Employment Rights Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160, although I support all the amendments in this group. I declare an interest as a self-employed visual artist. Amendment 160 seeks to establish a freelance commissioner. It is closely tied to consequential Amendments 161 and 162, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seek to define what a freelancer is and to give the freelance commissioner greater teeth. I am very grateful for the support on this from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, as well as that of my noble friend Lord Colville, who I know would have signed this amendment if there had been room to do so.

The first thing to say is that the creative industries welcome the appointment of a champion for this sector, as announced in the industrial strategy after Committee, and are pleased that that champion will be a member of the Creative Industries Council. These are things that the creative industries have been asking for for a long time, so there is appreciation that the Government have listened in this respect. Yesterday, I also had sight of the draft terms of reference—which is, of course, interesting timing. Those terms of reference, which are the result of conversations between relevant organisations and the DCMS within the framework of the Good Work Review, are impressive, if not yet entirely comprehensive, tasks and concerns. It is important to stress that this also illustrates the immense challenges a freelance champion will have. Nevertheless, I applaud the Government for opening the lines of communication between the DCMS and other organisations; long may that continue.

However, there remain questions concerning the champion. What powers will the champion really have, if any significant powers at all? Is this to be a salaried position? How much, in practice, will the champion be able to cut across different departments? Will this role be more about guidance for the sector rather than the really necessary action required for freelancers in terms of the many rights that standard employees have—and to a large extent take for granted—but that freelancers lack? I would be very grateful if the Minister could fill in some of those gaps if she is able to do so.

There are broadly two reasons why we should have a statutorily appointed and independent freelance commissioner. The first is that we urgently need someone to look at the whole landscape of freelance and self-employed work, which constitutes a not-negligible 15% of the workforce—and this is a sector that is growing. As my noble friend Lord Londesborough pointed out in Committee, this includes not just the creative industries but construction workers, agricultural workers and others. My amendment covers that landscape, one that the Bill—which is supposed to be an Employment Rights Bill, not an employee rights Bill—does not cover. Instead, as freelancers are always asked to do, we are told to wait in line. This of course happened during Covid, when so many freelancers fell through the gaps in support.

Even looking just at the creative industries, there is a question as to whether the whole of the creative industries themselves would necessarily be served by the new champion, in whatever guise that comes. The DCMS’s current understanding of these industries may be narrower than the reality, and this is certainly true of those craft industries—hugely important for our economy—that may not necessarily fall within the champion’s remit because of the manner in which parts of the creative industries are currently defined. This is something for the Government to look closely at, and I know that my noble friend Lord Freyberg intends to flesh out some of the detail of this very real concern about invisibility in both this and the debate that follows.

The second crucial reason for having a statutory appointment is not just that that role would have the requisite powers to argue for and effect real change, with the necessary authority to do so, but that it is a long-term position that cannot be rescinded easily because we are in this for the long haul. There is no doubt that freelancers’ concerns—this is certainly true of the creative industries—have grown more critical in terms of rights; income; the problems with late payment; Brexit, which has affected and continues to affect so many of our creative industries, not just music; AI, of course; and, crucially, the downturn in the funding of the sector. All these things have become immense pressures, which demand the appointment of an independent commissioner with the requisite powers to effectively address all these concerns and influence government policy.

I talked at some length in Committee about these increasing pressures as they affect the creative industries, and I will not repeat those arguments, except to add some conclusions from a survey to be published tomorrow by the organisation Freelancers Make Theatre Work—I am grateful for its permission to do so. It says:

“A striking headline in this year’s data is that 44% of respondents earned less than the 2024 UK National Living Wage in the 23-24 tax year … a significant worsening of the already critical situation from the previous year … where the equivalent figure was 34%”.


It goes on to say:

“These levels of pay would be illegal in salaried positions”.


I was worried by Chris Bryant’s recent evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in which he said that he wants to see a reduction in the number of freelancers over the next 10 years. My understanding was that he is thinking about workers such as his mother, a make-up artist for the BBC, who lost their salaried jobs and were pushed into becoming freelancers. However, this is but one part of the landscape, and this exclusive emphasis ignores all the other freelancers, many of whom are creators—artists, writers, composers and many others—for whom there never has been any option other than being a freelancer for the work they do. Again, we need to understand the whole landscape—the reality of that landscape and the ecology of that landscape.

It becomes difficult to imagine how effective a champion with close proximity to the DCMS will be if the DCMS is actively trying to reduce the total number of freelancers—something it ought to be agnostic about. We need an independent commissioner—in other words, someone in a position of authority—who will support and, importantly, promote the practice of freelance work. We need it in law; we need it in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is extremely disappointing that we are debating something of this order of importance at this time of day and at the fag-end of this Bill. However, unusually, I shall try to ingratiate myself with the House by being as brief as possible.

First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his letter of 30 June and for the publication of the draft terms of reference for the freelance champion, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who set out the stall extremely cogently for these amendments. I do not need to go over the ground that he has explained extremely well. The lack of a single clear voice representing the interests of freelancers to government is what this is all about—a clear definition of what a freelancer is and clear duties for the freelancer commissioner.

The freelance champion has some similar characteristics to the freelance commissioner, but there are significant differences from the independent freelance commissioner. It is not going to be a statutory office, unlike the freelance commissioner. The structure proposed in our amendments would be more permanent and more independent of government. The terms of reference explicitly state that the champion will focus on freelancers working in the creative industries only, so it will not be cross-sectoral. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, it is clear that freelancers are extremely prevalent not only in the creative industries but in many other industries as well, including construction, professional, scientific and technical activities, business support, health and social work, IT, digital services and education and training.

While welcome, the freelance champion for the creative industries under the sectoral plan does not go nearly far enough across the board in making sure that there is a real advocate and one with teeth who is able to influence policy towards freelancers across all those different sectors. The question really is why the Government have failed to grasp the urgency and widespread nature of the challenges faced by freelancers across all sectors. It is not unclear that freelance work covers much broader areas than just the creative industries. These amendments would offer recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our economy and cultural life and is too often unprotected and unheard in legislative terms.

I urge the Government, even at this time of day and at this time in the Bill, when they cannot really change their approach, really to think about this. We have heard so much about how, on AI or dependent contractors, the Government are considering these things. They really need to shape up in terms of the modern economy. Freelancing is on the increase and they need protection—and the freelance commissioner would be by far the best way forward.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Clancarty and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who have each set out the case for a more coherent and strategic approach to freelance policy with great clarity. I shall not repeat their arguments but will attempt to build on them.

I support Amendments 160 to 162, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to my own Amendments 163 to 165. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society.

--- Later in debate ---

In response to the spirit of these amendments, the Government could commit to publishing a report within 12 months, similar to that argued for in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that outlines revised definitions for freelance and self-employed status, assesses the impact of legislation on these groups, explores data classification reforms and makes targeted recommendations to improve the fair treatment and statistical visibility of workers in the visual arts and craft sectors. This would be in keeping with the Government’s broader commitments under the creative industries sector vision and ongoing work to support the freelance workforce. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief because it is now 11.20 pm. We need to finish these proceedings at least before midnight, but that may be an ambition too far. I declare an interest, as I should have done in the last group, as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society.

It would have been extremely useful to have inserted the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley, because that is precisely what my amendment is all about. It is about ensuring that our employment law ensures the rights of a growing segment of our workforce. Our current system is based on statutory definitions and case law, and it settled on three categories: self-employed; worker—also known as limb (b), as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned —or dependent contractor; and employee. However, determining whether an individual falls within this framework is often inconsistent and reliant on lengthy and expensive court cases, such as the landmark Uber v Aslam case. The Minister has extremely helpfully undertaken a consultation on employment status, and that is exactly what this amendment was designed to provoke, so I feel that to a large extent we have succeeded in pushing the Government further towards defining that kind of employment status.

