Employment Rights Bill

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Freyberg]

167: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: freelancers, self-employed persons and sole traders(1) Within nine months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out—(a) fixed definitions of the following categories of workers—(i) freelancers,(ii) self-employed persons, and(iii) sole traders,(b) an assessment of how the categories of worker in subsection (1)(a) may be impacted differently by the provisions of this Act, and(c) recommendations to ensure fair and equitable treatment of workers across the categories in subsection (1)(a).(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to clarify how the Government defines freelancers, self-employed persons and sole traders, and to understand how this Bill may affect those categories of worker.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 167 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, whose support I am extremely grateful for. I will also speak to Amendments 177 and 178. Many of my points are likely to coincide with those to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, on his Amendment 184A. However, his amendment takes a much broader view of the employment landscape than I do. I look forward to hearing his speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who will revisit the definition of the independent contractor.

Amendment 167 is a probing amendment that draws attention to the lack of consistent and widely accepted definitions of “freelancers”, “self-employed persons” and “sole traders”. These terms are often used interchangeably but carry distinct legal and practical implications.

A helpful approach would be for the Government to adopt a three-tier taxonomy, defining “freelancer” as a person who provides services on a project or contract basis, often to multiple clients, without being an employee. Amendment 161 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, serves as an effective model for this, notwithstanding the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. The annexe in the draft terms of reference for the freelance champion, which I have seen, like the noble Earl, has also attempted to define a freelancer, which is a useful first step but by no means definitive.

A self-employed person is someone who runs their own business and is responsible for its success or failure, typically registering with HMRC for tax purposes. According to July’s House of Commons UK Labour Market Statistics report, self-employed people make up approximately 13.5% of the labour market, which currently has 4.43 million self-employed individuals.

A sole trader is a specific legal and tax classification in which an individual runs a business in their own name without forming a limited company. Although all sole traders are self-employed, not all self-employed persons are sole traders, and some may operate through partnerships or limited companies. Freelancers may span both categories, depending on their business structure.

The amendment also asks for

“an assessment of how the categories … may be impacted differently by the provisions of this Act”.

This provides an opportunity to examine disparities in access to employment protections, financial services, taxation and eligibility for public support. For instance, while a sole trader may more easily access certain types of finance or insurance, freelancers working intermittently across sectors often face barriers in securing mortgages, pensions, sick pay and other forms of welfare.

A government report could use illustrative case studies to clarify the lived experience of these categories—for example, contrasting the experience of a freelance illustrator, a self-employed plumber and a sole trader café owner. To ensure fair and equitable treatment across these groups, the Government may wish to explore options for harmonising entitlements and protections where possible. This might include developing portable benefits for freelancers, expanding access to contributory social protections or encouraging the adoption of freelance codes of good practice. The Creative Industries Council’s freelance toolkit is one model that could be promoted across sectors.

Amendments 177 and 179 raise closely related concerns regarding the visibility and classification of workers in the visual arts and craft sectors. These sectors often involve individuals working across multiple roles, such as creators, educators, curators and consultants, and frequently combine freelance and part-time employment in complex ways. Employment and legal status in these fields is therefore especially difficult to define clearly, which can leave individuals underprotected or misrepresented in government data and support schemes.

The Government could respond by convening a time-limited working group with representatives from relevant sector bodies, such as the Artists Information Company, the Crafts Council, Heritage Crafts, CVAN, DACS, the Cultural Policy Unit and Creative UK, to develop practical guidance on employment classification in the arts and crafts sectors. This could be an initial task for the creative freelance champion to prioritise early in their role.

Both amendments also highlight the significant limitations in how current standard industrial classification, SIC, and standard occupational classification, SOC, codes capture creative labour. For example, SIC code 9003 for “artistic creation” groups together visual artists, authors, composers and digital designers, obscuring the distinct needs and contributions of each group. SOC codes similarly fail to disaggregate fine artists, applied artists and craftspeople.

I understand that government departments may use a threshold of approximately 4,000 practitioners as a cut-off point for counting people working in various sectors—if the Minister could clarify this, it would be most helpful—as this approach would exclude virtually all heritage craft makers from official statistics. The Red List of Endangered Crafts includes 285 crafts, but not all of them are covered by the current SIC and SOC codes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish I had also brought my white hanky to the debate, but sadly I do not have that cop-out. This been a short but focused and interesting debate. I will begin with Amendments 177 and 179, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. The Government are well aware of the importance of accurate occupational categorisation, especially for those in culturally important occupations, and the noble Lord and I have separately discussed this issue and the complexities around it.

More specifically, we understand that some stakeholders feel the four-digit standard occupational classification—SOC—system is not detailed enough for their needs. To address this, in 2023 the ONS published an extended six-digit system that includes more accurate categories for groups like those mentioned by the noble Lord in his amendments. In addition to this, the ONS is now beginning work on the next update to the SOC system, which will be published in 2030.

I am afraid that I do not have some of the details on disaggregation, the levels of qualifications and so on that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, asked about, but I will undertake to write to him with more details. However, I would be very happy to facilitate contact between the noble Lord and the ONS team that is responsible for this work. He has demonstrated great interest and no little expertise in this subject area, and I am sure that they would appreciate his views and detailed analysis on the system, how it could be improved and how it could better reflect the complex ecosystem of craftspeople and other creative workers.

I turn to Amendment 167, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, as well as Amendments 183 and 184A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moynihan, respectively. I hope that the noble Lords are reassured from the debate on the previous group that the Government take the commitment to tackling pressing issues with the existing employment status framework very seriously—and from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think that is the case.

