Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout in her amendments, but, as a former Member of the elected House, I think we reach a very difficult juncture today in insisting on an amendment which I think we all know and agree is actually inadequate. It is a modest, moderate amendment that will not do the job that all of us who have been supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout would like to see done: namely, to guarantee the transparency that is needed in order to protect copyright into the future.

As a former Member of the elected House, and despite agreeing entirely with all the arguments that have been made, I find it very difficult to walk through the Lobby when the elected House, of which I was a Member for 23 years, has clearly rejected the proposal that we are now considering again today to send back to that House. In saying that, I want to say to the Government that I hope that they have listened intently to the debates that we have had in this House and all the points that have been raised, and I hope that they are aware of the emergency that we are describing in this House.

I went this morning, as I did yesterday, to visit and have a look at the South by Southwest conference taking place in Shoreditch, in north London. If you go through the Tube station at Old Street, you will encounter a number of advertisements for AI companies with the slogan, “Stop Hiring Humans”. Now I am a member of the Labour Party and for us in the Labour Party, one of the reasons why we have been putting through measures such as the Employment Rights Bill is because we believe in the dignity of labour, and in the importance of people being rewarded for their labour. That includes those who work freelance or who depend on their intellectual property for their income.

I want the Government to think, when they are engaging with these companies, “Who are we getting into bed with on some of these occasions? Who are the people we are perhaps unnecessarily favouring and giving privileged access to in government? What are their intentions for the future of labour, the workforce, pay and conditions, the dignity of people in work and the right for them to protect their intellectual property?”

What is happening right now, for example, in the music industry? Just last weekend, the four major record labels announced that they were in negotiations. Rather, it was revealed, they did not announce it, that they were in negotiations with apps such as Suno, which I have on my phone, which will create—not create, generate—for you. It does not create anything, it is just a desiccated calculating machine, but it will generate for you a piece of music within 30 seconds that is a facsimile of human creativity. It is not very good, but it is astonishing at the same time, as a piece of technology.

What will happen is that the major labels will go into negotiations. They would have had a stronger hand, actually, in some ways, if the Government could have found their way to support the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put forward—but they will go into those negotiations. In fact, they will probably come to some kind of deal where they will agree some kind of licence. It will not be a very lucrative one, because their power at the moment is weak, unless Governments start standing up for the right of intellectual property. In exchange, they will try to take a bit of equity in those businesses.

The people who will be left out of the room—as usual—will be the creators. The big labels will be in there. The Lucian Grainges of this world will be in there. He recently paid himself more in one year than every songwriter in this country as the head of Universal. The Musicians’ Union will not be represented in there. Equity will not be represented in there. The Writers’ Guild will not be represented in there. The representatives of visual artists will not be represented in those talks. As usual, the deal that is done will favour those people who have control over some of those rights and will leave out the creators from those talks.

I urge the Government, in what has come of all this, to make use of a thing that was created and actually came out of a Bill that I introduced and from the work of a Select Committee in the other place in the last Parliament, namely the Intellectual Property Office, the creators’ round table, which has been created by this Government. I give credit to Minister Bryant for taking it very seriously and pushing people hard to make sure that creators are remunerated. I urge the Government to make use of that and to make sure that they insist that creators are represented in these discussions going forward, and that they use all the leverage they can to ensure that that happens.

Taking on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, I completely agree with what she said about her voice. We should introduce new rights for creators—it is not original but I always call them VINL rights: voice, imagine, name and likeness rights—to ensure that people’s voice, image, name and likeness cannot be stolen and used by others to make a profit without them being properly consulted and rewarded for that. There is good to come out of this. Although I cannot walk through the Lobby with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, today, because I believe that, if the elected House insists on not accepting this amendment —we all agree, I think, that it is not a strong amendment—

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Does not my noble friend appreciate that sending this amendment back to the elected House will, for the first time, give it a choice? There has been no choice for anybody in the elected House. There has been no government amendment; it has just been yes or no. Sending this back forces a choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It cannot be sent back again. I speak as someone who did 27 years there and suffered ping-pong, but I am sticking with the noble Baroness today.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

I have enormous respect for my noble friend and find myself agreeing with him about a great number of things. However, it could be sent back with an amendment in lieu from the Government—that is true—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, because this is not double insistence. I feel, and always felt in my 23 years in the other place, that, once the elected House has taken a strong view on a particular amendment, it should be accepted by the unelected House. That is my view, even if it is not the view of my noble friend.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I have spent a delightful half an hour or so listening to some very pertinent, brief speeches, and I intend, with the leave of the House, to make my own. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for helping to stand up for my professional interests and those of my family and the 2.4 million people who earn their livings, livelihoods, pensions and retirements from their creative efforts. She is doing us a great service and I am very grateful to her for that.

There is an issue of constitutional rights here: how long do we go on with ping-pong? I have said before that the elected Government of course have the right to get their business through. But those rights also come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities, above all, include at least listening to this House when it expresses a view so consistently, so coherently and on so many occasions. I do not believe that the Government have given the appearance of listening to any of what has gone on here. It is not that difficult; husbands all around the country give the appearance of listening, even in the middle of watching football matches. The Government here have not even done the basic business of saying, “Yes, I understand, and we are listening”.

