Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I will attempt not to give a rerun of the speech I made during the general debate on the creative industries the other day.

[Chris Bryant]

No Paddington?

[Max Wilkinson]

The Minister will be delighted to hear that there will be no Paddington references. Ministers have set out the core objectives of the Bill: growing the economy, improving public services and making people’s lives easier. No one is going to disagree with any of that. Those aims are laudable, and I support them, as do the Liberal Democrats.

However, there are concerns. I will focus on an area that others have already touched on, and speak in support of amendments that have come to us from the House of Lords relating to the creative industries and copyright. While the Bill seeks to improve lives, we worry that the consultation currently being undertaken by the Government leaves open a risk that incentives for human creativity will be removed entirely, and that we will end up in future with many tens of thousands of shades of pale grey.

At the heart of our creative sector is the ability of the human hand to paint or draw, or to write music that moves us, and of the human brain to compose verse that persuades people, makes the hair stand up on the back of our necks and changes the world for the better. Protecting that must be absolutely central to what we do as we embrace technology, but the risk of AI is that those protections are lost.

For the avoidance of doubt, and in the absence of clarity from the official Opposition, we back a system that would protect the IP of creatives; that is, an opt-in system. I would give way to the shadow Minister if he wanted to clarify the Conservative party’s position—he does not. The default must be that creative content is protected. Even AI models, if we ask them, admit the risk to human creativity if IP is not protected by an opt-in model. While the Conservative party has criticised us on that, at least we have an opinion.

[Ms Billington]

I want to emphasise and build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) pointed out in relation to music. We need to understand which creative sectors are most vulnerable to generative AI. It is those that have been easily replicable through other forms of technology in the past: music, writing and the visual arts, in particular photography. I say that because it is sometimes misunderstood that some creative sectors are more vulnerable than others, and if we do not understand that they have different regimes for how they are protected, there are risks of not being able to properly protect them.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Lady’s contribution is as right as all the others she has made during this debate and the general debate a couple of weeks ago.

I will immediately move on to the point that data is an abstract term and is being used to cover all sorts of information in these debates. Yet all data is not equal and our legislation must properly reflect that. For example, there is a clear and obvious role for AI in processing health data in a way that helps doctors with diagnosis and benefits patients with faster treatment. The same might apply to the chats we have with our local councils about bins, planning or licensing. Yet even though no one will disagree that the UK firms innovating in science, medicine, climate change and other key industries must not be stymied, the training data for other AI systems—the data we are talking about—is literature, poetry, music and art. Those are things that are creative in essence. It is not just data; it is creative endeavour and an extremely human form.

One of the options in the current consultation would abolish the copyright protections that underpin the livelihoods of our creative sector and, as others have said, that would be ruinous for the creative industries. Furthermore, the unintended consequences could actually harm the long-term development of AI models that we will all come to rely on. High-quality data is essential for training good AI models, but publicly available human-created text data might become the minority online. We have all seen the mistakes that AI can produce and a model trained on bad data will only produce bad results. The Government are rightly ambitious for AI, and part of that ambition must include producing models with traceable data that the public can be assured meets a high standard. Ministers should be embracing our copyright laws precisely because that is a means to improve AI, as well as protecting our creatives.

A reliable licensing system will ensure that AI models are being created using high-quality, human-generated data. Oversight of what is used to train those models will only help to build trust in what is a very new technology that the public is sceptical about. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support the amendments that have come from the House of Lords, which seek to strengthen the rights of creatives. The Government must think carefully about which side of the argument they support, and I have been pleased to hear some of the Secretary of State and the Minister’s reassurances today. We will be watching closely.

We can take more positives from other parts of the Bill, and to reflect on that, I will move on to discuss some constituency matters. I am more optimistic about the Bill’s potential to improve the situation of bereaved parents, which the Minister and I have discussed fairly recently, and I hope Ministers will confirm that that opportunity will be taken.

Many in the House will be familiar with the story of my constituent, Ellen Roome, who tragically lost her 14-year-old son Jools to suicide. In her search for answers about the circumstances leading up to Jools’s death, Ellen has come up against outdated laws and social media giants taking an intransigent approach to sharing data that should naturally be hers as a parent. We are talking about the things that, in the past, she would have been able to find out by looking through her child’s bedroom—things that might have been in wardrobes, stored under the bed or in school notes. These days, those bits of data will be on multiple social media accounts.

This is the subject of my private Member’s Bill, the Social Media (Access to Accounts) Bill, also known as the Jools’ law Bill. This Bill would give parents access rights to their deceased child’s data automatically, so other grieving parents will never face the challenges and the huge legal costs that Ellen has had to endure. I note the plans announced by Ministers include establishing an information commission with a duty to ensure children’s data is protected. This is a welcome step which I hope will strengthen the protections children badly need online, but we must ensure the commission is effectively resourced to take on the social media giants, who have made it clear that they only want profit.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

First, I offer my deepest condolences to the family concerned. In my constituency I also had a challenging case where a young boy lost his life. It is entirely appropriate that the Government are taking this forward, and I commend Ministers for their work on it and also thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this important matter.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of my points today is to make sure that, while the data Bill progresses, consensus is built in this House that we all acknowledge that parents should have the right to their children’s data in cases where a child has died of suicide. That is a simple principle, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with it, as I know Ministers do. That consensus must be borne out in the legislation that we pass.

