Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will start with my hon. Friend’s very last point, which is that we all agree that copyright law is clear—we do. I hope people understand that the Government’s position is clear that copyright law is clear. I do not think that is in doubt.

Secondly, of course, we always have the power to introduce legislation. However, certainly if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches, I would doubt whether it would be right to introduce transparency requirements solely on the basis of secondary legislation, which—as I say—would probably have to contain some sort of enforcement mechanism and potentially a new offence. I would say, “Secondary legislation is unamendable—it is take it or leave it. That would be problematic.”

While again I understand the desire for us to move as swiftly as possible, I reiterate that I think it is better for us to legislate in the round, taking all of the subject matter into consideration. Some matters have not even been mentioned in this debate, such as what we do about the copyright that pertains to AI-created material. Should that material have any protection, or no protection? Should it follow the person who created the AI large language model, or should it stick with the person who asked the AI large language model the question?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) is quite right: back in 2010, the Napster provision was first enacted through the Digital Economy Act. Such provision is possible, and I just do not understand the Minister’s reticence about this amendment. It seems an entirely reasonable amendment to bring forward—it does everything that everybody wants to achieve when it comes to this Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, could he at least say that he accepts the principles of it and what it requires, and that he will do all he can to bring forward all the provisions it asks for?

[Chris Bryant]

I am trying to be tidy in the way I respond to people, so first, I note that I did not respond to the Napster point. Quite a lot of people have made the point to me that we got from Napster to Spotify. There are many problems with Spotify that many musicians, record labels and so on have raised with me, but at least it is better than people taking stuff for nothing. There is an argument—a strong argument, I would say—that in this debate, we want to move from Napster to Spotify, or to something even better than Spotify. I am not sure precisely how we get there, but I am absolutely certain that we need to legislate in the round for all of these issues.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about the principles of the noble Baroness Kidron’s amendment. Of course we believe in transparency—we are fully subscribed to wanting to provide that. That has always been part of the package that we have wanted to present. There is still the question of what enforcement would look like, and many other issues that any Bill that comes forward would need to address. I am hesitant about introducing a draft Bill, because a draft Bill would take longer to go through.

We want to be able to legislate in this area as soon as we possibly can, but we also want to have listened to and borne in mind the full panoply of the responses. People may presume that they know what the 11,500 responses will say, but actually, they are much more diverse. I am not saying that everybody is clamouring for what the Government have laid out; I am just saying that those responses address a diversity of issues, all of which we need to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Smith]

First, the Ministers, who I like personally and rate a lot, unfortunately do not control the timetable of Government business. Secondly, they do not have a Bill in the King’s Speech. Thirdly, my prediction is that they will be promoted before this new Bill comes to pass.

The speeches were honest, but what they exposed is that there is no time commitment whatever from those on the Government Benches to bring back a Bill to this House to address the current property theft raining down on the UK creative industries. That is why the creative industries and the debate in the other place, which we listened to yesterday, are so passionate. Theft of the property rights of composers, writers, filmmakers and other creatives have been happening for years. They continue to happen and will continue to happen until the new Bill comes forward; greater and greater volumes of intellectual property and hard-fought rights falling into the AI hopper never to be seen again, and no system of redress other than expensive legal action to get it back. How would we feel if it was our own property, business or land—if it was removed without us even being asked, with the gentle reassurance that we could take action retrospectively?

Creatives are desperate. Most do not have the workers’ rights the majority of us have, or things such as pensions or holiday pay; all they have is their intellectual property rights. Where will the incentive be now to toil for weeks, months and years creating a piece of music or writing a text, only to have it snatched away when success arrives? There is an irony, with the Government returning shortly with the Employment Rights Bill, that creative workers’ rights continue to be so eroded.

The transparency amendment in front of us today is a much diluted version of the previous Kidron amendments sent to us from the other place. It sets out a clear timeline for when the Government must return with a Bill, which is a modest request; the Government will still be able to delay the Bill, should they want to, and, to be honest, the creative industries will still not have the opportunity to protect their works in the meantime.

The amendment should be accepted because it will provide reassurance to a key UK sector. However, it should also be accepted as an example of our two Chambers respecting each other. No one in the debate yesterday, listening to the words of Baroness Kidron, Lord Forsyth or others, could feel they were trying to cause the Government problems. Each and every supporter of the amendment did so on the basis of support for the rights of those working in one of the UK’s leading economic sectors, who are pleading with us for their survival and to work positively with this new technological development.

Our politics is currently jam-packed with black and white positions and an instinct to jump to disagreement and polarisation. The Lords amendment before us today represents a modest proposal to disagree well, and the Government should accept it.

[Pete Wishart]

I was not going to say anything in this round of ping pong, but a couple of things in the debate have tempted me to my feet. The first thing I want to say is about the House of Lords. I have to say that I congratulate their lordships on their tenacity on this issue; I think we both expected and presumed that they would have backed down a long time ago, but they have decided not to, and I think that is because of what I have heard today. They are backing the sector. It has been left to the Lords to ensure that the voices of our artists and those in our creative industries and sectors are adequately articulated and presented to Ministers, so I congratulate them on that. I say that as somebody who is no great respecter of the House of Lords—I have this cute little notion that someone serving in a legislature should be elected to that legislature.

The Lords have done an exemplary job in all this, and they are entirely entitled to bring forward this matter again and again until the ministerial team find some sort of compromise, which, between the two of them, they will surely be able to do. This is the territory we are in now; this is the fourth round of ping pong. It is no good us just sending it back to the Lords again and again. The Government can insist and get their way, of course: they are the Government, and this is the primary House in our Parliament, so they can do that if they want. But why would they not sit down and work out a way forward that takes on board everything the Lords want to achieve and secure and that meets the noble ambitions and lofty rhetoric we have heard from those on the Government Front Bench today and the last few times this has been debated?

I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment. It sounds like the Minister is inventing reasons as to why it could not be agreed to. The example from the Digital Economy Act is spot on: we were adaptable and did things as the situation required in order to meet the challenge of the time—a huge challenge, when digitisation was coming into our creative arts. This is a bigger challenge and test. This is more existential than the Digital Economy Act of 20 years ago, and that is why we must act now. People cannot wait.

Our cultural heritage is being scraped and hoovered up by large tech companies, and soon there will be nothing left of it. Millions of creative artists are waiting for the Government to engage—to sort it out, compromise and do something with those with an interest in all this. The Government are convincing no one thus far; the creative industries do not believe that they have their best interests at heart or that we will have enough time to secure what is left of our cultural heritage.

The Government should do something—do not just send the Bill away again, although they probably will, and have it come back to us. Sit down, compromise and get something sorted out and, for the sake of our creative industries, find a solution that works for everybody.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I said, all future decisions are for the spending review. We are a very big supporter of the LTA’s work and are really pleased to see it, and would be happy to meet LTA to discuss it.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

6. What progress her Department has made on removing barriers for UK artists seeking to tour in the EU.

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

I was absolutely delighted that the Prime Minister’s EU-UK deal included a direct reference to the importance of touring artists and cultural exchange. I have already been in touch with my EU counterpart commissioner, and I intend to take the matter forward as soon as I can.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it is over four years since I first raised this matter in an urgent question in the House of Commons. In that time, nearly half of UK musicians say that they have lost work in Europe and precious income as they confront all the Brexit barriers, visa issues and cabotage restrictions. The Labour manifesto vowed to resolve this, and we were all grateful for the warm words in the reset document, but real action is required. When can we see our wonderful UK artists back in the concert halls and arenas of Europe, travelling freely and without any restriction?

[Chris Bryant]

That is absolutely our aim and intention, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am as committed to that as he is. Obviously, the UK-EU deal is very good, but we want to make sure that we pursue all the individual issues that were raised that have not yet been resolved, and this is one of them. As I said, I have already made contact with Commissioner Micallef, and I intend to chase this down as fast as I can. I know the hon. Gentleman does not like being happy, but if I might just quote “Hamlet” to him:

Our doubts are traitors,

And make us lose the good which oft we might win

By fearing to attempt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think my hon. Friend asked what steps I am taking to promote dance. Well, it takes two to tango, and we are working with the Department for Education to try to ensure that creative education is a really important part of everything we do in all our schools. The fact that fewer kids are now studying creative subjects is a problem, and we need to rectify it.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

T7.   I heard the Minister mention this in passing, but would he not concede that the voluntary grassroots music levy is not making the progress we had all hoped for? The Music Venue Trust has revealed that almost 95% of arena and stadium shows do not have any levy at all. We need that income to rejuvenate grassroots venues; the Minister knows that. Surely it is now time to think of a formal levy and even legislation, if required.