The last time we discussed this, I thought it was unfortunate, if not unfair, for the Government to imply that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, had turned down meetings with Ministers. That was unnecessary. It should not have been said, because that has nothing to do with the importance of her remarks. It is also deeply unhelpful when we in this House find ourselves having to come back, time and again, simply to ask the Government to listen, to offer coherent responses and not simply to dismiss what has been said here. What is this Chamber for if, after the debates we have had, the Government give absolutely nothing? They do not listen to this House or to Elton John, Paul McCartney or any of the hundreds of thousands of people involved in this industry who are saying, “Please, just do a little bit to show that you have understood the issue”.

I have been accused in the past of having a vivid imagination, but I wonder why this Government are so blatantly stubborn over this. If I were writing a novel, I would wonder what went on in Washington while we were doing that trade deal that was so trumpeted by this Government. Were any conversations going on behind the scenes that gave guarantees, commitments or understandings about what approach this Government would take to copyright and AI? We know that Elon Musk, who was a very powerful man in the White House, wanted the Government’s position and not the position that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is taking.

Over the past few days, this side of the House has been accused by government Members of making arguments that were made in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. That was pretty shameful. It has nothing to do with this issue, although it did make me think: are we actually looking here at a digital Munich and bending the knee to a power with which we wanted to do a deal through backdoor agreements? Can the Minister please give us an absolute guarantee that no such behind-the-scenes, unannounced undertakings have been given? Otherwise, I fail to understand why this Government are being so stubborn.

In light of the fact that the Government have a right to get their business through— but they also have responsibilities, as we have responsibilities to stand up for what we believe to be entirely obviously correct—I will intend gladly and enthusiastically once again, if the noble Baroness pushes the issue, to march into the voting Lobbies with her on this issue.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am goaded by my own Front Bench to speak for the second time in favour of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I also share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

I have been a Minister in both Houses. I have been on the receiving end of ping-pong in both Houses, and I got bloody irritated by it. But I was never in a position, along with my Secretary of State, of sending back nothing. We sought to get a compromise. I can remember back to the late 1990s: the Labour Front Bench was sent by John Smith to Templeton College in Oxford to get some training. I can remember a former senior civil servant saying to us, “Whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”. That is the position we are in now. We can avoid making a bad decision by having a degree of compromise, which has been missing throughout.

[Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)]

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

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

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

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

Without doubt we must collaborate with these new technologies in ways that enhance, rather than replace, the human element of creativity. Let us not shy away from this challenge that may inadvertently affect our children’s future, but rather confront it with open eyes and united voices, ensuring that the art of creativity in all its human richness can continue to thrive in this evolving world. For these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and urge others to do the same.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is my first contribution on this Bill, although I have sat in every debate on this issue going back to Committee. I do not have a creative nerve in my body—I have nothing to declare—but my life and those of hundreds of millions of others have been enhanced by writers, actors and music-makers across the world.

It is sad in a way—and this is not a criticism of anybody personally who is around at the present time—that the nature of Labour in Parliament has changed. When I arrived in the Commons 51 years ago, on the Labour Benches was Maurice Edelman, 30 years there from 1945, a writer of fiction and non-fiction of note. My near neighbour, parliamentary-wise, was Andrew Faulds, who was already in; he played Jet Morgan in “Journey into Space” and Carver Doon in the series of “Lorna Doon”. In fact, I have been wondering in the last couple of days, knowing I was going to refer to him, how the little people—the little helpers for the Prime Minister in the Whips’ Office in the other place—would cope with Andrew today. He was a formidable character who could scare the life out of his friends.

Thirty years after that, I joined this place. Ruth Rendell was on the Benches. David Puttnam, the world-renowned producer, joined some years later, and we have my noble friend Lord Cashman. I make this personal. I do not speak for any of them and have not spoken to anybody about what I was going to say, although I indicated my view to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, at the weekend. But I am being asked to deliver wholesale—I have to say that I have a bit of criticism about delivery—the work of these people to big tech. I am not doing it. I have not the slightest intention of doing it, which is why I shall vote for this amendment.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

I too support the noble Baroness.

As I said at the previous stage of this Bill, it surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property by artificial intelligence companies.

As the noble Baroness’s present amendment illustrates, we should provide transparency criteria that would allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with that aim, as well as being well aware of the strong human rights back-up support to us from the 46 states’ affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman.

As many of your Lordships know, first and foremost, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights and copyright.

Secondly, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data, while its Article 10 stipulates

“Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights”.

Thirdly, Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law safeguards privacy and personal data.

Regarding copyright protection in recent centuries, and as emphasised at an earlier stage of our discussions on this Bill, we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom record, beginning, as is well known, with the Statute of Anne 1710, which granted legal protection to publishers of books.

