Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Chris Kane Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

It fair to say that if we do not work with data, we do not really think about it too much, but, when we do, we realise how much of it surrounds us in multiple forms. Every day in this place I walk past shelves groaning under the weight of volumes of Hansard: an institutional memory of all that has happened here. New technologies offer us an opportunity to take all that knowledge of what has come before and use it to help shape what we do next. Data is a powerful but often underappreciated and undervalued commodity.

The Bill is to be welcomed. I have no doubt that it will help grow the economy, improve public services and make people’s lives easier. However, when it comes to the creative industries, we must recognise that creativity is more than just the sum of its data parts. A novel is not just words, a song is not just notes and lyrics, and a painting is not just pixels or brush strokes. The poems of Robert Burns are not merely letters on a page; they come alive in our minds in a way that no dataset can fully capture. When we treat creative works as nothing more than data points, we risk undervaluing the talent, the skill and the human expression that make them meaningful.

I started my working life as a broadcaster. At 15 years old, I secured a work placement at Central FM, which is still proudly broadcasting independently across the Forth valley. I went for a week and I stayed for 10 years. I presented the breakfast show, dragging myself out of bed at 4.30 in the morning. My parents were more impressed that their teenage son could get up that early than they were about my career choice.

Back then, only 17 radio stations were available in Stirling. Today, my teenage son can stream thousands of stations, podcasts and songs from a device in his pocket. The march of technology is relentless; it can sweep people up or it can sweep people aside. In radio, I saw that march at first hand—first came digitisation, then networking and then automation—and, with each step, jobs disappeared. My last full-time broadcasting job was in 2008. I left because I saw too many friends chasing too few jobs that paid too little money. Now, we are at another turning point.

AI is a powerful tool with huge potential, but it needs vast amounts of data, and that data has enormous value. At a recent Public Accounts Committee evidence session, we heard from academic experts who told us that once we hand over our data, whatever promises are made and whatever covenants are placed on it, we have lost control. If unchecked and unregulated—or regulated improperly—technology and the data it uses does not care whether it makes people’s lives better or worse. We are dealing today with the good and the bad consequences of decisions taken by tech companies and regulators in relation to social media and smartphones. Let us learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.

The amendments proposed in the other place, particularly on copyright and transparency, resonate greatly with me and much of the creative community. I urge colleagues to give them due consideration in the next stage of the Bill’s passage through the House. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State’s positive comments to that end in today’s debate, and I welcome the Government’s separate consultation on the issue.

There will be other opportunities to consider these points, but the concerns of the creative industries must be heard and acted upon. Copyright protections are not a barrier to AI innovation and competition, but a safeguard for the work of an industry worth £125 billion per year and employing more than 2 million people. We can enable a world where much of this value is transferred to a handful of big tech firms, or we can enable a win-win situation for the creative industries and AI developers, where they work together based on licensed relationships with remuneration and transparency at their heart.

Technology does not care what or who it replaces, but we should. The world needs data scientists, and it also needs poets. Creative workers are right to be nervous about AI further eroding their ability to monetise their work. If we do not act carefully, we risk a future where technology exploits creativity rather than supports it. Data and technology drive progress, but progress must not come at the expense of those who create, innovate and inspire.

AI has immense potential, but without proper safeguards on it and its data, it risks sweeping creative workers aside, or worse, replacing them all together. As we embrace the opportunities that AI and data-driven technologies present, we must ensure that progress does not come at the cost of our creative industries. Human expression cannot be reduced to mere data points. The livelihoods of those who enrich our economy and culture must be protected. It is our responsibility to force innovation while safeguarding the rights of creators. We can build a future where AI enhances human creativity rather than undermining it, and where both well-paid data scientists and well-paid poets thrive in a digital age.

Creative Industries

Chris Kane Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I have worked in the creative industries all my working life, from helping my father to sell radios and televisions when I was a teenager, to presenting radio shows on stations across Scotland and supporting businesses by creating content for websites. Today, I want to address the disconnect between creativity and cost, and say why we must all support the creative industries with good reviews, warm wishes, and—most importantly—with money.

How many of us use Wikipedia daily but ignore its annual appeals for donations? How many say that we value local journalism yet resent paywalls? In most areas we accept the principle of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but the creative industries often face a double standard, as many who wouldn’t pocket a bookie’s pencil think nothing of using content without the necessary permissions. Such behaviour is regrettable in individuals, but it is unforgivable in organisations. We can all do better.

For example, if local authorities can pay millions annually for software licences, why not pay a fair rate, not the minimum rate, for creative content? Teachers using streaming services in classrooms, or pupils relying on Wikipedia, could be supported by institutional subscriptions or donations that go to the people or organisations providing the content. Let the public sector lead by example, change how we value and pay for creative content, and strengthen the relationship we have with the creative sector. We should set the example and introduce the legislation that we need AI software providers to follow. In our personal lives, if someone is a podcast listener, they should not always ignore the request for that proverbial cup of coffee or an upgrade to a monthly subscription. If someone sees an article they want to read in a newspaper, they should buy the newspaper, not try to find a pal who will take a picture of it and WhatsApp it to them.

In my career I have seen creative contributions undervalued. Businesses often pay a high proportion of their budget for the technical process of building websites, but neglect the content—the very part that engages users. Too often creators hear, “I can do it myself”, when what is really needed is professional skill. We will struggle to find an artist or artisan who does not have multiple stories of offers of “exposure” or “experience” rather than money as payment for services. Exposure does not pay the bills. If someone would expect to be paid fairly for their work, they should extend the same respect to artists, artisans, writers and designers.

AI offers exciting possibilities for productivity and innovation, much like the smartphone revolution, which is now in its 17th year. AI can help creators clean up poor audio recordings or automate repetitive tasks, allowing them to focus on what they do best. However, we have seen the unintended consequences of the smartphone era, for example on mental health and social development, and we must learn from that. AI is a tool, not a replacement for human creativity, and like any tool it needs oversight and ethical guidance. It needs an instruction manual, preferably not one written by the tool itself.

Before I conclude my remarks I want to highlight a place where we can all go to be creative—a place that can sometimes struggle to be high on our agenda when we are focused on the big, the exciting or the new. I am talking about the local library. Libraries are the NHS for the soul. They are funded by our taxes, and free at the point of delivery and point of need. Libraries offer more than books; they offer a helping hand and a supportive friend, often when people need it most. Libraries improve us, enrich us, and inspire us. A library can make the difference: to a child discovering their love of reading, to an adult learning new skills, or to someone finding the support that they need to change their life. Yet many libraries today focus on surviving rather than thriving, and years of underfunding have left them struggling to provide their essential services. Not everybody has the space, the time, the skills or the hardware to engage with AI, but they will find all that help in the local library, provided by our wonderful librarians and library support staff.

In my constituency, local people are organising against the proposed closure of Auchterarder library in the coming financial year, and in Stirling the music tuition service is facing sweeping cuts. It is difficult to measure inspiration and joy, but it is easy to undervalue them. If we lose music tuition from our schools and libraries from our communities, we will lose parts of our civic soul.

The creators and the industry that supports them add colour and joy to our lives. By valuing creators, compensating them fairly and safeguarding the space and framework in which they operate, we can ensure we have a creative sector that thrives, is valued and adds value to our lives and our economy. We should start from the principle that creative output is linked to its creator and ensure that our laws reflect that, because when creativity flourishes, so does society.