Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Samantha Niblett Excerpts(3 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49D.
I want to start by putting on record something that I should perhaps have said a bit more about in this place. I cherish the UK creative industries—their immense contribution to our national and personal lives; their embodiment of the best of human creativity—and I appreciate the sincerity of their concerns about the future. I want to express my genuine gratitude to the whole of the creative sector, from national treasures such as Sir Ian McKellen, Kate Bush and, yes, Sir Elton John, whose performances enrich our lives—having seen all of them perform live, I can say how much that has personally enriched my life—to local artists such as Pauly the painter, whose paintings of Hove enrich my ministerial office in Whitehall. However, this is not a competition about who loves the sector most; it is an argument about how best to champion the interests of creatives, large and small, and to protect and promote them into the future.
The purpose of the Data (Use and Access) Bill is to better harness data for economic growth, to improve public services and to support modern digital government, and I acknowledge the agreements reached in the other place on scientific research and sex data to that end. The Bill before us today is one step closer to completion, and I am grateful to Minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch for her work on these important issues. I am sure the House will unite in wishing her a happy birthday today—it is a significant birthday, but I will not do her the discourtesy of mentioning which one.
This Bill was never intended to be about artificial intelligence, intellectual property and copyright. However, the other place has yet again suggested that there be an amendment on this issue, despite hon. Members of this elected House having already removed a similar amendment twice before. Madam Deputy Speaker, I also note your decision that the amendment from the other place still conflicts with the financial privileges of this place. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has stated repeatedly, we absolutely recognise that a workable solution on transparency is a key part of tackling this issue, but we absolutely disagree that this Bill or this amendment is the right way to address it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for mentioning Kate Bush; she is the love of my life and has been since I was nine.
We have repeatedly spoken about the need for a tech solution to address this issue. I have a background in data and technology and have been meeting several companies that seem between them to have a possible tech solution. Will the Secretary of State meet me and them to discuss it?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, for her love of Kate Bush, which I share, and for her passion for finding a workable solution and way forward. As I go through my remarks, I hope she will see that I propose a way to formalise the insight, wisdom and experience of the kinds of companies that she references, so that they can move forward. It is because of the complexities around AI copyright law and the understandable sensitivities of content creators that this needs to be done properly and carefully in a considered, measured and reasoned way. That is what this Government intend to do.
In order to make progress all of us need to work to find some common ground and reflect on things that we could have done better. In that spirit, let me say to this House and the other place that I regret the timing of the consultation on copyright and AI and the consideration of this Bill and the way that the two collided, and I regret that by indicating a preferred option it appeared to some that I had taken a side in the debate before everyone felt that they had been listened to.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Samantha Niblett ExcerptsWednesday 14th May 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is wonderful to hear my hon. Friend talk about the importance of copyright and the fact that we have existing laws that we can use, but I wonder whether he is aware of the growing concern in industry about the risk of expansive US-style fair use principles creeping into UK practice and what we might do to secure our safeguards. We must not allow foreign interpretations of fair use to erode our copyright laws.
Chris Bryant
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the US system of fair use is different from the UK’s—ours goes back to 1709, with the first of our copyright Acts, and it has been very solid. When we introduced this Bill, I said that this country should be proud of the fact that a succession of different generations have ensured that rights holders can protect their copyright. Interestingly, one of Charles Dickens’ big battles was being able to protect his copyright not only in the UK but in the United States of America, where he felt he had fewer protections. It is for us to develop our own copyright law in our own country, and I say to my hon. Friend that the law as it is will not change one jot as a result of what we are intending to do in the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I will say two things. First, we have always said that we were consulting on a package, and part of that package was a technical solution so that rights holders would be able to protect their rights better, in a way that—
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment, but I am still answering the intervention. I had two points to make, and I will now probably forget the second one.
As I was saying, it was always going to be a package of measures, and we always said that we would not introduce that package unless we were secure in the belief that we could deliver for the creative industries a technical solution that made it simpler for them to enforce their rights and seek remuneration and that would lead to more licensing. That is a whole package.
When we last debated this, I said two things: first, that we are open-minded about where we are in relation to the consultation, and secondly—perhaps just as importantly—that our amendment 16 would require us to undertake an economic impact assessment of all the different options included in the consultation. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question. Somebody else wanted to ask another question.
Chris Bryant
No, no. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is next.
Samantha Niblett
On the point of finding a solution in the round, if no credible technical solution is in sight, will the Minister confirm what non-technical legislative or regulatory measures the Government are considering to protect rights holders in the interim?
Chris Bryant
That is precisely why we need to do this in the round, rather than just piecemeal. I understand the attraction of what is on the amendment paper today, but I do not think it would deliver the answer that the people need now to the issues that the creative industries are facing now. In another debate we referred to the issue—
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Samantha Niblett Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Spencer
I thank the Minister for his clarification and reiteration of that point, and again for his work with colleagues to take forward the issue, on which I think we are in unison across the House.