[Chris Bryant]

I have said that we will make the levy statutory if we need to do so, but we are making progress. I had wanted us to have made substantial progress by the first quarter of this year. The levy has already been applied to half a million tickets and I want to get to much bigger numbers by the end of the year. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee did a really good job in coming up with the idea and we are determined to push it forward. If the hon. Member could be less grumpy, that would help. If he could ring everybody he knows in the industry and persuade them to sign up to the levy, that would be great.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Just to clarify, this is a legacy Bill which has been in Parliament several times before, including under the previous Government, so it was always inevitable that at whatever time the consultation was launched it would have coincided with the Bill going through Parliament. That was never my intention but, as I have just said, I accept that that was the impression given. When we went into the consultation, I believed that opting out could have offered an opportunity to bring both sides together, but I now accept that that is not the case.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

This afternoon, we will go to the Ivor Novello awards to celebrate the ability and talent of the best of our songwriters from across this country—it will be a magnificent and wonderful display. Those writers are seriously concerned that their works will be ingested and churned out in an inferior way. The Government are not offering anything to our creators. The amendment that the Lords have presented seems to be reasonable, so what is wrong with it as a way forward?

[Peter Kyle]

As I have said, and as I will elaborate, the Government and I believe that there is a better way forward to give the creative sectors and creators the protections that they need. It would deliver them the certainties, protections and ability to have transparency and to be renumerated, and provide more possibilities to large creators, or those who represent them, to deliver licences into the future. We need to take the issues in the round, not just one part of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a great time at the Ivor Novello awards. I congratulate everyone who wins, has been nominated or is participating today, especially U2, who are I think receiving an award—other creators who I have seen live many times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

This is the second time we have considered this amendment in this House, and it is the second time we have received this, “Just trust me—I just want to get on with it” homily that all the ministerial team present when we discuss the matter. They say they want to set up all sorts of working groups and that they want to get to legislation. None of us have any difficulty with or objection to that, but what we want is action now. We get concerned when the Secretary of State, as he just did, says that there is no certainty in our copyright laws just now.

[Peter Kyle]

I did not say that.

[Pete Wishart]

The Secretary of State can check back in Hansard. That is exactly what he said, and that is where the concern and anxiety comes in. The Government might get a technical victory today because of the invocation of financial issues, but the Bill will come back again from the House of Lords. They are not going to give up.

Everybody is united with the House of Lords when it comes to these issues; everybody wants a solution now. Nobody agrees with the Government’s position—except the AI firms that seek to benefit from the unauthorised use of our cultural work—and the anger is growing. The more the public see of this, the more our constituents get increasingly concerned about how our artists are being treated. We only need to look at Sir Elton John’s reaction on Sunday—not just the choice of language about the Government Front Benchers, but that he feels so dismissed he is even threatening legal action.

Surely the way forward is compromise and the Government going some way toward giving the creative sector what they want. Lords amendment 49D presents that approach. It respects the financial prerogatives of this Government, and it has taken on board everything that the Front Benchers have said. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and to engage seriously on the substance of the amendment, which would address copyright holders’ calls for transparency without imposing immediate enforcement costs. It would require AI developers to provide copyright owners with clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information on how their works have been used and how they were accessed. Nothing could be fairer than that.

The Government use words like “may” rather than “must”, thereby avoiding direct spending obligations. We must surely work together on the basis of what has been agreed between both Houses, and try to ensure that we get something that meets everybody’s concerns. That has to start with this Lords amendment. I urge the Government to accept it at this really late stage, and I encourage Labour Back Benchers, who have made fantastic contributions today and who have stood up to this Government, to vote against them. That will show exactly how strongly they feel about this issue. I encourage Labour colleagues to back the amendment.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have to say that I am slightly surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is willing to speak in support of the Government’s position, but it means that I have more time to speak than I had initially thought would be the case. I will not repeat the arguments that we have had in the lengthy debates on these measures that have already taken place, but I want to make one or two points.

In his contribution, the Secretary of State said that he had never mentioned the word “uncertainty” and implied that he thought that copyright law is clear. I have to say that that contrasts with an awful lot of the debates we have had previously, in which his colleague, the Minister for the Creative Industries, has talked about there being uncertainty.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I probably ought to give way first to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Let me finish my point and then I will give way first to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who gets very cross if people queue-barge.

I am aware that there are quite a lot of publishing houses in the UK that are determined to secure licensing deals with AI companies, both in the UK and overseas. First, they want to ensure that those AI companies remunerate them and, secondly, they want to ensure that they have very high-quality, up-to-date information and data going into them, so that if somebody searches for immunotherapy, for instance, they will have the latest information on immunotherapy, not stuff that is five, six or seven years out of date, or that may have come from a dodgy source.

The second point I want to make is this. The right hon. Lady said that this amendment would sort the problem today, but it would not. It would do nothing today, or indeed for a considerable number of months. Therefore, there is an issue about what we do today—what we as a Government do, and what we as the creative industries and everybody working together do, to ensure that we protect copyright under the existing law as it is today.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister keeps saying that we have existing copyright laws that are there to protect the creative industries and our artists, but practically our whole creative heritage is being scraped. There are probably songs in the top 40 that have been totally designed by AI, and there will be books in the top 30 or 40 bestsellers that will be based on AI—probably fully AI. This is happening right now. Surely artists and creators should know when their works are being used. That is why Lords amendment 49B is so important for transparency.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are works out there that have been created with the use of AI. As I have said several times, I have never thought that the creative industries are in any sense luddite; I have always thought that they are at the forefront of innovation in so many areas—at the Select Committee yesterday I referred to Fra Angelico. This is true of every creative industry: they have to innovate in order to succeed. A video games company would say that it is using AI all the time, not necessarily to save money but to improve the product and be at the cutting edge of what they are doing. Even Björn from ABBA has said that he has been using AI because it enhances his work.

One area that is in our consultation but is yet to be addressed by anybody in any of the debates I have heard in this House or the other place is this: what we do about the copyright status of works that are solely or largely created by AI, because it is a moot point what we should do about it under existing law? My point is simply that we need to address all these issues in the round rather than piecemeal, and I will come on to that in more substance in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his inadvertent intervention, and I look forward to my future happiness. Given his reassurances, I think the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee can work with the Government to ensure that the Bill enables scientific research through the use of the fantastic datasets that the UK is proud to have, without exposing the public to the reuse of their data for the purposes of training AI models or for other commercial purposes that are not within the remit of scientific research. I will be pleased to accept the Minister’s reassurances, and on that basis I do not wish to engage in further ping-pong between the Houses.

[Pete Wishart]

In reference to the earlier exchange, it seems that if you remember the Minister’s 60th birthday, you were not really there—but I really was not there. [Interruption.] Did I? I knew there must have been some very good reason. Why I was not there is now in Hansard.

There is profound disappointment within the creative sector today. Everyone in the sector really believed and hoped that the Minister would appear today with something in his back pocket that he would be able to bring out to give reassurance to the many artists and creators right across the country who are extremely anxious and concerned about the direction of the debate and conversations about the use of their work. They are really concerned that some of their precious work, into which they have put so much time, effort, blood, sweat and tears, will be scraped up, trawled through by a bot and ingested by one of the large American tech companies, and then reappear as some minor mirror of itself.

No one has been satisfied with what has been said today, and the Minister has one last chance. I really hope that he can give something to the creative industries, or at least give them some sort of hope as we go forward into the next few months and years, because they are going into the next few months and years unprotected. They will have nothing that they can rely on, other than what is in the amendments, and I know for a fact that the Minister will ensure that they are voted down.

Today has been a curious day, too, because financial privilege has been invoked for a particular amendment. In my almost quarter of a century in this House, I have never seen that before. I think I know why it has been done: it is to ensure that the House of Lords does not get another opportunity to bring this measure back. I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is shaking his head, that the Lords are already designing it. After it goes back to the House of Lords, it will come back once again. I am sure it does not invoke any financial privilege, but it is ultimately disappointing that the Lords will not be able to present the same motion again, which was their intention. That amendment has received overwhelming support from everybody across the creative sector, and I had really hoped that the Government would support it today.

The only reason we are here is the efforts of the Members of the House of Lords. I usually do not pay them much of a tribute or respect what they do, but they have played a blinder. In particular, Beeban Kidron—Baroness Kidron—has stuck to this agenda to ensure that these Lords amendments have been reinserted into the Bill. They have had to do it because the Government have not done so. The Government have done nothing to ensure that our creative sector is protected.

The Government say that there should be more time for this, but we do not have time. We have to act now to protect the livelihoods of 2.4 million creators in the UK against exploitation by some of the richest companies in the world. As I have said countless times throughout this Bill’s passage, if we continue at this rate there will soon be nothing left to protect. The thing is that the Government should have acted earlier. They should have taken steps to protect creators’ rights as a matter of urgency. Instead, it has been left to others to scramble to find a way to ensure that we had these vital Lords amendments to a Bill that, as the Minister has said on several occasions, was not designed for them.

The Government’s motions will in effect set a timeline of several years before any resolution is reached on copyright transparency. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to what the Minister had to say about transparency, but I still do not understand why this cannot be done immediately. All the Government have to do is tell inventors, creators and copyright holders that their work is going to be used or ingested by one of the web crawlers that are in operation. That is all they would have to do, and it could be done very easily. There is no great technical problem in introducing transparency as a priority, and it could possibly happen within a few weeks.

