Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

James Frith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her offer of advocacy for the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I have never known him to lack a voice for self-advocacy. However, should the time arise, I know that she will be on his speed dial. The issues that she has raised are of profound importance. As I have said, I recognise not just the economic issues but the personal connection that creatives have with the art and work that they create. I have absolutely no intention of disempowering them in that relationship, and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of taking away any rights from those individuals without any consultation.

We recognise that people in the creative arts sector are making representations, as they absolutely should be, and I listen carefully to them, but this country has the third largest AI market in the world. There are young people currently studying in schools, colleges and universities around the country who aspire to work in the technology sector, and they should not have to leave the country and work abroad in order to fulfil their potential. Of the people who have contributed so much to our economy, of course those in the creative arts are absolutely front and centre. Alongside them is the technology sector, which is providing enormous opportunities in job creation, wealth creation and innovation right across the country. Parts of this country are becoming a magnet for talent, not only from this country but from around the world, and I do not want anybody to feel that they have to leave the country to seek opportunities to exploit their talent and potential as individuals. I believe there is a way forward, and I assure the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that, whatever people think of the consultation, I am listening very closely. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has been engaging fully, and we take these issues incredibly seriously. We will continue to do so in Committee and beyond.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I am a great admirer of the Secretary of State, and I admire his belief in his cause today. The creative sector will have heard his commitment to listen, and I thank him for ensuring the openness and engagement of his Ministers on this issue. In the spirit of listening, will he agree from the Dispatch Box today to meet those creatives who are keen to have an audience with him on this significant issue?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in scrutinising these areas and for being a voice for the sector. It goes without saying that I would be delighted to meet the people he references, and the same goes for Members on both sides of the House. Whether I can fit every one of the 2.5 million people who work in the sector into my office, I do not know. It is a bigger office than I had seven months ago, but I am not sure I can fit everyone in. However, I will do my absolute best; I am here to listen and learn, as I have been from the outset, and I am here to find a way through. It is time to reconcile these issues and to give certainty to people in both the creative arts sector and the technology sector. I believe the Bill is the moment for this House to provide the certainty that both sides need as we move forward.

Fifthly and finally, let me say a word on Lord Lucas’s amendments. People will use digital identities to buy a house, to rent a car and to get a job. The intention of clause 45(6) is to force public authorities to share whether someone’s information, such as their sex, has changed when disclosing information under clause 45 as part of a digital verification check. That would mean passing on an excessive amount of personal data. Sharing such changes by default would be an unjustifiable invasion of people’s privacy, and I am unable to say that clause 45(6) is compatible with human rights law, which is why we will seek to overturn the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

The Conservatives want Britain to be a science and technology superpower, and that means fully unlocking all the benefits of data. As a country, we must make the appropriate use of data more widespread. That would cut red tape, make research easier, create new jobs, deliver economic growth and enable people to access public services more efficiently.

A data-enabled economy and society is good for everyone, which is why we introduced the groundbreaking Data Protection and Digital Information Bill before the last election and progressed it through all Commons stages, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) rightly said. We still believe in those reforms and call on the Government to build on them, but we also recognise the concerns around individual rights, privacy, AI and copyright that have been raised in relation to Labour’s Bill.

When the previous Government left office last July, we had turned Britain into one of the world’s leading tech economies. We were home to more tech unicorns than any other European country, and more than France and Germany combined. Britain had become the world’s third largest AI ecosystem, with pioneering start-ups creating new jobs and innovative products. We led the way on developing safe AI through the world’s first AI safety summit and AI Safety Institute.

Our original Bill complemented those achievements and would have accelerated Britain’s progress towards becoming a highly data-enabled economy and society. In particular, our proposals for a digital verification services framework are replicated in this Bill. It is also clear that this Bill has been informed by consultations carried out under the last Conservative Government on the governance of digital identities.