As the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, said, consultation in the fullest sense is imperative on this issue. It will allow us to receive and consider the widest range of views and engage fully with relevant stakeholders, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in his amendment. Consulting on employment status was a commitment in the plan to make work pay, and as my noble friend Lady Jones outlined to your Lordships’ House in the debate on the previous group, today we are confirming that we will publish a consultation on this by the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we will risk undermining the value of this work if we introduce new definitions without prior consultation.

The noble Lord also mentioned requiring an impact assessment of any legislative proposals brought forward as a result of this consultation. I can reassure your Lordships’ House that, in keeping with our better regulation requirements, we will produce impact assessments alongside any such legislation.

I hope this assures noble Lords that the Government are committed to consulting on employment status and are doing so with the care, focus and full engagement that this important issue requires. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to withdraw Amendment 167.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. In particular, I welcome the announcement of the employment status consultation, which will be very helpful in looking at this matter in the round. I also am very grateful to the Minister for his offer to put me in touch with the ONS; I would be delighted to accept that and take it up at a later point. Given the lateness of the hour, I will not comment further. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 167 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am aware that many of the amendments in this group have a rather different focus from the points I wish to make. I acknowledge the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Clement Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I believe they provide a valuable opportunity to reflect on the particular nature of working in tech and AI. This is, as has already been alluded to, a sector that makes a significant and growing contribution to the UK economy, and it is rightly seen as one of the priority strands of the Government’s modern industrial strategy.

As the rather scary AI 2027 forecast by Daniel Kokotajlo and other makes clear, developments in this space are accelerating incredibly rapidly and are already reshaping how we live and work. Even as I say that, I wonder whether I may have triggered an algorithmic alert somewhere—let us hope that parliamentary privilege covers some of it. AI is happening, regardless of how we feel about it, and the opportunity it provides makes it all the more important that firms are based and regulated here rather than elsewhere.

Jobs in this area tend to be highly skilled and well paid, but that does not mean workers do not need some protections. In many cases, the things that matter most are not issues such as minimum wage and paid leave but how easily people can move between companies, start their own ventures and work across several fast-growing enterprises. Here, it is non-compete agreements which pose a particular challenge. Understandable concerns over safeguarding intellectual property have led some firms to restrict employee movement, yet this comes at a cost to innovation, competition and the free flow of ideas that underpin these industries. I know the last Government carried out a review of these clauses in general terms, but no meaningful reform followed. Does the department have a view on how widespread these clauses now are, particularly in fast-moving and competitive sectors? Has any formal assessment been made of their impact on innovation, start-up activity, and people’s ability to move freely and fairly between roles?

I fully appreciate that this Bill is focused on establishing baseline rights for all workers rather than addressing sector-specific concerns. However, I hope the Minister can say something about how these challenges are being considered as part of the Government’s wider thinking on the future of work and on how we ensure that the UK remains a good place to innovate, as well as a fair place to work.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the timely and vital amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerning the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. These amendments, which cover transparency, accountability, consent, fairness and the protection of workers’ rights, speak to one of the central challenges of our time: how we align the rapid deployment of AI with the rights, dignity and agency of working people.

Just 11 days ago, a few of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had the privilege of attending the round table on aligning AI for human flourishing, hosted here in the House of Lords by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and convened by Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics in AI and the Accelerator Fellowship Programme. It was led by Professor Yuval Shany and brought together leading international voices, including Professor Alondra Nelson, who designed the US Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, later embedded in President Biden’s executive order on AI.

That discussion made one thing clear: we are at a crossroads. As Professor Nelson put it at a recent AI action summit in Paris:

“We can create systems that expand opportunity rather than consolidate power for the few”.


If we are serious about that aspiration, we need laws that embed it in practice. I hope we will soon see legislation introduced in this House—an AI Bill of Rights rooted in the UK context—that reflects our democratic values, legal traditions and the lived realities of British workers. That will require leadership from the Government and support across parties, and I believe this House is well placed to lead the way.

That is precisely what the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to do. Amendment 168 outlines the core principles employers must uphold when using AI on workers: safety, fairness, transparency, governance, inclusion and the right to redress. These are the bedrock of responsible innovation. Amendment 169 proposes the appointment of designated AI officers within organisations, ensuring that someone is directly accountable for the ethical and unbiased use of these powerful technologies.

Amendments 171 and 172 tackle perhaps the most urgent concern: consent. No worker’s data should be ingested by AI systems—or decisions made about their employment by algorithm—without their meaningful, informed opt-in. We are not speaking in abstractions; AI is already determining who is shortlisted, scheduled, surveilled or sidelined. These systems often operate in secret and carry forward the biases of the data they are trained on. If we do not act now, we risk embedding discrimination in digital form.

This is not the first time that this House has stood up for fairness in AI. On 12 May, and in subsequent ping-pongs on the data Bill, many of us voted in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness,sb Lady Kidron, which called for transparency over copyright and AI. That debate too was about rights—to control one’s work, one’s data and one’s identity. The same principle is at stake here. If the UK is to lead on AI, we must lead not just in capability but in ethics. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are not radical but responsible; they bring our values into alignment with our technologies. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support them, even though it is highly unlikely that they will be accepted.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

From these Benches, all I can say is that I echo those words. I hope that the Government have listened to the arguments about AI and will respond positively.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

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

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it is approximately 25 years since I joined this House, so perhaps I have been here too long, but I do not recall any occasion when ping-pong has been done in the dinner-break hour. I sympathise with the complaint that the Government Chief Whip made about the amount of precious parliamentary time that has been spent on ping-pong; I do not know how long it has been exactly, but it must be more than eight hours.

