Creative Industries

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Minister referred to his greatest creative output, which apparently is hitting bookshelves soon. I am afraid I cannot match that—a Jaffa Cake haiku, which was cruelly overlooked by the McVitie’s marketing department, and a local news story about gnomes being banned from the graveyard in Wrington in north Somerset are as good as I can muster.

The creative industries are the lifeblood of our nation’s cultural wellbeing, and we neglect them at our peril. We must never ignore the voices of creators themselves. This weekend, many of us will have been disturbed to see the interview given by Paul McCartney about the challenge that AI poses to the creative industries and to creators.

The Government are correct to pursue artificial intelligence as a route to solving problems in our public services, boosting economic growth and creating new jobs. Nobody would argue with suggestions for speeding up and improving NHS treatment, removing pointless interactions with local councils or smoothing out bureaucracy for businesses in their interactions with Government Departments. In the creative arts, however, we have a very different challenge, and the Government must not put at risk the value of human creativity.

I will make no luddite arguments in this House—as the MP for the constituency that is home to the most influential cyber-cluster outside London, that would be daft. I am pro-business and pro-technology, as are the Liberal Democrats. I regard myself as a techno-optimist. Innovation is not just desirable but necessary. However, it is not an absolute, particularly when we are discussing threats to human creativity. I know that because my constituency is home not just to a cyber-cluster, but to a creative powerhouse. Cheltenham festivals bring visitors from around the world.

Because we are a creative powerhouse, I receive plenty of communication from creatives in Cheltenham. Robin, a composer, told me that he could no longer advise young creatives to rely on a job in the industry, because it simply will not pay. He told me that things will get worse if the changes to copyright go through. Let us consider for a moment the ability of the human mind to compose a tear-jerking piece of music, or of the delicate human hand to paint an evocative landscape or write prose to persuade, inspire, or move the reader. That is innately human. Such creative endeavour can and does change the world. It brings us growth, and so much more besides.

There is no doubt that technology has an important and positive role to play in this process, and it is already doing so. Technology and creative content must work side by side, but if original human creators are not compensated by default, we risk a future not of glorious, creative technicolour but of many shades of pale grey. Some have already warned that we risk a future of infinite pale grey, in which there is no incentive for humans to initiate any creative process whatsoever. It would be a dereliction of duty by Members of this House if they failed to engage with that risk as part of this discussion and the ongoing discussion about AI.

Last week, along with other MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, I joined a meeting with a tech company and one of its social media creators. I will not name the company or the creator; that would not be fair and would not add much to the debate. We were told of the huge growth potential for creators that the online and social media world presented. We were told that creators are employing teams of people to produce their content—a big jobs boost. During the discussion, they were asked what happens to jobs growth when a creator’s work is crawled by AI to the extent that it is reproduced hundreds, thousands or even an infinite number of times. If an answer came, however, it was not comprehensive or persuasive.

The mood music suggests that the Government and big tech firms favour an opt-out approach for creators, placing burdens on individual musicians, artists and writers to protect their work. I asked an expert about the potential risks of an opt-out approach and received an illuminating answer. The expert told me:

“For human creators, an opt-in model generally offers stronger protection.”

The first reason for that was control, as

“creators retain explicit control over how their work is used by AI”.

The second was compensation, as

“An opt-in system could be linked to licensing agreements, allowing creators to receive compensation for the use of their work in AI training”.

[Pete Wishart]

I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he is spot on about some of the dangers and threats posed to the sector by generative AI. Does he agree that there is a way to do this that could benefit and serve both AI and the creative industries, but that it will not involve a clearly unworkable opt-out approach? Indeed, it has never been explained how exactly that would work. Will he encourage other colleagues to look at working together to ensure we get a solution for both sectors?

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I agree that the concepts of opt-out and opt-in need to be pursued at greater length.

Thirdly, the expert told me that the preservation of value offered stronger protection:

“By requiring explicit permission, an opt-in model helps maintain the value of original creative works.”

The expert did point out two drawbacks. First, an opt-in approach has potential drawbacks in the form of an extra administrative burden on creators. Interestingly, this expert’s second listed drawback was that an opt-in model would place limits on AI’s ability to gather data for training and development, which does not seem to me like much of a drawback for creators.

I asked that very same expert what would happen if creators lost their intellectual property rights to AI. The expert told me there was a risk of

“a loss of income and motivation, a devaluation of creative work, ethical concerns, legal uncertainty”

and, intriguingly, “domination by AI operators.” I use the word “intriguingly” because this expert seems aware of its own power—the expert was Google Gemini.