Similarly, putting the national underground asset register on a statutory footing is a Conservative idea, and we welcome its inclusion in this Bill. More than 700 different organisations dig holes to install and maintain underground assets every year. Expanding and standardising the digital map of pipes and cables will help local councils, utility providers and others to better co-ordinate their activities, hopefully reducing the 60,000 accidental damage incidents that occur every year. However, the security of the register must be of the highest possible standard, given that the information is highly sensitive. The amendments tabled on register security by Viscount Camrose and Lord Markham in the other place should be taken seriously by the Government.

While the asset register provisions will turn our aim of joined-up thinking into reality, this Labour Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a total failure, and no joined-up thinking has happened at all. Last December, the Government finally launched their consultation, just as the Christmas break started. Why did Labour wait six months when this area of policy moves so quickly, with AI firms, the creative industries and the public needing legal certainty and firm answers? When the consultation finally arrived, the creative industries sector was unanimous in describing Labour’s proposals as completely unfit for purpose. For the sector, Labour’s idea of imposing a requirement on creatives, such as journalists, songwriters and film makers, to proactively opt out of data mining is not the solution. Labour’s proposal could align the UK’s approach closely with the EU regime under the digital single market copyright directive, which has produced widespread uncertainty about what constitutes a valid reservation of rights.

Labour’s approach to copyright and AI is the ultimate test of its credibility on tech and creative industries issues, and it has failed—the entire sector knows it. Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem.

[Mr Frith]

I know the hon. Member fancies himself as a bit of a tech bro, but he should recognise that much of the anxiety in the creative industries sector is caused by the dither and delay of the Conservatives’ time in Government and their failure to grasp the issue. As ever, we on the Government Benches are doing the hard work.

[Alan Mak]

The last Conservative Government left Britain with a world-class creative industries sector. It is Labour’s dither and delay that is causing huge anxiety, as I will go on to say.

Rather than solving a problem, Labour is the problem. One way to resolve that is to accept the Conservative proposal, tabled in the other place, to develop international technical standards for watermarks, which the Secretary of State referred to. We welcome the agreement by the Minister in the other place to take that work forward, and both Houses look forward to the outcome with great interest.

As I have said, the creative industries sector is valuable. It is worth £124 billion to the UK economy and employs over 2.4 million people. They will all be damaged by Labour’s approach and they all deserve better, so why has an impact assessment not been published at the same time as the consultation? What has Labour got to hide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. She is absolutely right. Her Committee has a central role in looking at these issues and I wish her well in any of the inquiries she launches. It is particularly disappointing that Google and other AI companies will not come to her Committee. I hope that she uses the powers that I know, as a former Select Committee Chair, can be used to oblige reluctant witnesses to come in front of her. I am pretty certain that somebody who is as determined an individual as she is will be able to secure that.

[Mr Frith]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, as ever, and I agree with much of what he is saying. Does he agree with me that we should be ready to point out where those who contribute to this debate are proxies or funded by tech companies not appearing in public to make the case, but instead making arguments through smaller organisations that can be a little bit more assertive and nimble-footed, and not quite as accountable?

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very interesting contribution from the hon. Gentleman. It would be a useful exercise to find out who is speaking on behalf of certain companies, if they are reluctant witnesses. We should not have reluctant witnesses in this House. People should have an obligation to appear for parliamentary scrutiny. It does not matter whether it is the biggest tech brothers or the smallest company in our constituencies. He is right that that type of transparency would be really useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute further on this important Bill. I thank Ministers, particularly the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, for their ongoing attention and for being in listening mode, particularly on the copyright matters that have been so dominant so far.

The Bill rightly modernises data regulations, which will spur growth and improve public services, making everyday life better. When put to good use and used fairly and effectively, data can enhance efficiency across sectors, from food supply chains and commercial forecasting to healthcare. It is a powerful prospect with enormous benefits. The challenge is in ensuring that those benefits reach everyone. Given the demands placed on the Bill by the amendments tabled in the other place, I hope that it proceeds into Committee. As it does so, we will gain insight from the Government’s ongoing and related consultation on copyright and AI.

