Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 17—Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems.

New clause 1—Age of consent for social media data processing—

“(1) The UK GDPR is as amended as follows.

(2) In Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services)

After paragraph 1 insert—

‘(1A) References to 13 years old in paragraph 1 shall be read as 16 years old in the case of social networking services processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, including targeted advertising and algorithmically curated recommendations.

(1B) For the purposes of paragraph 1A “social networking services” means any online service that—

(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and

(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images, or videos, with a wider audience.

(1C) Paragraph 1B does not apply to—

(a) educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings, where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes.

(b) health and well-being services, including NHS digital services, mental health support applications, and crisis helplines, where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care and support’”.

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data in the case of social networking services from 13 to 16.

New clause 2—Compliance with UK copyright law by operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision (including any such provision as might be made by Act of Parliament), requiring the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to comply with United Kingdom copyright law, including the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts relating to the pre-training, development and operation of those web crawlers and general-purpose AI models take place.

(2) Provision made under subsection (1) must apply to the entire lifecycle of a general-purpose AI model, including but not limited to—

(a) pre-training and training,

(b) fine tuning,

(c) grounding and retrieval-augmented generation, and

(d) the collection of data for the said purposes.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires web crawlers and general-purpose AI models with UK links to comply with UK copyright law across all stages of AI development.

New clause 3—Transparency of crawler identity, purpose and segmentation—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding the identity of crawlers used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—

(a) the name of the crawler,

(b) the legal entity responsible for the crawler,

(c) the specific purposes for which each crawler is used,

(d) the legal entities to which operators provide data scraped by the crawlers they operate, and

(e) a single point of contact to enable copyright owners to communicate 35 with them and to lodge complaints about the use of their copyrighted works.

(2) The information disclosed under subsection (1) must be available on an easily accessible platform and updated at the same time as any change.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to deploy distinct crawlers for different purposes, including but not limited to—

(a) web indexing for search engine results pages,

(b) general-purpose AI model pre-training, and

(c) retrieval-augmented generation.

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose AI models to ensure that the exclusion of a crawler by a copyright owner does not negatively impact the findability of the copyright owner’s content in a search engine.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires operators of web crawlers and AI models to disclose their identity, purpose, data-sharing practices, and use separate crawlers for different functions.

New clause 4—Transparency of copyrighted works scraped—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to disclose information regarding text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general purpose AI models, including but not limited to—

(a) the URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by them or by third parties on their behalf or from whom they have obtained text or data,

(b) the text and data used for the pre-training, training and fine-tuning, including the type and provenance of the text and data and the means by which it was obtained, and

(c) information that can be used to identify individual works, and (d) the timeframe of data collection.

(2) The disclosure of information under subsection (1) must be updated on a monthly basis in such form as the regulations may prescribe and be published in such manner as the regulations may prescribe so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory 35 instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause mandates transparency about the sources and types of data used in AI training, requiring monthly updates accessible to copyright owners.

New clause 5—Enforcement—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring the Information Commission (under section 114 of the Data Protection Act 2018) (‘the Commissioner’) to monitor and secure compliance with the duties by an operator of a web crawler or general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) model whose service has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (‘a relevant operator’), including but not limited to the following—

(a) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘information notice’) to require a relevant operator to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of investigating a suspected failure to comply with the duties;

(b) the regulations must provide for the Commissioner to have the power by written notice (an ‘assessment notice’) to require and to permit the Commissioner to carry out an assessment of whether a relevant operator has complied or is complying with the duties and to require a relevant operator to do any of the acts set out in section 146(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018;

(c) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied 15 that a relevant operator has failed, or is failing to comply with the duties, the Commissioner may give the relevant operator a written notice (an ‘enforcement notice’) which requires it—

(i) to take steps specified in the notice, or

(ii) to refrain from taking steps specified in the notice;

(d) the regulations must provide that where the Commissioner is satisfied that a relevant operator has failed or is failing to comply with the duties or has failed to comply with an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice, the Commissioner may, by written notice (a ‘penalty notice’), require the person to pay to the Commissioner an amount in sterling specified in the notice, the maximum amount of the penalty that may be imposed by a penalty notice being the ‘higher maximum amount’ as defined in section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018; and

(e) the regulations may provide for the procedure and rights of appeal 30 in relation to the giving of an information notice, an assessment notice, an enforcement notice or a penalty notice.

(2) The regulations must provide that any failure to comply with the duties by a relevant operator shall be directly actionable by any copyright owner who is adversely affected by such failure, and that such copyright owner will be entitled to recover damages for any loss suffered and to injunctive relief.

(3) The regulations must provide that the powers of the Commissioner and the rights of a copyright owner will apply in relation to a relevant operator providing a service from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such one provided from within the United Kingdom).

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause grants the Information Commissioner enforcement powers to ensure compliance with AI and web crawler transparency rules, including penalties for breaches.

New clause 6—Technical solutions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the technical solutions that may be adopted by copyright owners and by the operators of web crawlers and general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models whose services have links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 4(5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 to prevent and to identify the unauthorised scraping or other unauthorised use of copyright owners’ text and data.

(2) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must report on such technical solutions and must issue guidance as to the technical solutions to be adopted and other recommendations for the protection of the interests of copyright owners.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review and report on technical measures to prevent unauthorised data scraping by web crawlers and AI models.

New clause 7—Right to use non-digital verification services—

“(1) This section applies when an organisation—

(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and

(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.

(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—

(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and

(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”

This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.

New clause 8—Data Vision and Strategy—

“Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a ‘Data Vision and Strategy’ which outlines—

(a) the Government’s data transformation priorities for the next five years; and

(b) steps the Government will take to ensure the digitisation of Government services.”

New clause 9—Departmental Board Appointments—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) Government departments;

(b) NHS England; and

(c) NHS trusts

shall appoint to their departmental board or equivalent body at least one of the following—

(i) Chief Information Officer;

(ii) Chief Technology Officer;

(iii) Chief Digital Information Officer;

(iv) Service Transformation Leader; or

(v) equivalent postholder.

(2) The person or persons appointed as under subsection (1) shall provide an annual report on the progress of the department or body towards the Government’s Data Vision and Strategy.”

This new clause would require digital leaders to be represented at executive level within Government departments and other bodies.

New clause 10—Data use in Public Service Delivery Review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, every 12 months, lay before Parliament a ‘Data use in Public Service Delivery Review’.

(2) The Data use in Public Service Delivery Review shall include, but is not limited to assessment of the steps being taken to—

(a) improve the Government’s use of data in public service delivery over the previous 12 months;

(b) expand the use of data to support increased and improved digital services in public service delivery;

(c) improve expertise and digital talent within Government departments to help expand the use of data for public service delivery; and

(d) facilitate and regulate for better use of data in the delivery of public services.”