Anyone listening to any of the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, could not fail to be impressed by her arguments. It is extraordinary that the House of Commons has been so tone-deaf and tin-eared to those arguments. That is why we have spent so long on this and why we are here now. I am conscious that my Chief Whip is in her place and, understandably, we are whipped on the issue of principle that we do not challenge the House of Commons over and again. However, I argue that that depends on the other place actually showing respect for this place and the arguments put here. It has not done so.

I feel sorry for the Minister—she is unable to do anything because of the view that has been taken in the other place—but, frankly, to keep coming back, saying the same thing over again and expecting things to change is an act of political madness. I do not understand the politics of this. The Government are alienating some of their traditional key supporters.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has come forward with an ingenious amendment to continue the process. I suspect that many of my colleagues are thinking, “Do we really want to extend this?” I am sorry that more noble Lords were not present to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is devastating in its impact, and what the Government are doing is devastating because of the implications. The noble Lord said that he was delighted that there were now musicians in the Government. Well, we must have a few pipers, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fact that, as the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister entertained at Chequers over the weekend the people who want to put their hands in the pockets of our most creative and productive people, without any opportunity to make recompense, is pretty extraordinary.

I say to the Government Chief Whip that we have reached this position because of the Government’s recalcitrance and the foolish way this has been handled. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords in saying that even a modest concession would have prevented us getting into this continuing ping-pong position. It just will not do. To put it in the dinner hour—many people might think that the dinner break is limited to an hour but we can go on for as long as we like, although I think we might upset a number of our colleagues if we did so—is just not right. I suspect that the Government Chief Whip might say, “Oh, well, I thought there weren’t going to be any more amendments”. I say in response: I thought that at the very least, after such substantial defeats, there would be some give.

There is a big principle here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, touched on at the end of her speech. Today it is the creative industries, but what will they come for next? They will come for our health data. Where will they be on the protections for our children, for which we fought so hard and on which the noble Baroness played such a leading role? Will we really go all the way with these big crony capitalists—that is what we are seeing now in the United States—at the expense of some of our most precious industries and values?

That is why, if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, presses this matter to a vote, I will go through the Lobby in support of his Motion, feeling that I should not have been driven to that position by a Government who show no proper respect to this House or its arguments. It is not enough for them to have a majority and to do anything they like; that is the road that the previous Viscount Hailsham described as leading to elective dictatorship in a democracy. The elective dictatorship is looking to those who have substantial financial means instead of the interests of the people of our country.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

I support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS.

It is no secret that Governments have built AI policy around the views of those with the deepest vested interests: companies whose business models rely on opacity. The noble Lord’s amendment is modest, but it is a line in the sand. If we want a fair digital economy, we must start by listening not only to shareholders and Silicon Valley lobbyists but to creators, researchers and small businesses. Transparency is not a threat to innovation; it is the precondition for accountability.

I will explain the reasons behind that. First, this amendment aligns perfectly with established IP disclosure requirements. Under Regulation 16 of the collective rights management regulations, copyright users must already provide information to collecting societies about works used. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would simply extend this proven principle to AI companies to ensure they disclose what copyright works they use in training. This would create consistency across our IP regime, rather than carve out special exemptions for big tech.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already said, the amendment involves no financial burden on the Government.

Finally, disclosures benefit everyone, including AI companies themselves. When both rights holders and AI developers can see what works have been used, they can properly assess whether legitimate exceptions exist under copyright laws and whether they apply. This legal clarity reduces litigation risks and encourages proper licensing arrangements. I hope that the House will support this amendment.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, like many others, I am extremely sad to see that we have reached this stage. Sadly, I was unable to attend the other stages of ping-pong, so I feel that I need to add my support to the extraordinary work that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has done on the Bill. She has achieved something that, certainly in my short 10 years here, is very rare: real unanimity across all sides of this House that we are engaged in doing something that is very wrong.

I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I too will support him if he chooses to divide the House.

I offer noble Lords one small crumb of comfort. We are united, across all sides of this House, in saying that we need to sort this out. We keep being told that AI will change everything, which, I am afraid, means that we will discuss this during debates on every Bill. There will be an opportunity to do that, and we will prevail in the end. This House has faced these dilemmas with technology transformation before, and I am determined that I will not, in my lifetime, participate in the protection of an industry in the name of economic growth, when what we are actually doing is destroying society and people’s lives.

It is very sad that it took 100 years for seat belts to become mandatory in the back seats of cars after the seat belt was invented. I feel confident that after the passage of the Bill, it will not take that long for us to protect the precious copyright of the British creative industries. We will keep fighting even if we lose.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg, and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Cashman, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and for the discussions I have had with them and other colleagues in the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, who I see her in her place, and with relevant industry representatives. I am also grateful for the meeting that my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I had with the Minister and her team on not just this but other areas of the creative industries in relation to the Bill.

This debate has been prompted by the ongoing dispute between Equity and the casting directory resource Spotlight around the levels of charging that Spotlight makes for the inclusion of performers in its now online directory. I declare an interest as my daughter is at drama school and signed up with Spotlight. Equity believes that Spotlight charges too much for this service and is bound by both the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Equity believes that, at the very least, Spotlight should not be charging more than it costs to maintain the directory. This dispute has resulted in a class action brought last year by Equity against Spotlight, and a High Court hearing is scheduled for next month.

I will not say anything about how the court case should or will pan out, and I am sure that the Minister will be equally as careful in her response in that respect. What I can say is that things very much came to a head in 2023, when Spotlight tried to launch its so-called “premiere service” at a time when we had only just emerged from Covid. This was widely criticised within the industry as invoking a two-tier membership which would only benefit the more privileged. To its credit, Spotlight paused this service, but there is no doubt that some damage had been done in terms of trust.

