Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Polly Billington Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, which is thoughtful as always. May I pick her up on one substantial point? I have not used the word “uncertainty” or implied that the challenge we have is uncertainty. Existing copyright law is very certain, but it is not fit for purpose. All the dangers and the existing loss into AI models have happened within the existing law. The challenges that we have, which I will go into further, are happening currently.

We need to ensure that we can have a domestic legal system that is fit for the digital age; we cannot rely on legislation that was created for, and is still only effective in, the analogue age. I want to give certainty. The reason that I am making this speech is to give certainty, not only in my words but most importantly in legislation, in the most rapid fashion possible, so that creatives and the AI sector can move forward together.

Unfortunately, at times the Bill has been presented as a battle between creative industries and new technology companies, but nothing could be further from the truth

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his tone and for the direction of travel that he is setting out. Bearing in mind that he is talking about “the most rapid fashion possible”, why are the Government refusing to put notice of backstop powers for transparency in the Bill? That is what the creative industries would like to see, in order to give reassurance that, in anticipation of further legislation along the line, the Secretary of State and the Government give themselves the powers to act, when and if they see that the current rules are being broken systemically by AI and tech companies.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—nobody speaks with more passion and insight on the subject than she does. I simply say that the amendment is not comprehensive enough and does not tackle the needs and opportunities of both sectors. The only way that our country will benefit from the maximum potential that both these sectors present is if we can bring them together to find a way forward. Pitting one against the other is unnecessarily divisive and damages both.

The truth is that growing Britain’s economy needs both sectors to succeed and to prosper. Britain has to be the place where the creative industries, every bit as much as AI companies, can invest and grow, confident that their future prosperity is assured. We have to become a country where our people can enjoy the benefits and the opportunities of both. There is an investment battle for Britain happening, and we must win it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Ms Billington]

rose—

[Peter Kyle]

I will give way once more, before I make some progress.

[Ms Billington]

On the point about speed, determination and the conventions of this House with regard to the legislative programme, in some ways that gives the Secretary of State a case for putting backstop powers on the face of this Bill to create the confidence that the creative industries require, so that we do not have to wait for full legislation. Having some confidence now would give the Government the power to enforce if they saw something that passed the test and there were some transgressions. There is a case for what we are asking for because of those constraints.

[Peter Kyle]

Let me be as direct as I possibly can. The amendment before us does not include powers of enforcement; it would give powers to the Secretary of State, but it gives no indication of how those powers should be used. Given that ambiguity, it would be incumbent on me to use the powers in a way in which I saw fit, and I would see fit to do a thorough engagement on the back of such powers before using them, if I decided to use them at all. Any of my successors in the post could well use those powers in vastly different ways, which would lead to great instability in an area where I am determined to create stability. Finally, it would be disempowering for this place to have all those powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State when what we really need is a comprehensive set of legislative measures that this place and the other place have fully endorsed, is on statute and can give the security that both sectors need into the future.

It was remiss of me to take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), even though it was an important one, before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, to whom I turn now.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Polly Billington Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have to set up a queuing system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I wish I could give my hon. Friend a timeline. The main thing I want to say about the timeline, as somebody who I think all hon. Members know cares passionately not just about the anxiety that has been created in this sphere because of the consultation but about the anxiety for many creative people about their future careers, is that I get that anxiety—100%. That is the bigger point.

Frankly, I would like to stop doing the Data Bill and start going out and engaging with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to have as many sessions with creative industries and different parts of the sector and with the AI companies—in particular UK-based AI companies—to work out how we can get to proper solutions to all of this. However, until I get the Data Bill out of the way, I will struggle to do that.

On another point, I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley as a musician, because she is still a member of the Musicians’ Union. There is a really important part here for the different sectors within the creative industries. Word, image, music and sound will all probably need different technical solutions. That is the kind of nitty-gritty that we need to get into, which we can only really do when we consider the whole issue in the round, rather than just one specific aspect of it. Now, I think Margate calls.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous with his time.