Today’s debate is concerned with the use of data to drive progress; it speaks to how we can live better, and how we can live best, with AI. We do not need to accept the false choice of innovate versus regulate. In considering the countries either side of us, it can feel as though there are only two options—one or the other; zeroes or ones—but the UK must act now. This is a national cause with international consequences. Faced with demands for innovation while others call for regulation, we should bid for harmonisation. Harmony is the language not of compromise, but of complement—a value greater than the sum of its parts. We must understand the strength of all contributions to that harmony.

No country has got this right yet, and this is our chance to learn from a blend of approaches. International examples should be observed. AI should be harnessed to be an honest broker, which is why transparency is key. In silicon valley, exceptions have been made to the US’s general approach, and the creative and tech industries are balanced accordingly. The UK should embrace transparency and maintain the strengths of both sectors. Europe understands the role of transparency, though there is little evidence that this has led to more licensing for copyright holders. We must not assume that one will automatically lead to the other, or that this will alleviate the concerns of our creative sector. Singapore has a broad AI training exception, but it has a minimal creative sector. The UK, with its proud creative industry, should not make flawed comparisons with a country without the same creative strengths, outputs and exports.

Just as transparency is demanded in our supply chains, so too must it apply to our code chains. Arguments suggesting that transparency would be too burdensome feel disingenuous. In Select Committee hearings, the argument for transparency, which represents a giant step forward in resolving the tension between AI and creators, seems to have been deliberately opposed by those seeking to excuse themselves, as well as those they represent by proxy, from paying for the work of others.

The Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy includes our brilliant creative industries, but discussions with those industries should focus on how we advance and enhance them. We risk making this about how we can protect their very existence if we do not take seriously the deep alarm voiced by creators over the threat posed by AI. We also risk losing the very things that make life richer.

I urge the Government to introduce a requirement for transparency. If an AI system is trained on the works of thousands of musicians, authors and film makers, they have a right to know and a right to be paid. This could include a register. We do not tell manufacturers, energy providers or tech firms that their products should be freely used to build billion-dollar businesses without compensation. The same principle must apply to creative work. Copyright is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation that allows creativity to thrive.

This threat to creators’ livelihoods is particularly acute for smaller rights holders who lack the means to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. These independent creators are the backbone of our creative ecosystem. More than 70% of them are based in our towns and regions, away from the cities, where for them, levelling up means making up. Without them, the UK’s creative engine will begin to fray and diminish. Creativity thrives not just through the marquee names but through the countless independent voices, expressions and creations that enrich our experiences.

The argument that restricting AI’s access to copyrighted works will stifle progress and leave us trailing behind other territories is incorrect. I ask again: what progress are we pursuing if it undermines the position of strength that we start from? I have seen no economic impact assessment that states that exempting music and other creative content from licensing, or introducing AI training exceptions, will boost the economy. Yes, jobs in data centres will be welcome, but they are minimal in comparison to those sustained by our creative industries. At its heart, AI is about capability and capacity. It should not facilitate the casual but disastrous dismantling of copyright. The job gains must come from skilled input and employment that puts AI to work. The harnessing of AI must be human-tethered.

We must remember that AI is a great enabler, and for our advantage. It is not a stand-alone sector; it is a transformative technology for all sectors. Our focus must therefore be on its use, not on sweeping legal exceptions that weaken copyright and risk hollowing out the very industries we are committed to growing. If there is a technological answer—a digital fingerprinting solution or a pay-as-you-go AI model—we should keep an open mind, but it is a leap to expect these solutions to come soon enough for the urgent issues at hand. The anxieties I have outlined cannot be left unresolved while we wait.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is, like me, a musician. Is it any wonder that creatives, particularly musicians, are concerned even by the language that has been referred to across the Chamber? “Ingestion” speaks of consuming, and let us not think what else it speaks of. “Scraping” is also a horrible word. Hopefully we can reach a situation, through the consultation that the Minister and others are engaged in, where we can use better language in this space that gives more reassurance to the creative sector. Instead of “ingest” we could use “collaborate,” for example, and instead of “scrape” we could use “reward.” We might then protect our wonderful creative sector.