I am hopeful these circumstances will be covered in the final Bill, and that the Jools’ law Bill will become law. So I ask Ministers today: will we have clarity on the Government’s plans in this area, and will they support parents like Ellen? Will the Government accept the principles my constituent Ellen is pursuing? It is a simple ask that parental access to social media accounts data is protected in the event of a child’s death, that social media companies are obliged to retain that data for a suitable period of time, and that data is made available to inquests so coroners can make judgments to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

Our position is pretty much exactly as I have just set out in my speech. A Government consultation is under way that presents four options, including the Government’s preferred opt-out option. There are challenges with that opt-out approach, as well as with a whole range of different approaches. As I have previously said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, whatever we do we must think about how that co-ordinates with what can happen in other jurisdictions. It is a complicated issue, and we need to ensure we get the legislation absolutely right. As I said, we need a response to the consultation as soon as possible so that we can chew through this further to find the best solution. In his summing up, I hope the Minister will update the House on that.

[Max Wilkinson]

The creative industries have been very clear about their position. The shadow Minister says that he wishes to support the creative industries and that that is the position of his party, but would it be too much to suggest he might go a step further and say that he supports the opt-in position, which is the position supported by the creative industries? That would give them reassurance that there is support from all parts of the House for the position they are taking.

[Dr Spencer]

The shadow DSIT team, including our shadow Secretary of State, have met representatives of industry in general. I have met representatives of the creative industries, and I am fairly sure the shadow Secretary of State has too. That is what the consultation is there for. It would not be appropriate to make a unilateral declaration from the Dispatch Box when a live consultation is looking into that complicated area. That would be not be reasonable opposition or good for anybody.

There are no easy answers to some of the challenges, but we should not shy away from them given the clear gains for the public and the economy that many of the reforms set out in the Bill will deliver. His Majesty’s official Opposition and the shadow DSIT team stand ready to work with the Government, wherever possible, to find solutions on these pressing issues. Effective engagement between Government and Opposition will promote confidence among tech companies and would-be investors that the UK is open for business. The last Government’s vision was to harness the UK’s competitive advantage in tech industries to boost our economy and revolutionise the way we live for the benefit of our population. We remain committed to that goal in opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

To clarify, the Jools Law Bill would simply require access to the social media accounts and data of deceased children. There is no risk to those children in those circumstances because they would already be dead.

[Chris Bryant]

That was the original point that I was trying to make, and I obviously did not make it as well as the hon. Member did, so I congratulate him on that.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) was a bit critical of article 70, but I think that he is being a bit unfair. The requirements in subsections 8 and 9, and then later in 11 and 12 of the article are very clear about the circumstances—and they are the only circumstances—in which the Secretary of State can bring forward changes of the kind to which he referred. I hope that we will be able to please him, if not appease him, if that matter appears in Committee or on Report.

I just want to finish with some comments on AI and IP, not least because there has been so much focus on this area. All of us on the Front Bench wanted to have a data Bill, because we think that it is really important for our economy and for so many different aspects of the way that we deliver Government services. We also want a debate about AI and copyright, which is why we launched the consultation, but it feels odd to be doing a bit of that in this Bill.

Let me turn now to what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. I asked ChatGPT what the view of the shadow Secretary of State was on AI and copyright. It replied, “Regarding his views on copyright, there is no publicly available information indicating that he has expressed specific opinions on this matter.” Well, yes, we heard that this afternoon, didn’t we? I hope the Opposition manage to find some ideas at some point.

This is a very serious matter and it is one of the trickiest issues that any country has to face at this point. I think that it is trickier for our country than most others, because we are the third largest AI economy in the world, and we are probably the second or, at worst, the third greatest IP country in the world. We have creators in every single sphere. Some countries specialise in one particular form of the creative industries, but we manage to do all of them. That is why I was listening very attentively to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith) and for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and many others as well.

I just want to focus on the things on which there is some agreement. I think there is agreement across the House on the idea that transparency is an important part of what we need to ensure in this legislation, and on the aim of control over intellectual property rights, and on possibly ending a stronger version of rights reservation for the creative industries. I can announce that we have set up two working groups in the past week, both of which have people from the creative industries and from the AI companies in them. One is specifically looking at transparency and what that looks like to be effective and proportionate, and it will start work on that next week.

Secondly, on the question of rights reservation, I fully understand that people are sceptical about whether there is a simple technical means of everybody being about to assert their rights—