Equity says that the charges that Spotlight makes are their members’ number one concern and that, further, Spotlight is exploiting its monopoly position. However, there is a strong argument for a single, recognisable go-to platform for professional actors and other performers. This is a really important point, otherwise it could cost actors a lot more if it becomes necessary to sign up to more than one platform. This is a role that Spotlight has fulfilled for almost 100 years and continues to fulfil. I should say that, as far as I can ascertain, there is no substantial criticism of the service that Spotlight or indeed other platforms provide; this is a dispute about costs.

One potential outcome of the court case is that performers will not have to pay anything at all for inclusion in such directories. However, this raises very problematic concerns about how those moneys are made up for if that should be the case, as well as there being potentially wider implications beyond the entertainment industry.

I ask two things of the Minister. The first is very simple and modest: that the Government keep a watching brief on this. We may well return to this after the court case, and I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Freyberg to provide particular arguments about why we should have the review that the amendment itself asks for.

Secondly, and the reason for raising this issue at the present time, is that as I have tried to show, this dispute has not come out of the blue. I therefore ask the Government whether they believe that a legally enabled mechanism might have been useful in this instance and potential future instances in order to resolve such disputes and avoid court proceedings, which is always a nuclear option. In that respect, I listened with great interest to the previous debate on the group led by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and wonder whether the Minister has a response to that. I beg to move.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 204C. I thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for tabling the amendment and I am grateful for the constructive discussion that he, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and I had with colleagues, industry representatives and the Minister and her team. Like my noble friend, I do not intend to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings between Equity and Spotlight; that is rightly a matter for the courts. However, I believe that the situation that has prompted this amendment highlights an underlying tension that is worthy of review: whether the existing employment law and regulatory framework remain fit for purpose in today’s digital casting environment.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

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

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I join with others in supporting the noble Baroness in exercising her right to insist upon Amendment 49F. Three months after the Government’s own report, this allows Parliament to be informed of the scale of the theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.

Your Lordships may consider that these measures are relevant for three reasons. First, they offer a degree of competence and protection, otherwise so far insufficiently provided, to and for the creative industries in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, they give an example internationally, including within the 46 states affiliated to the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a highly regarded member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman.

Thirdly, both within and beyond Europe, and starting with the 1710 Statute of Anne, granting legal protection to publishers of books, they continue to set a copyright protection standard, which in this case is expected of the United Kingdom and is also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, safeguarding privacy and personal data.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and declare my interest as an artist member of DACS.

I have supported the amendments from the noble Baroness because transparency would have unlocked avenues to negotiate licences, bringing mutual benefits to AI companies and rights holders alike.

Yesterday, in another place, the Minister asked, “What is the point of transparency if a company refuses to comply without enforcement?” The answer is simple: not all companies will refuse. There are responsible players: companies that will want to act lawfully and ethically, which would welcome clear frameworks for transparency and licensing.

Transparency would level the playing field in favour of those companies and would put pressure on those that choose to defy the law, rather than allowing them to dominate by default. Without transparency, the opposite happens: the market rewards infringement and penalises respect for copyright. That is the road we are on, and it is not one this House should endorse.

Every day of inaction allows unchecked infringement while good companies face competitive disadvantage. How long must artists and rights holders wait? The time for transparency is not some distant future date; it is now.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

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

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I, too, have an aversion to ping-pong, having spent 23 years in the House of Commons and having been a Minister—and having experienced it overnight, with people having to sleep in their offices. Often, it became more “pong” than “ping”, after that extended period of time.

In this instance, there is a lot of justification for your Lordships’ House insisting on the Government taking another look and perhaps coming forward with their own compromise, which many noble Lords have called for. I very much welcome the tone taken by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons, who spoke at the Dispatch Box himself on that occasion to admit that errors may have been made in issuing the consultation and in the position taken by the Government then, which may have triggered a lot of the debate we are having on the Bill.

Although he is also a Gwent boy, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who said that this is a terrible Bill. It is not a terrible Bill, but it does have a massive lacuna: the issue of AI and its impact on creators and their livelihoods. It is a matter of livelihoods, of people paying their rent, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said.

I also welcome the tone of and comments made by my noble friend the Minister in her opening remarks. I welcome what she said about enforcement, economic impact assessments and committing to bring forward a report in six rather than nine months. Those are all welcome additional commitments that we have not necessarily heard before. However, she felt that not adding these amendments or something similar to the Bill would give greater certainty, and here, I disagree with her. She said that creative industries and the tech industries want certainty. In my view, certainty would be provided if we accepted today’s amendment, or indeed the previous amendments the noble Baroness has proposed, because they give greater certainty to everyone that copyright will be enforced in this country and that the means to enforce it will be available through greater transparency.

Last Thursday, some of us in this place—I refer to my declaration of interests, including as a member of the Ivors Academy—went along to the Ivor Novello awards, which celebrates the great songwriters and composers of this country. Ivor Novello, whose original name was Ivor Davies, was born in my old constituency of Cardiff West, and there is a plaque on the very street around the corner from my house indicating where he was born. The Ivor Novello awards are a reminder that we are world leaders in creativity, as other noble Lords have said, and that we are net exporters of that creativity. Our great creativity is a foreign currency earner for this country, and we should not get into bed with anyone who seeks to undermine that.

