Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I join with others in supporting the noble Baroness in exercising her right to insist upon Amendment 49F. Three months after the Government’s own report, this allows Parliament to be informed of the scale of the theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.

Your Lordships may consider that these measures are relevant for three reasons. First, they offer a degree of competence and protection, otherwise so far insufficiently provided, to and for the creative industries in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, they give an example internationally, including within the 46 states affiliated to the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a highly regarded member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman.

Thirdly, both within and beyond Europe, and starting with the 1710 Statute of Anne, granting legal protection to publishers of books, they continue to set a copyright protection standard, which in this case is expected of the United Kingdom and is also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, safeguarding privacy and personal data.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and declare my interest as an artist member of DACS.

I have supported the amendments from the noble Baroness because transparency would have unlocked avenues to negotiate licences, bringing mutual benefits to AI companies and rights holders alike.

Yesterday, in another place, the Minister asked, “What is the point of transparency if a company refuses to comply without enforcement?” The answer is simple: not all companies will refuse. There are responsible players: companies that will want to act lawfully and ethically, which would welcome clear frameworks for transparency and licensing.

Transparency would level the playing field in favour of those companies and would put pressure on those that choose to defy the law, rather than allowing them to dominate by default. Without transparency, the opposite happens: the market rewards infringement and penalises respect for copyright. That is the road we are on, and it is not one this House should endorse.

Every day of inaction allows unchecked infringement while good companies face competitive disadvantage. How long must artists and rights holders wait? The time for transparency is not some distant future date; it is now.