[Alison Hume]

The hon. Member is making some important points. As Lord Brennan said recently, this Bill is an opportunity to regulate AI:

“This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1932.]

This bus is leaving now, along with the opportunity to protect our creative rights. Does the hon. Member agree with me and share my concern that the Government are going to miss the bus?

[Pete Wishart]

I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now.

Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again.

Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen.

It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough.

If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.

[Chris Bryant]

I was anticipating more contributions from other Members, but it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow on from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I will not speak at great length, Members will be delighted to hear.

First, I want to refer to the matter of financial privilege, because the hon. Member referred to it just now. It is not the Government who decide whether financial privilege is engaged. It is a simple matter decided on advice from the Clerks to the Chair, which is determined from two motions, from 1671 and 1678. Where there is any financial implication of a Bill, or in this case an amendment that comes from the House of Lords, it is a simple matter as to whether or not the financial privilege of the House of Commons is engaged. Anything that obviously requires a system of enforcement is likely to require expenditure. That is why we would not choose to waive our financial privilege in relation to these amendments today.

[Pete Wishart]

A money resolution to the Bill was passed with Second Reading. I looked at it and there is nothing that says there is any financial limit on any measures included in the Bill, so I am a bit confused about why financial privilege has to be invoked on that basis.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not the Government who invoke financial privilege. It is the House that does it, via the Speaker’s Chair. I am afraid that that is a debate we will have to have at another point. Much as I love debating motions from 1671 and 1678, I think we might move forward.

The only point I will make to the hon. Gentleman about his contribution on the creative industries—he knows that on many of these issues we completely and utterly agree—is that if there were a simple way of being able to enforce those rights today, I would seize it. If he wants to write to me with a suggestion on what that actually looks like and what we would do today to be able to enforce the rights under the existing law today, then of course I would be happy to look at it.

I also said that I would respond to the point from the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). The Bill creates no new permission to reuse data for scientific research. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research. I hope that that meets some of her understandable concerns.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that it is completely not in order, but I am going to say it anyway and end on this point. We have discussed some very serious points, but I do just wish that Remember Monday will win the Eurovision song contest on Saturday evening, with their song, “What the Hell Just Happened?” I wish Lauren, Holly-Anne and Charlotte all the best of British.

Question put.

United States Film Tariff

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I will, if I might, just leap off the word cinema to make the point that film is not just about production, but about finding audiences. One of my concerns in the UK is about how we make sure that cinemas—or movie theatres as they are known in the US—can flourish as well. They can be a really important part of dignity in a town. A town that has a cinema is likely to be a place that has respect for itself, and I would like to ensure that that continues into the future.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Scotland is now one of the most sought after film destinations in the world, and US film companies regularly base their operations in Scotland. We have featured in everything from Batman to Indiana Jones to “World War Z”. All of that, as well as developing the film sector in Scotland, will be put at risk if there is any concept of tariffs at all. Will the Minister work closely with the Scottish Government in his response to the US? Will he state quite clearly that such a move would be mutually self-destructive, and that all parties are set to lose if the US proceeds with anything approaching tariffs?

[Chris Bryant]

I have already made the point that we think there is a win-win situation. A strong US movie industry will benefit a strong UK movie industry. I believe in fair trade and free trade. In fact, over recent years, it has been worrying that more and more countries have wanted to put up protectionist measures around a whole series of industries. It has tended not to happen in services, and to be more about goods, which is one of the other issues. The hon. Member is right about Scotland. I am very keen on working with all the devolved Administrations to make sure that we remain the best place in which to make films and high-end television. I do not know whether anybody has watched “Havoc”—[Interruption.] Sorry, I was not referring to the Conservative party. Returning to my point, “Havoc” was all filmed in Wales, but it looks as if it is an American dystopian city.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

No, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) could come over here; I am not going back over there.

The point I was going to make is that I am fully cognisant of my duties. I think the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the artificial intelligence copyright issues that we will be addressing fairly shortly. I like the fact that I am in both Departments, because it means I can bring the knowledge of both sectors to bear on each other. If we are lucky, and if we work hard at it, I hope that I will be able to persuade him that we can come to a win-win solution. As he knows, this is not easy. When I had my first meeting with him after I was appointed in the post, he said, “This is not an easy area to resolve.” I hope I am not breaking a confidence—but he is smiling.

I have a large number of topics to cover, and I am conscious that many Members will think this is the data Bill, when we will actually be dealing with an awful lot of subjects this afternoon that do not feel as if they have anything to do with the measures in the original version brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman and previously. I hope that Members will bear with me. I intend to address the Government’s amendments as follows: first, AI and copyright; secondly, deepfakes; thirdly, the national underground assets register; and then smart data and other minor and technical amendments.

I will start with AI and intellectual property. As Members know, it was never the Government’s intention to legislate on that issue at all in this Bill. It is a complex and important issue, which is why we have consulted on a package of measures. That consultation had more than 11,500 responses, which we are still considering. Several hon. Members have said to me, “Will you remove the opt-out clause in the Bill?” I need to make it absolutely clear that no such opt-out clause is in the Bill. We never laid one in the Bill, so there is not an opt-out clause to remove.

As Members will also know, the Lords inserted a set of amendments on AI and copyright, which we removed in Committee. They reappear on the amendment paper today as new clauses 2 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). A similar measure has been tabled as new clause 14 by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel).

We oppose all these new clauses for several reasons. First, they pre-empt the results of the consultation. It must surely be better to legislate on this complex subject in the round rather than piecemeal. The amendments are also unworkable. New clause 5, for instance, would make the Information Commissioner the regulator of transparency requirements, but the Information Commissioner’s Office has neither the skills nor the resources to perform that function. Obviously, transparency requirements without an effective enforcement mechanism are worse than useless, which means the other clauses on transparency are also unworkable in this context. The new clauses also fail to address some of the most important questions in this area. They effectively legislate piecemeal rather than in the round. Whenever Parliament has done that in the past, it has rued the day, and I think the same is true today.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Does the Minister not understand the urgency? Generative AI is ingesting our whole creative catalogue as we speak. We need something in place now. We cannot wait a year for reports or three years for legislation; we need action now. Does he not understand that something needs to be brought forward here today? These amendments offer that.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think the amendments do offer that, because I do not think they work. We need to legislate in the round, as I say, and not piecemeal. I point out to the hon. Member that there is something of a two-edged sword here. I have been repeatedly told—and I understand the point—that there is no legal uncertainty as to the copyright status of works that are being scraped. At the same time, people are saying they want legislative change. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. I am determined to get us to a better place on this, as I will perhaps explain in a couple of moments.

I think there is an intention to push new clause 2 to a vote later, which I urge hon. Members not to do, although I do not always get my way. New clause 2 basically says that people should comply with the law. I mean, it is a simple fact: people should comply with the law. We cannot legislate to tell people that they should comply with the law; the law is the law. If none of these amendments is passed today, the law will remain as it is today and copyright law in the UK will be robust and clear.

For the absolute avoidance of doubt, some people have talked to me about text and data mining exceptions, which, as Members will know, exist, for instance, in the European Union. There is a text and data mining exception already in UK law. It was introduced in 2014 via a statutory instrument, which added section 29A to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, it is an exception for the sole purpose of non-commercial research. I think that that is absolutely clear in law, and I do not think it needs any clarifying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

We have a thriving innovation sector in the UK, so those companies are not going anywhere—they want to work with the UK. We actually have a system now that has a fantastic creative industry and we have innovation and business coming in. There are many ways to incentivise that. I talk a lot about money, skills and infrastructure—that is what these innovative companies are looking for. We can make sure the guardrails are right so that it works for everyone.

By ensuring that operators of web crawlers and AI models comply with existing UK copyright law, we are simply upholding established rights in a new technological context. The UK led the world in establishing trustworthy financial and legal services, creating one of the largest economies by taking a long-term view, and we can do the same with technology. By supporting new clause 2, we could establish the UK as a base for trustworthy technology while protecting our creative industries.

Finally, I will touch on new clause 4, which would address the critical gap in our approach to AI regulation: the lack of transparency regarding training data. Right now, creators have no way of knowing if their work has been used to train AI models. Transparency is the foundation of trust. Without it, we risk not only exploiting creators, but undermining public confidence in these powerful new technologies. The principle is simple: if an AI system is trained using someone’s creative work, they deserve to know about it and to have a say in how it is used. That is not just fair to creators, but essential for building an AI ecosystem that the public trust. By supporting new clause 4, we would ensure that the development of AI happens in the open, allowing for proper compensation, attribution and accountability. That is how we will build responsible AI that serves everyone, not just the tech companies.

On the point of transparency, I will touch briefly on a couple of other amendments. We must go further in algorithmic decision making. That is why I have tabled amendment 46, which would ensure that individuals receive personalised explanations in plain language when an automated decision system affects them. We cannot allow generic justifications to stand in for accountability.

[Pete Wishart]

I will support the hon. Lady’s new clause 2 tonight, if she pushes it to a vote, and I encourage her also to push new clause 4 to a vote. This is a most important issue. We must ensure that transparency is available to all artists and creators. Does she agree that there is no good technological barrier to having transparency in place right now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you ever so much, Madam Deputy Speaker—other matters we shall attend to.