This new clause would require an annual assessment by the Secretary of State to examine the steps being taken to facilitate and regulate the use of data in the delivery of public services using digital and online technologies.

New clause 11—Access to a deceased child’s social media data—

“(1) Where a person under 18 years of age has deceased, a parent or legal guardian (the ‘requestor’) may request from any internet service provider (ISP) the child’s user data from up to 12 months prior to the date of death.

(2) The ISP must provide a copy of the requested data, or direct account access, upon verification of the requestor’s identity and relationship to the deceased person, and no court order shall be required for such disclosure.

(3) ‘User data’ includes all content, communications, or metadata generated by or associated with the deceased person’s online activity, including stored messages and posts, except where the deceased person had explicitly directed otherwise prior to death.

(4) The ISP may refuse or redact specific data only where—

(a) disclosure would unduly infringe the privacy rights of another individual,

(b) the deceased person had explicitly opted out before death,

(c) there is a conflicting court order, or

(d) a serious risk to public safety or national security would result.

(5) In providing data under this section, the ISP must comply with data protection legislation.

(6) This section constitutes a lawful basis for disclosure under Article 6 of the UK GDPR.

(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—

(a) provide guidance on verifying parent or guardian status,

(b) clarify any additional grounds for refusal, and

(c) prescribe safeguards to protect third-party confidentiality.

(8) For the purposes of this section—

‘internet service provider (ISP)’ includes any provider of social media, messaging, or other online platforms; and

‘data protection legislation’ has the meaning given in section 51 of this Act.”

This new clause would allow parents of a deceased minor to obtain that child’s social media data without a court order, subject to privacy safeguards for third parties.

New clause 12—Raising the minimum age at which users can consent to processing of personal data—

“(1) The UK GDPR is amended in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.

(2) (2) After paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the UK GDPR (Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services) insert—

‘(1A) References to “13 years old” and “age of 13 years” in paragraph 1 shall be read as “16 years old” and “age of 16 years” in the case of processing of personal data.

(1B) Paragraph (1A) does not apply to—

(a) platform systems and services operated where the primary purpose of processing of personal data is for the advancement of a charitable purpose as defined in the Charities Act 2011;

(b) publicly owned platform systems and services operated for the primary purpose of law enforcement, child protection, education, or healthcare;

(c) cases in which the Secretary of State determines it is in the best interests of the child for an operator to accept the child’s own consent.’”

This new clause would raise the age for processing personal data from 13 to 16 years old with certain exceptions for charitable purposes and child safety.

New clause 13—Code of practice for the use of children’s educational data—

“(1) Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the Information Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains such guidance as the Information Commissioner considers appropriate on the processing of children’s data in connection with the provision of education.

(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) all aspects of the provision of education including learning, school management, and safeguarding;

(b) all types of schools and learning settings in the development of guidance;

(c) the use of AI systems in the provision of education;

(d) the impact of profiling and automated decision-making on children’s access to education opportunities;

(e) children’s consent to the way their personal data is generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;

(f) parental consent to the way their children’s personal data is being generated, collected, processed, stored and shared;

(g) the security of children’s data;

(h) the exchange of information for safeguarding purposes.”

This new clause requires the Information Commissioner to produce a code of practice for accessing children’s educational data.

New clause 14—Transparency of business and customer data used in training Artificial Intelligence models—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring operators of general-purpose AI models to disclose upon request information about business data and customer data processed for the purposes of pre-training, training, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation in an AI model, or any other data input to an AI model.

(2) Business data and customer data must include, but is not limited to, the whole or any substantial part of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast included in any text, images and data used for the purposes set out in subsection (1).

(3) Information disclosable under subsection (1) must include but is not limited to:

(i) Digital Object Identifiers and file names;

(ii) Details of how the work was identified, including metadata;

(iii) The source from which it was scraped or otherwise obtained; and

(iv) The URLs accessed by crawlers deployed by operators, or by third parties, to obtain the data.

(4) The owner of rights in any individual work identifiable in information disclosed under subsection (1) must be provided upon request to the relevant operator with information as to whether and how they have complied with the laws of the United Kingdom in respect to that work.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out transparency provisions requiring generative AI developers to provide information to enable individuals and creative businesses to determine whether their data, works and other subject matter have been used in training datasets.

New clause 15—Complaints procedure for vulnerable individuals—

“(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) After section 165(3) insert—

‘(3A) For complaints under subsection (2), the Information Commissioner must provide appropriate complaints-handling procedures for—

(a) victims of modern slavery,

(b) victims of domestic abuse,

(c) victims of gender-based violence, or

(d) data subjects otherwise in a position of vulnerability.

(3B) Procedures under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) appropriate support for vulnerable individuals;

(b) provision of specialised officers for sensitive cases;

(c) signposting to support services;

(d) provision of a helpline;

(e) de-escalation protocols.’

(3) After section 166(1)(c) insert—

‘(d) fails to investigate a complaint appropriately or take adequate action to remedy findings of inadequacy.’

(4) After section 166(2)(b), insert—

‘(c) to use formal powers as appropriate to investigate a complaint and to remedy any findings of inadequacy, unless the request from the data subject is manifestly unfounded or excessive.’”

This new clause would require the Information Commission to introduce a statutory complaints procedure for individuals in a position of vulnerability and new grounds of appeal to an Information Tribunal.

New clause 18—Report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the passing of this Act—

(a) prepare and publish a report examining the need for a specific statutory public interest test to determine and safeguard access to NHS data by third-parties and companies.

(b) within 28 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate and votable motion on the findings of the report in each House.

(2) The report must consider—

(a) whether and in what situations it would be necessary, proportionate and lawful to share NHS data with third-parties and companies when the interests and risks to both the individual and/or public is considered.

(b) when it would be in the public interest and in the best interests of patients and the NHS to allow access by third-parties and companies to NHS data in relation to the provision of health care services and for promotion of health.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the introduction of a public interest test for allowing access to NHS data by third-parties and companies and then to schedule a debate on it in each House.

New clause 19—Secretary of State’s duty to review the age of consent for data processing under the UK GDPR—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent of this Act, have conducted a review and published a report into the operation of Article 8 (Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services) of the UK GDPR in relation to the data processed by social media platforms of children under the age of 16.

(2) As part of this review, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) the desirability of increasing the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR from 13 to 16, taking into account the available evidence in relation to the impact of social media platforms on the educational, social and emotional development of children; and

(b) the viability of increasing the digital age of consent under Article 8 of the UK GDPR in relation to specific social media platforms which are shown by the evidence to be unsuitable for use by children under the age of 16.

