Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Alison Hume Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. I do not think that people should breach copyright law. I have said that in several debates, and it is the settled view of the Government. We believe that people should not breach copyright law—they should not break the law. Some of the issues my hon. Friend raises have been or are being tested in the courts, and they will be contested more in the courts in future months.

A point I made right at the beginning, when we introduced the consultation, was that there is a fair use system in the United States of America, while we have our system in the UK, and then there is a slightly different system in the EU, which has largely relied on the Napoleonic code understanding of what an author is and what a work is. All those systems are slightly different and have been implemented in different countries in different ways, and they may lead to different conclusions in individual court cases.

That is why we have wanted to look at every single element of this issue, from transparency to technical data, access to high-quality data, issues of enforcement and personality rights. There are a whole series of issues, many of which are yet to be addressed in debates in either Chamber. That takes me back to my point that I do not think this is the Bill in which to do this piece of work, and I do not think that the amendment we are debating will secure what people hope from it.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the consultation. Could he confirm that the Government no longer consider an opt-out model to be their preferred approach to copyright and AI, and if so, what alternative approach is now being actively pursued or developed with the sector?

[Chris Bryant]

I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume]

The hon. Member is making some important points. As Lord Brennan said recently, this Bill is an opportunity to regulate AI:

“This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1932.]

This bus is leaving now, along with the opportunity to protect our creative rights. Does the hon. Member agree with me and share my concern that the Government are going to miss the bus?

[Pete Wishart]

I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.

Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.

Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.

It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.

If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.

Future of Public Libraries

Alison Hume Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate. Public libraries are at the heart of our communities, and we urgently need a national strategy to protect and strengthen them.

In 2016, North Yorkshire council faced the devastating prospect of closing 31 libraries. Instead, communities were given the chance to step in—and they did. In Scarborough, we are really fortunate that the Newby and Scalby library was one of the lucky few, and that local volunteers formed a charity to keep it open. Today, it is thriving. It has 60 volunteers, including trustees, gardeners, cleaners and 40 library assistants.

In 2024 alone, those volunteers gave over 11,000 hours. Their dedication has led to 42,000 visits and 550 events for 6,000 attendees, and has helped 1,500 people with individual IT assistance, bus passes, passport applications and how to use a mobile phone. They also run a home library service. That is not just a library; it is vital social infrastructure. Earlier this year, I was honoured to attend the celebrations as the Newby and Scalby volunteers received the King’s award for voluntary service.

Although we must champion our community libraries, volunteers cannot be expected to keep them open indefinitely, especially as funding continues to shrink. According to the University of Warwick, library funding has fallen by more than half since 2010. Libraries are looking to the Government for a long-term plan that includes a sustainable funding model. I would be grateful if the Minister could address when the Government intend to implement the recommendations of the 2023 Sanderson review, including the establishment of a libraries laureate.

The title “libraries laureate” conjures up a Pied Piper figure, leading a trail of word-hungry children into the book corner, but it is, of course, nothing of the kind. They would be a high-profile, distinct voice who could advocate on behalf of libraries, and raise awareness of what books can provide and, as we have heard from many Members today, what libraries can provide beyond books. Libraries provide human contact in a world in which loneliness and the company of a smartphone are on the rise.

In the old days, people were fined when they had an overdue library book, but these days they can steal a library book and use it to write another book, or anything else. Library book borrowers cannot do that, of course, but if someone is the owner of an AI company, they can use books uploaded to the internet to train AI models. We must protect the rights of authors, otherwise we face a future short on not only libraries, but the creative working people who write the books that fill the shelves.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, can Members bear in mind that I want to give the sponsor the opportunity to wind up at the end?

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Alison Hume Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

It was recently revealed that nearly 200,000 YouTube videos, including material created by globally recognised British musicians, news channels and artists, had been scraped into a dataset used to train AI models. Content from over 40,000 creatives has been found in that dataset, yet consent was not sought from a single impacted creator to use their copyrighted works. This is not a unique case. I asked 200 creatives about their experiences with AI and copyright. I heard repeatedly of negative experiences, including one individual who had 600 images taken to train AI models without their knowledge. It is clear that AI offers a fantastic opportunity for our economy. However, it must supplement and grow industries, rather than replace them wholesale.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be called to speak on Report of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I draw Members’ attention to my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. Before I entered this place, I worked as a freelance screenwriter, creating dramas for adults and children. I might add that children are the hardest audience to please—it used to be that we had five minutes to hook them, but now it is more like five seconds. Speed is the subject of my contribution today.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s engagement on how best to protect our peerless creative industries. In that spirit, I am pleased to see new clauses 16 and 17 and the commitment to addressing the fundamental issue of transparency. At the moment, AI companies do not have to tell anyone what they are stealing from the internet, from whom they are stealing and why they are stealing it. Although I appreciate the Government’s position that they want more time, I worry that in the gap between this Bill becoming law and a new Bill that addresses transparency and copyright coming forward, everything that can be scraped will be scraped. Twelve months is a long time, and plenty of time for AI companies to continue crawling over original copyrighted material without a care in the world. For some parts of the creative industries, 12 months will be 12 months too long. Necessity is the mother of invention, and without a legal instruction for AI companies to reveal what they are using free of charge, there is surely no incentive for the AI industry to come up with the solutions to make it simple for original creators and collecting societies to assert their rights.