[Mr Frith]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, and I suspect he is a better musician than I am.

[Chris Bryant]

He is, yes.

[Mr Frith]

The Minister got the memo.

AI is giving the creative sector indigestion, frankly, and this is the problem we are facing, so aiming for a smoother future through collaboration is absolutely right.

As with previous technological shifts, such as the introduction of the internet or indeed the printing press, laws should be based on use, not on the technology itself. The principle of tech neutrality should be reaffirmed as a guiding principle for our laws and culture.

In the absence of a clear solution, we must return to first principles and stand for transparency, fairness and the fundamental right to be paid for one’s work. Or will we entertain the risks of an opaque system, built on unnecessary secrecy, freely extracting value from copyrighted works without payment? We are in a defining moment. Innovation should uplift, not exploit. The future of AI must be built on trust, so I urge this House and this Government to ensure that AI innovation does not come at the cost of our world-leading creative industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall get on to those points when I talk about the consultation that is currently under way.

We need to ensure that the benefits of AI are managed and that our creators are properly protected. This is a £120 billion industry, which employs more than 2 million people. It is an expression of who we are and contributes to our understanding of ourselves and each other, and it takes us on a journey where we can walk in somebody else’s shoes and build a more tolerant, cohesive and engaged society. If we do not get this right, all that is threatened. That would be bad not just for the global stars, the household names and the people whose records, CDs and downloads we have in our homes—

[Mr Frith]

And cassettes.

Creative Industries

James Frith Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

It has been heartening to hear colleagues underscore the significance of the creative industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer identified them as one of the eight drivers of economic growth, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister here today have spoken passionately about their being our cultural and economic superpower. As representatives of the immense talent in Greater Manchester, the Secretary of State and I know well the enormous value brought by film, TV, gaming, publishing and, of course, music—a sector particularly close to my heart as a former musician, and singer of the only Manchester band nobody has heard of.

Across the UK, our creative industries are an ecosystem. Mutually supportive and interdependent, they are among the fastest-growing industries and have extraordinary potential to drive our nation’s No. 1 mission: economic growth. But the ecosystem is fragile and needs to be nurtured and supported in order to flourish, so we must take seriously, and respond to, the creative sector’s reaction to the Government’s consultation on AI in the sector.

Those in the sector are confused, alarmed and deeply concerned. Central to their fears is the framing of “rights reservations”—an opt-out system that threatens to rip the rug from under our prized sector, with sweeping changes proposed to copyright law. What is “rights reservations”? That which we call an opt-out system by any other name will still sound the alarm. Creators see it for what it is: an upheaval of the copyright protections they depend on, which threatens to do lasting damage to the sector. Copyright does not inspire hit songs, smash-hit movies or classical texts, but it is the lifeblood of our creative industries. It is what feeds investment, enabling musicians, writers, actors, designers, and businesses large and small, to earn a living from their work. Copyright is the foundation of what makes our creative industries what they are and could become.

Creativity is not an easy, anodyne process, and we should not outsource it to a method that reduces it to such. It takes blood, sweat, tears and countless hours. It does not just carry the creator’s joys or perceptions, their struggles or vulnerabilities, but often speaks to our own. What connects us to our creative industries is the human emotion they embody. Yes, AI can, will and already does assist creators. Musicians and artists have embraced technological innovation throughout history, and AI holds exciting potential to help consumers discover and engage with creative works. But to forfeit the humanity it takes to create, and suggest that AI can replace it, insults and will ultimately cost those who pour their lives into their craft, as well as those of us who love to soak it all up.