New clause 21 is on directions to public authorities on recording of sex data. One does not need to be a doctor to know that data accuracy is critical, particularly when it comes to health, research or the provision of tailored services based on protected characteristics such as sex or age. The accuracy of data must be at the heart of this Bill, and nowhere has this been more high-profile or important than in the debate over the collection and use of sex and gender data. I thank the charity Sex Matters and the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Lucas for the work they have done to highlight the need for accurate data and its relevance for the digital verification system proposed in the Bill.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The recent decision by the Supreme Court that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex at birth, regardless of whether someone holds a gender recognition certificate or identifies as of a different gender, has already left many trans people feeling hurt and unseen. Does the shadow Minister agree with me that any ID and digital verification service must consider trans people, not risk making them more likely to feel that their country is forgetting who they are?
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will shortly come on to the impact on all people of the decision of the Supreme Court. Our new clause’s focus and scope are simple. The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that public bodies must collect data on biological sex to comply with their duties under the Equality Act. The new clause ensures that this data is recorded and used correctly in accordance with the law. This is about data accuracy, not ideology.
New clause 21 is based in part on the work of Professor Alice Sullivan, who conducted a very important review, with deeply concerning findings on inaccurate data collection and the conflation of gender identity with biological sex data. She found people missed off health screening, risks to research integrity, inaccurate policing records and management through the criminal justice system, and many other concerns. These concerns present risks to everyone, irrespective of biological sex, gender identity or acquired gender. Trans people, like everyone else, need health screening based on their biological sex. Trans people need protecting from sexual predators, too, and they have the right to dignity and respect.
The Sullivan report shows beyond doubt that the concerns of the last Government and the current Leader of the Opposition were entirely justified. The Government have had Professor Sullivan’s report since September last year, but the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has still not made a formal statement about it or addressed the concerns raised, which is even more surprising given its relevance to this Bill. The correction of public authority data on sex is necessary and urgent, but it is made even more critical by the implementation of the digital verification services in the Bill.
Victoria Collins
That has been my challenge to the tech companies, which I absolutely support in innovating and driving this—but if they are saying that it would be easy for creatives to do this, why is it not easy for big tech companies with power and resources to lead the way?
Amendments 41 to 44 would ensure that the decisions made about people, whether through data profiling, automated systems or algorithms, are fair. They would clarify that meaningful human involvement in automated decision making must be real, competent and capable of changing the outcome, not just a box-ticking exercise.
The amendments before us offer a clear choice to protect our children and creators or to continue to delay while harm grows—the choice to build a future in which technology either builds trust or destroys it. We have the evidence and the solutions, and the time for action is now. Let us choose a future in which technology empowers, rather than exploits—one that is good for society and for business. I urge all Members to support our amendments, which would put people and the wellbeing of future generations first.
Samantha Niblett
I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of new clause 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), to which I have added my name. The clause would give our media and creative sectors urgently needed transparency over the use of copyright works by AI models. I am sure that my speech will come as no surprise to the Minister.
I care about this issue because of, not in spite of, my belief in the power of AI and its potential to transform our society and our economy for the better. I care because the adoption of novel technologies by businesses and consumers requires trust in the practices of firms producing the tech. I care about this issue because, as the Creative Rights in AI Coalition has said:
“The UK has the potential to be the global destination for generative firms seeking to license the highest-quality creative content. But to unlock that immense value, we must act now to stimulate a dynamic licensing market: the government must use this legislation to introduce meaningful transparency provisions.”
Although I am sure that the Government’s amendments are well meant, they set us on a timeline for change to the copyright framework that would take us right to the tail end of this Parliament. Many in this House, including myself, do not believe that an effective opt-out mechanism will ever develop; I know it is not in the Bill right now, but it was proposed in the AI and copyright consultation. Even if the Government insist on pursuing this route, it would be a dereliction of duty to fail to enforce our existing laws in the intervening period.
Big tech firms claim that transparency is not feasible, but that is a red herring. These companies are absolutely capable of letting rights holders know whether their individual works have been used, as OpenAI has been ordered to do in the Authors Guild v. OpenAI copyright case. Requiring transparency without the need for a court order will avoid wasting court time and swiftly establish a legal precedent, making the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to continue with the mass theft that has taken place. That is why big tech objects to transparency, just as it objects to any transparency requirements, whether they are focused on online safety, digital competition or copyright. It would make it accountable to the individuals and businesses that it extracts value from.
The AI companies further argue that providing transparency would compromise their trade secrets, but that is another red herring. Nobody is asking for a specific recipe of how the models are trained: they are asking only to be able to query the ingredients that have gone into it. Generative AI models are made up of billions of data points, and it is the weighting of data that is a model’s secret sauce.
The Government can do myriad things around skills, access to finance, procurement practices and energy costs to support AI firms building and deploying models in the UK. They insist that they do not see the AI copyright debate as a zero-sum game, but trading away the property rights of 2.4 million UK creatives—70% of whom live outside London—to secure tech investment would be just that.