New clauses 2 to 6 include calls for the operators of web crawlers and AI models to legally disclose what they are doing right now. Although I understand why the Government may not support the new clauses, will the Minister at least commit to placing a clear power to regulate in the Bill? The creative industries are nervous, spooked by the previously stated preference for an opt-out model, and such a move would calm nerves and indicate that the Government understand the pace at which the situation is developing and recognise the need for action.

Recently, here in Westminster, Björn from ABBA spoke in favour of clear transparency. Perhaps the saddest ABBA song is “The Winner Takes It All”, inspired by break-ups in the band between the As and the Bs. We must ensure that this is not a divorce of two industries that leads to the creative partner being left with the equivalent of the coffee table and the dog. The tech industry needs us more than we need it, so it should be honest, tell us what it is doing behind our backs and pay up. When all is said and done, this Government need to send a message now that we have the backs of our creative industries and that legal protections are our absolute priority.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I rise to speak to new clause 15, but I also want to associate myself with the many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken up for our creative industries. Our most talented and creative minds have not been getting fair representation from the Government up to now, and this has been a very interesting, well informed and, hopefully, influential debate today. New clause 15 is about privacy, safety and providing a dedicated complaints procedure for individuals including victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse, gender-based violence and for others at risk of serious harm if their personal data is mishandled.

This is not a theoretical question. Last November, The Independent reported on Lola, a domestic abuse victim whose home address was leaked to her ex-partner by a company that obtains restraining orders. She said that she was left fearing for her life. As the Open Rights Group has laid out in its briefing, the Information Commissioner’s Office is not functioning as it should be in cases such as this. I have many examples—including how Charnwood district council sent details of the new address of an abused woman directly to her abuser at her former address, so that her abuser knew where she lived—yet people placed at risk in this way currently have no means of challenging the Information Commissioner’s Office if it fails to take the right action, which happens too often. New clause 15 simply proposes dedicated procedures to support vulnerable people making complaints and a right to appeal to the Information Tribunal, a route currently available to large tech firms but not to the people harmed by their practices. I hope that Ministers will take these proposals up.

On other amendments, I fully back the Liberal Democrats on new clauses 2 to 6, which I am signed up to. I personally will abstain from voting on the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 and on the Conservatives’ new clause 19. This is because, although I am minded to increase the age of digital consent from 13, given the wider implications of harmful content and data that can be collected and used to do harm, my discussions locally with parents and young people in Brighton Pavilion have led me to want to properly include both groups in any decision on what that new age should be, given that it would cut people off from social media. We must have rapid and real processes of deliberation on this issue as soon as possible that are not just consultative but collaborative.

Finally, new clause 21 is of serious concern to my constituents, and I agree with them and TransActual that it would constitute a gross violation of privacy rights by creating a mass outing of trans people. Subsection (1)(d) of this new clause even goes so far as to seek to revert historical changes made to someone’s gender marker. I urge the Government to reject this and to act further to protect trans rights more broadly.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Alison Hume Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on securing this timely and important debate. I would like to draw Members’ attention to my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

I hope Members had a restful Easter break. Many writers particularly look forward to Easter every year, not least because of the eggs, but towards the end of March we see the payment from the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society land in our bank accounts. For writers who depend on payments for secondary uses of their work, that money is a vital income stream in what is a harsh freelance existence. I love seeing where my television dramas that I wrote many years ago have been shown; this year I learned that Swedish children had watched my UK-based science fiction series set in a world without adults. Creativity knows no boundaries but neither, it seems, does generative AI.

