentioned, she has won the deep respect of this House and at the same time, one many, many friends from her action.

And I think the cross-party support that she has managed again for this, I believe it shows that this House at its best. A House that I am proud to be a member House that I am proud to be a member of. Firstly, my noble friend has tabled reviews to ensure the offence that is being created as a result of her tireless campaigning is effective. We support her in these motions and we agree with her that we must do everything we can to ensure the law is robust and effective, in protecting women.

Secondly, like many others, I have been puzzled by the EH CR reasonable excuse approach being used by the government and it was very helpful, as ever, have experts on hand, in this matter and Baroness Cash, to be able to bring her expertise and agree with the position that whilst we understand it it is a very, very widely drawn, as is currently set up. Again, I think it is very sensible that what my noble friend sensible that what my noble friend is trying to do, in this, by seeking to tighten those definitions of a reasonable excuse and remove the reasonable excuse, in the case of requesting a sexually explicit deepfakes in her amendments fifty- deepfakes in her amendments fifty- five K and fifty-six A.

I completely understand what she's brought these understand what she's brought these amendments and why they would appear amendments and why they would appear to be instead of the reviews, we for my noble friend is a right to challenge the inclusion of reasonable excuse as it relates to reasonable excuse as it relates to these affixes. And with that she has complete support. complete support.
20:24
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments of noble Lords, in this debate. Particularly the arguments in favour of the noble Baroneseses amendment fifty-five B, which seeks to replace the reasonable excuse defence to the creative offence with any targeted offence for routine software testing and reasonable political satire. We share the noble Baroness as a desire to ensure any offence to the Operates tightly, only a narrow and limited circumstances would a person have a reasonable excuse for the creation of such images, without consent.

We believe that is how our reasonable excuse defence will apply, impact those, which is why the government believe that the the government believe that the However, we are unable to agree to these targeted defences she proposes, to the creating offence, in place of a reasonable excuse defence. This is a novel offence, tackling behaviour that is changing rapidly, along with the technology itself. We cannot anticipate all the ways in which people will use technology as it develops. The defence of reasonable excuse, which as I have said, we believe will be interpreted very carefully by the courts, will ensure that the offence can be used effectively to target culpable perpetrators, even as technology and its uses changes.

The targeted offence as proposed by the noble Baroness, will also crucially not eliminate the risk of successful legal challenge, which I explained in my opening speech. We believe that such targeted defences, creating offence, with successful challenge, in the courts, leading to uncertainty and reduce protection for victims. Returning briefly to amendment fifty-six A, which is the requesting offence. As I set out, it is the government's view that the reasonable excuse to requesting offence will only apply an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as covert law enforcement operations to stop the legal issue which applies to the creating offence does not apply to the requesting offence.

However, we always aim for consistency and parity, across similar offences. And so would urge that this House not to pass amendments fifty-six a, we also think that without the defence at the comments included for the requesting offence, law enforcement and intelligence officials maybe unable to effectively carry out their functions. To conclude, we make a manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This legislation, as amended, in the Commons are just a start. For the first time there will be a protection for victims and punishment for the perpetrators who create or ask other people to create intimate deep fake of images without consent, or reasonable belief in consent.

These provisions represent an important and necessary response to image deepfakes. As I have said, the government is clear that these offences are comprehensive and robust. Whilst we think defence is a reasonable excuse to both offences that are necessary, it does not provide a get out clause, for the many perpetrators creating intimate deepfakes. Especially sexual deepfakes, without consent. We remain firmly of the view that this is the most effective way to protect victims from this appalling abuse. It is our duty to act decisively, for those reasons, I urge your lordships to support, with confidence, motion of fifty-five C, which containing amendments in a Lua fifty-five D and fifty-five EE and amendments fifty-six B and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Owen to withdraw her motion fifty-five a and amendment fifty-six a.

Turning to some of the questions which are asked by the noble Lady and others. She asked about deprivation orders, we share the frustration with her. There has been, in place of the ability for a court to put deprivation orders in place and they have not been used as extensively as they could be. And so the judges are looking at guidelines to try to see how that lack of implementation and defence help orders can be remedied.

... The other questions by my noble friend, Baroness Chakrabarti... She asked whether offenders of the requesting offence would also be deprived of images of the court. The answer to that is yes they would be, because we want to ensure parity across both the creating and the requesting offence, so that includes their computers and any images that are stored, anywhere. I think most generally, I think what I will say is a number of noble Lords have expressed scepticism about whether the courts would adequately apply reasonable excuse defence.