At this stage, those considerations are unknowns, and there is much uncertainty. Google Gemini is pulling information produced mostly thanks to human endeavour and discussion sourced from across the internet, but the fact that this view is being presented by AI itself surely suggests there is cause for some concern. Our role as parliamentarians must be to protect the interests of humans, not big tech companies; to scrutinise the proposals of big tech companies; to avoid the luddite tendency, crucially; and to build in suitable safeguards.

[Chris Bryant]

As the Minister, I do not want to intervene too much. I sympathise with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. One of my concerns, however, is that if this country legislates in a particular direction, in order to reinforce copyright in the way that several hon. Members have suggested, the danger is that companies would simply train overseas, using the UK’s creative talent and intellectual property without any form of remuneration whatsoever. That is why I think it is really important that we get to a place where we have both sides working together.

[Max Wilkinson]

Of course. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I will be moving on to that in a moment.

If, against the will of the creative industry, the Government are to proceed with an opt-out approach—I hope they do not—it seems logical that such an approach must come with strong safeguards, which may come in the form of automatic attribution, in order to identify the creative inspiration for any work that has been crawled and reproduced. However, more importantly, we need suitable levels of compensation to be automatically awarded. In short, if the big tech companies want default access to our creators’ work, they must expect the default to be that they pay for it. Tech firms will argue that an opt-in approach, or one that places the burden on them, would place us out of step with other nations, and I accept that that might be the case. However, let us look at it from another perspective. Is the suggestion that we might give our creative industry more respect really such a terrible idea? I do not think so. Given the widespread threat to the UK’s creative industries from this and other economic circumstances, I would suggest not.

Having touched on AI, I will now address a few other subjects more briefly. First, I turn to the unfashionable topic of Brexit. The previous Conservative Government’s disastrous Brexit deal excluded artistic provisions, and the effect of that is reflected in a shocking statistic: between 2017 and 2023, we suffered a 23% drop in the number of British artists touring the EU. The Liberal Democrats backed free and simple short-term travel arrangements for UK artists to perform in the European Union.

Secondly, I turn to education. It is well known that changes to policy in the past decade or so have diminished arts education in state schools, with more than 40% of schools now no longer entering students for GCSE music or drama, and almost 90% not offering GCSE dance. Universities are also scaling back their arts offerings. The Liberal Democrats would restore arts subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, dance, drama and the visual arts.

Finally, I turn to local government. Local councils are historically the single biggest funders of culture in their areas, but their spending powers have been much reduced. There is a risk that as part of the devolution process, and as local government reorganisation happens, additional pressure will be placed on social care and children’s services. Although those things need attention, we must not allow the arts to be forced further to the fringes of public spending debates.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

On the funding of local arts and theatres, my constituency has a wonderful local theatre called The Capitol, which is owned and managed by the district council. However, our council is likely to be merged with some debt-laden neighbouring councils, with some of the responsibilities my hon. Friend has outlined, and that poses a severe threat to the theatre’s long-term survival. Does he agree that the Government need to look at inventive ways to reverse the decline in local funding? One option would be to emulate France’s patronage law, which provides for 60% tax relief on donations to art organisations.

[Max Wilkinson]

That sounds like a good idea. I think there are some really logical ways we could do this by ringfencing some assets for local value—attaching them to car parks, which are already producing revenue in local areas. There are creative ways that different local areas could do that. However, it is a concern, and I do not think that discussion on this matter has been had as part of the discussion on devolution and local government reorganisation.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I want to go back slightly to the point about health and social care spend by local authorities. Is there a good argument to be made that as more and more people require social care and support, particularly in care homes, there may be advantages in investing in the arts and culture in order to take them to people who would otherwise find them difficult to access?

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Older people in care homes can benefit from such creative outlets—both from having people bring arts and culture to them, and from days out at our local cultural institutions.

As some of the challenges we face are global, I will finish with a look at how other Governments are supporting their creative sectors. Since 2010, Germany, France and Finland have all increased their budgets. In the same period, the UK reduced its budget for arts and culture provision by 6%. More recently, Governments of EU nations and others around the world have begun spending more on their creative sectors, with the cultural centres of China, Russia, Portugal, France and Spain all increasing their budgets. This year, we cut the British Council budget by £12 million.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

The British Council may have to sell half of its art in order to pay back a £200 million debt from covid. Surely it is an example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing if we cannot reschedule that debt to enable the British Council to retain its valuable pieces of art, 4,500 pieces of which are under threat.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That does sound like a potentially devastating blow to our nation.

Britain has gifted the world the likes of Charles Dickens’s literature, the music of The Beatles and the best film of all time, “Paddington 2”. By amending our education system, protecting cultural spend locally, securing a fairer deal with the EU and protecting creatives from exploitation by AI, we can properly support our creative industry and ensure we continue to make a similar contribution for many years to come.