Collection societies such as the ALCS and those representing other creative working people ensure that we receive fair payment, and that our rights are respected. The ALCS has paid out £700 million to writers since 1977. The point that I rise to make is that many scripts end up on the internet, along with novels, books and other published work. The Government have proposed the introduction of a text and data mining copyright exception that would allow AI developers to use copyrighted works without explicit prior consent. One of the arguments put forward for that exception is that we need it because licensing does not work—but licensing does work. Rights-holders have been licensing their works to commercial users for over a century, adapting to emerging technologies and meeting the demand for multi-territorial licensing. Moreover, licensing is proven to provide commercial users with the legal certainty required for investment, while also protecting creators and rights-holders from unauthorised exploitation.

We cannot allow a lifetime of human creative endeavour to be gobbled up for free by the bots. This is the opportunity for the UK Government to lead from the front by ensuring that the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes granular transparency requirements so that AI companies must disclose what they use for free, and to put a stop to the unregulated scraping of creative content online. Freelancers are looking to this Labour Government to ensure that they are fairly rewarded for their work. We must protect our creative working people and ensure that their work pays, too.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Alison Hume Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the attention of the House to my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.

I rise to contribute to today’s debate on the Data (Use and Access) Bill as a creative who worked as a screenwriter before I entered this place. To write a good script takes discipline, focus, sweat and tears—I have found that tea and biscuits help, too. Us mere mortals cannot create something out of nothing. Creativity is an act of synthesis: pulling together the flotsam and jetsam of our experiences and observations and applying them in an original way. We pour our life experiences into our work, creating the humanity behind the lines, which lifts characters from the pages and into the public’s consciousness.

If the public want to hang out by watching the shows that we create, we have on our hands the rarest of commodities—a hit.

Many years ago, I worked on the hit show “New Tricks”. It was a cold case cop drama that ran to 12 series on the BBC, created by Nigel McCrery, who died this week. “New Tricks” was, and remains, a very popular show. Twice a year, I receive the royalties collected for me by the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I am paid fairly for my original work when it is rebroadcast around the world, or on digital platforms.

This week, I discovered that the subtitles from one of my episodes for “New Tricks” have been scraped and are being used to create learning materials for artificial intelligence. Along with thousands of other films and television shows, my original work is being used by generative AI to write scripts, which one day may replace versions produced by mere humans like me. This is theft and it is happening on an industrial scale. As the law stands, AI companies do not have to be transparent about what they are stealing. I therefore welcome the principle of the amendments in the Bill before us today, which address this issue. The amendments require generative artificial intelligence firms to be transparent about the content used to train their models, allowing creators to know when our work has been used. Another amendment expands the existing copyright regime, which is completely clear that the unlicensed use of creative content to train AI models is theft, to cover all GAI models marketed in the UK.

Over in the United States, Thomson Reuters has just received a summary judgment on its infringement claim. It is the first pure AI training case decided in the US, and the judge has said that AI training is not fair use. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his listening mode, but the creative industries worry that the Government’s preferred position of creators of original material opting out of having work scraped is not workable because no such model currently exists anywhere in the world. We are worried because creators build our industries. The creative industries are at the heart of our industrial strategy.

[Sir John Hayes]

I fully endorse much of what the hon. Lady has said. We as a House were slow to regulate the internet when it first emerged. The fascination with the new blinded people to the damage it could do. We have had the online harms Bill more recently and so on and so forth. The risk in this case is not that we go too far, but that we do not go far enough. It is important, based on what she just said, that we take swift, decisive and firm action to avoid the eventuality of reducing humans, as she described them, to “mere” puppets.

[Alison Hume]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is crucial that the Government take that into account at the end of the consultation.

[Peter Kyle]

We have heard lots of voices from the creative arts sector. The point of the consultation is to hear from all sectors. So far in the debate we have not heard representations or voices from the technology sector—I look forward to the contribution by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—but I have been reassured by the technology companies that they are engaging with the consultation and are trying to present the technological solutions for which my hon. Friend inquires. That is why the live consultation is so important: so that I, and we as a House, can judge whether the submissions from technology companies are robust and implementable enough and can see where the technology will go. The consultation is still live during this debate, and I hope that by the time we are in Committee, we can have more of an informed discussion, even though, as I said before, there is the likelihood of further parliamentary involvement down the line in a fully informed way.