That really is a issue we are debating now. I have had this discussion many times with the noble Lady, in private. I would say, as a magistrate for nearly 20 years, we often hear completely ridiculous defences. It is not unusual. Not in crown courts but certainly in magistrates courts. Magistrates and judges are well able to deal with those types of defences. I know the noble Lady is sceptical of that and that is the reason, one of the prime reasons why we have put the review on the face of the bill, she will know it is very unusual for governments to commit on the face of the bill, to have a review.

Because we do understand that this is a new area of law. We do understand that the way we are defining a reasonable excuse is a politically contentious area. I do urge her to continue to work with us, which I am sure she will do, in any event, but I encourage you to do that. And I would urge her not to move her amendments, to a vote. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree to amendment 53. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 54, contents have it. Amendment 54, Baroness Jones of the church, moved formally. The question is the House formally. The question is the House to agree with the comments on amendment 54. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

Amendment 55, contents have it. Amendment 55, Baroness Jones of the church, moved formally. The question is at the formally. The question is at the House to agree with Commons on amendment 55. Motion 55 acre amendment 55. Motion 55 acre amendment 55. Motion 55 acre Baroness Owen. Not moved. Motion 50 Baroness Owen. Not moved. Motion 50 5C proposed, leave the last post in motion 55 a and in circle 50 5C as motion 55 a and in circle 50 5C as printed on the Marshall list.

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on their amendment 55. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", 56 moved formally. The question is that the House to agree with the Commons on their amendment 55 as amended. Agree with amendment 5C, I big your pardon. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 56 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on their amendment 56.

Amendment 56 a, Baroness Owen. 56. Amendment 56 a, Baroness Owen. The question is that amendment 50 6B moved formally. 56 a has not been moved. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 56 a has not been is that amendment 50 6B as an amendment to the Commons 56 a has not been moved. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 50 6B as an amendment to the Commons 50 6B agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

The question is now that amendment 56 as amended B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 57, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. The question is that the House to agree with Commons in their amendment 57 to 79 on lock. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
20:35
None Portrait Legislation: Renters’ Rights Bill - committee stage (day 5)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor. My Lords, I big move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I big move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Clause My Lords. Clause 145, My Lords. Clause 145, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott. My Lords, before we start the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before we start the debate in the first group, it may not surprise noble Lords that I would remind the House again of the protocol around declaring interests. protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings in the bill. That means a Committee stage, relevant interest should be declared during the first group in which noble Lords speaks. The Noble Lord declares an interest during the last two days of committee, that is sufficient.

But if this is your first contribution, any relevant interest should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declared. If I might thank the Noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding us of the importance of declaring an interest where it has not been interest where it has not been declared so far. Could I ask him whether he could make a statement to the House about what its plans are the House about what its plans are for further consideration of this bill. Given that we were promised we bill. Given that we were promised we would have six days of consideration.

We lost over two hours last week on general business. Today, for extremely good reasons, we have lost now over five hours of consideration. And I hope the Government has now decided that it must give this committee and extra must give this committee and extra day because we were promised six days and we have not had six days days and we have not had six days and I hope the Government intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night night tonight and through the night on Wednesday which would not be reasonable discussion of the 132

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments which still stand to be debated in your Lordships house. Thank the Noble Lord for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Noble Lord for those comments, but just to say that we
20:38
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but this is the fifth day of six days. We want to make progress today and we want to commit on the sixth day which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday this week. In clause 17, amendment 145, Baroness Scott. Thank you my Lords. Can I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you my Lords. Can I just make it very clear that we will not have had six days with the Noble have had six days with the Noble Lord. My Lords, I do not feel I can open this group without paying open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and it Lord. His amendments are why we are Lord. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this bill and to the House more broadly.

We are a poorer House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him. And I send my place without him. And I send my heartfelt sympathies to both his partner, his friends, and his family partner, his friends, and his family for their loss. May his memory be for their loss. May his memory be able. This group follows on from a able. This group follows on from a previous group at the last committee day, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties.

I will be brief, as on these benches we simply have too question is for the noble Baroness the Minister. May I draw your Lordships attention to the probing amendments 145 and 1452. We are concerned about the government's proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under section 16 without proper due process. And could the Baroness Taylor Minister the noble Baroness the Minister kindly set out for the House how this provision is intended to operate in practice.

And whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process. Next, I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments. The selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of this bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers of your Lordships house will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than icon, however the question remains why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation.