The amendment being put forward by the noble Baroness is a modest amendment—some might say too modest, compared to what could be done if the Government came forward with their own in lieu. But that is exactly what the Government should do: they should make their case, rather than invoking financial privilege on every occasion. Although it is the Commons’ right to do that, in my view the argument should be made. If this is the wrong pathway, why is it the wrong pathway? Transparency is what is needed, and it is needed now.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. In the United States, a revealing battle is under way, not only about competing with China but about whose interests AI regulation should serve. Thirty-one US states have passed AI laws. They understand that transparency does not stifle innovation; it enables it by providing certainty and accountability. So fierce is federal resistance that House Republicans now seek to roll back state AI laws entirely, imposing a decade-long moratorium. AI experts call this an abdication of responsibility, yet the states persist, introducing 550 new Bills this year alone.

We face the same choice. For years, we condemned China’s intellectual property theft, the foundation of its economic rise. Now, we permit Silicon Valley the same privilege. The Government’s wait-and-see prevarication is inexplicable. This amendment demands transparency alone: no new law, no regulatory burden, simply the right to know when your work is taken. This amendment grants the Government complete discretion over enforcement and preserves their consultation. It demands only visibility. This is a test of whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI by giving creators the simple right to see who is taking their work. I therefore urge the House to support this amendment.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the Labour Benches, may I say that I actually support the Government’s position on this occasion? The reason is this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has, with great force of personality, made a very considerable case for action needed to protect intellectual property, and I think she has won that battle. It would be impossible in future, in the coming year or so, for a Government to act in a way that did not take account of her very real concerns.

I am a massive supporter of the creative industries, which make an enormous and growing contribution to the country—and not just an economic one. They are part of the knowledge and service economy which we now are. As my noble friend Lord Bragg has often said, they offer people of all social classes the opportunity to fulfil themselves in ways that otherwise might not have been possible. So, while I am very sympathetic, I do not think that this simple amendment is the right vehicle to put in place a whole new copyright law.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

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

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. We are in a pickle. This is an important Bill that needs to gain Royal Assent quickly, for EU data adequacy reasons if nothing else. Incidentally, I do not believe that the Bill does active harm to the creative sector as it is written, but, since the copyright consultation preferred the wrong option, the sector’s trust in the Government on this issue has collapsed. I pay tribute to the way the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has represented the sector. That distrust means that Ministers’ subsequent words of reassurance are not trusted by the sector. We therefore need campaigners and Ministers to meet and find a way through with meaningful action. I believe that Ministers are trying to act in good faith and are sincere in wanting both to create a benign environment for AI in this country and to protect copyright and the remuneration of the creative industries that are so important to this country. Artists are raising their voice in good faith, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Watson about it being unhelpful to personalise some elements of the debate.

It is important to give the Secretary of State himself another opportunity to speak in the other place, on the record, at the Dispatch Box, having had a few days to reflect, and negotiate a way of reassuring the sector that Ministers see the urgency in protecting the livelihoods of artists from big tech while taking advantage of the creative and economic opportunities of AI. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is a good basis for proceeding. In order to give the Secretary of State that opportunity, I will be supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment if she chooses to divide the House.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, at the heart of this debate lies a single critical principle—trust: trust that those who built powerful AI systems will not exploit the work of others without permission; trust that the UK Government will stand by our creative sector; and trust that our laws, long respected internationally, are not ignored in the rush to complete with Silicon Valley.

Last week, the Minister in the other place, Sir Chris Bryant, raised an important point: what do we do about the copyright status of works generated by AI? It is a good question, but impossible to answer without knowing what content the models were trained on. If we cannot see what went in, we cannot possibly judge what comes out. Transparency is the gateway to fair licensing and a vibrant market in which both AI developers and creators thrive. Without it, there is no accountability, no fair return, and no protection for the next generation of artists, writers and innovators. The UK has a proud tradition of creativity and innovation. This amendment allows us to protect the former while enabling the latter. I urge the House to support it.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I want to pick up on my noble friend Lady Harding’s point about the Government’s message that they wish to legislate in the round. I urge the Government to listen to the point that my noble friend was making. We started debating the regulation of tech platforms in 2011, and it took us more than a decade to pass the Online Safety Act. It was one of the most painful legislative processes I have ever seen. The Minister will be very surprised, if this legislation is passed, how quickly it has an impact.

On the second point, about piecemeal legislation, if we had listened to that argument, we would not have passed the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, when, I think, we were in government—I may still have been a Minister when she first proposed them—for the age-appropriate design code. That is a very telling piece of legislation, because we see the impact it has around the world. The platforms now follow the age-appropriate design code, and it makes a difference. As I say, it took us more than a decade to regulate platforms—think about the missed opportunities.

My final point is to pick up on the very important technical point of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about being in a pickle. Much as I might delight, as a former Tory culture Minister, to see the serried ranks of the creative industries putting the boot into a Labour Government, I feel enormous sympathy for them. They can turn this around this afternoon in a flash.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was IP Minister for nearly three years and I am a long-standing member of the APPG on IP. It is a great pleasure to speak from the Back Benches and to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Camrose’s amendment.

What concerns me is that we are witnessing an assault on a sector worth £160 billion to the UK, as we have heard. Actually, I suspect that may be an underestimate, because IP and copyright are to be found in the nooks and crannies of so much of our life and our industry. There has been a lot of mention of music and media. Nobody has mentioned breeding and performance data on racehorses, information on art and antiques, or—close to my heart—the design, by young graduates, of gorgeous new clothing and fancy footwear of the kind that I wear. It is the small operators that are most at risk. That is why I am speaking today.

We are going too slowly. Amendments have been knocked back. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been trying her hardest, with a great deal of support from right across Britain. As time goes by, AI and LLMs are stealing more of our creativity, hitting UK growth. I believe that the Government must get on. It is not easy, but it is a challenge they have to rise to, and very quickly.

[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.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add my thanks and congratulate the four maiden speakers on their excellent speeches.