In the interests of those both here and abroad, we must now uphold the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide the good practice. Here, today, supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is a clear example of our ability so to do.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and did so very happily. I will comment on a couple of points that have been raised in this short debate and then, without adding to what I said in Committee, highlight the reason why strategic debates about the UK’s trading relationship with China are important.

One of the reasons I was attracted to my party was that the Liberals were part of the founding movement for free trade. At that time, we traded with China and we will trade with China in the future, but this is a debate not about trading with China but about the UK’s resilience and our strategic trade interests. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made the point that Parliament’s role is not to assess trade negotiations or assess whether China would meet the benchmarks for accession to the CPTPP. His argument was rejected by his noble friend Lord Lansley, who came to the conclusion that China is a long way from meeting the benchmarks. I cannot second-guess what the other members of the CPTPP will say, and nor can we hold them to account, but we can hold our Government to account for the assessments that they make. There will have to be a public process because the difference—I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—is that China’s accession is less of a negotiation; it is an accession process, which is different from a bilateral FTA process. On that issue of substance, it is quite different.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, also said that it would be wrong if we sought, by approving this amendment, somehow to provide a veto or to bind Ministers’ hands. It would not be a veto: there is nothing in the amendment that would allow it to be a veto. I refer also to the comments of his noble friend Lord Lansley, who said that there would be nothing to stop the Government bringing a report anyway. Opposing something that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested was in the Government’s interest to do is a bit of a stretch, but the Government have the ability to present a report, and this amendment says that they should. We have argued consistently for this in the Trade Act and on other trade negotiations.

The reason why China is particularly important, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, is not just the scale of the UK’s trade with China but how resilient we are in relation to it. It is absolutely right that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the issue of Taiwan. I have just written to the President-elect, whose DPP is a sister party of ours on these Benches, to congratulate him on a remarkable victory. UK trade interests with Taiwan and shipping coming from that area are of critical importance. It is not just that British consumers enjoy the benefit of buying Chinese products, but we have the biggest trade deficit in goods with one country in our nation’s history. The trade deficit of £40 billion with China comes at a time when the whole narrative of UK government policy is that we would do trade with other countries in Asia, not China, that would offset any theoretical reduction with trade with Europe. We know that is not the case; it has proven harder to replicate the trading arrangements that we had with our European partners with those in Asia. We also know that the growth in trade in Asian economies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, said, is because of their trading relationship with China. We cannot have it both ways.

If there is anything that suggests why we should have more of a strategic debate about how resilient the UK is when we have the biggest trade deficit of any nation on earth with China—I remind the House that Germany has a trade surplus in the export of goods to China—it is last Friday’s actions by the Royal Air Force. The shipping of goods from China, which we depend on for our consumers, comes through the very area where we have deployed military assets in the last few days, which we discussed last night in this House. It is in our geopolitical and strategic trading interests that Parliament debates our relationship with China. Given the potential for interventions in our trading and shipping through the Red Sea and through Suez, interruptions to our trading through the Taiwan Strait or other interruptions—because China can, without notice, change its national security profile and how it seeks to impact on a country such as the UK—we are uniquely vulnerable to another nation state’s decisions about its strategic position on exporting to the UK.

On the one hand, one might argue that the more that China being more of a part of the rules-based WTO mechanisms is in our interest—that is right, but it is a separate debate. Here, we are discussing how our Parliament will hold any Government to account for decisions that they may take on an assessment of whether it is in our strategic interests to support China acceding to the CPTPP. Asking for a report and for it to be debated in Parliament is the very least that could be asked for, and I hope that will not cause any big division across the House. We should all support this, and the Government should perhaps accept the need for a report and a debate in Parliament. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is to be commended for this amendment. I will briefly develop one point made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who referred to the work of Sheffield Hallam University on trade, which I have read in considerable detail and previously raised in this House. That work clearly shows that, while China is one of the world’s biggest growers of cotton, it is also the world’s greatest cotton launderer, hiding where its cotton products are grown by laundering them around the world. The work at Sheffield Hallam has shown this, and, as a result, the Americans stopped importing the cotton.

As I have said previously, the Government have taken no action whatever to check the source of the cotton, but it is possible to do so. A lot of the cotton in China is grown in the Uighur area—this is a slave labour issue. I say to noble Lords, and to ladies and gentlemen, that any cotton in the clothes they are wearing at the moment can be analysed to show where it was grown and whether this was in Xinjiang or in another part of China or Egypt or somewhere else. Paper-based monitoring systems are worthless simply because China is hell-bent on laundering the cotton in its products and hiding where it comes from. Therefore, although we talk about free trade, it is not free trade if you are laundering your cotton to hide where it has come from. The Government have repeatedly been asked to do something about the products they buy on behalf of the British public. Have they used any of the element-analysis processes organised by Oritain to check the source of their cotton? The answer is no.

They have never taken any steps whatever to source the cotton and see whether it was grown in Xinjiang or not. Is that because we do not care about the use of slave labour or the source of materials? Well, I think we should and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has given the House a further opportunity for this issue to be raised.