The Minister is talking about the possibility that the amendments put forward would not do anything today, but there is an urgency in the creative industries because the stuff that they create is being scraped now. Will he prioritise transparency by committing at the Dispatch Box to introducing enforceable obligations, if not through a statutory instrument then at least through a clear public commitment, so that transparency will be central to the Government’s approach to AI and copyright?

[Chris Bryant]

First, I completely get the urgency of this. In many ways, I wish we had been addressing this two or three years ago, because we are some way behind other countries in relation to this. Secondly, we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward. I have said that from the very beginning. Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to the process of AI being high- quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. All these things have to be addressed in the round and together, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is worth nothing.

The AI Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North—is chuntering in my left ear, which is helpful because she makes the point that this was the very first thing we discussed when came into office. With both of us in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discussed how we could get to a resolute piece of legislation that enabled greater licensing, greater deployment of artificial intelligence in the UK, in particular UK companies, and greater transparency. So I completely agree on that—

[Ms Billington]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way, but I have the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) waiting.

[Ms Billington]

Again, my hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. Will he therefore consider interim measures or guidance that would deliver similar outcomes while legislative options are being explored? That is what the creative industries are looking for.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know what interim measures would look like. All three of us on the team, including the Secretary of State, have often said that we are open- minded about anybody coming through the door with a good solution. We are in the business of good ideas, and if anybody has any good ideas, we are happy to look at them, but I honestly cannot make the guarantee that my hon. Friend asks for because I do not know what interim measures that were not legislative would look like. It is not our intention—I would urge people to abide by this—to legislate piecemeal in this Bill, which is not about artificial intelligence and copyright.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Government’s amendments and new clauses, particularly new clause 16, which addresses the relationship between artificial intelligence and copyright and which I strongly welcome. By slightly broadening the scope of the Bill, the amendments demonstrate Ministers’ attention to this pressing detail and reflect some of the comments by colleagues and the creative sector.

The existing legal framework with regard to copyright is not fit for purpose in the face of new and developing AI technologies. Colleagues who have much greater expertise and knowledge than me have contributed to this debate, but I want to offer a reflection and draw attention to the experience of an individual—one of my constituents—as I believe it highlights the real human impact that big tech companies can have in running rampant over copyright laws.

My constituent, Susan, is an author. She has had 32 of her books and, she calculates, more than 1 million published words used by Meta without her consent. The pirating of material has serious human impacts on those in the creative industries. Susan’s life work and source of income was downgraded and devalued almost instantaneously. Her intellectual property was accessed without her permission and used to inform an AI system designed to mimic her work. Susan described that to me and said that she felt violated, as if someone had come into her house and stolen her things, and she is not alone.

I have been contacted by other professionals in the creative industries in my constituency who have also had published material used without their consent by AI. A local author has had their works harnessed through an online library of pirated books, and a local illustrator said that her work was scraped to train an AI model with images and videos taken from websites and social media without her permission. That practice is widespread and plainly wrong, even to a lay observer who is not versed in technical expertise, yet rightsholders are often impotent against big tech companies and their sizeable financial and legal assets.

[Ms Billington]

I observe that there is an issue of territoriality here. We have actually managed to get carve-outs and protect this country from deepfakes, for example; if something is made abroad, it cannot be used in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be able to have similar carve-outs for creatives, such as her constituent and my constituents, so that if AI-generated material is made elsewhere, it cannot be deployed in this country, in order to preserve a proper legislative framework to protect the rights of our creatives?

[Jen Craft]

My hon. Friend highlights a very strong issue. I agree that our current copyright laws are basically being infringed on and people who are rightsholders are unable to seek the recourse that they fully deserve under the law. There should be a carve-out, so that if there is illegal content in this country, people should have recourse to the law and be able to protect their own copyrighted material. I am pleased to see the Government commit to action on this complex issue. I hope that time will be allowed in the House for us to scrutinise this issue and to investigate properly the impact of policy options, which will be considered as part of the consultation.

I understand the complexities of legislating in this area, but those in the creative industries want to see action now, which is understandable. We must create a system that can feasibly and effectively enforce existing copyright law, bring transparency in the use of materials by AI systems, and remunerate rights holders. I support the Government’s plans to do this through primary legislation with proper scrutiny of the measures, rather than through an addendum to a broader piece of legislation. However, I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck—where growth is supported in both the creative and tech industries—but creatives must never be expected to forfeit their rights to serve that purpose.