(3) Within six months of the publication of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a plan before Parliament for raising the digital age of consent to 16 through amendments to Article 8 GDPR, unless the review concludes that such changes are unnecessary.”

New clause 20—Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the use by web-crawlers and artificial intelligence models of creative content—

“The Secretary of State must—

(a) by 16 September 2025, issue a statement, by way of a copyright notice issued by the Intellectual Property Office or otherwise, in relation to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to activities conducted by web-crawlers or artificial intelligence models which may infringe the copyright attaching to creative works;

(b) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to help ensure proportionate and effective measures for transparency in the use of copyright materials in training, refining, tuning and generative activities in AI;

(c) by 16 September 2025, lay before Parliament a report which includes a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for start-ups and smaller AI enterprises on use of and access to data;

(d) by 1 July 2026, publish a technological standard for a machine-readable digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content and relevant information associated with the licence.”

New clause 21—Directions to public authorities on recording of sex data—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, issue regulations relating to the code of practice set out in section 49 of this Act which require public authorities to—

(a) collect, process and retain sex data only where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation;

(b) request and record sex data accurately, in every circumstance where sex data is collected, in accordance with following category terms and definitions—

(i) ‘Sex’ meaning male or female only based on ‘sex at birth’, ‘natal sex’ or ‘biological sex’ (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably); and,

(ii) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, ‘Acquired Gender’ meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004;

(c) have updated relevant organisation guidance to stipulate that, where sex data is collected, this must be done in accordance with the definitions set out by subsection (1)(b) within three months of these regulations coming into force;

(d) have conducted a review of the accuracy of data held in relation to the sex of data subjects to ensure that the data is accurate in recording sex at birth and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate within 12 months of these regulations coming into force;

(e) have taken every reasonable step to ensure that any data held in relation to the sex and, where relevant and collected lawfully, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate of a data subject that is found to be inaccurate is rectified or erased within 18 months of these regulations coming into force; and

(f) have produced and submitted to the Secretary of State a report setting out the findings of its review in relation to the matters set out by subsection (1)(d) and, where relevant, a description of the steps taken to ensure that the data held by the relevant public authority is accurate within the definitions set out subsection (1)(b) with 18 months of these regulations coming into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on receipt of a report in accordance with subsection (1)(f) instruct a public authority to take any further remedial steps within a specified timeframe reasonably necessary to ensure the accuracy of the sex and acquired gender data held by the relevant public authority.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passage of this Act, establish and maintain a register of public authorities approved to act as sources of data relating to the attribute of sex for persons providing digital verification services.

(4) The register in subsection (3) must be published on the website of the Office for Digital Identities & Attributes or any successor body.

(5) Until such time as a public authority is added to the register under subsection (3), persons providing digital verification services may only obtain data on the sex of an individual requesting the provision of digital verification services from the record of births held by the General Register Office in accordance with subsection (6).

(6) Information supplied by the General Register Office pursuant to subsection (5) must specify sex as recorded at birth, as well as any subsequent corrections to the register in the field marked ‘Sex’.

(7) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, add public authorities to the register as under subsection (3) only upon being satisfied on the basis of a report issued under subsection (1)(f), or satisfaction of such further steps required by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) that the data held by the relevant public authority in relation to sex and, where relevant, acquired gender as recorded on a gender recognition certificate, as defined in subsection (1)(b), is accurate.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue regulations relating to the code of practice in section 49 requiring public authorities to record sex data in line with these regulations when data are collected. This clause is linked to amendments 39 and 40.

New clause 22—Recording of ethnicity data for the purposes of public service delivery—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data in the process of public service delivery and associated data collection.

(2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be collected in the process of public service delivery.

New clause 23—Recording of ethnicity data on the Register of Births and Deaths—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the collection of individual ethnicity data during birth and death registration.

(2) The regulations set out by subsection (1) must make provision for ethnic classifications to include Jewish and Sikh categories.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make statutory provision for individual ethnicity data to be able to be collected during birth and death registration.

Government amendments 11 to 32.

Amendment 39, in clause 45, page 42, line 30, at the beginning insert—

“Save in respect of data relating to sex,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 40, page 43, line 15, at end insert—

“”gender recognition certificate” means a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Government amendments 1 to 8.

Amendment 37, in clause 67, page 75, line 24, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of paragraph 2, ‘scientific research’ means creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.

(2B) To meet the reasonableness test in paragraph 2, the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.”

This amendment incorporates clarifications to help reduce potential misuse of the scientific research exception. The first is a definition of scientific research based on the Frascati Manual. The second is a requirement that research be conducted in line with frameworks and standards in the UKRI Code of Practice for Research.

Amendment 41, in clause 80, page 95, line 19, at end insert—

“3. For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a human’s involvement is only meaningful if they are a natural person with the necessary competence, authority and capacity to understand, challenge and alter the decision.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 45, page 96, line 2, at end insert—

“5. Consent in accordance with paragraph 2 cannot be given by persons under the age of 18 where—

(a) the automated decision-making is likely to produce legal or similarly significant effects on the child, or

(b) the processing involves the profiling of a child to determine access to essential services, education, or other significant opportunities.

6. The controller shall not be obliged to maintain, acquire or process additional information in order to identify the age of a data subject for the sole purpose of complying with this Regulation.

7. A significant decision may not be taken based solely on automated processing, if the data subject is a child or may be a child unless the provider is satisfied that the decision is in, and compatible with, the best interests of a child, taking into account their rights and development stage, authorised by law to which the controller is subject, and after suitable measures to safeguard the data subject’s rights and freedoms and legitimate interests are made publicly available.

8. Profiling or solely automated processing of children’s data may not occur for the purposes of targeted advertising or behavioural analysis.”

This amendment ensures that automated decision-making cannot take place in circumstances where it would affect a child’s access to significant opportunities or would not be in their best interests, as well as protections against practices such as behavioural analysis.

Amendment 46, page 96, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—

“(a) communicate to the data subject before and after the decision is taken the fact that automated decision-making is involved in the decision, the extent of any human involvement, and the availability of safeguards under this Article;

(b) provide the data subject with information about decisions described in paragraph 1 taken in relation to the data subject including meaningful information about the logic involved, the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject, and a personalised explanation for the decision;

(c) enable the data subject to make representations about such decisions;

(d) enable the data subject to obtain human intervention on the part of the controller in relation to such decisions;

(e) enable the data subject to contest such decisions.