I speak in support of new clauses 2 to 6 and new clause 14, which I enthusiastically support. I believe that those new clauses represent our very last chance to guarantee at least a bit of security for our creative industries in the face of what can only be described as the almost existential threat posed by generative AI. This is critical. I listened to the Minister very carefully, but this lackadaisical approach and the progress he is intending do not properly reflect the scale of the threat and challenge that our creative industries are currently confronted with. I accept that we have come a long way in this debate, and I accept the positive tone the Minister tries to take when dealing with these issues. I believe that he is sincere about trying to find a solution—he wants to get to a place where both the AI companies and the creative industries are satisfied. I am not entirely sure that we will get to that place, but I wish him all the best in those efforts.

We have certainly come a long way since the first statement we had in this House. I am sure that hon. Members will remember the belligerent way in which the Secretary of State presented that first statement— I am surprised that he is not here today. He was almost saying to the creative industries that they had to take it on the chin in order to satisfy this Government’s attempts to find some economic growth—which they have so far found elusive—in the shape of unfettered artificial intelligence, and that we should just get on with that agenda.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Yesterday, I spoke to a local author in Mid Sussex, Chris Bradford. He has written a number of brilliant children’s books, including the “Young Samurai” series, which my own children enjoyed a few years ago. Going back to the point made by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), Chris told me that he is not against AI—he can see that it has uses—but that what we are seeing is blatant theft. Does the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) agree that the creative industries are part of the answer to growing our economy?

[Pete Wishart]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will give her a personal example—I should have declared my interests, as set out in the register. Throughout at least the past five decades, artists have worked with the technology that is available. It is the first thing they turn to when going to the studio to make a new recording. The first thing they do in the film industry is to look for all sorts of innovation. It is absurd to suggest that somehow people who work in the creative sector will not embrace this new technology and use it for all its worth, so I fully accept what she said.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

The right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to creatives throughout the debate. As I have said in earlier debates, I am the secretary of the parliamentary group of the National Union of Journalists, and we have expressed our concern about journalists and photographers, whom we also represent. The union position is very straightforward, espousing adherence to copyright but also to openness and transparency, and regulation of the mechanisms that will be used in future for scraping in particular. This is now having an impact on the quality of journalism, on which our democracy rests.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind us about journalism. What has been notable, along with the clumsy way in which the Government have approached these issues, is the unity that exists throughout the creative sector, taking on board what is happening in journalism. We have seen some fantastic coalitions of interests emerging from all this. That is another positive development, and I just hope that the Government are satisfied when they see the outcomes.

AI and creativity can work together. I gave an example of that to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). We have all been encouraged to think that there is a divergence between the position of those in the creative sector, such as artists, and the position of those who are involved in the tech sector and, in particular, AI. There should be an approach that works for everyone involved. The AI companies know that our content is immensely valuable. They refuse to pay for anything at present, not because they do not understand the value but because they have spotted an opportunity to hoodwink Governments around the world into believing that they should not have to pay for an essential resource.

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

One of my colleagues had a conversation with representatives of the AI sector. She was very enthusiastic about the idea that there would be an enormous amount of growth in this country if they were able to adopt what they wanted, so she asked, “What would you like?” They replied, “We want the BBC archive, for free.” In circumstances of this kind, we need to think not only about transparency but about the second stage, which is licensing. Without the opportunity for small creators to have the power to permit and therefore to be paid, all this will be for nothing.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is spot on. The Minister continues to go on about licensing arrangements, and I think that is the territory we want to move this on to. We need to hear more about the Government’s ambitions right now, and about what they are planning to do. The hon. Lady should have a look at the submissions to the consultation from the big tech companies such as OpenAI—it is a horror show. An opt-out is even too far for them.

I have enjoyed working with Labour colleagues during these debates. They have said all the right things, and I think that, as usual, they recognise some of the difficulties in the sector, but I appeal to them now to support, in particular, new clause 2, if it goes to a vote. It is no good just saying all the right things; this is about voting in the right direction. There is no other chance, because this is the only opportunity. We must offer some protection to our creative sector over the next few years, because nothing else will appear during that time. We will all become involved in the consultation and we will all be taking part in the legislation when it comes here, but that is years away. This is the only thing that we can do to offer some support to the creative sector, and I urge everyone to support the new clauses.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill and to address some of the amendment proposed, particularly Government new clauses 16 and 17.

New clause 17 is entitled “Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems”. I am pleased to note, in subsection (3)(b), that the report will

“the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by developers of AI systems (for example, on text and data mining)”.

I also note that “developers” are specifically broken down into

“individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses”.

It is right to provide for that level of granularity. Similarly, I note that the report will

“consider, and make proposals in relation to… the disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about”

their use of copyright data to develop AI systems and “how they access” that copyrighted data,

“for example, by means of web crawlers”.

I am pleased to see discussions of licensing included in the report, and an exploration, again in granular detail, of the impact of a licensing system on all levels of developers. However, I would have liked to see an equal level of granularity for copyright owners to understand the effects of proposals outlined in subsection (3). Subsection (4) states that

“In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consider the likely effect of proposals, in the United Kingdom, on… copyright owners”

as well as developers and users of AI systems. Although I note that new subsection (4) refers to individuals, microbusinesses and so on, I feel that there is a little vagueness as to whether this level of granularity is afforded to copyright owners as well.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) not only on this debate, but on his birthday—I hope he goes on to enjoy himself much more than sitting in Westminster Hall for the rest of the day.

Of all the issues that the Government thought they would be confronting nine months after being elected, I do not think they thought they would be in some sort of spat with the creative industries, finding that they, almost as one voice, have real difficulties and issues with the Government initiative.

First, we have to pay tribute to the wonderful campaign that has been mounted over the past few weeks and months from all our artists and creatives. When everybody from Thom Yorke to Rupert Murdoch, from Paul McCartney to the director general of the BBC is upset, there really are difficulties. The Government asked the creative industries what they thought of their proposals, particularly of their preferred opt-out plan, and like a finely tuned chorus, the creative sector came back as one and told them it does not like it one bit.

Our constituents have been magnificent in the way that they have responded. For the 20-odd years I have been in Parliament I have tried to evangelise about the role of IP and the value of copyright, but one thing that has come out of this consultation is that, inadvertently, this Government’s clumsy attempt to martial this debate has made our constituents realise the value of copyright. They have got behind it and started to understand it and see that it is the basis of all the wonderful works they enjoy throughout their lives. They know it is our gold-standard copyright regime that gives our artists protection and renumeration and ensures that they are rewarded for producing all these wonderful works. One good thing that has come out of this is that the value of copyright has now started to be seen by all our constituents.

The Government are sincere in trying to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence and the creative industries, and they want to satisfy all sectors, but we have to see what we are up against—just have a look at some of the big tech companies’ submissions to the consultation. Have a look at OpenAI’s submission—even the opt-out proposal is too far for it; it wants unfettered access to our cultural treasure trove, without any inhibitions or difficulty. The first thing that the Minister has to say to the big AI companies is that our creative heritage—everything we have built in the past few decades—is not there to be plundered and taken for nothing.

We must make progress, and I really hope that the Government now decide that they will not pursue the opt-out proposal—it cannot work; there is no way that it could be a technical solution. We have seen that within the EU. The Government have to drop it. Look at this licensing system—the Minister has talked about it consistently in the past few weeks and months. Let us make sure that we unravel the idea of copyright from that of transparency; we have to make sure that those are separated. Let us use the Data (Use and Access) Bill—it is there in front of us, so why cannot we use it to make real progress on this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am very reluctant to give way, if only because I have quite a lot of things to get through. I am really sorry. We will have another debate on this issue very soon, I am sure.

Sixthly, several Members referred to people wanting a “legal peace of mind”. I am not reiterating the line about whether or not there is legal certainty; that is not the point I am making. Many individual creators have been in touch with me directly—I am sure that they have been in touch with other hon. Members—to say, “I don’t know where I stand now under the existing law. I understand how Getty Images can go to court and enforce their rights, sometimes on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of the people they represent, but how do I do that for myself when I’ve just posted some of my works online, because I’m advertising my works? I don’t want to disappear from the internet, so the robots.txt system doesn’t work.”

That is a really important area where we need to do work. We have a framework of civil enforcement of copyright in the UK. It is robust and it meets the Berne convention issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to, but it is still easier for those who have lawyers and cash to use it. That is why we have collecting societies, which can be more effective in many areas, but the different segments of the creative industries that we are talking about have to be dealt with differently, because a musician, an artist, a photographer, somebody who writes or somebody whose words or voice are being used are all treated differently, or their rights are enforced differently at present, and we need to make sure that there is that legal peace of mind for all those people into the future.

