Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kidron Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Kidron]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49F in lieu of Amendment 49D—

49F: Before Clause 138, insert the following new Clause—
“Statement and bringing forward of a draft Bill: copyright infringement, AI models, and transparency over inputs
(1) Within three months of the publication of the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons setting out his or her view on—
(a) the scale of copyright infringement of works used as a data input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, where that infringement is conducted by a relevant trader or by third parties from which they source data inputs, and whether conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas,
(b) the impact of such copyright infringement on the United Kingdom economy, businesses, and individual copyright owners,
(c) the impact of such copyright infringement on the ability of UK-registered companies, in particular small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, to compete on a level playing field in the market for AI models with relevant traders that conduct such copyright infringement (especially overseas), and
(d) the adequacy of existing statutory and regulatory powers which support copyright owners in identifying and preventing such copyright infringement, including but not limited to transparency requirements on relevant traders.
(2) On the same date as the statement, the Government must publish a draft Bill containing legislative proposals to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models made available by relevant traders.
(3) In this section a “relevant trader” is a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an AI model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (4).
(4) The service has links with the United Kingdom if—
(a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market).
(5) The draft Bill must require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information that will allow them to identify—
(a) the use of their copyright works used,
(b) the means by which those works were accessed, and
(c) the identity of third parties from which data inputs were sourced, in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(6) The draft Bill may require relevant traders to provide copyright owners with other information from that which is required under subsection (5) to allow them to identify the legal basis for the use of their copyright works as data inputs to the AI models.
(7) The draft Bill may contain provisions that apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered.
(8) The draft Bill must make provision for enforcement of its provisions.
(9) The Secretary of State must, in the statement required under subsection (1) or in an accompanying document, set out his or her view on the expected effectiveness of the legislative proposals set out in the draft Bill required under subsection (2) for supporting copyright owners in identifying and preventing copyright infringement by relevant traders and third parties from which they source data inputs, whether that infringement is conducted in the United Kingdom or overseas.
(10) The Secretary of State must lay the draft Bill before the relevant Parliamentary Committee in both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny.
(11) The “relevant Parliamentary Committee” is a reference to the Parliamentary Committee in each House, or the joint Committee of both Houses, which—
(a) is charged with responsibility by its House or by both Houses for the purposes of this section, and
(b) has notified the Secretary of State that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.””

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, most noble Lords have made their minds up about the substance, but I think it is important to say why we are here again. There is no argument that copyright material is being stolen. The Secretary of State has already said at the Dispatch Box in the other place that much content has already been used and subsumed by AI models. There is no longer an argument about whether copyright law is uncertain. All three Ministers have now declared that UK copyright law is untouched by the data Bill and any previous suggestions that it was uncertain are now discredited.

Ministers continue to say, however, that this is the wrong Bill, yet the press release heralded the Bill as unlocking the power of data to grow the economy. The prevention of mass theft and the inevitable resulting growth of a dynamic licensing market would indeed grow the economy. Meanwhile, the Public Bill Office and the clerks in the other place have no problem. Indeed, thanks to your Lordships’ House, transparency has been in the Bill three times. There is only one problem: political will.

The first iteration of a copyright amendment in my name was during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill when Labour was still in opposition. At the time, the noble Baroness, who is now the Minister, said that she hoped that that Bill would

“deliver that long-overdue copyright protection that we all seek”.—[Official Report, 22/1/24; col. GC 162.]

Eighteen months ago, there were no concerns on the Labour Benches about enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they recognised that the issue warranted immediate intervention. Since that time, a comprehensive transparency regime that included enforcement was put forward by your Lordships, but the Government voted to take it out, saying that it was too comprehensive. The next amendment followed the Government’s own timeline and scope, but made provision for regulation. The Government voted that out too, saying that it was too soon—too soon to uphold the law, too soon to stop stealing, acknowledged by all.