I have had some useful conversations with Evri, which engaged in a legal case when it was under the name Hermes. As a result of its engagement with the GMB, it has come forward with what I think is an extremely interesting and satisfactory form of dependent contractor status that grants certain rights as if they were employees, and that is precisely what I hope this consultation will come up with in terms of family leave, entitlements, the right to request fixed hours and so on. The GMB, while awaiting formal policy setting through its democratic process, has expressed a positive stance towards retaining and reforming the limb (b) worker status. So I hope that the consultation that the Government engage in will not try to force everything into two categories but will make sure that that third category is recognised and given enhanced rights.

I think there was some misunderstanding in Committee in what the Minister said. She talked about complications and so on, and I hope that does not mean that what we are all trying to get to is two categories, employment or self-employment. I hope that the result of the consultation will be to come forward with some kind of dependent contractor status for precisely the kinds of people that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was talking about—however fast they may go on their scooters.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to introduce at this late hour Amendment 184A in my name. I refer to my registered interests as an employer and investor. I thank the many noble Lords on the Labour Benches who have kindly stayed to hear the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and myself; it is very decent of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, kindly committed just now to publishing the Government’s consultation on employment status, which relates strongly to the amendments that the three of us have introduced to this clause, and it is very welcome to hear that commitment. For me, that takes us half way to what my amendment proposes.

The Minister’s focus just now was on freelancers, while that of the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, was on both freelancers and the self-employed. My amendment focuses on protecting the self-employed and the so-called middle worker status, in particular for so-called platforms, which I will elaborate on briefly in a minute. I do hope to get your Lordships out before midnight; I will do my best.

The Government’s make work pay document, part of their manifesto, has, as we all know, made various commitments—or threats, as we call them on this side of the House—relating to workers’ employment status. Some are included in the Bill and some are promised for an unspecified future Bill or other kind of regulation. In particular, the employment status of worker, a middle stage between self-employed and fully employed, as just described by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and as decided in the ruling in the Uber case, is to be reviewed, and there is the threat that that category will be tightened or even abolished. To date, the Government have said little else about its future although, in the Bill we are discussing now, Clause 1 on guaranteed hours and Clause 2 on shift contracts both significantly constrain what an employer can agree with an individual holding worker status.

It is depressing to note how the Government’s financial and regulatory policies are already hitting employment—the very topic of this Bill—not just in traditional areas such as pubs and entertainment, but in those advanced sectors where the economy’s hope for the future lie: AI or gene modification, for example, and now, in this Bill, the platform businesses that drive the gig economy.

Take driver platforms. In surveys, 76% of drivers say being self-employed is the key attraction; 60% of them value flexible hours above all else, rising to 72% among working parents. Nearly nine in 10 use multiple platforms to earn a living, which would be near impossible if rigid employment frameworks were imposed. A strong entrepreneurial spirit runs through the sector: 34% already see themselves as entrepreneurs and 49% aspire to be.

Platform companies such as Bolt, which has 100,000 drivers on its books, are currently at sea as to what the rules will be. Will they, because of all this, be forced to offer full employment packages to those who would rather be flexible worker employees? Will this then increase the platform company’s costs and lead to layoffs, as more hours have to be offered to these workers, leaving fewer hours available to the self-employed?

My amendment seeks to get a commitment to a formal review of all this—and we just got that from the Minister—in order to ensure that the Government stand by their stated intent to consult fully, and I think that word is key, before changes are made. Platforms need to know what future employment categories will be allowed and how they will be defined because, one way or another, all of this will lead to their having to make very significant changes to their platforms. It is important that the Government have a full review and consultation before they decide on their detailed approach.

Platform companies can and must form a leading part of our future economy. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others explained, as was the case with freelancers, so it is with platform workers. All employers and employees agree that, in these areas, flexibility is key and the Government have elsewhere committed to reducing, not increasing, inflexible regulation. This amendment seeks to hold the Government to that commitment.

Platform employers are investing hundreds of millions in their activities per country, per platform employer, in other countries around the world, yet are not doing so here in the UK. One platform company recently contacted me to say that they had withheld £170 million of investment from this country precisely because of this Bill and the threats it imposes on it.

We are falling further and further behind other modern economies, and it is precisely because of ever-increasing taxes and regulation, and the threat of more to come, from this and future mooted Bills. Removing the middle-stage worker status would both increase unemployment and deter further inward investment.

My amendment seeks to hold the Government to account on their promises to consult on the expected outcome of this part of the Bill, which the Minister has just done, and to figure out the likely impacts carefully in the hope that the most detrimental potential regulations might not be imposed. As we go into the summer break, we already see employment, particularly youth employment, plummeting. The NIC increases, the now very high minimum wage and the fear created by this Bill are causing employers to hold off further employment. All of this is leading to less and less hiring. I ask the Government to have pity on the employer, to have pity on the self-employed and indeed to have pity on our economy overall by agreeing to this, I hope, helpful amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

111ZA: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Workplace AI risk and impact assessments(1) Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment (a “WAIRIA”)(2) A WAIRIA must be conducted under this section if there is a potential significant risk or impact on—(a) the identification or exercise of rights;(b) recruitment;(c) work access or allocation;(d) remuneration or benefits;(e) contractual status, terms or conditions;(f) mental, physical or psychosocial health.(3) A WAIRIA conducted under subsection (1) must—(a) document the intended purpose and functionality of the AI system;(b) establish a process for undertaking the monitoring of significant risks and impacts; (c) document the definitions, metrics and methods selected for the WAIRIA;(4) Employers must review and update the WAIRIA—(a) at least once every 12 months,(b) whenever substantial changes are made to the AI system to which it relates, or(c) when evidence emerges of unforeseen significant risks or impacts.(5) The Secretary of State must require any Fair Work Agency to issue guidance on the conduct disclosure and enforcement of WAIRIAs within 6 months of this section coming into force.”

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 111ZA seeks to introduce a requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment is focused on addressing the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. There are many opportunities for its adoption but also risks and impacts. There is potentially massive job displacement. AI could displace 1 million to 3 million UK jobs overall. There are workplaces skills gaps; more than half the UK workforce lacks essential digital skills and the majority of the public has no AI education or training.

AI recruitment algorithms have resulted in race and sex discrimination. There are legal vulnerabilities. Companies risk facing costly lawsuits and settlements when unsuccessful job applicants claim unlawful discrimination by AI hiring systems. Meanwhile, AI adoption accelerates rapidly, and the UK’s regulatory framework is lagging behind.

Organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and the Institute for the Future of Work have consistently highlighted the critical need for robust regulation in this area. The TUC, through its artificial intelligence regulation and employment rights Bill, drafted with a multi-stakeholder task force, explicitly proposes workforce AI risk assessments and emphasises the need for worker consultation before AI systems are implemented. It also advocates for fundamental rights, such as a right to a human review for high-risk decisions. IFOW similarly calls for an accountability for algorithms Act that would mandate pre-emptive algorithmic impact assessments to identify and mitigate risks, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI at work. Both organisations stress that existing frameworks are insufficient to protect workers from the potential harms of AI.

When I spoke to a similar amendment—Amendment 149—in Committee, the Minister acknowledged this and said:

“The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making … However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work pay plan in due course”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 878.]


This was all very reassuring, perhaps, but I have retabled this amendment precisely because we need more concrete specifics regarding this promised consultation.

The TUC and IFOW have been working on this for four years. Is it too much to ask the Government to take a clear position on what is proposed now? The Minister referred to the importance of proper consultation. This is a crucial area impacting the fundamental rights and well-being of workers right now, often without their knowledge, and AI systems are increasingly being introduced into the workforce, so the Government need to provide clarity on what kind of consultation is being undertaken, with whom they will engage beyond relevant stakeholders and what the precise timescale is for this consultation and any subsequent legislative action, particularly given the rapid introduction of AI into workplaces.

We cannot afford a wait-and-see approach. If comprehensive AI regulation cannot be addressed within this Bill as regards the workplace, we need an immediate and clear commitment to provision within dedicated AI legislation, perhaps coming down the track, to ensure that AI in the workplace truly benefits everyone. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain?