My hon. Friend said that a technical solution for rights reservation does not yet exist and he is absolutely right. I think a couple of other Members made that point, and I know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is admirably chaired, has referred to some of these matters, including in a letter to Secretaries of State. But why do we not make it happen? I am determined to make it happen. Surely, it cannot be beyond the wit of the clever people who are developing all this technology to develop something. If we could get to a place where it was very easy for any individual, or everybody—

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Peter Kyle]

I will finish this section of my speech and then give way to those Members who have a considerable interest in this area. Let me say what I have to say, and then I will hear what hon. Members would like to contribute and engage as fully as I can.

The final framework must reward human creativity, incentivise innovation and provide the certainty required for long-term growth in both sectors, but the importance and complexity of this issue means that it should be considered through the live consultation. As I said in that consultation, legislation is ultimately likely to be needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Of course the creative industries are excited about the inclusion of clauses 135 to 139, which they see as their guarantee and protection against the ravages of generative artificial intelligence. Those clauses are in the Bill to protect our creative industries. Will the Secretary of State assure the House today that he will respect them and keep them in the Bill, with no attempt to water them down?

[Peter Kyle]

I pay tribute to those in the creative arts sector who are in the House today. I know that, for people who engage in that kind of activity, it is not just a job; it is a passion that comes straight from the heart. They are emotionally connected in a profound way to the work that they create, which is a credit not just to them as individuals but to our entire country. I can assure them that I have no intention at all of standing in the way of respect for their work.

As we go through this process, it will be essential that we listen to the voices from both sides. The consultation that is currently live is a meaningful one, and I assure the House that I am engaging with it. I look forward to hearing all the voices in the consultation and, as I have said, it is likely that legislation on this specific issue will come out of it. That would give the House an opportunity to go through this issue in enormous detail at the appropriate time. I am listening carefully and I want to engage with all the voices throughout the Committee stage and ensure that the debate continues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Mak]

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I did during the debate on the creative industries a few weeks ago. During that debate, Members on the Conservative Benches gave the impression that they were for the opt-out solution that the Labour party is putting forward. Is he now telling us that he is against that and that he will support the creative industries in seeing off the challenge from generative AI?

[Alan Mak]

The creative industries sector is telling us that that solution is not fit for purpose. We will hold the Labour Government to account because the creative industries are extremely important.

Under the Conservatives, we became the second largest exporter of television programming and the fourth largest exporter of film, while also being home to world-class theatre, music, broadcasting and journalism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very happy to address that. I am not on the Front Bench, but I will tell the hon. Member my view, which is very clear: I have profound reservations about the opt-out, which reverses the whole principle of copyright law. The owners of rights will have to go and say that they do not want to have their rights taken away from them, otherwise there is a right for others to use their content. I would prefer to see an opt-in or, in actual fact, a licensing method whereby rights holders could agree, if they wished to do so, that their content could be used.

[Pete Wishart]

If only the right hon. Gentleman were on the Conservative Front Bench on these issues, we would have a little bit of clarity, but he is absolutely spot on. There is no issue with copyright at the moment and no confusion about what is required in the law. All the Government are doing is trying to create some sort of smokescreen so that they can start to dismantle and water down our copyright regime. What does he think about those attempts, and will he join the rest of us in standing up for the copyright regime as it stands, where there is no question about its legality?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no wish to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), who is doing an excellent job. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman and I have been involved in discussions on copyright for many years, and I share his view. Indeed, I welcomed the debate that we had in this place just a couple of weeks ago on the creative industries, where a lot of these arguments were rehearsed, and the Minister helpfully agreed that there is no workable opt-out technology available.

The existing opt-out, which the European Union has suggested, simply does not work. On top of that, it is unenforceable. The Minister and the Secretary of State have suggested that they would not proceed unless a workable opt-out could be developed. It would be a first if it were. In any case, I am opposed to opt-out in principle, but it is at present practically impossible to introduce. I hear the Secretary of State talking about the technology companies working to bring a workable solution forward, but I hope that the Minister will again make clear that the Government will not proceed unless there is a viable, workable technological solution that allows rights holders to make clear that they do not wish to have their works used by artificial intelligence training models, and have that enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). He was spot on in reminding us that data has always existed in various forms throughout the centuries, whether in volumes or in little things that we can plug into a computer. The only difference now is that all that data is scraped and ingested into huge machines, which regurgitate it into some form that only they will decide. The hon. Gentleman was also spot on in reminding us about his work at Central FM, a very fine radio station. This hon. Member is always available for interviews at any time that Central FM comes a-calling.

This is an alright Bill. It is good. It is quite fine. It is reasonable in its approach and intent. It is a good shot at trying to redefine our data regulation laws. It will do a good job of ensuring that our public services are more aligned and mainstream, and that access is available to all our constituents. However, it is a much better Bill because of some of the amendments made in the House of Lords. The amendments that were added at the later stages went further on child protection in online data and looked into deepfakes, which was particularly helpful, and I congratulate our colleagues down the corridor on bringing them forward. It is a much better Bill because of the amendments that were delivered by Baroness Kidron on copyright and transparency. They significantly improved the Bill to make it something worth defending and protecting. I hope that that will be the main mission as it continues to go through this House.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is unusual for me to congratulate our be-ermined unelected friends down the corridor, but this oiky Nat will doff his cap to their lords, their ladies, their barons and their earls, because they have done a good job at shaping the Bill. It is certainly a much better Bill than it was on Second Reading down the corridor.

I have a few issues with the Bill. There are concerns about the security of some of this data. I am particularly worried about some of the relationships within the EU-UK partnership, and I just hope that whatever is proposed in the Bill does not drag us further away from the mainstream when it comes to the European Union. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and I agree about most things when it comes to the creative sector, but we do not agree about the European Union and the benefits of this country leaving it. I am a passionate remainer, and I hope that at some point I will be able to take our country back into the European Union, as a proud member of the Scottish National party; my intention and ambition is that we go back into that fantastic union of nations that has done so much to enrich our culture and our lives.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we do not agree on this particular issue. Of course, were we to rejoin the EU, we would then be bound by its legislation on this very issue, which includes the opt-out.

[Pete Wishart]

This is where the right hon. Gentleman and I do profoundly disagree. I look at this arrangement and the partnership across the European Union as a positive—it is a good thing. We were major contributors to some of the EU directives put forward on copyright and artificial intelligence. They miss us, and we miss them; we were just so much better when we were in partnership. I think we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree as we go forward on this particular issue.

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

I am keen to emphasise that it is of course possible for us to align ourselves with the European directive that the previous Government constructed before leaving the European Union in order to be able to maintain good creative copyright protections for our creatives, without us necessarily having to rejoin the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely—the hon. Lady is spot on. I know that several Members across the House are looking just now at some of those who took part in the debates we had on the European copyright directive and what it was doing; again, there were disagreements about its value. The hon. Lady is right; we can keep ourselves alive. That is my hope. I just hope that the provisions of the Bill do not do anything to further alienate us from our European colleagues, because it is very important that we keep that alignment.

This Bill is also important because it removes a number of the unnecessary and harmful clauses in the previous Conservative Government’s Bill. We will just have to take with a pinch of salt the ambitions of this Bill, such as the £10 billion in growth anticipated from it. All I will say is that I have heard that all before. I know this is a Government desperate to find growth anywhere—they have made such a mess of the economy since coming to power that everywhere they see the green shoots of growth. We will wait and see whether we will get this £10 billion of growth.

The Government have a first test, which comes with clauses 135 to 139. We do not know if we will get growth from the Bill when it comes to data, but we do know that we get growth from the creative industries in this country, which in 2022 contributed £125 billion to the economy and provided 2.4 million jobs. That is real growth. We should not mess with that and undermine it in the way the Government might be doing with the watering down of the copyright provisions and giving generative AI access to our nation’s creative treasures—I will just say that gently to the Government. However, I do very much welcome the inclusion of clauses 135 to 139.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has talked quite a bit about clauses 135 to 139. He may end up on the Bill Committee, in which case we will be able to talk through the intricacies of those clauses then. Several of them actually require Ministers to introduce very significant changes via secondary legislation. Is that really what he would like? Surely such matters should be properly included in a Bill.

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, at this stage it is definitely what I would like, because we have got them—they are in a Bill that we will decide and vote on and look at in Committee. They are a security and a guarantee for our creative sector, because they are already in a piece of legislation that we will hopefully pass.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

If the Minister is going to say something positive about ensuring that we respect our copyright regime—that it will stay intact and continue to do the job it has been doing so effectively for the past few decades—then I will look at this now. I think I heard the Secretary of State say something about another piece of legislation. It might be necessary to bring in another piece of legislation, and I think we would all welcome that. However, it has to be on the basis of defending and protecting our intellectual property and our copyright regime. I will give way once again to the Minister.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful; the hon. Gentleman is being generous. I completely agree that we need to ensure that the rights of rights holders are protected, that they are able to be remunerated properly for their work, and that human creativity is at the heart of everything. The amendments tabled in the House of Lords state that Government Ministers should basically write the law in secondary legislation, so it would not be on the face of the Bill. He normally opposes such power-making powers being given to Government Ministers, so I am slightly surprised that he is so passionate about them now. I wonder whether it would not be better for us to legislate properly, with all those things laid out for proper scrutiny.