3. For the purposes of paragraph 2(b), a personalised explanation must—

(a) be clear, concise and in plain language of the data subject’s choice in a readily available format;

(b) be understandable, and assume limited technical knowledge of algorithmic systems;

(c) address the reasons for the decision and how the decision affects the individual personally, which must include—

(i) the inputs, including any personal data;

(ii) parameters that were likely to have influenced or were decisive to decision or a counterfactual of what change would have resulted in a more favourable outcome;

(iii) the sources of parameters and inputs;

(d) be available free of charge and conveniently accessible to the data subject, free of deceptive design patterns.

4. Where the safeguards apply after a decision is made, the controller must give effect to data subject requests as soon as reasonably practicable and within one month of the request.

5. The controller must ensure the safeguards are fully in place and complete a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 before a decision under Article 22A is taken, documenting their implementation of the safeguards in addition to the requirements of that Article.

6. The controller must publish details of their implementation of the safeguards and how data subjects can make use of them.”

This amendment would ensure that data subjects are informed of automated decisions made about them in a timely way, and that that explanation is personalised to enable them to understand why it was made. It also ensures processors are incentivised to put the safeguards in place before commencing automated decision-making.

Amendment 42, page 96, line 23, after “Article 22A(1)(a),” insert

“and subject to Article 22A(3)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 43, page 97, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) To qualify as meaningful human involvement, the review must be performed by a person with the necessary competence, training, authority to alter the decision and analytical understanding of the data.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 44, page 98, line 31, after “and 50C(3)(c),” insert “and subject to 50A(3)”.

This amendment and Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would make clear that in the context of new Article 22A of the UK GDPR, for human involvement to be considered as meaningful, the review must be carried out by a competent person who is empowered to change the decision in practice.

Amendment 9, in clause 81, page 100, line 7, at end insert—

“Age assurance

1C. Information society services which are likely to be accessed by children must use highly effective age verification or age estimation measures for the purpose of delivering on children’s higher protection matters.”

This amendment requires services which are likely to be accessed by children to use highly effective age verification measures.

Amendment 38, in clause 86, page 103, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Where personal data is processed for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act (‘reuse’), the processor or controller must publish details of the data sources used.

(2B) These details must as a minimum include a description of the scientific research, the provenance and method of acquisition of the personal data being reused, the original lawful basis for processing, the number of data subjects affected, and whether the data subjects have been notified of the reuse.

(2C) The processor or controller must notify the Information Commission when processing data for the purposes of scientific research under section 87(4) of the 2018 Act with the same details.”

This amendment ensures transparency for the use of scientific research exemptions by requiring those reusing personal data to publish details of that reuse and notify the Information Commission of that reuse.

Government amendments 33 and 34.

Amendment 10, in schedule 7, page 201, line 5, at end insert—

“(1B) A third country cannot be considered adequate or capable of providing appropriate safeguards by any authority where there exists no credible means to enforce data subject rights or obtain legal remedy.

(1C) For the purposes of paragraph 1A, the Secretary of State must make a determination as to whether credible means are present in a third country.

(1D) In making a determination regarding credible means, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the view of the Information Commissioner.

(1E) Credible means do not exist where the Secretary of State considers that any of the following are true:

(a) judicial protection of persons whose personal data is transferred to that third country is insufficient;

(b) effective administrative and judicial redress are not present;

(c) effective judicial review mechanisms do not exist; and

(d) there is no statutory right to effective legal remedy for data subjects.”

The amendment would prohibit personal data transfer to countries where data subject rights cannot be adequately upheld and prohibit private entities from using contracts to give the impression that data security exists.

Government amendments 35 and 36.

[Chris Bryant]

Earlier I appeared as a Department for Culture, Media and Sport Minister, and now I appear as a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister. I hate to embarrass Members, but they will get two bouts of me today. I will start with the Government amendments, and then once I have heard the arguments from Members advancing other amendments, I will speak to those later in the debate. If I do not cover subjects in this initial speech, I will get back to them later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I should point out that the hon. Lady, as the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party, will be speaking very shortly.

[Chris Bryant]

I know, but she is wonderful, so we will let her—or you will let her, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is a really important point. Surely it cannot be impossible for us to find a technical solution. People who can develop AI—and they are now developing AI on their laptops, especially following DeepSeek; they do not need massive computers—should be able to develop a very simple system, as I have said before, whereby all creatives who are copyright owners are able to assert their rights, very simply, across all platforms, without any great exertion. That is what I want to achieve.

The hon. Lady was quite right to raise that question, so what are we going to do next? We say in new clause 17 that we will report in 12 months’ time. If we were to report in 12 months’ time that we had done absolutely nothing, I think that everyone would rightly rant and rave at us. It is our intention that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will together co-ordinate a special taskforce specifically to consider how we can facilitate, incentivise and enable the development of these technical solutions. I suspect that, if we can get there, opt-out will look remarkably like opt-in.

The second matter on which new clause 17 requires us to report is access to data for AI developers to train AI systems in the UK, the third is transparency, and the fourth relates to measures to facilitate the licensing of copyright works for AI training. The publication will be required within 12 months of Royal Assent, and will of course be laid before Parliament. New clause 16 supplements these reports with a full economic impact assessment that will go further than previous assessments, and will present an analysis of the economic impact of a range of policy options available in this context, supported by the additional evidence that the Government have received in response to their consultation. The reporting requirements are important: they mean that we will have to engage with each of these issues apace and in depth, and we will do that. We are determined to find and incentivise technical solutions that support our objectives, and I believe that if we do that we can be a world leader. As I said earlier, the two Secretaries of State will convene working groups to tackle each of these issues.

I have heard people say that we are legislating to water down copyright, but that is simply not true. If Members support the Government’s position today, the UK’s copyright law will remain precisely as robust tomorrow as it is today. For activities in the UK, people will, in law, only be able to use copyright material if they are permitted and licensed to do so or if a copyright exception allows it, such as the existing copyright exceptions for education, public libraries and non-commercial work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

By its nature, enforcement would have to be compulsory, but we are running ahead of ourselves, because nobody has actually come up with a system that has an enforcement mechanism. Who would do it? What body would do it? How would that body be resourced? That is one of the things that we need to look into, and it is one of the elements of the consultation.

I will move on to another subject: the issue of purported intimate images. Government amendment 34 deals with the creation of intimate images or deepfakes. Earlier in the Bill’s passage, my colleague Lord Ponsonby added a new offence of creating purported intimate images without consent or reasonable belief in consent, and I am sure all hon. Members agree that this is a really important addition. In Committee, we introduced the offence of requesting the creation of purported images without consent or reasonable belief in consent, as hon. Members who were on the Public Bill Committee with me will know. It seems axiomatic that the courts should have the power to deprive offenders of the image and anything containing it that relates or is connected to the offence. This is already the case for the creating offence, which was introduced in the House of Lords. Government amendment 34 amends the sentencing code to achieve that for the requesting offence. It ensures that the existing regime of court powers to deprive offenders of property also applies to images and devices containing the image that relate to the requesting offence.