There are no insurmountable technical barriers to transparency in the same way that there are no opt-outs. The key barrier to transparency is the desire of tech firms to obscure their illegal behaviour. It has been shown that Meta employees proactively sought, in their own words,
“to remove data that is clearly marked as pirated/stolen”
from the data that they used from the pirate shadow library, LibGen. If they have technical means to identify copyright content to cover their own backs, surely they have the technical means to be honest with creators about the use of their valuable work.
I say to the Minister, who I know truly cares about the future of creatives and tech businesses in the UK—that is absolutely not in question—that if he cannot accept new clause 14 as tabled, he should take the opportunity as the Bill goes back to the Lords to bring forward clauses that would allow him to implement granular transparency mechanisms in the next six to 12 months. I and many on the Labour Benches—as well as the entire creative industries and others who do not want what is theirs simply to be taken from them—stand ready to support the development of workable solutions at pace. It can never be too soon to protect the livelihoods of UK citizens, nor to build trust between creators and the technology that would not exist without their hard work.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence
Samantha Niblett Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this crucial debate—a great way to spend his birthday.
I want to draw attention to the fact that my partner works in publishing. My background is not in publishing or the creative industries, but in the data and tech industry, and I am excited by what it can help us to achieve. I rise to speak not only about artificial intelligence, but about the kind of country we want to be in the decades ahead. We are at a crossroads. The United Kingdom is positioning itself as a global leader in AI, and rightly so—AI has the potential to transform every sector of our economy, from healthcare to transport and from education to climate science—but, as we drive innovation forward, we must also ensure that our values are aligned.
If we want to be the best place in the world to start, scale and grow an AI company, we must also be the most trusted. Trust is not built through ambition alone; it is built through transparency, fairness, respect for the rule of law and the protection of intellectual property. At present, many of the most powerful AI models have been trained on vast quantities of copyrighted material—books, articles, art, music and software—and often without the consent, knowledge or compensation of the people who created it. That is not hypothetical; it is happening now. In the last week, we have seen some big names in tech say that they want IP law to be ripped up altogether. I wonder how they would feel if tech firms with deeper pockets and bigger legal teams than theirs decided to simply take what they have. Pulling up the ladder of IP law may no longer seem such an attractive prospect.
Let us be absolutely clear: copyright is not an inconvenience or a technicality. It is the legal and moral framework that ensures that creators are rewarded for their contributions. Some people will argue that requiring AI companies to comply with copyright law would hinder innovation, but the opposite is true: legal certainty enables innovation. What stifles innovation is a regulatory vacuum where only the largest, best resourced firms can afford to operate in the grey areas of the law. We should not accept a model where creativity becomes collateral damage in the pursuit of speed or short-term profit for shareholders. Governments must prioritise the concerns of citizens.
Let us establish a clear, transparent and enforceable framework for the use of copyrighted content in AI training, and let us not waste any time or kick this can down the road by waiting for the results of the copyright and AI consultation. Let us act now. Let us amend the Data (Use and Access) Bill to ensure that companies providing generative AI services in the UK must comply with UK copyright law and be transparent about the data fuelling their models. After all, they should know what data they are utilising. It can be done; companies including Adobe, 273 Ventures and Flawless AI are doing it. Experts have made it clear that no opt-out models work. We have an opportunity to be world leaders—let us lead.
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
Samantha Niblett Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
Well, no. This is a genuinely thorny question that needs a technical solution. The Government are not going to write the technical solution. That has to come from the two sides working out together how we can get to a situation that benefits everybody. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the newspapers. Some newspapers have already licensed material, including Associated Newspapers, The Washington Post and several others. It would be interesting to see whether the income that those companies are receiving is flowing through to the journalists who produce the copyright material in the first place, but perhaps that is part of the rights reservation system that we need to look at as well.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The commitment of the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensuring that creators can control how their content is used and be paid for it is very welcome, but some creators are concerned that the rights reservation framework proposed by the Government will not allow them to assert control. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that a new framework takes account of those concerns?
Chris Bryant
I have been trying—perhaps I have not yet succeeded—to make it absolutely clear that I, the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), who is sitting next to me, would not bring forward for legislation something that undermined the copyright rights of rights holders in the creative industries. We simply would not do so.
What we are trying to do is push both sides to a place where we can create a new system—it will probably be new to the United Kingdom, and might be one of our gifts to the world—of rights reservation that is simple, practical and practicable. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is simply a statement on a consultation. I urge all who have concerns to voice them in that consultation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Samantha Niblett Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all the work that she does to encourage more women into tech. It is great to know that the tech world is full not just of “tech bros”, but quite a lot of tech sisters as well. We are committed to building on the UK’s success as a global AI leader, and the upcoming AI action plan demonstrates that commitment to ensure the safe development of AI models by introducing binding regulation on a handful of companies developing the most powerful AI systems, fostering trust in those technologies. We will also continue—