Proposals for new, broad exceptions to copyright, and the burden of opting out of having one’s life’s work taken without permission, undermine the very principles of copyright and, frankly, of trade and commerce. The proposals are a threat to the livelihoods of creators, especially smaller rights holders who lack the resources to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. Those smaller, independent creators form the bedrock of our creative ecosystem. Without them, the intricate web that sustains the sector will unravel. The richness of our cultural landscape depends not only on headline acts, but on the countless independent creators who bring diversity and depth to this sharing industry.

Proponents of unfettered AI access to copyrighted works, who say that denying it will stifle progress, leaving us behind other territories, describe a false choice and present a regressive argument that suggests we should sacrifice creators’ rights for tech advances. What advance are we willing on, if it undermines the position of strength we start from? We already have divergence between territories on copyright, and the UK leads with strength here. Innovation should uplift us, not exploit. We do not need to weaken our cultural integrity and creative capital for a technological right of way.

All of us can find a space to love produced by our creative industries. In affirming this view, I wish also to distinguish between consumers and creators. Consumers engage with creations at the finish line; they need not understand the hours of labour behind their creation or the securities on which they are created. That is absolutely fine, but legislators, policymakers and industry leaders must heed the creator’s voice and recognise the existential threat that AI poses to their livelihoods if we forfeit copyright as we know it.

We must protect, cherish and celebrate the human spirit behind every brushstroke, investigation, edition, publication, note, verse and chorus, for they carry the joy, the struggle, the love and the loss, the hit and the miss. They express and emote. They relate and reflect to us our human condition: this human creativity—authentic, irreplaceable, deeply connected, often nebulous—defying the precise definition of AI. Artificial cannot replace authentic. Learned behaviour cannot replicate the human condition.

I hope this debate will amplify the voices of AI leaders who are advocating for the transparency and copyright frameworks that favour creators. The Government’s consultation is absolutely right to highlight the need for transparency. AI firms should have to disclose what they are using in their training datasets. This will enable fair licensing arrangements, with the burden on the purchaser of creativity and not on the producers of it.

This is a pivotal moment for our creative sector. It comes down to this: will we protect copyright and creators’ rights, or will we defer entirely to AI? We must not let proposals such as opt-out systems dismantle the protections that allow creativity to flourish. Let AI revolutionise our public services, productivity, precision and efficiency, but let the creative sector remain the authentic space that we all enjoy, as one of human expression. Creativity is not just a process; it profoundly connects us to one another and provides us with a shared humanity—not of just moments and movements but of memories that we live with forever. It falls to us to protect the muse, the struggle and the joys that define these marvellous creative industries. Let us ensure that creators, not algorithms, remain the first and last word in determining our cultural, economic and human advances.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

James Frith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will just make the point that I can see that this is very technical and complicated. It might require long answers, but I am not sure it required that level of input from not-Adele.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify the difference between his term “rights reservation” and previous reports of the Government’s preference for an opt-out system? Those systems have already been called out and considered unjust by our creators. There are AI leaders who recognise the need for fair licensing. What assurances can the Government provide to support both human and AI innovation? Does the Minister, with his creative industries hat on, agree that respecting copyright would see the introduction of an opt-in system as essential?

[Chris Bryant]

Again, this is another false dichotomy being presented to us between opt in and opt out. That is why we have landed on the term “rights reservation”. A lot of the material out there is not copyright. That is either because it is long out of copyright—the law for most works lasts for 70 years after the death of the author or the first publication of the work—or because some artists have categorically decided not to retain their copyright. Tom Lehrer, the author of many satirical songs from the 1980s and 1990s, such as “The Vatican Rag” and “The Masochism Tango”, has deliberately surrendered his copyright.

This is a world where we want to make sure that the vast majority of rights holders, whether they be the record label, the individual photographer, the artist or whatever, have the right of control over their copyright—over whether it is used and how it is used—and if it is going to be used, they should be remunerated. I urge my hon. Friend, who I know has a great interest in this subject in his role on the Select Committee, to make sure that that false dichotomy between opt in and opt out is abandoned. We talk about rights reservation, because then, opt out might look remarkably like opt in.