We have tabled a series of amendments to clauses 56 to 59 to reflect our discussions with the devolved Governments on the national underground asset register. The amendments will require that the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, rather than merely consult them, before making regulations in relation to the provisions. Co-operation with the devolved Governments has been consistent and constructive throughout the Bill’s passage. We have secured legislative consent from Scotland, and the Senedd in Wales voted in favour of granting the Bill legislative consent only yesterday. We regret that for procedural reasons, the process with Northern Ireland has not yet reached the stage of legislative consent. We are, however, working constructively with the Department of Finance to ensure that we can make progress as quickly as possible. We continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to secure legislative consent, and to ensure that citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland feel the full benefits of the Bill.

Before I finish, I turn to our amendments to help ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally, and that part 1 of the Bill is as clear as possible. Amendments to fee charging under clauses 11 and 15 follow extensive stakeholder engagement, and will maximise the commercial viability of smart data systems by enabling regulations to make tailored provision on fee charging within each smart data scheme. For example, amendments 19 to 21 enable the fees charged to exceed expenses where appropriate. This is necessary to fulfil the commitment in the national payments vision to establish a long-term regulatory framework for open banking. Outside smart data, Government amendment 35

“adds references to investigating crime to existing references in the Data Protection Act 2018 to detecting or preventing crime”,

which will bring these references into line with other parts of the legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Neon Signage

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

I am sure that you look forward to every response from a Government Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) ended her speech by saying,

“Let us light the way for the future of British neon”.

I am grateful to her for securing this important debate and, consistent with her approach, I am also grateful for her thoughtful and rather illuminating speech—if you will forgive the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not actually write that pun; somebody in my Department, to whom I am enormously grateful, wrote it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sack them.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not sacking them. You cannot call for civil servants to be sacked from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, otherwise people will call for you to be sacked.

As the Jamaican reggae artists Tenor Saw and Bob Marley have lyricised,

“Life is one big road with lots of signs”.

This debate has shone a light on not just neon signage itself, but the wider question of how we protect, support and promote the often overlooked corners of our creative economy. Let us be absolutely clear: as my hon. Friend said, neon is not simply about advertising, and it is not just a relic of a bygone era. It is artistry and craftsmanship; it is a part of our living heritage and of the living texture of our urban and rural landscapes. I remember for a while there was a neon sign on entering the Rhondda that used to say, “Two can dine for £1.99. Fine dining.” [Laughter.] I think it is slightly out of date.

From Glasgow to Blackpool and from the corner pub to the west end theatre marquee, there is neon. Behind each flicker of neon gas is a maker, a designer, a glass-bender and an engineer of light. These are not just tradespeople, but creative professionals sustaining a skillset passed down through generations. Many artists in the UK and across the world have taken advantage of what is, as my hon. Friend said, Great British invention. It was only in about 1912 that it passed to the United States of America and became part of its advertising hoardings. We think about neon adverts, but it is an essential art form, too. We have only to think of many of Tracey Emin’s neon works, such as “Fantastic to Feel Beautiful Again”, which is a beautiful piece, or—apologies for this, Madam Deputy Speaker; do not get overexcited —“Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Cover My Body In Love”, which is another great work.

The Liverpool artist Chila Kumari Singh Burman’s work often uses neon. I went to an extraordinarily wonderful exhibition of hers at the Imperial War Museum North, which had large amounts of neon, drawing on her family’s tradition of running a shop. Members may recall that a few years ago she covered Tate Britain during the winter period with lots of different neon signs. For that matter, people can go online—this is my advertising for the Tate—and buy one of her tiger or ice cream neon works for £950. For that matter, at Tate Modern there is Martin Creed’s work, “DON’T WORRY”. It is difficult not to sing, “Don’t worry”, is it not? A few years ago at Tate Britain, the Welsh artist Cerith Wyn Evans did an extraordinary piece, which I really remember, because it was such a contrast with the galleries it was in. It was 2 km of neon light. That was back in 2017.

The creative industries as a whole, as my hon. Friend will know, contribute £124 billion a year to the UK economy, and neon, as a niche but important part of that ecosystem, has a dual role in commerce and in our culture. Advertising is one of our key exports in the UK and an important part of our creative industries, too. We need just think of the Piccadilly Circus signs, God’s Own Junkyard, or the glow of a fish and chip shop on a rainy Tuesday night. These are not just signs, but signifiers of place, of character and of British eccentricity. They are things that imprint themselves in our memory as part of what we think of as our own home town.

I hear the call today for consumer transparency and greater support—the point was well made—whether through planning protections, trademarking or cultural preservation funding. Under existing legislation and guidance, there are provisions in place to protect unique aspects of our historic environment, including street furniture and signage. Indeed, the entrance range of the Walthamstow Stadium, with its fabulous neon sign, is grade II listed. Anyone can recommend a building, site, monument, designated landscape, battlefield or, indeed, sign for inclusion on the national heritage list for England, so long as they meet the eligibility requirements. I encourage people to do that.

I hope the House will allow me—apologies again for this—to cast a light on my Department’s work on living heritage. I encourage neon crafters to make a submission to the inventories of living heritage in the UK when we open the call for submissions later this year, following our incorporation of the convention last year. That is a fantastic opportunity for the neon craft community to advocate for their craft, raise awareness and be part of a wider conversation on living heritage.

Let me also address another point that my hon. Friend made, which was about sustainability. She is right that some people have incorrectly expressed concern about energy use by neon, when modern neon is far more efficient than its reputation suggests. When maintained, it outlasts LEDs, is recyclable and in some cases is even repairable.

On consumer transparency and the use of the term neon, I fully understand the concern that clearer definitions and protections could help prevent confusion for consumers and help preserve the value of handcrafted neon signage. We have only to go online for two or three minutes to find lots of different supposedly neon signs being advertised relatively cheaply, which are no more neon than they fly in the air. They are sometimes described as “LED neon signs”, which is a contradiction in terms. I fully take on board the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I thank her for bringing this matter to our attention as we engage with Departments across Whitehall on their trademark policy development. This is not solely a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

As I said earlier, protecting neon is not about nostalgia. It is about supporting livelihoods, unlocking tourism, and giving our public spaces character at a time when homogenisation threatens to reduce the character and unique identity of everything from our skylines to our high streets. The Government hear the case being made for neon signage, not as a gimmick or an indulgence but as an essential, flickering thread in the tapestry of British creativity. We hear the concern from artists, from heritage bodies and from communities who want to see colour, identity and local pride preserved. We are committed to working with industry, local government and the wider public to explore how best to secure the future of this unique form of creative expression. On this, we will not let the lights go out. As the Greek-born American neon artist Chryssa once said,

“I saw Times Square with its light and letters and I realized it was as beautiful and difficult to do as Japanese calligraphy.”