As my constituent is at pains to point out, real people and real livelihoods are already being impacted by unregulated AI. It is crucial that we get this right, and provide much needed legal certainty to protect intellectual property in the creative industries. This must happen soon, because, while infringements of copyright law go unaddressed, it is those in our vital creative industries who are losing out.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I first declare an interest: my wife is a professional photographer.

People who create art in any form add value to the world. They inspire people, provoke ideas and push boundaries—and deserve to be fairly paid for it. In East Thanet alone, we have the famous names of J. M. W Turner, Vincent van Gogh, Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Jane Austen—all inspired by that constituency, all having called it home. Current creatives who live there must be paid to be able to do the same.

The image of an artist in a garret has become romanticised to the point that it is almost used as an excuse not to pay creatives properly. The Government are currently taking the Employment Rights Bill through its legislative stages and, once introduced, it will be genuinely transformative for people in low-paid and insecure work.

Simultaneously, the Government are consulting on proposals that could actively take away rights and protections from creative workers. The right to have one’s work protected by copyright law is enshrined in British law. Copyright exists to protect not just the wealth of the individual but the wealth of the nation. It is fundamental to the success of innovators, entrepreneurs and creatives—and it is fundamental to our economy. The claim that AI and tech firms will take their business somewhere else if they do not have free access to people’s work is, quite frankly, extortion. We do not expect or allow other industries to do that, so why do we think it is acceptable to force creatives to accept this deal?

I am not here to defend the status of our copyright laws—we are not starting from a high baseline in this country. Sadly, creatives are all too used to being ripped off and taken advantage of. The Government have acknowledged that our copyright regime is out of date, and I absolutely agree. However, it cannot be right that the answer is simply to make it harder for creatives—to make low-paid work even less rewarding and insecure work even more insecure.

If we choose to modernise copyright law to increase protections for our national cultural wealth, we can turbo-charge the growth potential of this industry. Currently, we are on a path to undermine an industry that is already insecure. One of the staples of British values is fairness; if someone does a fair day’s work, they get a fair day’s pay. Not only is allowing creatives to have their protection eroded not fair, but it is simply not British. We ask for simple fairness, the right to permit or protect, and the right to be paid.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and have worked with Equity through the Performance Alliance and the Musicians’ Union for the last 25 years. I just want to get on the record the union perspective. As other Members have said, often in these debates the workers have been portrayed as luddites. It is quite the reverse; it is the workers who are creating these mechanisms.

As hon. Members have said, all that the trade unionists are asking for is for their rights to be protected—protected through collective bargaining, which is the mechanism that we have used for over a century for negotiations between the trade unions and the trade associations. The request is straightforward: that copyright law should be respected. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who secured the debate, eloquently and comprehensively set out that that law is actually not unclear or disputed—it exists. The simple rule is that if someone wants to use someone else’s material, they must secure a licence with the rights holder. As a result, through that collective bargaining mechanism, we can protect everybody in future.

[Ms Billington]

Copyright is often enforced by people who have licensing departments to enforce it, but smaller creatives, such as many in my constituency, find it extremely difficult to enforce copyright as it currently stands. That is one reason why we should use this opportunity to strengthen our copyright law to protect those low-paid workers.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly right. One of the key issues raised by the hon. Member for Bury North is that lack of transparency, because people are not even aware that their stuff is being used until a later date, and then they are outraged. The role of Government is to ensure that they can enforce that the AI being developed is compliant with the regulations. In addition to that, as has been mentioned, the Information Commissioner has made very clear the role of GDPR and how it applies in such cases, and that the issue is about ensuring, from Government, that there is proper enforcement.

The simple message from this debate to the Minister is to just drop the Government’s proposed text and data exception. Several hon. Members have made it clear that nobody has discovered an effective opt-out mechanism that is applicable at this time—maybe some time in the future, but certainly not in the immediate future.