At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House.

I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace?

Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society.

Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to.

Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed.

I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 111ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendments 168, 169, 171, 172, 175 and 176, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whom I thank for his engagement on these important issues.

I start by reassuring all noble Lords that we agree that AI should be deployed and used responsibly, including within the workplace. As the noble Lord knows, in January 2025, we published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which included a commitment to

“support the AI assurance ecosystem to increase trust and adoption”

of AI. One of the key deliverables in this area is the AI management essentials tool. We are developing this tool to support businesses, particularly SMEs, to implement good AI governance practices. Following public consultation earlier this year, I hope to update your Lordships’ House on the consultation response and an updated version of that tool soon.

Regarding these amendments, I remind noble Lords that our plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change.

To be clear, we are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. In response to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hunt, of course we will put ethics and fairness at the heart of that.

I am keen to stress that we are taking steps to enhance our understanding of this area. This has included engagement and round-table events with a wide range of stakeholders and experts to help enrich our understanding. I reaffirm that we will consult on the make work pay proposals in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked what would be in the scope of the consultation. The consultation plan includes examining: what AI and new technologies, including automation and AI, mean for work, jobs and skills; how to promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making; and how best to make the introduction of surveillance technology in the workplace subject to consultation and negotiation with trade union or employee representatives.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether or not this was going to be domain-specific. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just reminded us, this was dealt with in an Oral Question earlier this afternoon, when my noble friend Lord Vallance said that existing regulators will oversee most AI systems, supported by enhanced AI skills and cross-regulatory co-ordination through forums such as the Regulatory Innovation Office. Some cross-cutting issues will be addressed also in the planned consultation on AI.

Looking specifically at Amendment 171, let me reassure the noble Lord that we believe that data protection legislation provides sufficient protection for workers and individuals where their personal data is being used in line with the key data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Consent is a lawful ground to process personal data. However, due to the power imbalance between the employee and employer, it is often inappropriate for employers to rely on consent from employees to process their data. This is why we have an additional lawful ground to carry out such processing, such as legitimate interest under the data protection law. Therefore, we do not wish to limit data processing in these situations to consent alone. I also point out that while data protection principles establish the requirements that we expect the use of AI systems to adhere to, AI assurance provides ways to evidence that these requirements have been met in practice.

Amendment 170 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and intellectual property used in AI training and to allow independent audits of AI processes. As he will know, this issue was debated extensively during the passage through your Lordships’ House of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Only last month I confirmed that we will publish a report, including on transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training, within nine months of Royal Assent to the Act, which will be due by 18 March next year. The Government have also committed to setting up expert stakeholder working groups to help drive forward practical, workable solutions in this area, alongside a parliamentary working group to engage with policy development.

Amendment 174 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, proposes a review of the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord will be aware, last year the previous Government published detailed guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which covers governance, accessibility requirements and testing. This was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers and recruiters may find this guidance useful to help integrate AI into their recruitment practices in a responsible way.

Furthermore, I am excited about the opportunities of AI in supporting the UK’s workforce, as well as creating jobs and growing our economy. However, we must also understand how it may affect the labour market, including any potential disruption. The AI Security Institute has begun assessing this issue, and I hope to be able to update your Lordships’ House on this as work progresses.

Regarding our position on general AI regulation and the establishment of a new AI regulator, we believe that AI is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sector, they are in the best place to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas, and we will support them to do this. I emphasise that in response to the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened. I assure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley for raising non-compete clauses. There has been extensive research and analysis in recent years looking at the prevalence of non-compete clauses in the UK labour market and their impact on both workers and the wider economy. Government research published in 2023 found that non-compete clauses were widely used across the labour market, with around 5 million employees in Great Britain working under a contract that contained a non-compete clause, with a typical duration of around six months. As my noble friend identified, this can adversely impact both the worker affected, through limiting their ability to move between jobs, and the wider economy, due to the impacts on competition.

It is often assumed that non-compete clauses are found only in contracts of high earners. However, research published last year by the Competition and Markets Authority found that while non-competes are more common in higher-paid jobs, even in lower-paid jobs 20% to 30% of workers believe that they are covered by non-compete clauses. The Government have been reviewing the research and work done to date on non-compete clauses, and I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will be consulting on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts in due course.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked for my suggested reading list following my noble friend’s kind offer earlier this afternoon. I can do no better than to recommend the excellent book by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 111ZA.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The noble Baroness nearly won me over at that point. I thank her. I feel like someone who was expecting a full meal but receives a rather light snack. I will explain why as we go through.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I feel that I am somewhat upstaging him by putting an amendment at the front of the group, but we have many common themes that we both have pursued over the years together. I agree with him on the desirability of a cross-sector approach. He is much more patient than I am and, in putting down individual amendments and hoping that the Minister will give satisfactory answers, he is clearly more optimistic than I am. Whether his optimism has been justified today, I am not so sure.

The Minister could not even acknowledge the work done by the TUC, which has been ground-breaking in so many ways. It has taken four years, so it is extraordinary that the Government are doing what they are doing. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, had to say. I was not quite sure how it connected to AI, but he very cunningly linked the subject of non-compete clauses to innovation, which does link to AI. I was encouraged by what the Minister had to say about consultation on reform.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded me that I was a solicitor. Unlike him, I do not still have a practising certificate still, but there we are. He has much more stamina than I have. Non-compete clauses can be extremely important in making sure that know-how is preserved within an existing business. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for what he had to say on making sure that AI ensures human flourishing and that we preserve agency. That is what the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and me are all about.

The Minister talked about an AI assurance ecosystem and AI management essential tools that there will be a consultation on, but I could not sense any intention to do anything other than a sort of voluntary approach. We have a lot of employment law that has developed over the years, but the Government seem to be allergic to doing anything with any teeth. She mentioned recruitment practices, but that again seems to be very much a voluntary approach. The AI Security Institute is not a regulator. I cannot feel that the Minister has given much more than the noble Lord, Lord Leong, gave last time. For instance, the Minister talked about consultation over make-work proposals. This involved talking about best practice on the adoption of AI and how best to deal with surveillance technology. Again, I did not sense any real intent to make sure that we have a new set of protections in the workplace in the face of AI.

I very much hope that, as time goes on, the Government will develop a much more muscular approach to this. As many noble Lords have said, AI presents a great number of opportunities in the workplace, but we absolutely do not want to see the opportunities overwhelmed by mistrust and a belief that AI presents unacceptable risks on the part of those employees. We want to see employees understanding that in the face of AI adoption, they have the right to be consulted and there is proper risk assessment of the introduction of these systems into the workplace, so that there is a proper, consensual approach to AI adoption.

I really do not feel that the Government are keeping up to date with the issues in this respect, and I am afraid that is rather reflected in some of the issues that we are going to talk about on Wednesday as well. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 111ZA withdrawn.

Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations and congratulate the Minister on introducing them. I have a couple of questions and will also support some of the comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Can the Minister tell us when the department will undertake the guidance that it has committed to produce before the regulations come into effect? Will the House have sight of that before they come into effect?

Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The whole super-complaints process must … typically be completed within 120 days, which reduces to 105 days in the event that an entity has retained eligibility status”.


Is that feasible? Can that actually be delivered within the procedure? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this is meant to be a streamlined procedure, but it is important that, if someone is limited to one complaint in a six-month period, they have the time to develop that complaint to the full, and 120 days might be quite a tight timetable.

Paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Entities must not submit more than one complaint in a six-month period”.


Again, this may mean that a genuine complaint that is completely different from the complaint already before Ofcom will be delayed, so it is not streamlining the procedure at all. It also says, “except in specific circumstances”—I wonder what those circumstances might be—and goes on to say:

“Super-complaints should not merely repeat the substance of another complaint that has been made publicly available by Ofcom within the last two years and Ofcom will reject a complaint on this basis”.