[Pete Wishart]

Again, I am grateful to the Minister for intervening in such a helpful manner. I am not particularly averse to secondary legislation—it has its place and purpose, and if it helps achieve desired outcomes then I have no issue with it. This is what my constituents want. I have been knocked out by the number of emails I have received and secured from my constituents asking me to support the creative sector in the consultation on copyright and AI, and to back the amendments as the Bill goes through the House. There does not seem to be any doubt that most of our constituents seem to be in partnership with their artists and the creative sector on this matter. I think what they want to see is the Government showing the same determination and ambition for our creative sector and our artists. They have that opportunity. I will be patient with the Minister. He has hinted occasionally about having some sort of solution that defends and protects our copyright regime, while at the same time supplies what he requires to ensure ambition in the AI sector. We are all looking forward to doing all that.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way. I did not include this point in my own contribution, because I did not realise that the AI copyright issue would be such a big part of the debate, but I just want to let him and the House know that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee sat together with creatives and technologists to discuss how the technology solutions the Minister is looking for could address the exact point that he is making: supporting copyright and providing access to data. Google and OpenAI refused to take part, because they said their response to the consultation was ongoing. As an engineer, I think that you should always be able to explain what you are doing in the midst of you doing it, but that was their position. However, the technologists who were there had a view that technology could—there was not a consensus—support that, although not necessarily immediately.

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Mr Frith]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

We should not be naive about this, because the tech companies have form. All of their pedigree suggests that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing—to manage their affairs, or to protect either the public interest or the interests of the creative industries—so I hope that the Government will take exactly the robust approach that the hon. Gentleman has described. Perhaps one way in which they could do so, given that copyright has been introduced into these considerations via the amendments, is to extend existing copyright to the internet, so that people who publish online are subject to the same restrictions—

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister says that they are, but they should be subject to exactly the same restrictions as those who print and broadcast.

[Pete Wishart]

Far be it from me, who am on my feet, to get in the way of a conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister. I was interested by that little exchange. The right hon. Gentleman is right: we have to be careful when it comes to issues such as this. Given his experience of the House, he will have observed over the years some of the ways in which people who are able to make representations can be abused. As we go forward in such a critical area, he is right to issue a warning, and I think the House has heard what he has had to say.

Clauses 135 to 139 are the creative industries’ safeguard and guarantee in the face on an almost existential threat to their ability to sustain themselves and continue to bring that uncontaminated joy of human imagination to the people we represent. They would help to tackle the unauthorised use of intellectual property by big tech companies scraping data for AI. They would enforce transparency and lay out a redress procedure. They would explicitly subject AI companies to UK copyright law, regardless of where they are based in the world. That means—and this is a critical point—that those companies would have to reveal the names and owners of web crawlers that currently operate anonymously. Most importantly, they would allow copyright owners to know when, where and how their work is to be used.

To develop and thrive, our artists need the best possible conditions and political environment, and we have delivered that over the decades. That is why we lead the world when it comes to our contribution to the creative industries, and why we make such massive gross value added in every single sector in which we are predominant. Our leading artists give us a soft power that is the envy of the world, and we must not do anything that threatens our ability to retain it. We have a gold standard IP rights framework enshrined in UK law. We have a copyright regime that protects our artists, and ensures that their wonderful works are properly recognised and that they are remunerated for the products of their imagination.

[Ms Billington]

I am interested by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of these clauses—amendments from the other place—which, in principle, I support. He has also mentioned the importance of ensuring that proper scrutiny takes place when it comes to, for example, the tech companies making representations in this place, but those amendments suggest that that would be dealt with only through secondary legislation. If we have an opportunity, as presented by those on the Front Bench, to suggest that we could have proper, primary legislation, why should we accept the idea of secondary legislation, which does not allow for sufficient scrutiny to ensure that we are providing the necessary protections, when we should be debating primary legislation in this Chamber?

[Pete Wishart]

I have probably not explained exactly what my fears and concerns are, and that is probably typical of me. What we currently have in the Bill is a guarantee that we will respect copyright and ensure that there is transparency. Until I am presented with something that covers all the issues that are covered in clauses 135 to 139, with all the security that they would give our creative industries, I will back those clauses to the hilt, and will do everything possible to ensure that they remain within the Bill. If the Minister, as he seems to be suggesting, is going to come back to us with a different Bill, let us see it. Let us see if it does all the things that we all want when it comes to backing our creative sector. If it contains all the provisions that will ensure that our copyright framework is respected, and if transparency is on the face of it, I will back it in a flash; but until I see it, this is all that I have got, and all that the House has got, and we should make sure that we defend and protect it.

There is an idea that somehow our copyright laws are broken. They are not broken at all; our copyright laws work perfectly well. The only people who have an issue with our copyright laws are those running the AI tech giants, who find that such laws get in the way of what they want to do and achieve. Their intention and ambition is to ingest our creative heritage, and to scrape the world for the last bit of human imagination and creative content. That is what has created difficulties and confusion about our copyright regime. There is nothing wrong with our laws. They are really good and the envy of so many, and they have served us well.

I will support the Bill as it goes through the House. As I have said to the Minister, it is a good Bill that generally does all the right things when it comes to data use, which should be supported. It is a better Bill because of the amendments, and I will continue to support it. But if the Minister has a Bill that he wants to present to this House, could he please get on with it? There is a consultation going on just now, which ends, I think, in two weeks on Wednesday. At that point, we will have the information that we require, and I suspect that we will find an overwhelming desire to see our copyright regime protected and defended. If the Minister has a Bill, bring it on. In the meantime, we must support the provisions and clauses in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment, if the hon. Member lets me finish this point. I know that people are sceptical because such a means does not exist at the moment. I have said before that the robots.txt system does not work; it effectively means that a person is wiped from the internet, and lots of people do not know how to use it—it is far too technical. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, there were a system of simple digital fingerprinting where people could say, “No, you can’t use my work” or, “Yes, you can use my work for large language model training once you’ve remunerated me,” that would be a great outcome for everybody, because it would lead to a new system of remuneration. That could be done individually or for an artist, it could be done through DACS, and for a musician it could be done through their record label.

[Chris Bryant]

I will in a moment. That is why I am keen on not selling the pass on that possibility by having undermined it before we get there.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister is right—there is not much difference between us now. We are getting to a place where we are beginning to agree about the way forward, but we are dealing with this Bill, which has clauses that protect copyright and ensure transparency. What I think he is asking us to do is to set those concerns aside for a Bill that might come in the future, which may include the provisions that we already have. Is that roughly a correct characterisation of where we are going?

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not. What is true is that, as I said, we want to get to a concrete idea of what transparency might look like. Not enough work has been done in the EU or in different territories—in the United States of America, for instance, where different states have different arrangements—and we need to do more about what that should look like in the UK. As I say, if the creative industries and the AI companies can do that together, that could give us a nugget of useful progress. Likewise, if we can get to what I am calling fingerprinting, for want of a better term—I know there is a system of fingerprinting—that would get us to the licensing of 60%, 70% or 80%, and that would be significant. I do not want to sell the pass on that whole package by taking too many steps at this point, but we will discuss this in Committee and on Report. I am conscious that I have Margate behind me, so I give way.

Creative Industries

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman used to be a Treasury Minister, so perhaps he can give us some tips on how we can secure that funding. I note that since July last year, Conservative MPs have developed a tendency to call for more expenditure and less taxation on things. I gently suggest to him that those two things do not meet together. If he gives me tips on how I can get more money out of the Treasury, I will give him tips on how to talk about demanding more money.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the sector: some of our biggest creative industries are completely commercially focused, including publishing, architecture, advertising and video games. However, I have tried to make the argument that the sector is a whole ecosystem; we do not get Great British films and a Great British film industry without a Great British theatre industry, and we do not get a Great British commercial theatre industry without having a subsidised theatre industry as well. We need to foster a combination of broadcasters, subsidised performing arts and commercially centred creative industries, and build on that.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to Arts Council England. As he knows, we have initiated a full review of how Arts Council England works, to ensure that the money does what it is intended to do around the whole of England. The review will be led by Baroness Margaret Hodge, who will be doughty—I think that is the best word—and I look forward to seeing what she comes up with.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the ecosystem, but he has done something that we have not seen for a long time: he has united every creative sector in opposition to his plans to water down copyright. Copyright has underpinned the success of our creative industries and made them global powerhouses. Yesterday, Sir Paul McCartney warned against those plans, and spoke about what could happen to all creative industries. Does the hon. Gentleman take on board what he says, and will he revisit the plans?

[Chris Bryant]

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman privately, and am happy to say again in public, I do not believe for a single instant that the legislation that we will eventually put to the House will undermine or water down our copyright regime in this country. It has been absolutely essential to the creative industries that they own their intellectual property and can control their right to it, and we will not change that. However, we face a real problem in this country, as do many countries around the world, which is that there is legal uncertainty around—

[Pete Wishart]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

There is such legal uncertainty that the matter is being contested in different court cases around the world. This afternoon, I met Getty Images, which has brought one such case. We cannot simply wait for the court cases to resolve the matter for us somehow. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would endorse elements of the consultation—for instance, those around transparency. Let us have that conversation. It is a genuine consultation. Earlier this afternoon, I said to my office that I am very happy for Sir Paul McCartney to come in; we can talk it all through with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Given that the Minister has just been going on about 14 years of the last Conservative Government, I find that a bit hypocritical, but that does not surprise me.