The other issue is that the performers’ rights framework needs to be updated now. That demand has come from virtually every trade union, and other bodies representing individual artists as well. That is the debate we should be having—about how we could update and improve that framework, and about enforcing existing GDPR.

One of the briefings that I saw said that this country is a gold mine of creativity and creative content. Well, at the moment, there is a gold rush on. It is a wild west out there, and the people benefiting are the big US tech companies. I do not want to push the analogy too far, but we need a sheriff. That is the role of Government; the Government should not be taking us backwards rather than moving us forwards.

I hope that the Minister leaves this debate with a full understanding of the tenor not just of what is needed, but of the cross-party strength of feeling. We need the Government to intervene positively to protect people’s rights and to protect that gold mine of creativity in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question and the manner in which she expressed it, which recognised the complexity of smartphone use—the benefits as well as the potential harmful aspects. I can assure her that, as of last week, the power to demand that illegal content be taken down has come into force. I accept that there is still illegal content online, but I am closely watching the way that Ofcom responds. I think that, in the coming days and weeks, she will see action showing how assertive it intends to be, and I expect it to be, in doing so. It also has a taskforce looking at the small but risky sites she mentions. I will be looking at this very closely and supporting Ofcom in relation to its requirement to act in those circumstances.

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

The domestic abuse charity Oasis in my constituency has alerted me to the appalling situation whereby young women are being coerced into setting up OnlyFans accounts to generate income. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the sector can root out coercion and exploitation?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend is a champion on these issues. Oasis, a great charity, is lucky to have her here in the House of Commons as a voice for its work and for the need to make radical changes to keep people safe online. I can assure her that the situation she describes breaches several aspects of law, including the need to take down illegal content. I will be watching closely, as she will, and working with her to ensure that the new powers and those that are coming online are effective and that we adapt to these challenges in future.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Polly Billington Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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]

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 ---

[Max Wilkinson]

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

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

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

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

[Ms Billington]

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

[Max Wilkinson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Ms Billington]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[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.

[Ms Billington]

It is not only Margate; East Thanet has three cultural drivers—Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs—all with phenomenal amounts of cultural engine throughout the centuries. Many writers such as Wilkie Collins and Jane Austen are well out of copyright. Musicians, visual artists and writers often earn little money. It is great to hear that we will have those working groups. They need to be confident that they will be paid by the machines, as it were, because otherwise they will end up even worse off than they are at the moment. Some 40% of greetings card designers have lost their job because of this issue. I urge the hon. Gentleman to come to Margate to hear what is being said by the creative industries here, and I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is also keen to meet those in the creative industries.

Creative Industries

Polly Billington Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

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

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

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

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

[Max Wilkinson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

At the weekend, the innovation, energy and entrepreneurship of the creative community in my constituency was on full display. Off Season Margate—part of our shared commitment to developing a year-round economy—was a weekend-long, town-wide exhibition of art created by a wide range of skilled creators, initiated by the award-winning artist Lindsey Mendick. From oil paints to embroidery, sculpture to ceramics and photography to screen prints, a whole range of skills were on display in the form of incredible art.

This was a democratic exercise in the power of creativity, involving world-renowned artist Tracey Emin and raw artists—people displaying their work in front rooms and cafés, as well as galleries, telling their stories, and reflecting their experience of the world through art. The weather played its part, because the sun was shining. Margate was buzzing. It was a clear demonstration of my three key arguments today: first, creativity is valuable not just because it is enjoyed by the consumers, but because it benefits the creators. They must be appreciated. Secondly, the creative industries have a crucial role to play in revitalising our coastal communities, where so many creatives choose to live. Thirdly, if this fundamental element of our society and economy is to thrive, we must develop the pipeline—the next generation of artists—by enshrining creativity in our national curriculum.

However, if we think of creativity simply as an industry, we lose something that makes it special. Creativity is fundamental to the human condition. It is woven into our daily lives and our history. The first example of civilisation is carvings on the walls of caves. Those people chose to record the world around them. They chose to leave a mark. They expressed themselves and the lives they lived. The need to express ourselves flows through human history and exists in every single one of us, but the ability to tap into it is artificially limited by an inequality of access to the arts. That is a failure of previous Governments, and because of it, we have fewer skilled creators and less well-rounded individuals, and society is depleted.