We should never let go of such artistry in our British traditions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Illuminating!

Question put and agreed to.

Creative Industries

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Chris Bryant

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have heard tell of a film studio in the hon. Member’s constituency, so I wondered whether he was going to refer to that. Obviously, the previous Government and this Government have been committed in different ways to ensuring that we expand the provision of film studio space in the country. We are almost up to the level of having more space than Hollywood, and we are keen to progress that. Again, if he wants to come into the Department and talk about the specifics of what we might be able to do in his constituency, I would be happy to do that. He is right that sometimes we have focused on the massive projects, but we cannot get many massive projects in the creative industries without starting with the small and medium-sized businesses, and that is where we need to go.

One thing that has stood in the way of film studios for quite some time is the re-evaluation of business rates. I am glad that we have got to a much more sensible position over the past 12 months on the matter. Likewise, planning applications have been phenomenally difficult in many cases. We were proud to put £25 million into the Crown Works studio in Gateshead, which I look forward to visiting soon.

One of the principal barriers to innovation in 2025 is that not enough investment is going into research and development in the creative industries, and I know the Select Committee has looked at that. It is why the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology recommended that

“Public investment in R&D in the creative industries should reflect the size, economic contribution, and future growth potential of the sector.”

That is why we confirmed earlier this month that we will strengthen the investment from our national research funding agency—UK Research and Innovation—into creative research and development.

Another part of the equation is, of course, tax relief. One of the great catalysts for the strong growth of our creative industries has been targeted tax reliefs for different sectors, introduced by both the Conservative Government and this Labour Government. We built on those reliefs in our first 100 days in government, with an enhanced independent film tax credit to support home-grown talent and UK co-productions and an enhanced tax relief for visual effects from the start of this year. That tax relief sends a clear message to our directors, visual effect artists and actors: “Be courageous, take risks and reap the rewards. Your Government are behind you.” I hope to be able to say more on film and high-end television at the Select Committee tomorrow morning—I am sure the Committee has some difficult questions for me.

On skills, education and the workforce, we want to see more good-quality creative jobs and more creative businesses popping up across the country. But too often what I hear from young people is that they could no more dream of getting those jobs than going to the moon. That is not just a tragic waste of human potential; it is bad business. That is why Steven Knight, the creator of “Peaky Blinders”, who is working to bring a film school to Birmingham, is recruiting and training 20% of the workforce from local postcodes, and I applaud him. It is essential for investors to know that they do not have to incur the cost of shipping people in to work on a project when that talent exists everywhere, but the opportunity does not.

That is why we made it a core priority in our manifesto to improve access to the arts and music as part of our opportunity mission. We wasted no time in getting that work under way, with the Education Secretary launching an expert-led independent curriculum and assessment review within a month of the general election. On top of that, we provided a further £3 million to expand the creative careers programme, so that we can broaden and diversify the talent pipeline in the creative industries.

Only by restoring culture’s place in the classroom and beyond will we be able to get young people ready for the creative jobs of tomorrow. We set up Skills England to work with employers and to help give us a coherent national picture of where skills gaps exist and how they can be addressed through further qualifications and technical education. In its first report, Skills England highlighted the importance of the creative industries for both current and future opportunity and growth.

We also need to ensure that there are opportunities in the workplace. We know that apprenticeships can be incredible springboards into creative careers, but that relies on there being a levy that works in the interests of employers and apprentices. For years before the general election, I heard repeatedly from the creative industries how difficult it was to use the apprenticeship levy in their industry. If someone is making a film, it might be a six, seven or eight-month project, which was not enough to meet the previous criteria for the apprenticeship levy. That is why I am really proud that we are working with Skills England to transform the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy, to create opportunities and provide greater flexibility for employers and apprenticeships. We plan to bring forward changes so that shorter apprenticeships are available from August 2025, recognising the particular needs of the creative industries. A 12-month apprenticeship is no good for employers who need skills for projects that are shorter than that. We are knocking down that needless hurdle.

For sectors such as music, the grassroots is always where it all begins. We are therefore not only continuing to support Arts Council England’s supporting grassroots music fund, but working up a 12-point plan for music—it says 10-point plan here, but when I looked at it this morning, it was already a 12-point plan. The truth of the matter is that music is a vital part of our lives, whether it is classical music, opera, pop music or heavy metal, which some people like—I see the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), nodding in a heavy metal sort of way; he has to be careful at his age, although I think he is younger than I am. The point is that we all have our different tastes in music, but we know how important it is to people’s enjoyment of life and to their being able to express themselves.

There is also nothing as important as being able to go to a live music event. One thing we are working very hard on—I made a statement about it earlier this year—is trying to make sure that the secondary ticket market, which has behaved in a frankly duplicitous and often parasitical way towards the music industry, is brought to heel and actually operates in the interests of fans.

I also want to talk about exports. We have some remarkable export strengths in the creative industries. Publishing achieved year-on-year growth and is now worth £11.6 billion to our economy, with export income accounting for almost 60% of its revenue. We are the largest book exporter in the world, and we should be proud of it. However, we need more success stories like publishing, and we need to make sure that the problems that publishing is having with exporting books—for instance, to the European Union—are overcome.

If we are to have such success stories, we need to fix some of the issues that the last Government unfortunately failed to address, such as touring. If we want the next generation of Ed Sheerans, Dua Lipas, Adeles and Stormzys to stand any chance of breaking into new markets, they must be able to perform overseas without having to navigate a maze of rules and regulations. That is why we are engaging with the EU and EU member states to find an answer that improves arrangements for touring across the European continent, without seeing a return to free movement.

That equally applies to the art market. Artworks are being brought to the UK to be sold in the UK art market, where they might command the highest price, but they are facing great difficulties entering the country. That is the kind of thing we also need to sort out.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister is giving a very substantial speech, but he has been on his feet for 30 minutes. Hopefully he will be coming to a conclusion at some point.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that I inherited this speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to shut up as soon as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I think I have united the House there. That was very unkind—I feel a bit upset now.