This Bill marks a significant milestone in the campaign to strengthen employment rights in the UK. For many workers, the measures it contains—day-one rights, enhanced sick pay, protections from unfair dismissal—represent long-overdue reforms. However, we must also ask how these reforms serve the backbone of our cultural economy: our freelancers.

In the creative industries, over a third of the workforce is freelance. I declare my interest as a freelancer in the visual arts. In sectors such as theatre, film, publishing and design, it is more than 50%. Freelancers contribute billions to our economy and underpin the UK’s global cultural reputation, yet this legislation, while welcome, still leaves too many of them in the margins.

The Bill includes small measures—such as blacklisting protections, enhanced health and safety requirements and the right to a written contract—but otherwise offers little in the way of concrete protections for freelancers. There is no guarantee of fair pay, no enforcement on late payments and no formal route to challenge exploitative contracts or to clarify issues around single-worker status. While further consultation is welcome, it must safeguard the creative autonomy and IP rights that freelancers depend on. A blanket reclassification could cause real harm.

I support calls from across the sector—by organisations such as DACS, ALCS, BECTU, Creative UK and the Cultural Policy Unit—for the creation of a freelance commissioner. A dedicated advocate is needed to ensure freelancers are included in future reforms. Too often, they are out of scope, out of protections and out of pocket.

However, we must also maintain the balance between protecting individuals and supporting the viability of the organisations that employ and commission them. That balance is increasingly fragile. Consider the Royal Society of Arts, where a polarised dispute over pay between unionised staff and leadership has spiralled into reputational damage and a breakdown in trust; or the Tate, a DCMS-sponsored body, which cut nearly 7% of its workforce to manage deficits. The Royal Academy of Arts has warned of cuts of 18% of its staff. Many cultural organisations are operating on the brink, with commercial income still in recovery and reserves depleted.

Faced with new obligations, some employers may delay hiring, turn to long-term contractors or shift work offshore. For agencies and studios, hiring freelancers may appear less risky, potentially increasing short-term opportunities, but without protection this shift may only deepen insecurity across the sector.

This underscores the need for phased, consultative implementation and enhanced public funding mechanisms. Rights must be matched by resources. Without support, organisations may reduce opportunities—or close altogether. We must act strategically. That means sector-sensitive collective bargaining, better enforcement mechanisms and targeted support for smaller and mid-sized arts bodies.

This Bill opens a long-overdue chapter in employment rights. However, for the UK’s world-leading creative industries—and the freelance workforce on which they depend—it must not be the final word. Let us ensure that these reforms support all workers, however they work, and provide the resources needed to sustain the culture that we value.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Grand Committee

We have a rich and impactful creative sector. The reach of our artists, the soft power of our storytellers in all formats, the inventiveness of our designers and the skill of our musicians are legendary. The Government’s industrial strategy rightly recognises the creative industries and the tech sector as two of the UK’s priority growth-driving industries. The Government talk about balancing two competing sides, but they are neither the same nor equal. One is a creator and one is a distributor, regurgitator or, perhaps more generously, secondary user. As in all supply lines, you need to pay for your raw material to make something new. The Government will not achieve growth by simply allowing one growth area to cannibalise the other. Since the vast majority of benefit from AI scraping accrues to the US, it seems short-sighted, possibly criminal, to put the UK’s uniquely successful and profitable creative industries at the mercy of the predatory gen AI companies. I beg to move.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 204, 205 and 206, to which I have attached my name. In doing so, I declare my interest as someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts and as an artist member of the Design and Artists Copyright Society.

These amendments, tabled and superbly moved by my noble friend and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, seek to address a deep crisis in the creative sector whereby millions upon millions of creative works have been used to train general-purpose or generative AI models without permission or pay. While access to data is a fundamental aspect of this Bill, which in many cases has positive and legitimate aims, the unauthorised scraping of copyright-protected artworks, news stories, books and so forth for the use of generative AI models has significant downstream impacts. It affects the creative sectors’ ability to grow economically, to maximise their valuable assets and to retain the authenticity that the public rely on.

AI companies have used artists’ works in the training, development and deployment of AI systems without consent, despite this being a requirement under UK copyright law. As has been said, the narrow exception to copyright for text and data mining for specific research purposes does not extend to AI models, which have indiscriminately scraped creative content such as images without permission, simply to build commercial products that allow users to generate their own versions of a Picasso or a David Hockney work.

This amendment would clarify the steps that operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models must take to comply with UK copyright law. It represents a significant step forward in resolving the legal challenges brought by rights holders against AI companies over their training practices. Despite high-profile cases arising in the USA and the UK over unauthorised uses of content by AI companies, the reality is that individual artists simply cannot access judicial redress, given the prohibitive cost of litigation.

DACS, which represents artists’ copyright, surveyed its members and found that they were not technophobic or against AI in principle but that their concerns lay with the legality and ethics of current AI operators. In fact, 84% of respondents would sign up for a licensing mechanism to be paid when their work is used by an AI with their consent. This amendment would clarify that remuneration is owed for AI companies’ use of artists’ works across the entire development life cycle, including during the pre-training and fine-tuning stages.

Licensing would additionally create the legal certainty needed for AI companies to develop their products in the UK, as the unlawful use of works creates a litigation risk which deters investment, especially from SMEs that cannot afford litigation. DACS has also been informed by its members that commissioning clients have requested artists not to use AI products in order to avoid liability issues around its input and output, demonstrating a lack of trust or uncertainty about using AI.

This amendment would additionally settle ongoing arguments around whether compliance with UK copyright law is required where AI training takes place in other jurisdictions. By affirming its applicability where AI products are marketed in the UK, the amendment would ensure that both UK-based artists and AI companies are not put at a competitive disadvantage due to international firms’ ability to conduct training in a different jurisdiction.