On the two points from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there is neither an appeals mechanism nor the intervention of an ombudsman. For what reason was an ombudsman not considered appropriate in these circumstances? Given the pressure on Ofcom and the restrictions placed on it, particularly following on from the Online Safety Act, does the Minister feel absolutely convinced that Ofcom has all the resources that it needs at its disposal to deal with the super-complainants? Paragraph 49 of the committee’s report says:

“We note the Department’s explanation but remain concerned about the adequacy of the resources available to Ofcom, given its already extensive online safety responsibilities would be expanded further by this instrument”.


I have one final question, as I was not as closely involved in this Bill as others were. What happens to those individual complainants who do not fall within the super-complaint? Do they have a separate procedure under separate regulations? With those fair words, I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. These regulations aim to establish a formal mechanism for super-complaints to be made to Ofcom under Section 169 of the 2023 Act, as we have heard. Potentially, this represents a significant step forward in implementing the Act’s vision for civil society oversight of our online landscape. The underlying purpose is clear: to enable eligible entities to raise systemic online safety issues, alerting Ofcom to significant risks or harms that might not otherwise come to its attention. These super-complaints are indeed a vital mechanism.

I welcome the clear intent behind these regulations and acknowledge the responsiveness of the Government and Ofcom to the consultation process—not always the case. Several positive changes have been made in response to stakeholder feedback, strengthening the regime’s accessibility and effectiveness. The removal of a statutory pre-notification period is a crucial improvement, enabling more timely responses to urgent online safety issues. There is the reduced administrative burden for organisations that have previously been deemed eligible. The reduction in assessment periods from 30 to 15 days demonstrates a certain sensitivity to concerns about administrative burden and procedural delays. Then there are restrictions on Ofcom’s ability to pause timelines; placing limits on Ofcom’s ability to stop the clock when seeking further information from complainants is a welcome development, addressing fears about unnecessary delays in addressing urgent harms and improving transparency.

The regulations have expanded the eligibility criteria to include newer expert organisations, which directly addresses concerns about barriers facing emerging voices in what is a rapidly evolving field, in our view allowing for greater inclusivity. This approach seeks to provide a future-proofed way of enabling a range of organisations to access the super-complaints mechanism in a fast-changing online environment. Then there is the flexibility in complaints submission. The ability for an eligible entity to withdraw an initial complaint and submit a replacement, effectively prioritising a different issue, is a helpful measure to ensure that the most important concerns are addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the ombudsman issue. Individual user complaints are likely to be complex but also very time sensitive, and it would be unlike other situations in which ombudsmen operate. In addition, the scope of the OSA means that the ombudsman would need to consider whether providers had taken correct decisions about whether to moderate content that was, for example, illegal or harmful to children. However, under the Act, the Secretary of State could bring in an alternative dispute resolution duty or ombudsman service after Ofcom publishes its user redress report. We currently estimate that this report will be published in early 2028. As noble Lords will know, I am a great fan of ombudsman services—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she said 2028. When will the actual review begin? That sounds an impossible end date for anybody to be satisfied with progress on an ombudsman being considered, let alone appointed. Does the review start in 2028, or in 2026? When does it start taking input?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The only information that I have is that we are anticipating that the report would be published and available in early 2028—so, obviously, it would need to start well before then. The noble Lord will know that setting up ombudsman schemes is not a simple process. However, we look forward to the outcome of that report, because we recognise some of the issues being raised.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

But if the report will be available only then and the regulations need to be made, the prospect of having an ombudsman is not there until 2029—something like that—or maybe 2030. Does not the Minister find that rather unsatisfactory, especially given her knowledge of the benefits of ombudsman services?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can only repeat what I said. Ofcom is going to produce a report on this; it will look at the pros and cons of the issue and it may decide that there are other ways in which to deal with individual complaints that would not necessarily be an ombudsman service. We have to give it the space to do that thinking and develop that work; it will also need to look at how the tech companies themselves respond to complaints and what gaps need to be filled by that process. So it is not a simple process—but I understand the noble Lord’s frustration with this. If we have any more information about the timescale for this, I shall write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but it partly depends on how much confidence we have in the tech companies in terms of how they deal with complaints.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We will know the outcome of that much sooner than 2028, because I am sure that we will all have experience of complaints that go forward and whether they are responded to efficiently in the coming months, because there will be the opportunity to do that. In the regulations, as the noble Lord knows, all the regulated companies are required to have a named individual and a process for people to raise complaints.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about appeals. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom’s response will be informed by its regulatory experience, as well as the information presented as part of the complaint and any additional information that has been requested, before arriving at an appropriate determination. I also remind the Committee that the objective of a super-complaint is, ultimately, to bring to the attention of Ofcom an issue, a risk or a harm that it might otherwise have been unaware of. It is not to adjudicate an individual decision or necessarily to trigger enforcement action. Ofcom has the flexibility to use any of its online safety regulatory powers to address issues raised by the super-complaint. This may include a formal enforcement action, a change in guidance or codes of practice or, indeed, no action at all.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I address my comments to the Government Benches, particularly the Government Front Bench.

If one looks at Commons Hansard from yesterday, from the last round of ping-pong, several things stand out. First, although we have been through many rounds of ping-pong, yesterday was the first time ever in ping-pong that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was named and acknowledged. This is the same noble Baroness who was accused by a spokesman for the department of trying to bully the Government because she is an activist. This was the first time that the Front Bench mentioned the noble Baroness’s name, which I find extraordinary and slightly disrespectful.

Secondly, yesterday, Sir Chris Bryant, who was obviously on fine form, managed to annoy no fewer than three chairs of Commons Select Committees. He managed to annoy Dame Meg Hillier, who is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee, by the lastminute.com manner in which the department suddenly landed the culture and science Select Committees with this idea of a parliamentary liaison group with no prior warning whatever—they and the House more broadly knew absolutely nothing about it until an email went out early on Saturday morning.

This is not the way to manage this issue. Certain Back-Benchers on the Government side have spoken during the course of ping-pong to make clear their discomfort and the uncomfortable position they are put in between their loyalty to their party and Government and their clear concern about the manner in which the Ministers involved are currently managing this process.

I would just like to encourage all members of the governing party to try—and if anything I have said or that we have heard here rings a bell with them—to please find a way of getting the message through so they understand that it is not simply we who are not members of the governing party who are concerned, but that noble Lords and Members of another place are also deeply concerned. Frankly, we want and expect a change of attitude and pace, much greater focus and a much clearer demonstration to all these people who are so concerned about their future and their livelihood that the Government are on their side, are on the case, and will defend them in any way they can.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for the very gracious way he introduced his amendment, particularly given the history of this inter-House discussion.

Whether it is betrayal, disrespect, negligence, bloody-mindedness, a bad dream or tone-deafness, whatever the reality, we find ourselves once again in this Chamber debating an issue that should have been settled long ago. I share the profound anger and frustration expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and admire her unwavering determination, even if she, for very honourable reasons, will not be voting today. As she pointed out, the Prime Minister, who entertained the tech industry at Chequers and Downing Street, is complicit in the situation we are in today.

We are here today because the Government have point-blank refused to move, repeatedly presenting the same proposition on three occasions while this House, by contrast, has put forward a series of genuine solutions in an attempt to find a way forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out. The only new element seems to be a promise of a cross-party parliamentary working party, but what is so enticing about merely more talking when action is desperately needed?

Amendment 49U, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and designed to amend the 1988 copyright Act, is a reasoned compromise. It requires identifying the copyrighted works and the means by which they were accessed, unless the developer has obtained a licence. That seems to be a fair trade-off. The noble Lord also pointed out that Minister Bryant has rather inadvertently made it clear that today’s amendment does not invoke financial privilege on this occasion. The Government argue that legislating piecemeal would be problematic, but the historical precedent of the Napster clause in the Digital Economy Act 2010 demonstrates that Parliament can and should take powers to act when a sector is facing an existential threat. There is an exact parallel with where we are today.