The Government have also slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and set out plans to burden businesses with more than 70 radical 1970s-style regulations, imposing £4.5 billion of additional costs on business. I am worried that there seems to have been a failure to protect the creative industries from the Chancellor’s growth-killing Budget, just as the Department failed to protect them from the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill.

I welcome the £60 million support package, but will it touch the sides when measured against the impact of the Budget? Do not take it from me—take it from Arts Council England, which warned that the Government’s national insurance jobs tax will have

“significant implications for cultural organisations.”

Take it from the Music Venue Trust, which has warned that changes to retail, hospitality and leisure relief will put more than 350 grassroots music venues at

“imminent risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.”

[Pete Wishart]

I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman has received a whole series of briefs from sectors across the creative industries. Their main concern is the possibility of a copyright exception and the watering down of our copyright regime. That is the thing that unites them in anger against this Government, yet the Minister did not even think to mention it in his half an hour or so of peroration. What is the Conservative party’s view on that issue, and will it work with us to try to oppose it?

[Stuart Andrew]

From the meetings I have had with the sector, I can say that the hon. Gentleman is right that that is one of the main issues that people are concerned about, but equally, they are very worried about the impact that national insurance contributions will have on them. I recognise that these are difficult and challenging issues, and we obviously want to work as constructively as we can on them, but we will hold the Government to account.

It is not just me that is saying all this. Take it from the chief executive of the Curve theatre, who warned that the Employment Rights Bill will have a financial knock-on for all theatres. The changes to business property relief will have a significant impact on historic houses—the settings for many iconic dramas and films such as “Downton Abbey”. The impact of those changes is significant.

I regret to say that the bad news for our creative industries does not end there, because unfortunately it is clear that Labour does not have a plan. It scrapped the Conservative Government’s review of Arts Council England, then launched a new review starting from square one. It spent more than five months in government before making any announcements on AI and the creative industries, quietly sneaking out a consultation eight days before Christmas, hoping no one would notice. To top it all off, they published a press release boasting about confirming the Conservative Government’s independent film tax credit.

As I said, I will work constructively with the Government, but they must take their fingers out of their ears and recognise that the choices they have made are potentially crushing our world-leading creative industries from being even greater successes. We want to build on the great success by people who over the years have done so much to build up the amazing creative industries we have in this country. Our creative industries are world leading, but they need stability and certainty to survive. There are lots of opportunities, but also a host of challenges, including the Budget implications, AI and copyright. We stand to work constructively with the Government where they seek to be ambitious, but equally, when we hear concerns, as we have over and over again in our meetings with the sector, we will push and challenge.

In conclusion, the UK can be proud of our amazing creative industries. Whether it is our fashion designers, film, TV, radio, photography, museums, galleries, libraries, music or performing arts, they offer real opportunities to this country’s economy and are something that we can be proud of. Yes, they provide a great deal of soft power, but if we are not careful, we are in danger of damaging them beyond belief. I ask the Department to press the Treasury to think again about the impact of the Budget choices that it made on the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first reason for that was control, as

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

The second was compensation, as

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Max Wilkinson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It has been a long time since we have had the Floor of the House of Commons for a debate on the creative industries, and it is always a fantastic debate.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated assent.

[Pete Wishart]

I see the Minister nodding along. We find out about all the dynamic enterprises and cultural activity in Members’ constituencies but, more than that, we find out about our colleagues’ hidden talents. I was as surprised as anybody to hear that we have a veteran of the punk days at the Roxy, as well as singers and film writers. We have an abundance of talent in the House, so I feel a bit more confident now: I lost my colleagues in MP4 when they stood down at the last election, so I am actively recruiting, and my door is open to any aspiring musician who wants to perform in MP4.

As usual in these debates, there has been a chorus of approval, support and satisfaction—as there should be—when it comes to the quality of the UK creative industries. We just do these things so well, and that quality has been ingrained in our cultural output. There is something that we do across the whole of these isles that just produces this conveyor belt of talent, imagination and creativity. We have successful creative industries because of the imagination of the people of this country. Is it not great that we can turn around and say that we could power our economy based on the creativity, invention and imagination of the people who inhabit these isles? But we need more than that to be successful. These things are mostly down to the creativity of the people who work in our creative industries, but we also need the right conditions: we need to provide the context and the environment for these creative industries to survive, develop and thrive.

For the last 60 years, we have been quite good at doing that. We have intervened when necessary. We have had conversations and debates about investment, what sort of support should go into the creative industries and whether we get the balance right. Of course, there have been political debates about Budgets and national insurance contributions, but we have basically had the right conditions for art and creativity, and the industry that comes with them, to develop and thrive. We have those things because we have an IP system embedded in UK law that is the envy of the world. It is the bedrock of our creative industries and the foundation of our success. Part of that is our wonderful copyright regime, which, again, is the envy of the world. It makes sure that artists are properly compensated for the wonderful works they produce, and ensures that they get recognised for the works they deliver.

We tamper with all of that at our peril. We have been here before. Back in the 2010s, when copyright exceptions were quite the fashion, the threat to so many of our creative industries was not from AI companies; it was from the internet service providers, the pirates and digitisation. Isn’t it funny that it is always the creative industries that are on the frontline when there are technical innovations? It is always the creative industries that seem to have to suffer because of what we are trying to achieve through technological innovation.

Looking around the Chamber, I think that only the Minister and the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) are veterans of the Digital Economy Act 2017. That was probably the high point of the interest in copyright exceptions. Then, of course, the general philosophical debate was all around an unfettered internet that was to be free at the point of use for everybody. There was this absurd business model that we could somehow have all this high-quality content, and we would not have to pay for any of it. Of course, that was quickly knocked on its head, but we have its legacy with the arrival of the huge tech platforms, with tech brothers getting together and developing their own companies. We have massive tech companies that provide nothing other than platforms and that create very little of the content, and they are growing rich and fat off the creativity and invention of the people who actually provide that content—the artists and musicians themselves. The value gap between the musician, or the artist, and these big platforms and companies is something that we will have to address.

However, I do not think that we have ever had such a threat as generative AI; that is what we are looking at now. It says in my notes that I should have a go at the Minister now for having already made up his mind, but I am actually a bit reassured by what he said, and I think all of us should be encouraged. I really did think that the Government had made up their mind; I thought that they were going to go down the opt-out route without qualification. All the things they have said up to this point certainly seemed to confirm that, and the Minister’s grumpy tone during the statement on these issues did not help matters much, particularly when he had a go at the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It is good to have that reassurance, but what we now have to do—I am looking at colleagues who have contributed to the debate and expressed their concerns—is encourage the Minister gently, through persuasion. He knows the view of the industry and the sector, and I think he knows that it is overwhelmingly negative. He will not be able to find anybody in any creative sector who is telling him that what he proposes with the opt-out will work or is good for the creative industries or even for AI.

We have heard from several colleagues about this idea of a model breakdown, where AI starts to feed on itself. That is what we can expect, and I think the analogy with “Blade Runner” was fantastic. That is exactly where we will be going if we allow unfettered AI development to continue along the same lines. We have reached a really interesting point tonight. I think the Government are probably going to reconsider their position. They are going to take on board what Members have said—

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

I see the Minister shaking his head, but perhaps he will clarify all this when he gets to his feet. I know that the Government think they have a solution that somehow supports both the AI sector and the creative industries sector, but nobody actually believes that. I am sorry, Minister, but no one could go along with the idea that somehow, opening up the nation’s creative works to be scraped and mined would ever get us to a situation that could possibly be useful for the creative industries. I do not think it would be useful for the AI sector, either. That is a really important point when it comes to all of this, and we need to look at it properly.

Lastly, we have heard a few myths, including the idea that there is somehow unclarity about the laws that embed our copyright regime. That is just nonsense—nobody actually believes that. I do not think that even AI companies would say that there is any question about the legality of the copyright regime; it is just something that Ministers trawl out to try to create uncertainty in the sector, and it does not work. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that if we do allow AI companies to engage in unfettered text and data mining, there will be real difficulties. Some of the scenarios that have been painted by other Members who have spoken will be realised, and that will be very damaging for this Government.