One of the barriers to licensing copyright is the lack of transparency over what works have been scraped by AI companies. The third amendment in this suite of proposals, Amendment 206, seeks to address this. It would require operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to be transparent about the copyright works they have scraped.

Currently, artists and creators face significant challenges in protecting their intellectual property rights in the age of AI. While tools such as Spawning AI’s “Have I Been Trained?” attempt to help creators identify whether their work has been used in AI training datasets, these initiatives provide only surface-level information. Creators may learn that their work was included in training data, but they remain in the dark about crucial details—specifically, how their work was used and which companies used it. This deeper level of transparency is essential for artists to enforce their IP rights effectively. Unfortunately, the current documentation provided by AI companies, such as data cards and model cards, falls short of delivering this necessary transparency, leaving creators without the practical means to protect their work.

Amendment 206 addresses the well-known black box issue that currently plagues the AI market, by requiring the disclosure of information about the URLs accessed by internet scrapers, information that can be used to identify individual works, the timeframe of data collection and the type of data collected, among other things. The US Midjourney litigation is a prime example of why this is necessary for UK copyright enforcement. It was initiated only after a leak revealed the names of more than 16,000 non-consenting artists whose works were allegedly used to train the tool.

Creators, including artists, should not find themselves in a position where they must rely on leaks to defend their intellectual property rights. By requiring AI companies to regularly update their own records, detailing what works were used in the training process and providing this to rights holders on request, this amendment could also create a vital cultural shift towards accountability. This would represent an important step away from the “Move fast and break things” culture pervasive amongst the Silicon Valley-based AI companies at the forefront of AI development, and a step towards preserving the gold-standard British IP framework.

Lastly, I address Amendment 205, which requires operators of internet crawlers and general-purpose AI models to be transparent about the identity and purpose of their crawlers, and not penalise copyright holders who choose to deny scraping for AI by down ranking their content in, or removing their content from, a search engine. Operators of internet crawlers that scrape artistic works and other copyright-protected content can obscure their identity, making it difficult and time-consuming for individual artists and the entities that represent their copyright interests to identify these uses and seek redress for illegal scraping.

Inclusion in search-engine results is crucial for visual artists, who rely on the visibility these provide for their work to build their reputation and client base and generate sales. At present, web operators that choose to deny scraping by internet crawlers risk the downrating or even removal of their content from search engines, as the most commonly used tools cannot distinguish between do-not-train protocols added to a site. This amendment will ensure that artists who choose to deny scraping for AI training are not disadvantaged by current technical restrictions and lose out on the exposure generated by search engines.

Finally, I will say a few words about the Government’s consultation launched yesterday, because it exposes a deeply troubling approach to creators’ IP rights, as has already been said so eloquently by the noble Baroness. For months, we have been urged to trust the Government to find the right balance between creators’ rights and AI innovation, yet their concept of balance has now been revealed for what it truly is: an incredibly unfair trade-off that gives away the rights of hundreds of thousands of creators to AI firms in exchange for vague promises of transparency.

Their proposal is built on a fundamentally flawed premise—promoted by tech lobbyists—that there is a lack of clarity in existing copyright law. This is completely untrue: the use of copyrighted content by AI companies without a licence is theft on a mass scale, as has already been said, and there is no objective case for the new text and data-mining exception. What we find in this consultation is a cynical rebranding of the opt-out mechanism as a rights reservation system. While they are positioning this as beneficial for rights holders through potential licensing revenues, the reality is that this is not achievable, yet the Government intend to leave it to Ministers alone to determine what constitutes

“effective, accessible, and widely adopted”

protection measures.

This is deeply concerning, given that no truly feasible rights reservation system for AI has been implemented anywhere in the world. Rights holders have been unequivocal: opt-out mechanisms—whatever the name they are given—are fundamentally unworkable in practice. In today’s digital world, where content can be instantly shared by anyone, creators are left powerless to protect their work. This hits visual artists particularly hard, as they must make their work visible to earn a living.

The evidence from Europe serves as a stark warning: opt-out provisions have failed to protect creators’ rights, forcing the EU to introduce additional transparency requirements in the recent AI Act. Putting it bluntly, simply legalising unauthorised use of creative works cannot be the answer to mass-scale copyright infringement. This is precisely why our proposed measures are crucial: they will maintain the existing copyright framework whereby AI companies must seek licences, while providing meaningful transparency that enables copyright holders to track the use of their work and seek proper redress, rather than blindly repeating proven failures.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend Lady Kidron’s amendments. I declare an interest as a visual artist, and of course visual creators, as my noble friend Lord Freyberg has very well described, are as much affected by this as musicians, journalists and novelists. I am particularly grateful to the Design and Artists Copyright Society and the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society for their briefings.

A particular sentence in the excellent briefing for this debate by the News Media Association, referred to by my noble friend Lady Kidron, caught my eye:

“There is no ‘balance’ to be struck between creators’ copyrights and GAI innovation: IP rights are central to GAI innovation”.


This is a crucial point. One might say that data does not grow on a magic data tree. All data originates from somewhere, and that will include data produced creatively. One might also say that such authorship should be seen to precede any interests in use and access. It certainly should not be something tagged on to the end, as an afterthought. I appreciate that the Government will be looking at these things separately, but concerns of copyright should really be part of any Bill where data access is being legislated for. As an example, we are going to be discussing the smart fund a bit later in an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, but I can attest to how tricky it was getting that amendment into a Bill that should inherently be accommodating these interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Kidron’s Amendment 211, to which I have put my name. I speak not as a technophobe but as a card-carrying technophile. I declare an interest as, for the past 15 years, I have been involved in the development of algorithms to analyse NHS data, mostly from acute NHS trusts. This is possible under current regulations, because all the research projects have received medical research ethics approval, and I hold an honorary contract with the local NHS trust.