I appreciate the noble Baroness the Minister is not themselves a lawyer and may wish to themselves a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the House with a considered response, but could the noble Baroness kindly set out either today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or at a later stage the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency. I egg to. Amendment proposed, clause 17,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 17, page 26 line 24 leave out beyond
20:41
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
page 26 line 24 leave out beyond reasonable doubt and insert on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

balance of probabilities. I rise to speak to amendment 148,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 148, 197, 242, on behalf of the noble 197, 242, on behalf of the noble Earl. But, first, may I start by Earl. But, first, may I start by joining my Noble Friend in expressing some sincere condolences to the family and friends of the to the family and friends of the late noble and learning it Lord. His late noble and learning it Lord. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.

And, this House has to offer. And, secondly, I just remind that noble Lords of my interest as a practising Lords of my interest as a practising solicitor. These four amendments solicitor. These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the bill. First, the removal of the word recklessness will ensure a landlord is only guilty of an offence if it can be proven that they are wrongly relied on grants for possession with actual knowledge of the offence.

Secondly, the replacement on the balance of probabilities with beyond reasonable doubt raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining the case. Now, I expect that the noble Baroness the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that it will put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from this new system which would be imposed by local authorities.

There is also a legitimate question on how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases where landlords are accused of an offence. We, surely, have to have a system that ensures landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found of being guilty of an offence without their knowledge would only land to the chilling effect of this bill on our rental markets.

I also agree that the standard of proof or a local authority is making the decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be had. Local authority offices should be absolutely sure when making these decisions. So, I have two questions for the noble Baroness the Minister stop can the noble Baroness the Minister please take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision, and, secondly, can the noble Baroness that Minister please answer the question that appropriate local authority resources to enable local authority resources to enable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all can I echo
20:45
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all can I echo sincere condolences from our benches to the husband of the Noble Lord to the husband of the Noble Lord Etherton, his husband Andrew and his family. They really do have our sincere condolences. I would also like to echo the concerns that were delivered in a rather measured weight from my noble friend Lord Shipley regarding the way things have gone along. Just to say I have communicated this with the noble Lady the Minister also.

We come to another key part of the bill, perhaps one less explored, but in our view important, that of enforcement. It's important to remind ourselves of the current state of affairs in the enforcement world, albeit very briefly as this is not a second reading. The reality is that after decades of cutbacks councils have gradually been reducing the number of staff in the area of housing enforcement, Decent Homes Standard tenant matters. It's arguable as a result of this they have failed over that same time to carry out proper proactive enforcement work, inevitably leading to more substandard housing.

Let's be blunt the rogue landlords no they can likely get away with it. The big change of course is clause 107. It's an important section in the bill and in short it very boldly states that it is the duty of every local housing authority to enforce landlord legislation in its area, a very powerful change. It is not optional nor desirable, it is mandatory. The landlord legislation wraps up other requirements from other acts, such as the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act and various housing acts.

It is a real step change from the current situation and it cannot happen too soon, but our concern is that our local authorities tooled up for this? Are they ready and will they have the right resources? This is not the blame game, but it is actually the reality. The bliss we discussed in a previous group allows the two main activities to fund their enforcement activities. Civil penalty notices, as previously discussed, and rent repayment orders, which we get to at some time later.

The importance of these funding streams is why we opposed any reduction in the previous group and why we have amendments in the next. The amendments in this section centre around the burden of proof that local authorities can apply when taking civil action and I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Scott that we need to understand the rationale for using the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to the civil standard and the balance of probabilities and vice versa. The more so given that the increased powers that have been granted under this bill.

It needs to be stated that there are actually many and they are quite complex. I have confessed earlier that I am no lawyer, but even I could see that perhaps even some of our offices need to get their heads around some of these changes. But given that I have argued previously that local authorities are going to need this money to fund enforcement activities, amendments 145 and 152 would seek to lower the burden of proof to on the balance of probabilities, thus making it easier for local authorities to impose civil penalties.

Whereas amendments 197 and 200 seat the opposite. I also note that in the Renters (Reform) Bill clause 15 had the higher proof, so I look forward to perhaps the reasoning from the noble Lord who will sum up as to why there has been a change from their perspective. In short, my Lords, these are legitimate questions, consistency and clarity are essential and I look forward to the essential and I look forward to the noble Lady the Minister's replies, particularly on the notion of recklessness and the culpable mind recklessness and the culpable mind in amendments 242 and 148.
20:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I say how sorry I am to have two deal with the noble Lord's amendments after he said passing. I didn't have a long time to get to know Lord Etherton, but during my time in this House I have truly appreciated both his engagement and wisdom in this bill and he's courtesy and kindness. I know he will be greatly missed by the House and I would like to add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and to his close friends and That his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House and we were all missing.