Talent is found everywhere in our country, but as so many hon. Members have pointed out, opportunity is not. If we do not allow every child the right to an arts education, we will miss out on the next Tracey Emin or Bob and Roberta Smith. The damage done to creative education by the introduction of the English baccalaureate and Progress 8, which led to a dramatic fall in the number of students taking up arts-based subjects, must be reversed at the earliest opportunity. I support that campaign, alongside Members from across the House who share my concern about the impact of those changes on our children, our society and our economy. How can we expect the creative industries to come anywhere close to their potential when the education system is actively dissuading children from studying creative subjects? Every arts subject is important, and every child deserves an arts education. As my badge from the Royal Academy of Arts says,

“Art is a serious subject.”

Art is never more serious than for children with special educational needs, for whom creative education is a vital tool allowing them to access learning and live their fullest lives. Sammy’s Foundation was set up by my constituent Patricia Alban after the tragic death of her son. Sammy had a rare genetic disease and autism and was unable to attend mainstream schools, but he found his passion and skill in craft. The foundation now helps other children with disabilities to learn heritage crafts as a way of uncovering their talents and to lead meaningful, connected lives with a sense of purpose. Considering we have a huge skills gap in our heritage crafts sector, it feels to me that it is a win-win to invest in arts education that harnesses the aptitudes of neurodivergent children, preparing them for purposeful and rewarding work creating beautiful things and contributing to the economy, rather than seeing them as a problem to be managed.

As well as inequality of access to the arts, there is inequality of reward. According to research from the University of Glasgow, the median income for visual artists is £12,500 a year—a 40% decrease in earnings since 2010. That is almost 50% lower than the income of a full-time minimum wage worker. On top of that, one in three creative industry workers is freelance.

When discussing the rise of AI and the challenges it poses for artists, my constituents are far from the luddites that some would like to dismiss them as. Polling from the Design and Artists Copyright Society shows that 84% of artists would agree to license their work for AI training so long as they received fair pay for it. However, they know that the fundamental act of creation is something that will always differentiate that which a machine has learned from what a human has made. Their right to have that work protected, and their freedom to engage with AI on their terms, is something on which I and many others will continue to seek reassurances from the Government.

This is not about resisting change; it is about bringing in change in a fair and equitable way. This is already a sector with low pay and a lack of security. If we do not put in proper safeguards, we will end up making jobs in this sector even more unappealing for those whose passion is to work in it. Data from the Creators’ Rights Alliance shows that 30% of photographers have already lost clients due to generative AI, while 26% of illustrators and 36% of translators have reported losing work. Two thirds of writers believe generative AI will cost them future earnings. We cannot afford to lose the ideas and imagination of these people—they are the people building the amazing heritage of Thanet, to shape an economy that thrives all year round and creates a pipeline of art and skilled creatives for the whole country. They also project our soft power into the world.

The benefits of investment in the creative sector in coastal communities is demonstrated by the Turner Contemporary in my constituency, which has contributed to a lively ecosystem around the visual arts, among many other things—all without a university to support it. I look forward to there being a coastal dimension to the creative industrial strategy that can engender similar vibrancy and sustain such initiatives for the long term.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I, too, represent a coastal seat, and I, too, know how coastal seats have been forgotten as part of the national story about our creativity. Bournemouth is the resting place of Mary Shelley and was home to Robert Louis Stevenson, and it is also home to many institutions such as Bournemouth University, the Arts University Bournemouth, the Russell-Cotes art museum and gallery and the Boscombe Arts Depot. The list could really go on—but I will not go on. Does my hon. Friend agree that coastal communities such as ours, which have voted Labour for the first time in a very long time—perhaps even for the first time—need their Labour Government to focus on their creative possibilities and to support the jobs and skills of the future?

[Ms Billington]

Coastal communities across the country are often places people escape to in order to find a place where they can really thrive. That is why coastal areas will be so important in developing a proper creative industry strategy.