This amendment is, in effect, designed to scale up existing provisions and make sure that they are applied to public sector data sources such as NHS data. By classifying such data as sovereign data assets, it would be possible to make it available not only to individual researchers but to industry—UK-based SMEs and pharmaceutical and big tech companies—under controlled conditions. One of these conditions, as indicated by proposed new subsection (6), is to require a business model where income is generated for the relevant UK government department from access fees paid by authorised licence holders. Each government department should ensure that the public sector data it transfers to the national data library is classified as a sovereign data asset, which can then be accessed securely through APIs acting

“as bridges between each sovereign data asset and the client software of the authorized licence holders”.

In the time available, I will consider the Department of Health and Social Care. The report of the Sudlow review, Uniting the UK’s Health Data: A Huge Opportunity for Society, published last month, sets out what could be achieved though linking multiple NHS data sources. The Academy of Medical Sciences has fully endorsed the report:

“The Sudlow recommendations can make the UK’s health data a truly national asset, improving both patient care and driving economic development”.


There is little difference, if any, between health data being “a truly national asset” and “a sovereign asset”.

Generative AI has the potential to extract clinical value from linked datasets in the various secure data environments within the NHS and to deliver a step change in patient care. It also has the potential to deliver economic value, as the application of AI models to these rich, multimodal datasets will lead to innovative software products being developed for early diagnosis and personalised treatment.

However, it seems that the rush to generate economic value is preceding the establishment of a transparent licensing system, as in proposed new subsection (3), and the setting up of a coherent business model, as in proposed new subsection (6). As my noble friend Lady Kidron pointed out, the provisions in this amendment are urgently needed, especially as the chief data and analytics officer at NHS England is reported as having said, at a recent event organised by the Health Service Journal and IBM, that the national federated data platform will soon be used to train different types of AI model. The two models mentioned in the speech were OpenAI’s proprietary ChatGPT model and Google’s medical AI, which is based on its proprietary large language model, Gemini. So, the patient data in the national federated data platform being built by Palantir, which is a US company, is, in effect, being made available to fine-tune large language models pretrained by OpenAI and Google—two big US tech companies.

As a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal argued:

“This risks leaving the NHS vulnerable to exploitation by private technology companies whose offers to ‘assist’ with infrastructure development could result in loss of control over valuable public assets”.


It is vital for the health of the UK public sector that there is no loss of control resulting from premature agreements with big tech companies. These US companies seek privileged access to highly valuable assets which consist of personal data collected from UK citizens. The Government must, as a high priority, determine the rules for access to these sovereign data assets along the lines outlined in this amendment. I urge the Minister to take on board both the aims and the practicalities of this amendment before any damaging loss of control.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 211 moved by my noble friend Lady Kidron, which builds on earlier contributions in this place made by the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell, Lord Stevenson, Lord Clement-Jones, and myself, as long ago as 2018, about the need to maximise the social, economic and environmental value that may be derived from personal data of national significance and, in particular, data controlled by our NHS.

The proposed definition of “sovereign data assets” is, in some sense, broad. However, the intent to recognise, protect and maximise their value in the public interest is readily inferred. The call for a transparent licensing regime to provide access to such assets and the mention of preferential access for individuals and organisations headquartered in the UK also make good sense, as the overarching aim is to build and maintain public trust in third-party data usage.

Crucially, I fully support provisions that would require the Secretary of State to report on the value and anticipated financial return from sovereign data assets. Identifying a public body that considered itself able or willing to guarantee value for money proved challenging when this topic was last explored. For too long, past Governments have dithered and delayed over the introduction of provisions that explicitly recognise the need to account for and safeguard the investment made by taxpayers in data held by public and arm’s-length institutions and associated data infrastructure—something that we do as a matter of course where the tangible assets that the National Audit Office monitors and reports on are concerned.

In recent weeks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised the importance of recovering public funds “lost” during the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet this focus raises important questions about other potential revenue streams that were overlooked, particularly regarding NHS data assets. In 2019, Ernst & Young estimated that a curated NHS dataset could generate up to £5 billion annually for the UK while also delivering £4.6 billion in yearly patient benefits through improved data infrastructure. This begs the question: who is tracking whether these substantial economic and healthcare opportunities are being realised? Who is ensuring that these projected benefits—both financial and clinical—are actually flowing back into our healthcare system?

As we enter the age of AI, public discourse often fixates on potential risks while overlooking a crucial opportunity—namely, the rapidly increasing value of publicly controlled data and its potential to drive innovation and insights. This raises two crucial questions. First, how might we capitalise on the upside of this technological revolution to maximise the benefits on behalf of the public? Secondly, and more specifically, how will Parliament effectively scrutinise any eventual trade deal entered into with, for example, the United States of America, which might focus on a more limited digital chapter, in the absence of either an accepted valuation methodology or a transparent licensing system for use in providing access to valuable UK data assets?

Will the public, faced with a significant tax burden to improve public services and repeated reminders of the potential for data and technology to transform our NHS, trust the Government if they enable valuable digital assets to be stripped today only to be turned tomorrow into cutting-edge treatments that we can ill afford to purchase and that benefit companies paying taxes overseas? To my mind, there remains a very real risk that the UK, as my noble friend Lady Kidron, rightly stated, will inadvertently give away potentially valuable digital assets without there being appropriate safeguards in place. I therefore welcome the intent of Amendment 211 to put that right in the public interest.