Noble Lords, artists, musicians, designers, writers, conductors and even the UK indigenous AI community—who we have worked with side by side, throughout—are baffled as to why the Government are deliberately standing in the way of UK citizens and companies who are trying to control and protect their own property. Some are suggesting that the Government, the Civil Service and No. 10 are all wage-earners. They simply do not understand that the £126 billion creative industry is largely made up of freelancers whose income, sickness benefit, pension, maternity and holiday pay are not contractual but provided by royalties—royalties that are dependent on copyright.

Some think that the Government are too proud to admit the mistakes of their ill-fated consultation, which was widely condemned as too little, too late, and the proposals within it considered partisan—so much so that even Ministers had to backtrack. It has no timeline and, indeed, a successful campaign by rights holders has overwhelmed the process. The vast majority of the 11,500 submissions are from creative companies and individuals whose work is being stolen right now and who need the transparency to create a level playing field. Yet rather than respond to their urgent cry, the Secretary of State, as he stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place defending the Government’s decision to overthrow the Lords’ transparency amendment, said that it would not be fair to one to sector privilege another.

It is extraordinary that the Government’s decided, immovable and strongly held position is that enforcing the law to prevent the theft of UK citizens’ property is unfair to the sector doing the stealing. In what other industrial context does being fair require a national Government to support thieves to continue their plunder while simultaneously removing tools of protection from the victim? Balancing and being fair sounds reasonable, but it is not fair, balanced or reasonable to stand by while one sector steals from another in full view.

The amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on 19 May did not demand that the Government take a side; it simply provided transparency so that the creative industry could protect itself. The Government have voted and will vote again today to make indigenous AI and creative industries defenceless.

Before recess, I hosted a five-hour meeting at which creatives were joined by many AI companies and experts to discuss technical issues around transparency. There were myriad technical solutions but all agreed that changing the incentives is what is urgent and that the tech would follow.

AI is the technology of now and the future. It requires vast swathes of data—sometimes very high-quality data, sometimes both. It is built on data. Data is a valuable component of AI. As I said to the House last time we debated the Bill, some of that data is the most valuable in British hands. It can be made available under licence—indeed, it is often licensed already—but, more often, it is still being taken without permission and without payment. This Government, in all their actions, are not only giving tacit permission to steal, but are determinedly standing in the way of UK property owners identifying the thief.

It is bewildering to me that Ministers looking back on the last two decades of the tech sector business model believe that we should damage or give away our second biggest industrial sector on the promise that we will be overwhelmed by benefits in the future. They are sacrificing both the UK creative industries and the UK AI and digital industries by leaving our valuable content and data freely open to big tech companies. These incumbents will destroy a sector that amounts to 5% of the UK economy, just as they previously torpedoed the commercial viability of UK media. They will prevent UK AI start-ups from growing by allowing big tech to sew up that market too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and all the Ministers in the department have made it absolutely clear how vital it is that the creative sector’s interests are protected in the discussions. The sector will be part of the working groups, have a seat at the table and have its voice heard. We have a job to do in reassuring those people that this is a workable solution, but they will see that the long-term workable solution which we are attempting to achieve would be for everyone.

Those working groups will address the issue of transparency and technical standards in a way that supports the creative industries as well as the tech sector. Those working groups, alongside the consultation responses, will inform the reports, the proposal and the economic assessment that the Government have already committed to in this Bill. It may be that the working groups bring other benefits, such as interim voluntary arrangements, until longer-term solutions can be agreed upon and implemented. However, we must see what comes out of the process, rather than imposing preconditions at this stage.

As I said earlier, His Majesty’s Government have made three additional commitments on this matter. First, these reports will be expanded with two additional topics—extraterritoriality and enforcement. Secondly, the report’s proposals and economic impact assessment will be published more quickly—within nine months. Thirdly, if we have not completed these reports within six months, the Secretary of State will provide a progress report to Parliament.

Turning to the first proposed new subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I agree that the scale of unauthorised use of works as inputs to AI models, and the impact of such use on copyright owners, AI developers and the wider economy should all be considered as we develop our policy approach and put forward our proposals, as should the adequacy of the legislative framework to support copyright owners. I am pleased to confirm that these aspects will already be considered as part of the impact assessment. The Government will report as we go along and are committed to publishing that. We intend for that impact assessment and report to be published within nine months and to make a progress statement after six months if needed. I hope that gives clarity to noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the Government agree that these issues are important and are actively working on them. We disagree with this part of the noble Baroness’s amendment only on the basis that an additional statement is not needed.

