Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Many people wish to speak in this debate, so before I call the next speaker I ask Members please to be mindful when taking interventions. I will now impose a four-minute time limit.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
We live in a rapidly changing world. Like everyone else, I am sure that I am guilty of handing my data to organisations every hour of every day, oblivious to the impact on my privacy. I am also guilty of absorbing and using content assuming that it is trustworthy and that it has been obtained fairly.
On the other hand, my generation has been fortunate to have seen the introduction of social media and the online world, and to have experienced the time before it, which perhaps provides us with a level of scepticism about what we see, and an ability to switch it off and distance ourselves from the onslaught to our senses that digital content can provide.
Like other interventions of the past, we are now at a crossroads where we must pause and not simply plough on. The Bill gives us the opportunity to make it clear to the tech giants that we are not giving them everything that we have created, that they cannot own our children, and that we value our data as part of our identity.
Some of the amendments give us a great opportunity to improve the Bill—to make the most of this moment in time and to make sure that we do not leave people behind. We know that children’s brains continue to develop until they are in their early 20s. We know that young people’s development leads them to be risk takers in their adolescence and teenage years, and, as adults, we sometimes have to take decisions to curtail their fun to protect them. My own children have enjoyed social media from the age of 13, but, as the sector develops, and our understanding of its addictive nature improves, it is critical that we reflect that in law. Lifting the age of consent for social media data collection, as in new clause 1, will help to protect our children at the time they need it.
It is unimaginable to lose a child and to do so in the circumstances where the reasons behind their death are unclear, which is why I signed new clause 11 tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which would allow bereaved parents access to their child’s social media content. This should not be necessary given that GDPR and privacy rights do not apply to those who have died. The fact that we even need such legislation calls into question the motivation of tech giants and tells us where their interests lie. I urge the Government to support this and welcome the assurance today that more work will be done.
Trust is at an all-time low not only in the Government but in other authorities such as the NHS. As AI changes how we interact with the state, commerce and each other, the public should have a right to know how and when AI is involved in the decisions made. Transparency matters, which is why I am supporting the new clauses proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). We know that if we use each other’s content we must pay for it, or at least credit it if we are not profiting from it. We know that if we do not, we infringe that copyright, so why should tech giants, probably based in some far-flung place, have a right to scrape that content without knowledge or payment? The idea that they even need to train their systems off the backs of people who have used their talent and time and made their living through creativity is obscene.
I really must speak strongly against new clause 21. I have been overwhelmed by the scale of distress brought about by this awful proposal. It is cruel and it completely undermines the privacy of people who are transgender at a time when they are already feeling victimised.
Those who have transitioned socially, medically or surgically are protected in law, and we were told that the Supreme Court decision last month does not change that. But new clause 21 does. If it were passed, sex at birth would be recorded on a driving licence or passport, outing every trans person whenever they buy an age-restricted product, change their job, travel abroad, or even come to Parliament to visit their MP. Not only is this a fundamental breach of privacy, but it is potentially dangerous. They would be prevented from travelling to countries with poor records on rights, and they would be at higher risk of suicide and self-harm than they already are. A constituent said,
“This is a direct attempt to erase me from the public record.”
Please reject this new clause 21.
Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence
Vikki Slade Excerpts(3 weeks 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
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important and timely debate, not only on his birthday but on that of one of our greatest creatives ever, William Shakespeare. I hope the hon. Member does not also succumb on his birthday like he did. [Interruption.] Did he not know that? Shakespeare was born and died on the same date.
My son, Isaac Slade, is studying musical theatre at university and wants to spend his life in the performing arts, a career he knows will be challenging. He and his peers expect long hours, low pay and the need to support themselves with hospitality and teaching work, all so that they can do what they love and entertain us all. The Government’s current position on copyright and AI risks making those careers even more precarious.
Gerard, an actor from Upton in my constituency, wrote to me calling the position dangerous. Margaret, a designer, explained that she no longer shares her work online. She is afraid it will be copied without her consent, without protection and without pay. She said:
“If this is allowed to happen, we shall become a dying breed. If we don’t get paid for our artwork, we will eventually go out of business.”
Are the Government suggesting that performers and creatives should work for free? I recently held a roundtable in my constituency when a musician, Peter from Wimborne, shared something that shocked me. He told me that when I am out walking my dog, listening to my calming classical playlist, the chances are that some of that music has been interspersed with AI-generated music. I had no idea. I am sure most people would be deeply concerned to learn that they might unknowingly be enjoying work taken and replicated without the original artist’s permission.
Today I met Equity, who explained the risks in very simple terms. Just as PRS ensures musicians are paid when their track is played on the radio, the same principle applies to the use of a voice or performance on screen. But without those solid copyright positions remaining in place, AI will use that voice without their knowledge, consent, or payment from people around the world.
The Government argue that loosening copyright laws may encourage AI companies to set up here, but where is the evidence? Why would they move here where their costs are higher if they can access that content from around the world? If they do come here, why should they be able to get rich off the voice of an actor, the song of a musician or the design of an artist? The people who created the work deserve to keep what is theirs. That is why I urge the Government to scrap the opt-out clause and support new clauses 2 to 6 to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), which will protect UK creatives by requiring transparency in using the data, enforcing compliance of copyright, giving power to the Information Commissioner and preventing data from being scraped. Our creative sector is the soul of our culture and the heart of our economy. We must protect it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Vikki Slade Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for fighting SNP incompetence on behalf of her constituents. Yet again, the SNP is failing island communities. Hospital appointments are being missed and livelihoods destroyed. Scotland has a proud history of shipbuilding and engineering. The SNP should be supporting Scottish workers and focusing on delivering for our communities.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Canford Magna in my constituency is proposed as a site for a new energy-from-waste incinerator, which will burn 260,000 tonnes of waste a year—more than the whole of Dorset’s use. I am concerned that as we reduce our levels of waste with the brilliant new plans to recycle more, we will end up having to feed the monster. The area already has 95% of the capacity, so does the Prime Minister agree that we should not allow new plants where we already have sufficient capacity or where carbon capture will not be included?
The Prime Minister
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I do not know the details of the particular incinerator she speaks of and I am not across that. I will make sure, however, that she gets an answer to her question in written form as soon as possible.