So I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on this bill. As the noble Lady Baroness Scott said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him. I thank Lady Scott and Lord Hunt for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate. The amendments on financial penalties, and Baroness Thornhill for her comments on these items, too. I will make the declaration upfront that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice for this section of the bill.

Starting with the amendments in the name of Baroness Scott, the criminal standard of proof will be replaced with breaches of the tenancy agreement that were not criminal. This can form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary therefore for the criminal standard of proof to apply. Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probabilities where local authorities were imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences.

Where civil penalties are being Criminal prosecution, it's necessary for the same standard to be applied. That is already the case for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the housing at 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Turning to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, amendments 197 and 200 conversely require local authorities to meet the criminal rather than the civil standard of proof winning please -- when imposing civil penalties.

Unlike other breaches rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted, or given a £40,000 penalty and are only subject to the lower £7000 penalty. We therefore think it is appropriate that local authorities to prove these reaches to the civil standard on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt.

The noble Lord Hunt raised the issue of resources. I answer that with two points. One, the government has committed to assess the financial impact on the local authorities and has committed to new burdens funding, but also those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose or other purposes if they wish to use them for that. Secondly, the noble them for that. Secondly, the noble Lord Hunt asked about appeals. I'd just like to say that local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether the individual concerned was aware the information they provided might be.

Misleading and whether it was reasonable for them to submit it. The legislation also provide safeguards. In prosecution cases it will be for the court not the local authority to decide whether the individual had been reckless. The landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed on a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty or the amount of the penalty. Amendment 148 narrows the offence of misusing grounds of possession where position would not be obtained on backgrounds.

It does so by removing the element of recklessness. Amendment 242 narrows the offence and provides information that is. Misleading. In order to commit the first of these offences a landlord or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If the landlord or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord could do so, it An offence.

Landlord should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk and landlord should not take an unjustified risk when there action may result in someone losing their home. It is the case that the offence is only committed if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.

To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it to easy for purported compliance. It is well established in legislation for offences relating to misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used in relation to the provision of. Misleading information to local authorities. An offence that is prosecuted by local authorities. We considered that the mental state of recklessness is one that is appropriate to apply to the serious offences.

I asked that the noble Lord considers I asked that the noble Lord considers withdrawing his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Can I first say that I am really disappointed because the number of disappointed because the number of noble Lord who have been involved in all these debates over the last four days are not able to be in their days are not able to be in their seats because of the late time of seats because of the late time of day. I think that is not going to help us scrutinise this bill as we should do. My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking all those who have begin by thanking all those who have contributed to 48,, 148, 1497 and contributed to 48,, 148, 1497 and others.

Noble Lord is our right to others. Noble Lord is our right to highlight the issue of consistency, an issue we on these benches intended to race today, but he also intended to race today, but he also introduces an important new concern, the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. It is vital penalty can be imposed. It is vital we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the drafting of this bill. I hope the noble Lady the Minister will seek wise counsel.

The financial penalties under consideration are significant, as pointed out. Many landlords are small-scale or so- called accidental landlords who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that this House seeks clarity on the methodology, the consultation process and factors such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds. Even the scale of these penalties the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without sufficient burden of proof on the legal argument underpinning these amendments.

There is legitimate concerns about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We welcome these amendments and believe Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake rigour in the legal standard must be applied. Any concerns should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered, but at this point I will draw my amendment. Is it your logic pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your logic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The Amendment one faucets, 147, not Amendment one faucets, 147, not moved, Baroness Scott. -- Amendment 147. Amendment 148, not moved. 147. Amendment 148, not moved. Amendments 149-152, not moved en Amendments 149-152, not moved en bloc. Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, bloc. Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, bloc.

Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, not moved. Amendments 154, one 162 -- 154-162, not moved en bloc. The question is the clause stands part of the bill. The contents have it. Amendments 163 and 164 en bloc, not moved. The question is that clause 18 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not Not moved en bloc, Lord Hacking? Not Not moved en bloc, Lord Hacking? Not moved. The question is that clauses 19 and 20 stand part of the bill.