This is not about picking a side between AI and creativity, as we have heard across the House today. It is about ensuring that both can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. We must ensure that the incentive remains for the next generation of creators and innovators. Given how Ministers have behaved in the face of the strength of feeling of the creative industries, how can anyone in those industries trust this Government and these Ministers ever again? Will they trust their instincts to appease big tech? I suspect not. I do not regard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as personally liable in this respect, but I hope she feels ashamed of her colleagues in the Commons, of the behaviour of her department and of her Government. In this House we will not forget.

There is still time for the Government to listen, to act and to secure a future where human creativity is not plundered but valued and protected. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, chooses to put this to a vote, on these Benches we will support him to the hilt. I urge all noble Lords from all Benches, if he does put it to a vote, to support the UK creative industries once again.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, as everybody has said, it is deeply disappointing that we once again find ourselves in this position. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought the concerns of copyright owners to the attention of the Government time and again. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have declined to respond to the substance of those concerns and to engage with them properly. As I said in the previous round of ping-pong—I am starting to lose count—the uncertainty of the continued delay to this Bill is hurting all sides. Even businesses that are in industries far removed from concerns about AI and copyright are waiting for the data Bill. It has been delayed because of the Government’s frankly stubborn mismanagement of the Bill.

I understand completely why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, feels sufficiently strongly about how the Government have acted to move his very inventive amendment. It strikes at the heart of how this Government should be treating your Lordships’ House. If Ministers hope to get their business through your Lordships’ House in good order, they will rely on this House trusting them and collaborating with them. I know that these decisions are often made by the Secretary of State. I have the highest respect for the Minister, but this is a situation of the Government’s making. I note in passing that it was very disappointing to read that the Government’s planned AI Bill will now be delayed by at least a year.

All that said, as the Official Opposition we have maintained our position, as ping-pong has progressed, that protracted rounds of disagreement between the other place and your Lordships’ House should be avoided. This situation could have been avoided if the Government had acted in good faith and sought compromise.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

148: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Definition of AI System(1) For the purposes of this Act, “AI System” means an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as content, predictions, forecasts, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. (2) AI systems may operate with varying degrees of autonomy and include use of algorithmic techniques such as natural language processing, large language models, multi-modal models, machine learning, speech or image recognition, neural networks, deep learning, or decision trees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of an AI System within the context of employment rights as an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, first of all, I must make my apologies that this is my first contribution to the Bill. I have waited until day 7—I am not quite sure that that is entirely my fault—but it is a pleasure to speak in this group, particularly as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on the same page, even if he has put forward a different set of amendments.

In moving Amendment 148, I will also speak to Amendments 149 and 150. I hope that these amendments are of interest to the Committee; they are certainly close to my heart. They address the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. Reports by the Institute for the Future of Work and the All-Party Group on the Future of Work paint a clear picture: the wide spread of AI at work is transforming lives and livelihoods in ways that have plainly outpaced or avoid the existing regimes per regulation. The impact of AI will be profound and, although there are potential benefits, there are also significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace. We must make sure that AI benefits are realised but also that the detriment is avoided.

As the All-Party Group on the Future of Work found, there is an urgent need to bring forward robust proposals to protect people and safeguard our fundamental values in the workplace. Existing regulatory frameworks are strained. Technical approaches commonly deployed before deployment of algorithmic systems are often inadequate. That is why a systematic framework for accountability is urgently required.

The workplace AI risk and impact assessments—WAIRIAs, as we have coined them—proposed by these amendments, are intended to provide such a framework. As the Institute for the Future of Work and others have argued, mandating such regimes of impact assessment is a practical response to a deficit of responsible foresight.

It is important for WAIRIAs to be made a legal requirement and for accompanying guidance to be issued to outline a framework. Amendment 148 defines what constitutes an “AI System” in this context as:

“an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques”.

That very clear definition ensures we are all addressing the same technology when discussing its regulation.

Amendment 149 introduces the cornerstone requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment mandates that:

“Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment”.


The rationale for this is crucial. AI systems can have a potential significant risk or impact on areas vital to workers, including:

“the identification or exercise of rights … work access or allocation … remuneration or benefits … contractual status, terms or conditions …”

and even

“mental, physical or psychosocial health”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. That is probably the most comprehensive statement about the Government’s intentions on AI regulation that I have heard in this Parliament, so I thank her and her officials for taking the time and trouble to set out their approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about gap analysis. I am very much in favour of that. I do not want to see duplication of regulation; I want to see effective regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, set out the challenge: will the Government address the new challenges? That seems to be absolutely at the heart of this.

I thank the Minister for her assurance that there will be an imminent consultation. I think all of us with an interest in this will very much want to take part in that. I hope that this mini-debate has started the ball rolling in getting people’s thoughts about what we can do. What the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said was crucial; the illustrations she gave were exactly why we are concerned about these issues.

Talking of gap analysis, this morning I helped to launch the ICO’s new AI and biometrics strategy. We are all a bit nervous about this because we do not think the current ICO regime covers all the issues relating to AI use, particularly in the workplace. We are subject to exactly the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put his finger on. The Government have no appetite for cross-sectoral regulation, but what does that mean? Does it mean having to pick off individual sectors, sector by sector, only to be told on individual Bills, “I’m sorry, it’s not appropriate to start legislating about AI in our particular bit of legislation”?

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I have sat through every stage of the Bill and not uttered a word. I have been absorbing the debate, and I am still puzzled as to why the Government are not willing to reach agreement with some of the wonderful statements being made.

I have two issues to reflect on. The first is that the creative arts have had a fantastic campaign, but it would be a mistake to think that this is only about the creative arts; it is to do with any property right where copyright is involved. The first to fall would probably be the creative arts, but anybody who is protected by copyright will be affected by AI in one way or another, unless you follow the wonderful wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The second point is one for the Government to reflect on. They need to remember the words of Francis Pym, the first Foreign Secretary in Mrs Thatcher’s Government. They had a very big majority, and he dared to suggest to the Iron Lady that big majorities never make for good government. Why? Because you can rely on even those who do not listen to the debate to turn up and vote for your side. You know what happened to Francis Pym? He lost his job. How much will the Labour Government reflect on the experience of Francis Pym?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I once again declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, and once again give the staunch support of these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion A1. She made an incontestable case once again with her clarion call.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others in saying that we are not in new territory. I have a treasured cartoon on my wall at home that relates to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill as long ago as 2001, showing Secretary of State Alan Milburn recoiling from ping-pong balls. Guess who was hurling the ping-pong balls? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, that notable revolutionary, and I were engaging in rounds of parliamentary ping-pong—three, I think. Eventually, compromises were reached and the Bill received Royal Assent in April 2001.

What we have done today and what we are going to do today as a House is not unprecedented. There is strong precedent for all Benches to work together on ping-pong to rather good effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, what we are proposing today will not, in the words of the Minister, “collapse” the Bill: it will be the Government’s choice what to do when the Bill goes back to the Commons. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I am afraid that he is wrong. It was not a manifesto commitment; there is no Salisbury convention that can be invoked on this occasion. It has nothing at all to do with data adequacy except that the Government feel that they have to get the Bill through in order to get the EU Commission to start its work. If anything, the Bill makes data adequacy more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that I agree with almost everything he said: everything he said was an argument for the noble Baroness’s amendment. Once again, as ever, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as I so often do on these occasions. I regard him as the voice of reason, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has to say.

Compromise is entirely within the gift of the Government. The Secretary of State should take a leaf out of Alan Milburn’s book. He did compromise on an important Bill in key areas and saw his Bill go through. I am afraid to say that the letter that Peers have received from the Minister is simply a repeat of her speech on Monday, which was echoed by Minister Bryant in the Commons yesterday. The Government have tabled these new amendments, which reflect the contents of that letter. Despite those amendments, however, the Government have not offered a concession to legislate for mandated transparency provisions within the Bill, which has been the core demand of the Lords amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the reasons set out in the speeches we have heard today.