East Thanet has long been an engine room for our country’s creative industries. If its future is to be as glorious as its past, and if we are to continue to use our soft power globally through our internationally famous artists and creators, creativity needs to be valued in and of itself. Creators need to be able to create with dignity and security, and all generations should be able to access art education to enhance their lives and society as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Polly Billington Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

2. What steps his Department is taking to protect the copyright of people working in the creative industries in the context of artificial intelligence.

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

We are absolutely determined to make sure that copyright and intellectual property are protected, as they always have been in this country. Our consultation is designed to do two specific things: to make sure there is legal certainty for AI developers and creative industries alike, and to make sure there is more licensing of copyright material by AI developers.

[Ms Billington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, visual artists earn far below the minimum wage, and rely on copyright royalties to finance their work and continue to contribute to our world-leading creative industries—in Thanet and across the country. What reassurances can the Minister give that the plans for a copyright exception for AI learning will not further contribute to that financial instability and weaken the lifeblood of our creative economy?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She could big up her own constituency a little more, because Margate is probably one of the greatest centres of artists in this country. It is where Turner was trained and went to school, and where we have Turner Contemporary. It is also where Tracey Emin is doing so much work and many other artists as well. It is a brilliant hub.

We want to make sure—as we did in the last Labour Government, when we introduced the artist’s resale right—that artists can earn a living from their art. That is what we are determined to do. Just as last year New Zealand and Australia entered into the same agreement for an artist’s resale right, we want to make sure that there is a future revenue stream for every single artist in this country.

Technology in Public Services

Polly Billington Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I accept that we have strayed some way from the important topic that the Secretary of State came here to talk about tonight. Much as I would enjoy continuing this discussion with the hon. Member, I am happy to move on and address more of the Secretary of State’s points.

It was the last Government who launched a wide-ranging public service productivity review to address these issues, and to understand for the first time how technology can transform our economy. It was the last Government—this was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans)—who decided to harness the potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare with the NHS AI lab and a £3.4 billion investment fund to cut admin and fast-track diagnoses. I was not 100% clear about this, and I do not want to wilfully misinterpret what was said by the Secretary of State, but I hope that the fund continues and we continue to see that opportunity.

The public have benefited directly from the sort of vast improvements that the Secretary of State talked about, thanks to the last Government’s embrace of technology. It now takes less than three weeks to receive a new passport—often much less—thanks to the adoption of cloud-based working practices. As of March this year, 99% of passport applications were processed within the target timeframe, a performance which, sadly, I do not think many other parts of Government achieve.

Some will have concerns about what the implementation of new technologies in the public sector will mean for those who work in it. If we are honest, we must recognise—and the Secretary of State well knows—that the business case for many new technologies has an impact on workers. The Secretary of State must filter out naysayers, even if they happen to be his party’s union paymasters. Whatever those paymasters say, disruptive technology is good for the public and vital to economic growth.

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

The hon. Gentleman claims to support UK technology and science, but he is on the record as opposing solar and wind farms. Is he actually a shadow anti-science Secretary?

[Andrew Griffith]

I could not be happier to debate that topic, but I am very conscious of the number of Members who, I was told, are trying to make their maiden speeches, and I think it is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every intervention we take at this stage potentially jeopardises their chance of doing so. In short, however, there is a very fine place for solar: it is on the roofs of warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and new homes, where appropriate, but it is not on productive farmland.

In government, we significantly increased spending on public sector research—by 29%, to £20 billion in the current financial year—and our recent manifesto pledged to increase that by a further 10% over the life of this Parliament. May I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will wind up the debate, if they can pledge to match that ambition to a sector that is desperate to see such certainty of funding?

The Secretary of State has my sympathy. I cannot imagine how difficult his phone call with the University of Edinburgh, which had already invested £30 million in the exascale supercomputer, must have been. This was a national facility that would have enabled significant advances in AI, medical research, climate science and clean energy innovation. The investment was fully costed, amounting over many years to what the NHS burns through in three days. There seems to be confusion at the Treasury: just because semiconductors are becoming smaller in size, it does not mean that the Secretary of State’s Department must follow suit.