As 19 and 20 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion say content, Of the contrary, "Not content, Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. That brings us to the second group, in brings us to the second group, in clause 21, amendment 167, Baroness Scott. Scott.
21:02
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments I have tabled in these groups are to probe the government's decision to define a family in the way they have in clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the bill explain subsection 4 provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies, then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their deaths.

And the bill defines family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that in the definition of family in law reflects the family unions we have seen in our day-to-day life, and in many tightly knit communities in this country, families still live closely together with many cousins both near and distant having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step into help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the bill.

It seems strange that Government would seek to recognise relationships between two first cousins, but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might because of their close family ties help a family member out as there guarantor, but this bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the bill. So, I asked the noble Baroness the Minister would she please explain why the Government has defined the family in this way.

Can she also explain why a second cousin who act as a guarantor for her family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared to their other, closer cousins. We are also interested in the case of smaller families where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but is in reality their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of family in this bill. We understand that. But we do need an explanation as to why this definition of the family is being proposed.

proposed.
21:04
21:05
21:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot see any reason for refusing Can I thank the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendments relating to guarantors and family relating to guarantors and family members and the noble Baroness and members and the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord for contributing to the debate. Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of family member used in clause 21 to include ants and uncles as well as siblings and grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability after a tenant has died when they act as guarantor.

I understand the noble Ladies motivation in probing this motivation in probing this definition of family, and I would definition of family, and I would like to say she sometimes accuses me of not listening or thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these considered the balance of these provisions. They do protect bereaved guarantors from potential hardship while allowing them to keep guarantors in place when it is reasonable to do so most of the reasonable to do so most of the definition of family member reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors.

While we understand that more distant relatives covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay many family links between relatives that are not included within that definition. I think that some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that. It is to say if I tried to do that.

It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantees liable in these scenarios is already uncommon and most is already uncommon and most landlords would already act compassionately to a deceased tenants family. Furthermore, by tenants family. Furthermore, by removing fixed term, personal representatives of the deceased representatives of the deceased The landlord to months notice. We believe this strikes a balance that this data tenants, guarantors and landlords alike, and therefore I would ask the noble Baroness Lady Scott to withdraw these amendments.
21:08
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her Baroness the Minister for her response, but I do not think we have quite gotten to the better understanding of the Governments reasons for defining family in this way, just that they're going to define a family in this way, and I point out that many families once again are different shapes to the one described in the bill, and we feel very strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins are.

And we have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins and we feel Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties compared to other members of the family. We do reserve the right to come back to the Supreme Court stage, but we hope the Ministers will listen to the argument we have made today and consider improving this part of the bill to properly reflect the family relationships reflect the family relationships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that many people have now in this country, but at this point I leave to withdraw my amendment. Is a urologic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments 168 and 169, not moved. Not moved. The question is that clause 21 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. That
21:10
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
brings us to the third group after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 21, amendment 117. My Lords, arise to move amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, arise to move amendment 117, 265. Both of which aim to strengthen the very com antidiscrimination additions to the bill. I am grateful to the colleagues that have added their names and shelter for help. Amendment 170 set out circumstances under which landlords may not under which landlords may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor. Practices that has increasingly become a precondition in tenancy for certain tenants, naming those for security, lack renters, women, families, and disabled renters.

And when that could therefore be used as a way of circumventing the bills antidiscrimination clauses. The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the Government amendment in Commons. To prevent landlords requiring multiple months landlords requiring multiple months rent up front. To quote the rent up front. To quote the independent age who are among the many organisations supporting our amendment, this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem, excessive rent in advance demands, only for it to be replaced with another excessive reliance on guarantors.

Who are already, over the last five years, 550,000 private renters were unable to rent a home they wanted because they did not have a guarantor that met the landlord's requirements. I know and respect that the Government does not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether. My Noble Friend the Minister explained why in her health proposed second reading letter. At this amendment would not do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord cannot ask for a guarantor. In these circumstances they reflect the national residential landlords Association guidance on appropriate guarantor use.

Likely wary tenant cannot prove they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research by Shelter has shown that in practice, guarantor requests often do not follow this guidance. Thus, the amendment is not radical, but early serves to ensure that guarantors are used as intended. The case for ensuring their use is limited is a strong one. Very much in line with the aims of the bill. First, it helps to safeguard the bills antidiscrimination measures. Requests for a high earning or homeowner guarantor are too often used in the disciplinary manner.

Renters who receive their security, have a disability, or members of racialised minorities are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor, similarly as independent age, requiring a
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page