In the view of these Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, other Members of this House, and countless creatives have made the absolutely convincing case for a transparency duty which would not prejudge the outcome of the AI and copyright consultation. We have heard the chilling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, about US policy in this area and about the attitude of the big tech companies towards copyright. We are at a vital crossroads in how we ensure the future of our creative industries. In the face of the development of AI and how it is being trained, we must take the right road, and I urge the Government to settle now.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, given where we are, I will speak very briefly, but I will make just two points. First, I think it is worth saying that the uncertainty surrounding where we are with AI and copyright is itself damaging, not just to the creative sector, not just to AI labs and big tech in general, but to all those who will themselves be impacted by the Bill’s many other provisions. Overall, I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this is an important Bill whose original conception did not even address AI and copyright. It carried very important and valuable provisions—as the Minister pointed out in her opening remarks—on digital verification services, smart data schemes, the national underground asset register and others. These can genuinely drive national productivity. Indeed, that is why my party proposed them when we were in government. It is, therefore, deeply frustrating that the Government have not yet found a way forward on this, and I am afraid that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The way the Government have gone about this has been reprehensible: I think that is the word I would use.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Secondly, the Secretary of State is very anxious to find a compromise and a way forward that protects the creative industries—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is very selectively quoting from what the Secretary of State had to say. The Secretary of State did change his position and acknowledged that existing copyright law is very certain. However, he went on to say that the law was not fit for purpose. That is an absolute giveaway in the circumstances. Whose agenda is he pursuing, in that case? Big tech’s?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.

Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, may I also trespass on your patience? I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, live on my royalties. The AI companies have—very irritatingly—bought only one of my 20 books; they paid about £3,000, and so, as you can imagine, I am very keen that they should buy the other 19.

It strikes me that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to organise a register system or licence system—it has only just happened in the United States, with regard to Amazon buying out New York Times back copies—whereby there is no threat or danger of republication but all that is happening is the information is mined by these companies. Such a system surely can and should happen.

The reason I am supporting the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is that at the very least it will embarrass future Secretaries of State when they have to come to the House and essentially admit they have undermined one of the great British inventions. For 300 years, the law of copyright has been helping and driving creativity in this country.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I offer the unequivocal and steadfast support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which introduces Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D.

It is absolutely clear that the noble Baroness’s speeches become better and more convincing the more we go on. Indeed, the arguments being made today for these amendments become better and more convincing as time goes on. I believe we should stand firm, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said.

Time and time again, we all have had to address the narrative stated in the consultation paper and repeated by Ministers suggesting there is uncertainty or a lack of clarity in existing UK copyright law regarding AI training. We have heard that the Secretary of State has just recently acknowledged that the existing copyright law is “very certain”, but as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, he has also stated that

“it is not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1234.]

That makes the narrative even worse than saying that copyright law is uncertain.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has rightly asserted, we do not need to change copyright law. It is the view of many that existing law is clear and applies to the commercial use of copyrighted works for AI training. The issue is not a deficient law but rather the ability to enforce it in the current AI landscape. As the noble Baroness has also profoundly put it—I have got a number of speeches to draw on, as you can see—what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. The core problem is a lack of transparency from AI developers: without knowing what copyrighted material has been used to train models and how it was accessed, creators and rights holders are unable to identify potential infringements and pursue appropriate licensing or legal action.

In striking down previous Lords amendments, the Government have suggested that this House was at fault for using the wrong Bill. They have repeatedly claimed that it is too soon for transparency and too late to prevent stealing, and they have asserted that accepting the Lords transparency amendment would prioritise one sector over another. But that is exactly what the Government are doing. They have suggested an expert working group, an economic impact assessment, a report on the use of copyright, and then, I think, a report on progress in what the noble Baroness the Minister had to say. But, as many noble Lords have said today, none of that gives us the legislative assurance —the certainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, put it—that we need in these circumstances.

The Government have objected to being asked to introduce regulations because of financial privilege, and now, it seems—I can anticipate what the noble Baroness the Minister is going to say—are objecting to the requirement to bring forward a draft Bill with this amendment. But the Government are perfectly at liberty to bring forward their own amendment allowing for transparency via regulations, a much more expeditious and effective route that the House has already overwhelmingly supported. Transparency is the necessary foundation for a functioning licensing market, promotes trust between the AI sector and the creative industries, and allows creators to be fairly compensated when their work contributes value to AI models.

The Government have asked for a degree of trust for their plans. This amendment, while perhaps less than creators deserve—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described it as the bare minimum—is a step that would help earn that trust. It is this Government who can do that, and I urge them to heed the words of their own Back-Benchers: the noble Lords, Lord Cashman, Lord Rooker and Lord Brennan, all asked the Government to find a compromise.

I urge all noble Lords, in the face of a lack of compromise by the Government, to support Motion A1.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the third round of ping-pong, as many noble Lords have observed, I will speak very briefly. If the noble Baroness the Minister has not by now understood how strongly noble Lords on all sides of the House feel about this issue, it may be too late anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has made an increasingly powerful case for the Government to act in defence of the rights of copyright owners, and we continue to call on the Government to listen. We have of course discussed this at great length. The noble Baroness has tabled a new Motion which would require Ministers to make a Statement and bring forward a draft Bill. Given that the Minister has expressed her sympathy for the concerns of your Lordships’ House previously, surely this new Motion would be acceptable to the Government as a pathway toward resolving the problem, and we again urge the Government to accept it.

However, whatever choice the Government make—I do not think anyone could claim that any part of this is an easy problem, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey pointed out—many of us are frustrated by the absence of agility, boldness and imagination in their approach. That said, speaking at least from the Front Bench of a responsible Opposition, we take the view that we cannot engage further in protracted ping-pong. We are a revising Chamber, and, although it is right to ask the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong, we feel we must ultimately respect the will of the elected Chamber.

Ofcom: Protection of Children Codes

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Viscount has raised an important issue. Ofcom has recognised that live-streaming can pose specific risks to children and will consult on proposals to reduce these risks, alongside a number of other measures. It will publish this consultation before the Summer Recess. The Act and Ofcom’s codes are clear: services are required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children encountering primary priority content, including pornography. That will extend to live-streaming services that allow pornography.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my ombudsman interest as set out in the register. The SLSC questioned, quite rightly, how practical it is for children to complain about harmful content and noted that it was unclear what further action children could take if a complaint was rejected by a service provider. How will Ofcom and the Government ensure that complaint mechanisms are truly practical, accessible and designed with a children-first approach? What independent recourse will children have if their complaints about harmful content are rejected by service providers?

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement and for defining what genuine scientific research is. I hope very much that the AI companies, when using this extraordinary exemption, will listen to the Government, and that the Government will ensure that the policy is enforced. The trust of the people of this country would be lost if they felt that their data was being reused by AI companies simply for product enrichment and profit, rather than for genuine scientific research. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their parties’ support.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction to the three Motions in this group.

On these Benches, we welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. However, as Ministers have stressed—and we agree—it is paramount that we work through the implications of this judgment carefully and sensitively. As we have previously discussed, the EHRC is currently updating its statutory guidance.

Ministers have previously given assurances that they are engaged in appropriate and balanced work on data standards and data accuracy, and we accept those assurances. They have given a further assurance today about how the digital verification services framework will operate. We rely on those ministerial assurances. In summary, we believe that the previously proposed amendments were premature in the light of the EHRC guidance and that they risk undermining existing data standards work. On that basis, we support the Minister in her Motions A and D.

Turning to Motion B, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will not press his Amendment 43B at this stage, as he intends to accept the assurances given by Ministers. We have consistently supported the noble Viscount’s efforts to ensure that scientific research benefiting from the Bill’s provisions for data reuse is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks. The Government have given significant assurances in this area. We understand that their position is that the Bill does not alter the existing legal definition or threshold for what constitutes scientific research under UK GDPR. The Bill does not grant any new or expanded permissions for the reuse of data for scientific research purposes, and, specifically, it does not provide blanket approval for using personal data for training AI models under the guise of scientific research. The use of personal data for scientific research remains subject to the comprehensive safeguards of UK GDPR, including the requirement for a lawful basis, the adherence to data protection principles and the application of the reasonableness test, which requires an objective assessment.

