Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Anneliese Midgley
Main Page: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)Department Debates - View all Anneliese Midgley's debates with the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence
Anneliese Midgley Excerpts(2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this debate and wish him a happy birthday. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Musicians’ Union. Long ago, I worked in the music industry, so I know musicians not as headlines or playlists, but as people. Most of all, I am a fan—a fan of what they make and of what their work means to our shared national life—but I am inundated with concerns from them. Their fears are immediate and tangible, because the truth is that the music industry has long enabled the legal and largely unchallenged exploitation of those who make music.
Streaming has gutted the income of songwriters and performers. More than half of professional musicians now earn less than £15,000 a year, which is much less than the minimum wage. Their songs are played more than ever, but they are not seeing the money; someone else is. If copyright law is not handled correctly, musicians will once again lose out—used, imitated, unpaid.
Any serious discussion about AI must include a clear demand for transparency from companies developing such tools. Creatives deserve to know when and how their work is being used. Without that, there can be no fairness. To me, it is very simple: no one should be allowed to use someone’s work without permission or payment. That is called theft. Sidelining the creative sector that already exists comes with a bill, and right now, working artists are being asked to foot it. We in the Labour party believe in making work pay. That has to include the work of musicians.
Some of the proposals could favour faceless corporations that treat creativity as data and dress up appropriation as progress. Nothing is inevitable about that. We value culture, we value work and we must value those who create. I will end by repeating the plea of my friend from the other place, Lord Brennan of Canton:
“I want to make a plea for human intelligence and EI—emotional intelligence—over AI, artificial intelligence. AI is a great servant, including to the creative industries, but it would be a terrible master if we allowed it to become that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 848.]