However, turning to the second proposed new subsection of the noble Baroness’s amendment, I can see the appeal of requiring the Government to make progress with legislation in this space. The Government have heard noble Lords’ concerns about the pace of progress. The Secretary of State said in the other place that he proposes legislation to be tabled as soon as possible. He has set out a plan for determining what such legislation should contain, assessing the consultation responses, convening technical working groups and then producing reports and economic impact assessments on our proposals.

Many of the things in the noble Baroness’s amendment may coincide with the outcomes of this plan. She has great foresight, but none of us have a crystal ball. It is fundamentally wrong to prejudge and pre-empt the process now being prescribed in the content of the legislation. What would noble Lords say to the 11,500 people who took the time to submit detailed responses to the consultation—that their considered thoughts are irrelevant because the outcome has already been put in statute? What to the working groups of technical experts that, rather than work with us to come up with a comprehensive solution that works for all sides, must abide by regulations that ignore their input and cover only one or two issues? What to the elected House, which has already voted these amendments down three times? Rather than respect one of our core constitutional principles, cited indeed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, before the recess, do we believe in consulting and properly legislating, but just not today?

This cannot be what anybody thinks is right, either on this issue or indeed as a matter of principle. I repeat: the Government have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House and set out their plan to address them. This must be allowed to run its course. I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment, nor to support the noble Baroness’s new amendment. Doing so will further delay our plan for dealing with the issues at hand and delay all the other good that this Bill will do; for example, allowing the EU to make its decision on data adequacy for the UK; providing for data preservation notices for coroners to support bereaved parents; introducing new offences tackling intimate image deepfake abuse; and enabling digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy. All these things are waiting in the wings once the data Bill is passed.

I hope that noble Lords will reflect on this. We are making compromises—indeed, we have made a compromise—and we are trying to work quickly. Our only concern is with the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which we do not feel will give us the comprehensive and detailed solution that we know is necessary to reassure the creative and technology sectors in the UK that we can make this work.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I first thank everyone who has spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who thinks that I have won. I therefore hope that he expects and anticipates that one of my amendments will make it into the Bill, because that is what winning looks like to me.

I want to make a broader point about winning and losing. I did not want to be here again. I know that the Minister has told the House to be very careful about how we speak, but I think that she would acknowledge that, in private, I have reached out to all sides of the Government to discuss this and to try to get a compromise. I think she will also know that the small changes that she mentioned—which are all very welcome, but do not add up to a real change—are not something that the Government came to me with before the debate; this was the first that I heard of them. That is probably because she knows that they are not profound or significant.

I wish that the Minister had not gone back on this issue of stealing. I just want to make it utterly clear—I hope my words were clear; I will re-read Hansard—that stealing is happening, and standing in the way of transparency allows stealing to continue. That is the argument that I have made; I have been very careful in making it. As many people around the House have said on the previous amendment, the Government cannot have it both ways. They do not like the drafting, but they do not draft anything else; they do not like the comprehensive one, but this one is not comprehensive enough. This is ping-pong in the round—the Government are forcing ping-pong on us. My real wish is that the Government find some strength, some humility and some way of coming forward with what we passed last time, which was a power to make regulation in their own image once their report had been done. That was a good amendment. That is the amendment that the Government should be backing. Today’s amendment is a “just in case”.

The Government should not worry about the bulk of the 11,500. They would be very happy if the Government acted now. That is not a problem, and I am willing to take that, but the Government have offered no timeline. They have proposed voluntary systems, while the longer issue will continue; they have said “as soon as we can”. I do not doubt that every Minister has in their heart the right motivation—let me say that on the record—but the actions of the Government are blocking an entire industry from protecting their property. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I appear to have this socialist inclination that people should have a fair day’s pay for their labour. I seek the agreement of the House.