The collection of assurances given during several stages of the Bill provides reassurance against the risk that commercial activities, such as training AI models purely for private gain, could improperly benefit from exemptions intended for genuine scientific research serving the public good. I very much hope that the Minister can reaffirm these specific points and repeat those assurances.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are progressing workstreams focused on the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets in a holistic and measured manner, as I have described in previous debates. We welcome the Supreme Court ruling, and are now working hard to consider those findings and the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator, which will help.

I reiterate that the trust framework requires DVS providers to comply with data protection legislation, including the data accuracy principle, where they use and share personal data. That includes the creation of reusable digital identities, as well as one-off checks. If they fail to comply with these requirements, they could lose their certification. This means that the sex information listed on a passport—which, as we all know, could be a combination of biological sex, legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and gender identity—cannot be used to verify biological sex.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked whether a person can have different genders appearing on different documents. Yes, you could have both genders appearing on different documents, but they could not be used to prove biological sex.

I should say to noble Lords that there is a requirement for all this information to be recreated, reused and rechecked each time. In response to noble Lords who asked about historic data, the data will be renewed and checked under the new information that is now available.

In the majority of cases where DVS are used, there will not be a need to verify biological sex, as we have noted before, because many DVS requirements do not ask that question. Data sharing under the power created in Clause 45 will involve new processing of data, which must be in compliance with the data accuracy principle: that is, it must be accurate for the purpose for which the information will be used. Of particular relevance, given that public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes, is the fact that data accuracy principles require that the personal data must not be misleading.

With regard to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about supplementary codes of practice, I can confirm that the trust framework already includes requirements on data accuracy for DVS providers. That framework will, of course, be updated from time to time.

On scientific research, let me repeat my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for his contribution on this issue. I am glad that he was reassured by my remarks that we have been able to come to an agreeable resolution. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Lord Clement-Jones, that there has to be an ethical basis to those standards, and that point is absolutely well made.

On that basis, I hope I have reassured noble Lords. I commend the Motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society.

I express the extremely strong support of all on these Benches for Motion C1, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I agree with every speech that we have heard so far in today’s debate—I did not hear a single dissenting voice to the noble Baroness’s Motion. Once again, I pay tribute to her; she has fought a tireless campaign for the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of the Bill.

I will be extremely brief, given that we want to move to a vote as soon as possible. The House has already sent a clear message by supporting previous amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, and I hope that the House will be as decisive today. As we have heard this afternoon, transparency is crucial. This would enable the dynamic licensing market that is needed, as we have also heard. How AI is developed and who it benefits are two of the most important questions of our time—and the Government must get the answer right. As so many noble Lords have said, the Government must listen and must think again.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, it is probably redundant to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her tenacity and determination to get to a workable solution on this, because it speaks for itself. It has been equally compelling to hear such strong arguments from all sides of the House and all Benches—including the Government Benches—that we need to find a solution to this complex but critical issue.

Noble Lords will recall that, on these Benches, we have consistently argued for a pragmatic, technology-based solution to this complex problem, having made the case for digital watermarking both in Committee and on Report. When we considered the Commons amendments last week, we worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to find a wording for her amendment which we could support, and were pleased to be able to do so and to vote with her.

It is important that the Government listen and take action to protect the rights of creatives in the UK. We will not stop making the case for our flourishing and important creative sector. We have put that case to Ministers, both in your Lordships’ House and at meetings throughout the passage of the Bill. As a responsible Opposition, though, it is our view that we must be careful about our approach to amendments made by the elected House. We have, I hope, made a clear case to the Government here in your Lordships’ House and the Government have, I deeply regret to say, intransigently refused to act. I am afraid that they will regret their failure to take this opportunity to protect our creative industries. Sadly, there comes a point where we have to accept that His Majesty’s Government must be carried on and the Government will get their Bill.

Before concluding, I make two final pleas to the Minister. First, as others have asked, can she listen with great care to the many artists, musicians, news organisations, publishers and performers who have called on the Government to help them more to protect their intellectual property?

Secondly, can she find ways to create regulatory clarity faster? The process that the Government envisage to resolve this issue is long—too long. Actors on all sides of the debate will be challenged by such a long period of uncertainty. I understand that the Minister is working at pace to find a solution, but not necessarily with agility. I echo the brilliant point made by my noble friend Lady Harding that agility and delivering parts of the solution are so important to pick up the pace of this, because perfect is the enemy of good in this instance. When she gets up to speak, I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the timeline that she envisages, particularly for the collaboration of DSIT and DCMS.

This is a serious problem. It continues to grow and is not going away. Ministers must grip it with urgency and agility.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, I am authorised to speak on Motion 43A, 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 my working life doing scientific research in the UK—the last 20 years working with very sensitive patient data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in collaboration with medtech, AI and pharmaceutical companies.

This research has required me to become familiar with many three-letter and four-letter acronyms. Noble Lords will know about DBS, but they might not know about RSO, TRO, HRA, LREC, MREC, CAG, and IRAS, to name just a few. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical colleagues to fill in integrated research application system—IRAS—forms. IRAS is used to apply for Health Research Authority—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, or MRECs, which test whether a research protocol is scientifically valid and ethical, but local research ethics committees, or LRECs, which consider the suitability of individual researchers and local issues.

I was involved in a research project which reused data acquired from patients on a Covid isolation ward during the first two waves of the pandemic. That research project sought to understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical-grade wearables 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—CAG—which provides independent expert advice on the use of confidential patient information without consent for research and non-research purposes. CAG already considers whether accessing the confidential data is justified by the public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to decide whether to grant access to the confidential data.

The existing provisions in this country to allow access to data for research purposes are stringent, 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. The relevant safeguards already exist in the current legislation. Adding a further public interest test will only increase the amount of bureaucracy that will inevitably be introduced by the research services offices, or RSOs, and the translational research offices, or TROs, of our universities, which are very good at doing this.

The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves, and some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment, I am afraid, will have the unintended consequence of having a negative impact on research in this country, so I cannot support it.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this group of amendments, but I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Viscounts for introducing their amendments so clearly.

I acknowledge that Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are considerably less prescriptive than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons to introduce new Clause 21, which seemed to require public authorities to comb through every record to rectify data, went significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, and potentially failed to account for the privacy afforded to GRC holders under the Gender Recognition Act. However, the Liberal Democrats will abstain from votes on the noble Viscount’s amendments for several key reasons.

Our primary reason is the need to allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised. I thought the Minister made his case there. The EHRC is currently updating its code of practice, as we have heard, to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act, with the aim of providing it to the Government by the end of June. This guidance, as I understand it, is intended specifically to support service providers, public bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in the light of the judgment. The EHRC is 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 on, second-guess or at the least pre-empt the EHRC’s code of practice.

On these Benches, we believe that any necessary 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 that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards are informed by its advice and implemented consistently across public authorities in a coherent and workable manner. We have concerns about workability and clarity. Although the amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are less prescriptive than previous similar proposals in the Commons tabled by Dr Spencer, we have concerns about their practical implementation. Questions arise about how public authorities would reliably ascertain biological sex if someone 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 judgment. We heard what the Minister had to say about passports.

I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment, but there are clearly implications, both practical and legal, to be worked out, such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I thought he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the right result. I agree that data needs to be accurate, and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend. 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 move on to Amendment 43B, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This amendment may not reinstate the precise wording

“conducted in the public interest”

that we previously inserted in this House, but it would introduce safeguards that seek to address the same fundamental concerns articulated during our debate on Report. 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”.

This directly addresses the concerns raised on Report that the line between product development and scientific research is often blurred, with developers sometimes positing efforts to increase model capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish genuine research from purely commercial activity cloaked as such.

Secondly, and critically, Amendment 43B would require:

“To meet the reasonableness test”


already present in the Bill,

“the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards”.