It will not have escaped hon. Members that the challenges I have outlined today are all interconnected. As I have said, we cannot have thriving creative businesses without creative talent with the right skills. We will not see strong export growth numbers if businesses are unable to access the finance they need to expand. The independent film tax relief will be worth nothing if we do not have a curriculum that values culture and fosters, champions and promotes creativity. That is why we are focused on the whole creative ecosystem—from the first spark of inspiration in the classroom, through the first leap into the unknown at a theatre or grassroots music venue, to getting the first foot on the ladder to take a local business national or a national business global. This Government recognise that it all matters, and through the partnership I have spoken about today, we hope to make sure that growth in those industries continues for many decades to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

And now for something completely different! With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement regarding our launch of a public consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence.

The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of creativity and technical innovation. From our film and television sectors to video games, publishing, music, design and fashion, our creative industries are a cornerstone of our economy and our creative identity. They bring £125 billion to the economy and employ over 2.3 million people. James Bond, the Beatles, Vivienne Westwood, Adele, “Vera”, Bridget Riley, “Tomb Raider”, the Sugababes, “Football Manager”, Paddington and Paul Smith are all part of an immensely valuable British industry.

The creative industries are central to our economic future, and we are determined to help them flourish. The same is true of artificial intelligence—both as an enabler of other industries, including the creative industries, and as a sector in its own right. The Government are determined to capitalise on the UK’s position of strength in the global AI sector and will soon publish the AI opportunities action plan, which will set out an ambitious road map to unlock AI’s transformative potential across our economy and public services.

Both the creative industries and AI sectors are at the heart of our industrial strategy, and they are also increasingly interlinked. AI is already being used across the creative industries, from music and film production to publishing, architecture and design; it has transformed post-production, for instance. As of September 2024, more than 38% of creative industries businesses said that they have used AI technologies, with nearly 50% using AI to improve their business operations.

Strong copyright laws have been the bedrock of the creative industries, but as things stand, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is fiercely disputed. Rights holders, including musicians, record labels, artists and news publishers, are finding it difficult to control the use of their works to train AI models, and they want and need a greater ability to manage such activity and to be paid for it. Likewise, AI developers, including UK-based start-ups, are finding it difficult to navigate copyright law and complain that the legal uncertainty means that they are unable to train leading models in the UK.

The status quo cannot continue. It risks limiting investment, innovation and growth in the creative industries, the AI sector and the wider economy. Neither side can afford to wait for expensive litigation—either here or in the US—to clarify the law, not least because courts in different jurisdictions may come to different conclusions and individual cases may not provide clarity across the sector. Nor can we simply rely on voluntary co-operation. That is why we think the Government must take proactive and thoughtful action that works for all parties.

The consultation published yesterday sets out clearly that the Government’s objectives on this issue are threefold: to enhance rights holders’ control of their material and their ability to be paid for its use, to support wide access to high-quality material to drive the development of leading AI models in the UK, and to secure greater transparency from AI developers in order to build trust with creators, creative industries and consumers. In short, we want to provide legal certainty for all and to secure enhanced licensing of content.

There are three key aspects to our consultation. The first is increased transparency from AI developers. That includes the content that they have used in training their large language models, how they acquire it, and any content generated by their models. In other words, consumers should know whether a book or song has been generated by a person or by artificial intelligence, and whose content helped generate it in the first place. The second aspect is a new system of rights reservation, whereby rights holders can withhold their content from being used unless and until it has been licensed. The third is an exception to copyright law for text and data mining where rights holders have licensed their content or otherwise chosen not to reserve their rights. That would improve access to content by AI developers, while allowing rights holders to control how their content is used for AI training.

Those measures are contingent upon each other. Progressed together, we believe this package of measures could enhance the ability of rights holders to protect their material and seek payment for its use through increased licensing, while also enabling AI developers to train leading models in the UK in full compliance with UK law. It will, however, only work if there is a proper system of rights reservation in place. I urge everyone to read and respond to the consultation document and to examine the safeguards we are proposing for rights holders. I would especially urge both AI developers and rights holders to work with us to identify a simple, practical, proportionate and effective technical system of rights reservation, without which the whole package will not work.

We are conscious that the UK does not operate in a hermetically sealed bubble, and this provides its own challenges. If we were to adopt a too tight regime based on proactive explicit permission, the danger is that international developers would continue to train their models using UK content accessed overseas but may not be able to deploy them in the UK. As AI becomes increasingly powerful and widely adopted globally, this could significantly disadvantage sectors across our economy, including the creative industries, and sweep the rug from underneath British AI developers. That is why, as well taking this approach in the UK, we are committed to international engagement and recognise the importance of international alignment.

This consultation is a joint effort between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Intellectual Property Office, and between the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who has responsibility for AI, and me, with responsibility for the creative industries.

This is not an academic exercise. The consultation is absolutely clear that we will not implement these changes unless and until we are confident that we have a practical, practicable and effective plan that meets our objectives of enhancing rights holder control, providing legal certainty around AI firms’ access to content, and providing transparency for rights holders and AI developers of all sizes. My fellow Minister and I will be engaging directly with a wide range of people in an attempt to find practical and technical solutions to this question.

Many people have called this an existential question for our creative industries. They are right. We therefore see this consultation as a pivotal opportunity to ensure that sustained growth and innovation for the UK’s AI sector continues to benefit creators, businesses and consumers alike while preserving the values and principles that make our creative industries so unique. We believe that there is a potential win-win solution, and that the UK, with its strong traditions of copyright and technological innovation, is in a unique place to deliver it. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister, Dr Ben Spencer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call our very own James Bond, Minister Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Fortunately, I asked ChatGPT what the shadow Minister would ask me and it was pretty much right—although some of the questions from ChatGPT were rather more to the point. I will deal with the serious points he made.

First, the shadow Minister raised the point about mimicking artists. That is one of the things we are consulting on. There is a legitimate question about whether we should take further action in this country. Tennessee has acted: it has got its ELVIS Act—the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act. California and a couple of other states in the United States of America have acted on this already, and whether we should move in that direction is a perfectly legitimate question.

Likewise, the shadow Minister referred to computer-generated works. He will probably know that under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is provision that seems to guarantee the right for computer-generated art to be copyright-protected. That is not the case in most other countries, and it could be argued that developments in recent copyright law on the nature of originality would suggest that, unless a human being is directly involved in the creation of the work, there should not be copyright protection. We have suggested a direction of travel to get rid of section 9(3) of the Act.

The shadow Minister said that we have delayed bringing this forward, but I merely point out that for quite a long time the previous Government said that they would bring forward a voluntary system, bringing the two sides together. Nothing whatsoever came from that, so I am afraid that feels a bit of a cheat.