We know that the Government are invested in AI. They are in an economic mess, and they are looking to grab at anything that will give them some sort of comfort. AI is obviously one of the areas they have identified that might bring this promised growth, giving them some sort of confidence and reassurance that what they are trying to do with the economy might get it to where they are seeking to take it, but we cannot be obsessively fixated on AI at the cost of so much of our heritage and culture. Where it is right that this Government proceed with AI, they have to take a balanced approach, one that looks after the interests of our nation’s creators, inventors and artists. So far, they have not been able to do so, but there are encouraging signs, so I am looking forward to the Minister’s response this evening. I hope that what he says will encourage us further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree. One of my colleagues—I cannot remember which—made a point about freelancers. One of the problems in the creative industries is that so many people today are freelancers, and it is very difficult for them to enjoy a regular income, take out a mortgage and so on. My mother was a make-up artist at the BBC in the 1950s—she looked after Shirley Bassey’s wigs, among other things—and in those days that was a full-time paid role, but hardly a single make-up artist is afforded that today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) made a point about the Hatters, but also about music and games in her constituency, and the importance of enabling emerging artists to prosper. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) likewise made the point that we have to get beyond London and the south-east. That is sometimes a major issue in trying to attract commercial money into the creative industries, on which we are very focused.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made a point about the importance of devolution, because we want to be able to make sure that this extends across the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) made points—different cultural points—about books in Scots and the Gaelic song sung by Runrig. It is hardly ever mentioned that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) used to play in Runrig. [Laughter.]

Another subject that was predominant in the debate was about creative education and skills. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who I think is in every debate I ever take part in, was absolutely right about the need to provide for greater skills in film. That is one of the things international companies come to the UK for, because we have such great film skills. In the past, such people were often trained by the BBC, but there is now very a different structure.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) told us about his musical past, but he clarified for us the difference between correlation and causation: I think the Roxy closed on the day he sang there or played there, not because he played there. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) made a very important point about Falmouth School of Art, where Tacita Dean, among others, trained. Of course, being able to have those centres of excellence spread across the whole of the United Kingdom—whether down in Falmouth or in Margate in Thanet—is really important.

In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made the point about the next generation and the inequality of access to the arts for many people. She also made a really important point about neurodivergent people. An interesting fact I came across when working with people in the jewellery industry is that more than 50% of people who work in jewellery are neurodivergent, and that is enabled by the Responsible Jewellery Council. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) made an important point about the drop in A-levels and other exams. We need those skills not just for the arts themselves, but for all other industries, because those skills are needed by everybody.

I will come back to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but I notice that they want to bulldoze barriers. The hon. and learned Member almost persuaded me that Brexit was not a very good idea—I am probably not meant to have said that.

On financial burdens—a couple of Conservative Members mentioned the issue of national insurance contributions—I understand the political points that are being made. However, I would just point out that 50% of businesses will pay less in national insurance contributions or the same under the new scheme. Considering that most businesses in the creative sector are smaller than in the wider economy, that probably means there is a higher percentage in the creative industries. I do not want to diminish the concerns of many in this sector, but I do want to get this right.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) referred to the problem of people not paying for content and, for that matter, not paying artists when they come and perform. How often is it that everybody says, “Oh, we’ll get a singer along—I’m sure they’ll do it for free”? That is one of the things we need to put an end to, because in the end it should be possible for people to be able to make a living properly in the creative industries.

Several Members referred to the issue of music venues, including the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who also spoke about financial backing in her own constituency, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), to whom I have to say that I was really not convinced by the idea of curtailing the period of copyright to 10 years. I think that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people in the creative industries in the UK, but if she wants to put it to the electorate, then good luck with that.

I do not know how to refer to them—the Waldorf and Statler over there—but it is great that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) both talked about the Soft Power Council, and I am glad we have got that up and running. I would be interested to hear whether they have specific ideas about what we should do. Good points were made by several Members about the British Council. I thought it was an act of vandalism a few years ago when it was effectively cut into ribbons, and it is a job of work for us to put it back together.

The hon. Member for Gosport is right about the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. We are committed to that, and I do not think that work is yet completed. I praise Jen Smith and Baroness Helena Kennedy for the work they are doing, and anything that we can do to help, we will. The hon. Lady is also right about British stories. We want a mixed economy. We will talk about this more at the Select Committee tomorrow morning, but we want a mixed economy in film and for everybody to come and make their films here—American movies, Korean movies, Spanish movies, whatever—but we also want to make British stories in Britain that reflect the Britian that we live in, keeping some of that British IP in the UK so that the value remains here. The right hon. Member for Maldon rightly referred to the cultural protection fund, which of course we are committed to. That is important, not least in relation to our work in Ukraine.

Many Members mentioned artificial intelligence, and I fully understand the levels of concern, so let me say a few things. First, intellectual property is central to the viability of the creative industries, both individuals and the industries themselves. What are they selling, other than intellectual property?

Secondly, many creative industries of course use AI— my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) referred to this in his very good speech—including Paul McCartney in the last year. I do not for one minute suggest that the creative industries are luddites—people seem to think that I have said that, but I certainly have not and it is not what I believe.

Thirdly, good generative AI needs good quality data, and that means licensing—paying for and getting permission for good quality data that is embodied in creative intellectual property. Mike Gross of Data Conversion Laboratory has made that point, and he knows his stuff. I suspect that in future the really good successful generative AI companies will be ones that go down that route.

Fourthly, we seek more licensing—in other words, more remuneration—greater control of rights, and legal clarity for all, and we are seeking to achieve those three things combined. As I said earlier, this is a genuine consultation. All of us are listening. I am doing most of the meetings with the creative industries. I know my counterpart in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark) is doing lots of meetings with the creative industries and people in AI, but most meetings with the creative industries are my job.

Doing nothing is not an option for us, as that would simply mean that we would have to wait for the courts to do their work. In truth, several court cases are already going on. Some of them have come to mutually contradictory views in different jurisdictions, and they do not necessarily provide the clarity of precedent that we might want. It is surely wrong that the only people who can enforce their rights are those with the deepest pockets who can afford to go through long, protracted and expensive court cases. I do not think doing nothing is an option. I am very much in the business of listening to what people think we should do. I have heard quite a lot of the things that people think we should not do, but I would love to hear things that people think we should do.

Quite a lot of people from the creative industries have knocked on my door. We have had meetings. Indeed, we have had very open meetings, and people have expressed their concerns. They have expressed support for some elements, including some that have not even been mentioned in this debate. I am determined to keep on listening to the debate, and to try to find a solution that delivers for the creative industries and for artificial intelligence. It cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to be able to deliver that.

[Pete Wishart]

It is encouraging that there is real positivity to the Minister’s comments, and I understand that he is trying his hardest to resolve a tricky question. He has heard the creative industries, and he knows that this idea of an opt-out does not work for them. It is all good telling us what we are not supporting and what we would support, but what does he support? If the opt-out is not going to happen, what would he do?

[Chris Bryant]

I support securing more licensing, greater control of rights and legal clarity for all. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said to the right hon. Member for Maldon, there is not a version of rights reservation that works at the moment and is simple and easy. As an author, I know that if someone wants to register for the public lending right, they have to go online and register each of their works. That is relatively simple and straightforward for someone who writes books, because they have only two or three or four. For a photographer, it is a completely different business. We have to come to a technical answer that works for everybody. If there is not a technical answer, we will have to think again. That is the sum total of where we are at. Everybody has supported the transparency measures that have been referred to. It might be that Members would also want to support some of the rights to a personality that have been exercised in some parts of the United States and other parts of Europe that have not been referred to.

I am sure everybody wants me to stop by now. The hon. Member for Gosport referred to several songs that she thought I should adopt as my motto. I think one was “Respect”. I am not sure whether she meant Aretha Franklin’s “R-E-S-P-E-C-T”, or Erasure’s “A Little Respect”, which I prefer:

I try to discover

A little something to make me sweeter.

I am not sure which of those two she prefers, but I think I will rely on Depeche Mode in the end. When it comes to the creative industries,

I just can’t get enough.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the creative industries.

Artificial Intelligence Opportunities Action Plan

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

At last, there is a great advocate for a sustainable, fully funded, fully costed compute landscape for our country. That is something we have begun announcing in today’s plan, and into the spring I will announce further strategy on compute. I want to make sure that we have the right resilient, sustainable investment that our country needs when it comes to public compute. We have committed today to increasing our public compute by a factor of 20 in the next five years. That shows the scale of our ambition. My hon. Friend can rest assured that when we make announcements on the compute needs of our country, particularly when individual institutions are involved, they will be fully costed, they will be fully funded and they will be delivered.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

People in our world-class creative sector will not be in the least bit reassured by the Minister this afternoon. Our artists face the real prospect of their wonderful works being ingested by AI companies without recompense or even permission. We know that the consultation is ongoing, but what people want to hear is the Minister’s intention when it comes to copyright. Can he reassure people who are listening today that our wonderful copyright regime will remain in place at the end of this process?

[Peter Kyle]

We are already on record as saying that we want more licensing of copyrighted material, not less. The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is a mischaracterisation of the intentions of this Government. The consultation is there, and we want to hear from people. We will deliver a way forward that harnesses all the opportunities of the creative industries into the future, not based on the past. We will allow AI companies to come here and invest into the future. We do not need to pit both sectors against each other. We as a country should celebrate that we have an economy so diverse that we can have the best of both sectors. We can have world-class sectors in both AI technology and the creative arts. That is something that we celebrate, but we seem to be the only party in this House that does.