This requirement seeks to embed within the reasonableness test the principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement on Report and is the same as the amendment put forward by the chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, Chi Onwurah MP, which ties the definition to the definition in the OECD’s Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development:

“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 statistics, inform science policy and underpin R&D tax credit regimes, and it serves as a common language and reference point for international comparisons and policy decisions related to scientific research and innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the very purposes we previously identified for the public interest test: ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends, addressing harmful applications, and alignment with standards.

Amendment 43B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is a thoughtful and necessary counter-proposal. It is Parliament’s opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust and responsible conduct, rooted in established frameworks, must remain central to the definition of scientific research that benefits from data re-use exceptions.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, had to say in his very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, cuts across all the things that he wants to see in the outcomes of research.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, I simply ask him this question: does he recall the situation only some 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation, when there were overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both Houses of Parliament on two occasions, and when, finally, a Private Member’s Bill was brought, which would have abolished IVF in this country? Had that happened, of course, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have made a colossal difference not only to our knowledge of embryo growth, but our knowledge of development, ageing, the development of cancer and a whole range of things that we never expected from human embryology. I beg the noble Lord to consider that.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I have had a misspent not-so-youth over the past 50 years. As a lawyer, when I read the wording in the amendment, I cannot see the outcome that he is suggesting. This wording does not cut across anything that he has had to say. I genuinely believe that. I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat, but I do not believe this wording is such a threat.

I also understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, had to say, but an awful lot of that was about the frustration and some of the controls over health data. That does not apply in many other areas of scientific research. The Frascati formula is universal and well accepted. The noble Viscount made an extremely good case; we should be supporting him.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C, and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C. I reiterate that this Government have been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex for equalities legislation. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says, it is critically important that the Government work through the effect of this ruling with care, sensitivity and in line with the law.

When it comes to public sector data, we must work through the impacts of this judgment properly. This would involve considering the scope of the judgment and the upcoming EHRC guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has indicated that it will be updating its statutory code of practice for services, public functions and associations in light of this ruling, which will include some of the examples raised this afternoon, including by my noble friend Lady Hayter.

Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has submitted its updated draft. It is right that the Government and, indeed, Parliament fully consider this guidance alongside the judgment itself before amending the way that public authorities collect, hold and otherwise process data—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the EHRC ruling.

I set out in my opening speech that this Government take the issue of data accuracy seriously. That is why, as I outlined, there are numerous existing work streams addressing the way in which sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed across the public sector.

The digital verification services amendments that we have discussed today are misplaced, because the Bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content of data used by digital verification services. Instead, the Bill enables people to do digitally what they can do physically. It is for organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their circumstances, and how they go about doing that. Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically would cause further confusion.

While this Government understand the intention behind the amendments, the concerns regarding the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance from 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 specifically raised by or with many noble Lords. We expect DVS to be used primarily to prove things like one’s right to work or one’s age, address or professional educational qualifications.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by, in effect, indiscriminately and indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. I raise the example that has been brought up several times, and again 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.

We acknowledge, however, that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including those of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, regarding information being shared under Clause 45 but without presenting issues that could cut across existing or prospective legislation and guidance. I remind the House that the data accuracy principle is already included in law. The principle requires that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used. Again, there are workstreams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and indeed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked 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 was accurate for 15 years because there was a muddle about what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex, but that is the case now. In response to the question of whether you could end up with two different sources of digital verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion 49A from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will also address claims that we have heard repeatedly in these debates: that transparency for AI data is technically unfeasible. This claim, forcefully pushed by technology giants such as Google, is not only unsupported by evidence but deliberately misleading.

As someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts, and as a member of DACS—the Design and Artists Copyright Society—I have witnessed first-hand how creators’ works are being exploited without consent or compensation. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, in both his email to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs to the Secretary of State. Although I deeply respect their expertise and commitment to innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion-dollar tech corporations.

The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible have been thoroughly debunked. The LAION 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 that transparency at scale is not only possible but already practised when it suits corporate interests.

Let us be clear about what is happening: AI companies are systematically ingesting billions of copyrighted works without permission or payment, then claiming it would be too difficult to tell creators which works have been taken. This is theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as inevitable technological progress.

The claim from the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups while sparing US technology giants is entirely backwards. Transparency would actually level the playing field by benefiting innovative British companies while preventing larger firms exploiting creative works without permission. I must respectfully suggest that concerns about potential harm 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 is not about choosing between technology and creativity; it is about ensuring that both sectors can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. Transparency is not an obstacle to innovation; it is the foundation on which responsible, sustainable innovation is built.

Google’s preferred approach would reverse the fundamental basis of UK copyright law by placing an unreasonable burden on rights holders to opt out of having their work stolen. This approach is unworkable and would, effectively, legalise 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, Motion 49A offers a practical step forward that would benefit both sectors while upholding existing law. I urge the House to support it.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, really has opened the floodgates to expressions of support for human creativity. I thank her for tabling her Motion. 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 Artificial Intelligence and I have been a member of the All-Party Group on Intellectual Property for many years. That is reflected in my interests, both as an advisor to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation, and as the newly appointed chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I declare those interests, which are more than merely formal.

The subject matter of the amendments in this group is of profound importance for the future of our creative industries and the development of AI in the UK: the critical intersection of AI training and copyright law, and, specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described, the rapid development of AI, particularly large language models, relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training. This has brought into sharp focus the way copyright law applies to such activity. It was impossible to miss the letter over the weekend from 400 really important creatives, and media and creative business leaders urging support for her Motion 49A. Rights holders, from musicians and authors to journalists and visual artists, are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material to train AI models, often without permission or remuneration, as we have heard. They seek greater control over their content and remuneration when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater transparency.

Like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of this Bill in her tabling of a series of crucial amendments. Her original amendments on Report, passed in this House but deleted by the Government in the Commons and then retabled in the Commons on Report by my honourable friends, aimed to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of generative AI. The core argument behind Amendment 49B, which encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, is that 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, and one these Benches strongly support, is the requirement for transparency from AI developers regarding the copyrighted material used in their training data. Her Amendment 49B specifically requires the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out strict transparency requirements for web crawlers and general-purpose AI models. This would include disclosing the identity and purpose of the crawlers used, identifying their owners and, crucially, keeping records of where and when 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 process in the consultation on AI and copyright, published last December. That consultation proposed a text and data mining exception that would allow AI developers to train on material unless the rights holder expressly reserved their rights or opted out. The arguments against this proposed opt-out mechanism are compelling; they have been made by many noble Lords today and have been voiced by many outside, as we have heard. This mechanism shifts the burden on to creators to police the use of their work and actively opt out, placing an undue responsibility on them.

This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively rewarding the widespread harvesting or scraping of copyrighted material that has occurred without permission or fair remuneration. The Government’s proposed text and data-mining exception, which it appears that they are no longer proposing—as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify the Government’s position and confirm that that is indeed the case—risks harming creative sectors for minimal gain to a small group of global tech companies and could erode public trust in the AI sector. As the noble Baroness observed, this approach is selling the creative industries down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency proposed by the Government are insufficient. Clear legal obligations are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said everything I was going to say and more and better, so I want just to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, and to say that I too have witnessed her forensic fight over the last few months. I hugely admire her for it, and I congratulate her on getting this far. I absolutely share all the concerns that both noble Baronesses have expressed. Just in case I do not have the opportunity again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extraordinary work and campaigning.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of non-consensual images, first with her Private Member’s Bill and then with amendments to this Bill. She has fought it with huge skill and determination, and, rightly, she has pushed it to the wire in wanting the most robust offence and tightest defences possible. I 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 represent a compromise, given the strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General that the defence of “reasonable excuse” is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR and that, therefore, the whole Bill risks being non-compliant if that is not contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal brick wall, despite an excellent opinion from Professor Clare 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 red team their models on images used without consent. That is a rather peculiar basis. Why cannot the big tech companies use images with consent? They would then be red teaming in a rather different and more compliant way.