What I want to contest is the idea that we have sided with one or the other. There is a legitimate problem, which is that AI companies and the creative industries are at loggerheads in the courts in several different jurisdictions on several different points which are moot at the moment. We do not think that simply standing by the present situation will suffice because the danger is that in two or three years’ time all UK content will have been scraped by one or other AI developing company somewhere else in the world if there is no legal clarity in the UK. I would like to be able to bring all that home so that AI operators can work in this country with security under the law, using UK copyright that has been licensed and paid for, because that is another potential revenue stream for creators in this country.

The shadow Minister asks about extending the consultation. I am not going to extend the consultation. We want to crack on with this piece of work. Only two minutes earlier in his speech he said that we were delaying bringing it forward and then he said we should delay further. It is time that we seize hold of this. I certainly will meet with a large number of people. My fellow Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and I have met many different organisations and we will be providing a list because it will be in our transparency returns published soon, and the number must run to dozens if not hundreds. Of course, there are differing views, but I make it absolutely clear that the three measures we are talking about—the transparency on inputs and outputs that AI developers will have to provide, the provisions for creators to reserve their rights, and the exemption for data mining for commercial purposes—are contingent upon each other. We will not move forward with such a package unless there is a technical solution to the question of how people can reserve their rights.

At the weekend, I looked online to see what it would be like to try to reserve rights, by pretending to be various musicians and artists. At present, it is phenomenally difficult and complicated—other Members may have questions about this—and that must change. There must be a proper rights reservation system that is easy to use, practicable and enables creators, either individually or collectively, to assert and maintain control of their rights.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The UK is in a unique position—second in the world in the creative industries, and in the top three for AI innovation—so getting the right solution to protect and support our intellectual property, while supporting and incentivising AI innovation, is uniquely important to our cultural and economic life.

I am a former regulator and chartered engineer, so I welcome the Minister’s decision to go with regulatory technology as the solution, and to challenge the tech sector to come up with technology to ensure we can have both the reservation of rights and the transparency of inputs to large language models, both of which are critical.

The tech sector too often spends less time protecting people and property than maximising profit, but the language of the consultation is a bit vague. The Minister talked about arriving at a plan rather than a solution, so will he make it absolutely clear that any text and data mining exemption is contingent on the technology being deliverable, implementable and workable, and that if the technology fails, the exemption fails?

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee to her place. She is 100% right that we cannot have the text and data mining exemption for commercial purposes unless there is a proper rights reservation system in place. I do not know whether she has looked at rights reservation, but it is terribly complicated. People can use the robots exclusion protocol, but it is rather out of date and is avoided by many players in the market. It is very complicated and applies only to a person’s own website, whereas their creative input might not be on their personal website—it might be on somebody else’s.

I tried to create a Bridget Riley using an AI bot over the weekend. The bot had obviously trained itself on some Bridget Riley works, but it was a shockingly bad Bridget Riley—it was nowhere near. I wanted to ask whether it had used Bridget Riley’s work to learn how to make a Bridget Riley-like picture and, if so, whether Bridget Riley received any compensation. Bridget Riley could use another website, haveibeentrained.com, if she wanted, but it is phenomenally complicated. That is precisely what must change. The AI companies must come up with a technical solution, whether they produce music, text or whatever. Without that, we will not be able to progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is always easier if the Minister looks at the Chair, so we can ensure that we are sticking to time limits.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Dynamic Ticket Pricing

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

We would not want half-empty venues—despite looking around the Chamber—due to tickets being priced too high, nor venues and festivals that are not economically sustainable. What we should not accept, however—I am very clear about this, as are the Government —are practices that see fans of live events blindsided by price hikes, either because they were not provided with the right information up front or because that information was not provided clearly enough. Doing so might be in breach of existing consumer law, which requires businesses to be fair and transparent in their dealings with consumers. It is the responsibility of the CMA to investigate potential breaches of consumer law arising from or involving the use of dynamic pricing methods, and to take enforcement action where appropriate. I have already referred to its investigation in this case.

It is the responsibility of Government, however, to confront the wider policy questions around the use of dynamic pricing for tickets to live events. We have already said that we will look at this issue further to establish whether consumers are adequately protected under existing law, or whether more needs to be done. The hon. Member for Gosport asked whether this means that we are going to take our eye off the ball on the secondary ticketing market—it does not. We are very clear: we have a set of manifesto commitments, and we will bring out our consultation this autumn. Once we have completed that consultation, we expect to take the necessary action that we committed to in our general election manifesto. Since most of that action is in line with what the Select Committee was advocating before the general election, I hope we might still enjoy the Committee’s support for it.

The hon. Lady is right that we will also be looking at websites: that is part of the whole panoply of action. She also effectively referred to vertical integration within the ticketing system. Of course, that has to be part of our considerations, because it is another part of making sure that the market works for humanity—for fans, artists and the creative industries—rather than all of us having to operate as slaves of the market.

The Prime Minister has said that we are committed to putting fans at the heart of music and ending extortionate resales. As I have said, we will launch a consultation this autumn to work out how best we can do that. That consultation will look at tickets for live events, and a call for evidence on the topic of price transparency, including dynamic pricing, will be sent out. That will help us understand the needs of fans and the live events industry. To be absolutely clear with the House and the hon. Lady, that will be about tickets for live events, not the whole of dynamic pricing across all industries in the UK.

The hon. Lady asked when we will respond to the grassroots venues report from May. We have been getting our feet under the table as fast as we possibly can, and I am very eager to respond to that report in swift order. I take the responsibilities of Select Committees very seriously—I sat on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee from 2001 to 2005; it is one of the most important things I have done as a Member of Parliament—so we will respond as soon as we can. It will certainly be in the autumn, and I would like it to be as soon as possible after the Committee is fully formed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I am not allowed to refer to what she tried to get as urgent questions, but I have now. We have a world-class live events sector in the UK, and I am absolutely determined that fans have every opportunity to experience it at first hand.

There is nothing better than someone standing in an audience—in a crowd, along with hundreds of other people—either experiencing an artist they have never seen before and suddenly realising, “My God, that’s just pierced right through to my heart”, or going to see somebody they have seen 50 times before, having listened to the album 75 times in the past week, and having that joyful moment. They will be different artists for every single one of us, but I want far more people in this country to be able to enjoy that opportunity. I want every child to have a creative education, and I want them to have the opportunities that so many others enjoy in my constituency and every other.

I acknowledge that dynamic pricing can help match supply with demand, resulting in both higher and lower prices, but when it is used as a business model it needs to be transparent and fair, and that is what we want to ensure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It was wonderful to hear from two musicians, and Sir Chris Bryant has given away his true old age.

Question put and agreed to.