[Alison Hume]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reassurances. I know that creatives are worried because the scraping is happening now and will carry on until we have a solution. We must protect the creative industries. They grew by over a third between 2010 and 2023 in terms of gross value added, far outpacing growth in the UK economy as a whole. They are worth more to the economy than life sciences, car manufacturing, aerospace and the oil and gas sectors combined. They are a glorious British success story. They make us proud. They make us feel good. They shape the nation’s identity. They make us, well, us. They are represented in every corner of the UK, with 2.4 million workers, 70% of whom live outside London. They are writers, musicians, photographers, artists—all manner of wonderful creative folk, powering one of our greatest success stories and one of our best engines for growth.

In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, I have been entreated by individual creatives and small and medium-sized enterprises to ask the Government to look after their rights and to protect their income. Recently, I proudly served on the Employment Rights Bill Committee—a Bill that will see the biggest improvements for working people in a generation. Creatives are working people, too. Creative work is work. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has talked about her determination to take the brakes off the creative industries and turbocharge growth.

If the creative industries are a fast car, the creative is the driver. Without us, it is the equivalent of a driverless car—fine, maybe, to get from A to B—but if we are to produce the kind of quality scripts behind the superb television dramas that entertain, comfort, inspire and, as recently shown in the case of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, effect meaningful change, we need a human being at the wheel. To have a human there, we need to ensure that they are paid for doing what they do best: being original.

We should inspire the rest of the world to adopt high standards, lead from the front and amplify our influence on the global stage. Britain’s creative industries deserve a dynamic licensing market that protects copyright and drives growth and innovation in both the creative and tech sectors. I look forward to the outcome of the consultation on AI and copyright and to working with the Secretary of State and the Minister to find a future-proofed solution, which protects original work and the ability to earn an income from it. The Labour party was founded on the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. Being in government is our opportunity to fulfil that principle for UK creatives.

Creative Industries

Alison Hume Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The creative industries are rightly a priority for our Government, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s speech, as will our creatives in the coastal communities of Scarborough and Whitby. Having been a screenwriter by trade, I declare my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. This has been a fascinating debate, and I rise to ask whether, in our headlong rush to embrace the white heat of scientific revolution, we are at risk of extinguishing the spark of original human creativity. Sparks were indeed flying in the 1982 cult sci-fi film “Blade Runner”; Ridley Scott drew upon the landscape where he grew up—the flaring oil stacks of the refineries in the north-east, sending up big fireballs of gas—to create a dystopian future world where humans battle synthetic humans known as replicants.

As we move into a future where artificial intelligence is no longer the stuff of sci-fi films but the tool that will revolutionise our lives, we should pause to ensure that we safeguard our original content creators, because unless we tighten copyright laws around intellectual property to protect creators, AI data mining will stem the flow of creative content. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned, the AI systems that mine content to gain artificial intelligence could run out of new material in the next few years—this is known as model collapse—and generative AI models could start training on their own low-quality outputs. To return to “Blade Runner”, the replicants would be breeding with the replicants.

To enjoy a future that protects human creativity, we should reform the UK text and data mining regime to place the onus on GAI firms to seek permission from rights holders to use their original published work. Amendments tabled by Baroness Kidron to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which will be discussed shortly in the other place, offer meaningful transparency provisions that would make the UK’s gold-standard copyright regime enforceable and counter the widespread theft of intellectual copyright by AI companies. The amendments chime with public opinion, and I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the Government will support them.

I finish with dialogue from “Blade Runner”—words spoken by the replicant Roy Batty:

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”

We must act to protect our creative talent in the UK—the screenwriters who wrote those unforgettable lines, and all future writers. In the fight to win the battle for intellectual copyright, surely we must be on the side of the human, not the replicant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Hume Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that very important issue and for championing the voices of women in his constituency. We are committed to ensuring that all women and babies receive safe, compassionate and personalised care through pregnancy, birth and the critical following months. Reconfiguration of the services, as he knows, is a matter for the integrated care boards, which is important, as it allows decisions to be made locally and to be tailored to local interests. All changes should be based on evidence, be clinically led and involve engagement with patients to ensure that they will deliver better outcomes. This is a very important matter.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

Q3. Whitby InterActive has provided inclusive play schemes and holiday activities for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities for 26 years. It has been a lifeline for families continually failed by Conservative Governments, but InterActive is set to close due to a funding shortfall. Does the Prime Minister agree that action to tackle the crisis in SEND provision is urgently needed and that charities, such as InterActive, deserve our support more than ever?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do, and I know this is a concerning time for families who rely on the brilliant work of Whitby InterActive. Children with special educational needs and disabilities have been failed for too long. It comes up repeatedly in the House, with parents struggling to get their children the support they need and deserve. We must raise the standards for every child so that they can succeed in education. We will fix the foundations and ensure that every child can achieve their potential.